Page images

identified, based upon the technological and cost information available and required system characteristics.

As a general guide for present effort, the following list of operational requirements refers to the overall navigation subsystem, some part of which might be contributed by satellites : I. Coverage:

(a) All used airspace of the world regardless of time, weather, altitude, terrain, and propagation characteristics.

(6) Compatible with systems using short distance aids, to permit smooth transition from one system to the other. II. Output to pilot:

(a) Steering and schedule information (continuous).
(b) Geographic position (latitude and longitude).

(c) Essentially real time indication (within 5 sec.). III. Accuracy:

(a) Lateral: Adequate to maintain lateral separation standards in effect in the area. Adequate safety may be considered to have been attained when for at least some stated percentage of the time each aircraft is not farther from its assigned track than a distance equal to half of the lateral separation standard in effect. Agreement has not been reached on the percentage, values ranging from 98.50 to 99.95 having been suggested. For planning purposes it can be assumed that accuracy will need to be sufficiently high to permit use of the following lateral separation standards in the most critical area.

1965, 120 n. mi.
1967, 90 n. mi.
1975, 60 n. mi.
1985, 30 n. mi.

2000, 15 n. mi. (b) Longitudinal: Adequate to maintain relative position along track by the standards in effect in the area. At present the minimum longitudinal separation is 15 minutes. The need for some reduction in the future can be anticipated.

(c) Interval between fixes; Adequate to maintain separation standards. (d) Ambiguity: No unresolved ambiguity of operational significance.

(e) Maximum protection against blunders. IV. Capacity: Adequate to handle all aircraft in coverage area. Maximum number of aircraft at any one time in busiest area (the Atlantic), for planning purposes, estimated as follows:

1970, 150.
1980, 225.
1990, 450.

2000, 900. 1. Reliability: 100% with component fail safe and fail soft capability. VI. Surveillance capability : Independent of air-derived navigation output. VII. Aircraft equipment characteristics : (a) Trade-off considerations:

1. Size.
2. Weight.
3. Power consumption.
4. Cost.

5. Installation requirements.
(b) Must not invalidate aircraft certification.
VIII. Obsolescence: Amortization during useful lifetime of system.

The FAA appreciates the interest of NASA in helping to solve the long distance navigation problem. Although we have a balanced program to develop the needed capability in navigation, we rely on NASA to provide the essential inputs relative to satellite technology. We shall be pleased to provide such specific guidance as may be needed and available, and to participate, as mutually agreed, in tests and experiments planned in the development of such technology. Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH D. BLATT, Associate Administrator for Development.

[blocks in formation]

JULY 14, 1966. Mr. LEONARD JAFFE, Director of ('ommunications and Navigation Programs, Code ST-3, Office of

Space Science and Applications, National Aeronautics and Space Adminis

tration, 600 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. DEAR JR. JAFFE: As you know, the Federal Aviation Agency is studying the feasibility of providing communication and independent position determination services between aircraft and ground facilities through use of a synchronous satellite. Of particular initial interest is the North Atlantic air route system between the United States and Europe.

In addition to the ongoing VHF program for the satellite/aircraft link, we are considering the development and evaluation of an aircraft terminal operating in the 1540–1660 Mhz freqeuney band. We are interested in NASA participation in this activity by providing the appropriate capability on a future experimental satellite for the aircraft/satellite link, and possibly providing the satellite/ground link for extension to an FAA test facility. We anticipate that the aircraft equipment could be ready during calendar year 1968. Additionally, we would like to review overall space segment performance parameters with knowledgeable NASA personnel.

Please advise us of the extent to which you may be able to participate in this effort and the time schedule which you believe could be met.

If you feel that members of your staff would like to discuss this query in more detail prior to formulating a reply, our project manager would be pleased to arrange and participate in such a discussion. To that effect, Mr. James L. Lipscomb of the Communications Development Division has been assigned as Project Manager. He may be contacted on telephone number 962–7187. Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH D. BLATT, Associate Administrator for Development.

JULY 28, 1966. Mr. LEONARD JAFFE, Director, Space Applications Programs, Office of Space Science and Applications,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. JAFFE: At the NASA/FAA Coordinating Committee meeting held on June 1, 1966, Mr. Eugene Ehrlich of your office made reference to the Omega Position Location Experiment (OPLE) to be conducted with the ATS-C satellite scheduled to be launched in an equatorial synchronous orbit at longitude 30° W in December 1967.

In view of the fact that the OPLE technique differs significantly from that involved in the R&D work being carried out by the FAA, we are interested in receiving more details of the experiment as far as they might relate to navigation or independent surveillance of aircraft. If more information on the nature of our interest is desired before you reply, please contact Mr. Alton B. Moody, Chief Long Distance Navigation Branch, Systems Research and Development Service. He can be reached on extension 26401. Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH D. BLATT, Associate Administrator for Development.

August 4, 1966, Mr. JOSEPH D. BLATT, Associate Administrator for Development, Federal Aviation Agency, Was/

ugton, D.C. DEAR MR. BLATT: The interest of the FAA in the NASA planned Omega Position Location Experiment (OPLS) on the ATS-C, as noted in your letter dated July 28, 1966, is gratifying. This experiment will utilize the VLF signals from the Omega stations for relay by a platform, such as an aircraft, via the satellite to a ground station for position computation. Enclosed is a report prepared by the OPLE Principal Investigator describing the experiment.

For further technical details concerning this experiment, direct contact between members of your staff and Mr. Charles Laughlin, OPLE Investigator, at the Goddard Space Flight Center is encouraged. Mr. Laughlin can be reached on Government Code 134, extension 6562. He has been notified to expect contact by the members of your staff. Sincerely yours,

LEONARD JAFFE, Director of Space Applications, Office of Space Science and Applications. (Enclosure omitted.)

A[GUST 8, 1966. Reference your letter dated July 14, 1966, RD-200. Mr. JOSEPH D. BLATT, Associate Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BLATT: your referenced letter expressing an interest in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration providing the capability for an evaluation of appropriate aircraft/satellite and satellite/ground links in the 1540–1660 Mhz frequency band on a future experimental satellite, has been received and is presently under review.

Mr. Eugene Ehrlich, Navigation and Traffic Control Program Chief, in my office will be contact with your Mr. Lipscomb to discuss the FAA program needs for work in the areas mentioned.

VASA looks forward to developing the satellite system technology to meet the future air traffic service needs of the FAA. We would consider a meeting between both agencies to discuss the FAA-NASA relationships in the satellite area after Messrs. Ehrlich and Lipscomb have reviewed the needs of the FAA for the services requested. Sincerely yours,

LEONARD JAFFE, Director of Space Applications, Office of Space Science and Applications. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. The meeting will stand adjourned. We will have Comsat before us tomorrow morning at 10.

(Whereupon. at 12 noon, the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a.m., on Wednesday, September 7, 1966.)




Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m. in room 2247, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Chet Holifield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Chet Holifield, William S. Moorhead, Frank Horton, and William L. Dickinson.

Also present: Herbert Roback, staff administrator; Douglas G. Dahlin, counsel; Paul Ridgely, investigator; Joseph Luman, defense analyst; and J.P. Carlson, minority staff.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The committee will be in order.

We continue our hearings on the Comsat operation. We have before us this morning Dr. Joseph V. Charyk, and the Honorable James McCormack.

Which one of you gentlemen wishes to proceed?
Mr. McCORMACK. I will lead off, if I may, sir.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. All right, you may proceed.


Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Communications Satellite Corp., which is commonly called Comsat, is pleased to appear here today before your committee.

I am James McCormack, chairman of the corporation. With me is Dr. Joseph V. Charyk, our president and, I might add, several of our staff are in the row behind us.

If the committee approves, we would like to present Comsat's prepared statement in two parts. First, I would like to comment broadly and briefly on Comsat affairs and attitudes in areas where we believe this committee is interested. Dr. Charyk proposes then to go more in detail into some of the concrete questions which we know to be under consideration in your current hearings.

Because Mr. O'Connell gave the committee last week such a comprehensive picture of satellite developments and plans, we have not covered that ground in our formal presentation. We will, of course, be happy to pick up the subject in any way you wish.

« PreviousContinue »