DOCSLIB.ORG

Air & Space Power Journal, September-October 2013, Vol. 27

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Air & Space Power Journal, September-October 2013, Vol. 27 September–October 2013 Volume 27, No. 5 AFRP 10-1 Senior Leader Perspectives Military Space ❙ 4 At a Strategic Crossroad Gen William L. Shelton, USAF Space Acquisition Issues in 2013 ❙ 11 Lt Gen Ellen M. Pawlikowski, USAF The Importance of Designating Cyberspace Weapon Systems ❙ 29 Brig Gen Robert J. Skinner, USAF Ira C. Eaker Award Winners ❙ 49 Features Maintaining Space Situational Awareness and Taking It to the Next Level ❙ 50 Col Mark A. Baird, USAF Air Force Cyber Warfare ❙ 73 Now and the Future Col William J. Poirier, USAF Maj James Lotspeich, PhD, USAF Space Superiority, Down to the Nanosecond ❙ 98 Why the Global Positioning System Remains Essential to Modern Warfare Col Bernard J. Gruber, USAF Col Jon M. Anderson, USAF, Retired Departments 120 ❙ Historical Highlight Why Are We in Space? Neil P. Ruzic 144 ❙ Book Reviews The Battle for Hearts and Minds: Uncovering the Wars of Ideas and Images behind the Global War on Terror; A Study of Media Performance and Influence, Propaganda, and Strategic Communication ............................ 144 Timothy S. McWilliams Reviewer: Toby Lee Lauterbach The Technical Collection of Intelligence ...................... 147 Robert M. Clark Reviewer: Capt Kyle Bressette, USAF The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan ..................... 148 Robert D. Crews and Amin Tarzi, eds. Reviewer: Col Jack D. Kem, PhD, USA, Retired Transforming Defense Capabilities: New Approaches for International Security ................... 150 Scott Jasper, ed. Reviewer: Dr. Karen S. Wilhelm Vietnam Declassified: The CIA and Counterinsurgency ............ 153 Thomas L. Ahern Jr. Reviewer: Steve Miller John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon ................... 156 John M. Logsdon Reviewer: Nicholas Michael Sambaluk, PhD Once a Fighter Pilot: The Story of Korean War Ace Lt. Gen. Charles G. “Chick” Cleveland . 159 Warren. A. Trest Reviewer: Richard Lester, PhD September–October 2013 Air & Space Power Journal | 2 Editorial Advisory Board Gen John A. Shaud, PhD, USAF, Retired Lt Gen Bradley C. Hosmer, USAF, Retired Dr. J. Douglas Beason (Senior Executive Service and Colonel, USAF, Retired), Air Force Space Command Dr. Alexander S. Cochran, Office of the Chief of Staff, US Army Prof. Thomas B. Grassey, US Naval Academy Lt Col Dave Mets, PhD, USAF, Retired, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (professor emeritus) Board of Reviewers Dr. Kendall K. Brown Dr. Tom Keaney NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Johns Hopkins University Dr. Clayton K. S. Chun Col Merrick E. Krause, USAF, Retired US Army War College Department of Homeland Security Dr. Mark Clodfelter Col Chris J. Krisinger, USAF, Retired National War College Burke, Virginia Dr. Conrad Crane Dr. Benjamin S. Lambeth Director, US Army Military History Institute Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Col Dennis M. Drew, USAF, Retired Mr. Douglas E. Lee USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Air Force Space Command (professor emeritus) Dr. Richard I. Lester Maj Gen Charles J. Dunlap Jr., USAF, Retired Eaker Center for Professional Development Duke University Mr. Brent Marley Dr. Stephen Fought Redstone Arsenal, Alabama USAF Air War College (professor emeritus) Mr. Rémy M. Mauduit Col Richard L. Fullerton, USAF Air Force Research Institute USAF Academy Col Phillip S. Meilinger, USAF, Retired Lt Col Derrill T. Goldizen, PhD, USAF, Retired West Chicago, Illinois Westport Point, Massachusetts Dr. Daniel Mortensen Col Mike Guillot, USAF, Retired Montgomery, Alabama Editor, Strategic Studies Quarterly Dr. Richard R. Muller Air Force Research Institute USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Dr. John F. Guilmartin Jr. Dr. Bruce T. Murphy Ohio State University Air University Dr. Amit Gupta Col Robert Owen, USAF, Retired USAF Air War College Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Dr. Grant T. Hammond Lt Col Brian S. Pinkston, USAF, MC, SFS USAF Center for Strategy and Technology Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Dr. Dale L. Hayden Dr. Steve Rothstein Air Force Research Institute Colorado Springs Science Center Project Mr. James Hoffman Lt Col Reagan E. Schaupp, USAF Rome Research Corporation Naval War College Milton, Florida Dr. Barry Schneider Dr. Thomas Hughes Director, USAF Counterproliferation Center USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Professor, USAF Air War College Lt Col Jeffrey Hukill, USAF, Retired Col Richard Szafranski, USAF, Retired Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education Lt Col Edward B. Tomme, PhD, USAF, Retired CyberSpace Operations Consulting Lt Col J. P. Hunerwadel, USAF, Retired Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development Dr. Christopher H. Toner and Education University of St. Thomas Dr. Mark P. Jelonek, Col, USAF, Retired Lt Col David A. Umphress, PhD, USAFR, Retired Aerospace Corporation Auburn University Col John Jogerst, USAF, Retired Col Mark E. Ware Navarre, Florida Twenty-Fourth Air Force Mr. Charles Tustin Kamps Dr. Harold R. Winton USAF Air Command and Staff College USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies September–October 2013 Air & Space Power Journal | 3 Senior Leader Perspective Military Space At a Strategic Crossroad Gen William L. Shelton, USAF he future of space capabilities in the United States Air Force is at a strategic crossroad. A crossroad that requires us to address our means of protecting mission-critical constellations, to chal- Tlenge traditional acquisition practices, to analyze new operational con- structs, and to widen cooperative relationships both domestically and abroad. Our military satellites are technological marvels providing time-critical global access, global persistence, and awareness. These systems not only provide foundational, game-changing capabilities for our joint forces, they also have become vital assets for the global com- munity and our world economy. Dependence on these space capabili- ties gives our nation a great advantage—an advantage some would like to minimize. Satellites designed and built for a benign environment are now operating in an increasingly hostile domain. The challenge before us, then, is to assure these vital services will be present in times and places of our choosing while simultaneously lowering the cost. September–October 2013 Air & Space Power Journal | 4 Space Focus Senior Leader Perspective The Air Force has been in continuous combat operations since Janu- ary 1991, when Operation Desert Storm commenced. It seems hard to believe now, but Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers were liter- ally duct-taped to windscreens of helicopters to capitalize on the na- scent navigation capability provided by the not-yet-completed GPS constellation. Similarly simplistic was the voice-only provision of mis- sile warning data to our deployed forces and allies to warn them of Iraqi Scud missile launches. We learned much in the early 1990s about the need to further integrate space capability into tactical operations. For example, the utility enhancements of our GPS constellation have enabled us to develop real-time integration with the war fighter. Our GPS User Operations Center provides over 230 position accuracy as- sessments to our deliberate and contingency mission planners daily. Our space-based infrared system (SBIRS) is also a significant improve- ment over our capabilities in the first Gulf War. The infrared process- ing of SBIRS GEO-1 and -2 presents the war fighter with faster and more accurate launch information and impact-point predictions, and the SBIRS staring sensor will enable tremendous enhancements to our battlespace awareness. The entire joint force is now dependent on space assets for all opera- tions, ranging from humanitarian relief through major combat. Space- derived data, once the purview of strategic-level users only, now reaches to the lowest tactical echelons. But with this dependence comes a corresponding vulnerability. As we learned in the crucible of combat, others were watching and learning lessons of a far different kind. As we continue to take signifi- cant strides in the integration of space-enabled data into all aspects of operations, our adversaries seek ways to disrupt this asymmetric ad- vantage. The most obvious example of these counterspace efforts is the Chinese antisatellite test in 2007. In this test, a kinetic-kill vehicle successfully engaged a nonoperational Chinese weather satellite. Al- though China demonstrated its ASAT prowess to the world, the unfor- tunate by-product of this test is tens of thousands of pieces of space September–October 2013 Air & Space Power Journal | 5 Space Focus Senior Leader Perspective debris which will be a navigation hazard to manned and unmanned spacecraft for decades to come. The growing debris problem is a concern to spacecraft operators in all sectors: military, civil, and commercial. The collision between an active Iridium communications satellite and a defunct Soviet-era Cos- mos satellite produced yet another debris field. These were two rela- tively large objects coming together at precisely the wrong time. Much smaller objects, which are much greater in number, also represent cata- strophic risk to fragile spacecraft. Therefore, the potential exists for fur- ther collisions, creating a cascading effect of increasing debris in low Earth orbit. We must control debris creation, and we must increase our ability to track the debris to enable collision avoidance when possible. Another troublesome development is the proliferation of jamming assets. GPS jammers are widely available, complicating our employ- ment of GPS navigation and timing signals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fy15 Table of Contents Fy16 Table of Contents
    FY15FY16 TABLE OF CONTENTS DOT&E Activity and Oversight FY16 Activity Summary 1 Program Oversight 7 Problem Discovery Affecting OT&E 13 DOD Programs Major Automated Information System (MAIS) Best Practices 23 Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI) 29 Defensive Medical Information Exchange (DMIX) 33 Defense Readiness Reporting System – Strategic (DRRS-S) 37 Department of Defense (DOD) Teleport 41 DOD Healthcare Management System Modernization (DHMSM) 43 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 47 Global Command and Control System – Joint (GCCS-J) 107 Joint Information Environment (JIE) 111 Joint Warning and Reporting Network (JWARN) 115 Key Management Infrastructure (KMI) Increment 2 117 Next Generation Diagnostic System (NGDS) Increment 1 121 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Increment 2 123 Theater Medical Information Program – Joint (TMIP-J) 127 Army Programs Army Network Modernization 131 Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) 135 Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) Main Battle Tank (MBT) 139 AH-64E Apache 141 Army Integrated Air & Missile Defense (IAMD) 143 Chemical Demilitarization Program – Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (CHEM DEMIL-ACWA) 145 Command Web 147 Distributed Common Ground System – Army (DCGS-A) 149 HELLFIRE Romeo and Longbow 151 Javelin Close Combat Missile System – Medium 153 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) Family of Vehicles (FoV) 155 Joint Tactical Networks (JTN) Joint Enterprise Network Manager (JENM) 157 Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) 161 M109A7 Family of Vehicles (FoV) Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) 165
    [Show full text]
  • DTE-SE FY09 Annual Report Title Page
    Department of Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering FY 2011 Annual Report. Washington, DC: DASD(DT&E) and DASD(SE), 2012. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation 3030 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-3030 [email protected] www.acq.osd.mil/dte Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering 3030 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-3030 [email protected] www.acq.osd.mil/se Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 1.1 Developmental Test and Evaluation ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Systems Engineering ....................................................................................................................... 2 2 DASD(DT&E) ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................5 2.1 Policy and Guidance Summary ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Measurable Performance Criteria .................................................................................................... 5 2.3 T&E Acquisition Workforce Development ..................................................................................... 7 2.4 Program Engagement ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.5
    [Show full text]
  • International Slr Service
    ARTIFICIAL SATELLITES, Vol. 46, No. 4 – 2011 DOI: 10.2478/v10018-012-0004-z INTERNATIONAL SLR SERVICE Stanisław Schillak Space Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences Astrogeodynamic Observatory, Borowiec e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT The paper presents the current state of the International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS): distribution of the SLR stations, data centers, analysis centers. The paper includes also the information about the last International Workshop on Laser Ranging in Bad Koetzting, 16-20 May, 2011. The problems of quality of the SLR data are presented. The list of parameters which can be used for estimation of the accuracy of the SLR data for each station is given. Results of determination of the station position stabilities over long term period (from 1994 up to 2008) for the selected few main stations are presented in the five years blocks. The results show slight deterioration of accuracy observed for the last several years and the reasons for this effect are indicated. Keywords: satellite geodesy, satellite laser ranging, ILRS, orbital analysis 1. INTERNATIONAL LASER RANGING SERVICE http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/ The International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS) (Pearlman et al., 2002) organizes and coordinates Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) and Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) to support programs in geodetic, geophysical, and lunar research activities and provides the International Earth Rotation and Reference Frame Service (IERS) with products important to the maintenance of an accurate International Terrestrial Reference
    [Show full text]
  • Management Perspectives Pertaining to Root Cause Analyses of Nunn-Mccurdy Breaches
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. MARK V. A RENA, IRV BLICKSTEIN, ABBY DOLL, JEFFREY A. DREZNER, JAMES G. KALLIMANI, JENNIFER KAVANAGH, DANIEL F.
    [Show full text]
  • The Space to Lead
    Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) Summer 8-1-2013 The pS ace to Lead Mack A. Bradley Washington University in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd Part of the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Bradley, Mack A., "The pS ace to Lead" (2013). All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs). 1172. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/1172 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON$UNIVERSITY$IN$ST.$LOUIS University$College InternaSonal$Affairs The$Space$to$Lead by Mack$A.$Bradley A$thesis$presented$to the of$Washington$University$in$ partial$fulfillment$of$the$ requirements$for$the$degree$of$ Master$of$Arts August$2013 St.$Louis,$Missouri i © 2013$MACK$A.$BRADLEY ii TABLE$OF$CONTENTS Acknowledgements iii Dedication v Abstract vi Chapter 1: Leading from Behind p.1 Chapter 2: Shuttle, Station, and International Space p. 8 Chapter 3: We Need Our Space p. 23 Chapter 4: Economy of Space p. 30 Chapter 5: Space for Sale or Lease p. 38 Chapter 6: Space Security p. 49 Chapter 7: Houston, We Have Problems p. 56 America in search of a mission p. 57 Russia’s launch program needs a boost p. 72 Trouble in the debris belt p. 74 Living in a dangerous neighborhood p. 78 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Recommendations p.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2020 Defense Budget
    Preface The Overview Book has been published as part of the President’s Annual Defense Budget for the past few years. From FY 1969 to FY 2005, OSD published the “Annual Defense Report” (ADR) to meet 10 USC section 113 requirements. Subsequently, the Overview began to fill this role. The Overview is one part of an extensive set of materials that constitute the presentation and justification of the President’s Budget for FY 2020. This document and all other publications for this and previous DoD budgets are available from the public web site of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller): http://comptroller.defense.gov. The Press Release and Budget Briefing, often referred to as the “Budget Rollout,” and the Program Acquisition Costs by Weapons System book, which includes summary details on major DoD acquisition programs (i.e., aircraft, ground forces programs, shipbuilding, space systems, etc.) are especially relevant. The website for Performance Improvement tables and charts is http://dcmo.defense.gov/Publications/AnnualPerformancePlanandPerformanceReport.aspx. Other background information can be accessed at www.defense.gov. The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $27,000 for the 2019 Fiscal Year. This includes $13,000 in expenses and $14,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2019Mar05 RefID: E-DE33FD3 i This Page Intentionally Left Blank. ii Overview – FY 2020 Defense Budget Table of Contents 1. FY 2020 Budget Summary – A Strategy Driven Budget 1-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 2018 National Defense Strategy ......................................................................................... 1-2 FY 2020 Budget Request Overview .................................................................................... 1-3 Building a More Lethal Force .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • At the Former Griffiss Air Force Base Rome, New York
    EPA/ROD/R02-02/598 2002 EPA Superfund Record of Decision: GRIFFISS AIR FORCE BASE (11 AREAS) EPA ID: NY4571924451 OU 25 ROME, NY 07/23/2002 001002_UK08_10_03-B0894 Final Record of Decision for Building 26 Source Removal Area of Concern (ST-35) at the Former Griffiss Air Force Base Rome, New York April 2002 AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY able of Contents T Section Page List of Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................................... iv 1 Declaration.................................................................................1-1 1.1 Site Name and Location ................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose ....................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Description of Selected Remedy...................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Statutory Determinations.................................................................................. 1-2 1.5 Authorizing Signatures..................................................................................... 1-2 2 Decision Summary....................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Name, Location, and Brief Description .................................................... 2-1 2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities.......................................................... 2-1 2.3 Community Participation................................................................................. 2-3
    [Show full text]
  • Wednesday Scienti Ic Session Listings 639–830 Information at a Glance
    Chicago | October 17-21 Wednesday Scienti ic Session Listings 639–830 Information at a Glance Important Phone Numbers Annual Meeting Headquarters Office Mercy Hospital Key to Poster Floor by Themes Logistics and Programming 2525 S Michigan Avenue The poster floor begins with Theme A and ends Logistics Chicago, IL 60616 with Theme H. Refer to the poster floor map at McCormick Place: Hall A, (312) 791‑6700 (312) 567‑2000 the end of this booklet. Programming Physicians Immediate Care Theme McCormick Place: Hall A, (312) 791‑6705 811 S. State Street A Development Chicago, IL 60605 B Neural Excitability, Synapses, and Glia: Volunteer Leadership Lounge (312) 566‑9510 Cellular Mechanisms McCormick Place: S505A, (312) 791‑6735 Walgreens Pharmacy C Disorders of the Nervous System General Information Booths (closest to McCormick Place) D Sensory and Motor Systems McCormick Place: 3405 S. Martin Luther King Drive E Integrative Systems: Neuroendocrinology, Gate 3 Lobby, (312) 791‑6724 Chicago, IL 60616 Neuroimmunology and Homeostatic Challenge Hall A (312) 791‑6725 (312) 326‑4064 F Cognition and Behavior Press Offices Venues G Novel Methods and Technology Development Press Room McCormick Place H History, Teaching, Public Awareness, and McCormick Place: Room S501ABC 2301 S. Martin Luther King Drive Societal Impacts in Neuroscience (312) 791‑6730 Chicago, IL 60616 Exhibit Management Fairmont Chicago, Millennium Park Hotel Note: Theme H Posters will be located in Hall A McCormick Place: Hall A, (312) 791‑6740 200 N. Columbus Drive beginning at 1 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 17, and will Chicago, IL 60601 remain posted until 5 p.m., Sunday, Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • <> CRONOLOGIA DE LOS SATÉLITES ARTIFICIALES DE LA
    1 SATELITES ARTIFICIALES. Capítulo 5º Subcap. 10 <> CRONOLOGIA DE LOS SATÉLITES ARTIFICIALES DE LA TIERRA. Esta es una relación cronológica de todos los lanzamientos de satélites artificiales de nuestro planeta, con independencia de su éxito o fracaso, tanto en el disparo como en órbita. Significa pues que muchos de ellos no han alcanzado el espacio y fueron destruidos. Se señala en primer lugar (a la izquierda) su nombre, seguido de la fecha del lanzamiento, el país al que pertenece el satélite (que puede ser otro distinto al que lo lanza) y el tipo de satélite; este último aspecto podría no corresponderse en exactitud dado que algunos son de finalidad múltiple. En los lanzamientos múltiples, cada satélite figura separado (salvo en los casos de fracaso, en que no llegan a separarse) pero naturalmente en la misma fecha y juntos. NO ESTÁN incluidos los llevados en vuelos tripulados, si bien se citan en el programa de satélites correspondiente y en el capítulo de “Cronología general de lanzamientos”. .SATÉLITE Fecha País Tipo SPUTNIK F1 15.05.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK F2 21.08.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK 01 04.10.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK 02 03.11.1957 URSS Científico VANGUARD-1A 06.12.1957 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 01 31.01.1958 USA Científico VANGUARD-1B 05.02.1958 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 02 05.03.1958 USA Científico VANGUARD-1 17.03.1958 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 03 26.03.1958 USA Científico SPUTNIK D1 27.04.1958 URSS Geodésico VANGUARD-2A
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisition Research: Creating Synergy for Informed Change
    SYM-AM-16-019 Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Acquisition Research Symposium Wednesday Sessions Volume I Acquisition Research: Creating Synergy for Informed Change May 4–5, 2016 Published April 30, 2016 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Prepared for the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA 93943. Acquisition Research Program Graduate School of Business & Public Policy Naval Postgraduate School The research presented in this report was supported by the Acquisition Research Program of the Graduate School of Business & Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School. To request defense acquisition research, to become a research sponsor, or to print additional copies of reports, please contact any of the staff listed on the Acquisition Research Program website (www.acquisitionresearch.net). Acquisition Research Program Graduate School of Business & Public Policy Naval Postgraduate School Table of Contents Keynote: The Honorable Sean Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, & Acquisition ............................................................... vii Plenary Panel: Weapon Acquisition Program Outcomes and Efforts to Reform DoD’s Acquisition Process ..................................................................................... 1 Panel 2. Applications of Real Options Analysis in Defense Acquisition ............ 3 Acquiring Technical Data With Renewable Real Options ....................................... 5 Incorporation of Outcome-Based Contract Requirements in a Real Options
    [Show full text]
  • Session 7 Retroreflector Array Vendors
    Session 7 Array and Corner Cube Manufacturers and Specifications and Space Debris International Technical Laser Workshop 2012 Scott Wetzel, Dominic Doyle Historical Array Providers • First SLR returns occurred 10/31/64 from Beacon Explorer-B at the GSFC. International Technical Laser Workshop 2012 LEO Array Examples BEACON-B, -C GFO-1, ADEOS-II, Jason BLITS MSTI-II, VCL, GPB 1, 2, 3, ICESat ERS-1, 2, EnviSat CHAMP, GRACE, HY-2A, STSat TerraSAR-X, TanDEM-X Cryosat 1, 2, GOCE, SWARM, KOMPSAT-5, etc. PROBA-2, etc.. International Technical Laser Workshop 2012 Geodetic Satellites AJISAI LAGEOS -1, -2 LARES Etalon-1, -2 Starlette, Stella Larets International Technical Laser Workshop 2012 GEO Array Examples Compass M-1 Galileo GLONASS 125 QZS-1 ETS-8 IRNSS International Technical Laser Workshop 2012 Some Other Interesting Types Meteor-3M SOHLA-1 TiPS TOPEX/Poseidon Westpac Starshine LRE Reflector RIS International Technical Laser Workshop 2012 Array and Corner Cube Manufacturers and Specifications • Many of missions have knowledge of SLR and Array requirements and specifications • Some do not so… arrays may not always be optimal in value • Manufacturers work closely with the missions to develop these requirements • ILRS has been more involved in the specification or at least recommendations for retroreflector arrays • More focus on design to meet accurate tracking requirements / cross section / polarization / others • All is necessary to achieve latest goals for GGOS International Technical Laser Workshop 2012 What do we care about in an array? • When considering a retroreflector array for an upcoming mission some important things to consider include: – Array cross-section – Velocity aberration – Polarization impacts – Thermal impacts – Mechanical interface – Clear field of view impacts – Other environmental impacts • Something that should not be left out is considering who will be tracking it, where and when.
    [Show full text]
  • April 1,1995
    DCN 1043 AVIATION-TROOP SUPPORT COMMAND, MO APRIL 1,1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB 1. ITINERARY 2. BASE SUMMARY SHEET 3. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RECOMMENDATION 4. CATEGORY CHART 5. INSTALLATION REVIEW 6. STATE MAP - DOD INSTALLATIONS AND STATISTICAL DATA 7. STATE CLOSURE HISTORY LIST -1 sr 8. PRESSARTICLES 9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION '. COMMISSION BASE VISIT \ AVIATION-TROOP COMMAND (ATCOM), MO Saturday, April 1,1995 SSIONERS ATTENDING: Alan J. Dixon Lee KIing STAFF ATTENDING: Ed Brown Mike Kennedy David Lyles I3lNuuw Friday. March 31 2:30PM MT Lee Kling and David Lyles depart Malmstrom AFB en route St. Louis, MO: MILAIR C-2 1. -\-. ' 6:30PM CT Lee Kling and David Lyles anive St. Louis, MO from Malmstrom. * Lee Kling and David Lyles drive to Lee Kling's residence for overnight. lO:09AM ET Ed Brown and Mike Kennedy depart DC National en route St. Louis, MO: TWA flight 123. 11:26AM CT Ed Brown and Mike Kennedy arrive St. Louis, MO airport fkom DC National. * Rental car (Kennedy): National Confirmation#: 1046585036 Days: April 1 Phone#: 1800-227-7368 11 :30AM CT Ed Brown and Mike Kennedy depart St. Louis airport by car to pick up Lee Kling and David Lyles at Lee Kling's residence. 12:30PM CT Ed Brown and Mike Kennedy pick up Lee Kling and David Lyles and depart en route ATCOM. 1 :00PM CT Alan J. Dixon departs personal residence en route ATCOM. 1:45PM CT Alan J. Dixon, Lee Kling, Ed Brown, Mike Kennedy and David Lyles arrive ATCOM. 2:00PM to ATCOM base visit. ) 5:OOPM 5:OOPM CT Alan J.
    [Show full text]