NASA/TM⎯2004-211523

RANGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

MANAGEMENT (RISM) 

PHASE I REPORT 

Gary L. Bastin, Ph.D. 

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida 

William G. Harris, PE 

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida 

Richard A. Nelson 

NASA, YA-D7, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida 

September 2002 
 

The NASA STI Program Office . . . in Profile 

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to 

the advancement of aeronautics and space 

science. The NASA Scientific and Technical 

Information (STI) Program Office plays a key 

part in helping NASA maintain this important 

role. 

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by 

Langley Research Center, the lead center for 

NASA’s scientific and technical information. 

The NASA STI Program Office provides access 

to the NASA STI Database, the largest 

collection of aeronautical and space science STI 

in the world. The Program Office is also 

NASA’s institutional mechanism for 

disseminating the results of its research and 

development activities. These results are 

published by NASA in the NASA STI Report 

Series, which includes the following report 

types: 

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant 

phase of research that present the results of 

NASA programs and include extensive data 

or theoretical analysis. Includes 

compilations of significant scientific and 

technical data and information deemed to be 

of continuing reference value. NASA’s 

counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent 

of graphic presentations. 

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary 

or of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies 

that contain minimal annotation. Does not 

contain extensive analysis. 

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees. 

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by 

NASA. 

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and mission, 

often concerned with subjects having 

substantial public interest. 

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

 English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission. 

Specialized services that complement the STI 

Program Office’s diverse offerings include 

creating custom thesauri, building customized 

databases, organizing and publishing research 

results . . . even providing videos. 

For more information about the NASA STI 

Program Office, see the following: 

• Access the NASA STI Program Home Page 

at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to 

help@sti.nasa.gov 

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help 

Desk at (301) 621-0134 

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at 

(301) 621-0390 

• Write to: 

 NASA STI Help Desk 

 NASA Center for AeroSpace 

Information 

 7121 Standard Drive 

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320 
 

NASA/TM⎯2004-211523

RANGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

MANAGEMENT (RISM) 

PHASE I REPORT 

Gary L. Bastin, Ph.D. 

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida 

William G. Harris, PE 

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida 

Richard A. Nelson 

NASA, YA-D7, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899-0001 

September 2002 
 

Acknowledgments

.Although there is always the risk of inadvertently forgetting someone, the RISM team nonetheless wishes 

to acknowledge especially the assistance and guidance provided by the following individuals, listed 

alphabetically. Without the continued support of these supporters who believed in the value of this project, 

this project could not have accomplished all its goals. 

Name Organization

Hugo Delgado NASA-KSC 

Eric Denson NASA-KSC 

Temel Erdogan Dynacs 

Mike Grant CSR-Tel-4 

Debra Holiday FL Space Authority 

Don Hoover CSR-Optics 

Gary Janousek CSR-XY 

Chris Kerios Dynacs 

Ray Knighton ITT-SLRSC 

Dennis McCunnion CSR-TVOC 

Jules McNeff NASA-HQ 

Rich Nelson NASA-KSC 

Don Philp Dynacs 

John Rush NASA-HQ 

Jim Shaver NASA-Hanger AE 

Steve Schaefer Dynacs 

Steve Schindler NASA-KSC 

Darin Skelly NASA-KSC 

Stan Starr Dynacs 

Dave Struba NASA-HQ 

Lisa Valencia NASA-KSC 

John Walker CSR-JDMTA 

Phil Weber NASA-KSC 

Special thanks go to the late Steve Schaefer, who passed away during this project at a much too early age. 

He was instrumental in establishing the shared-access computer drives to enable the RISM team to work 

efficiently and effectively in the course of this project 

Available from: 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information National Technical Information Service 

7121 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

No. Description Page 

1.0 RISM PHASE 1 PROGRAM............................................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 

1.1.1 Historical Perspectives ........................................................................ 1 

1.1.2 Changing Needs and Changing Perspectives ...................................... 4 

1.2 WORKING GROUP................................................................................... 4 

1.2.1 Description........................................................................................... 4 

1.2.2 Vision Statement.................................................................................. 5 

1.3 OBJECTIVES............................................................................................. 6 

1.4 SCOPE ........................................................................................................ 9 

1.5 STRATEGIC PLANS............................................................................... 10 

2.0 TIMELINE SUMMARIES ................................................................................ 17

2.1 AEROSPACE ........................................................................................... 18 

2.2 COMMUNICATION................................................................................ 20 

3.0 LAUNCH CENTERS AND RANGES (SUMMARY) ..................................... 23

3.1 EASTERN RANGE.................................................................................. 27 

3.1.1 Background........................................................................................ 27 

3.1.2 Facilities............................................................................................. 29 

3.1.3 Instrumentation.................................................................................. 30 

3.2 Kennedy Space Center.............................................................................. 33 

3.2.1 Background........................................................................................ 33 

3.2.2 Facilities............................................................................................. 36 

3.2.3 Instrumentation.................................................................................. 38 

3.3 WESTERN RANGE................................................................................. 39 

3.3.1 Background........................................................................................ 39 

3.3.2 Facilities............................................................................................. 40 

3.3.3 Instrumentation.................................................................................. 41 

3.4 WALLOPS ISLAND ................................................................................ 43 

3.4.1 Background........................................................................................ 43 

3.4.2 Facilities............................................................................................. 43 

3.4.3 Instrumentation.................................................................................. 45 

3.5 OTHER RANGES .................................................................................... 45 

4.0 COMMUNICATION / DATA NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES ................... 47

4.1 ETHERNET.............................................................................................. 48 

4.1.1 10 Base T ........................................................................................... 50 

4.1.2 Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) (1000BaseT/1000BaseX) and 10GbE......... 52 

4.1.3 XAUI (10Gb/s), 40 Gb/s Ethernet (40 GbE), and 160 GbE.............. 55 

4.1.4 DOCSIS and DSL.............................................................................. 57 

4.2 Wireless Technologies.............................................................................. 59 

4.2.1 Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi )................................................................. 61 

4.2.2 Bluetooth............................................................................................ 77 

4.2.3 3G Wireless ....................................................................................... 79 

4.2.4 Zigbee ................................................................................................ 83 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 iv

4.3 Free Space Optical (FSO) Communication Systems................................ 85 

4.4 Spacewire.................................................................................................. 91 

4.5 Firewire..................................................................................................... 96 

4.6 Commercial SATCOM Utilization & Re-Use.......................................... 99 

4.7 Ultra-Wideband....................................................................................... 105 

4.7.1 Background...................................................................................... 105 

4.7.2 Historical Parallels of Ultra Wideband (UWB)............................... 111 

4.8 Global Positioning Satellites................................................................... 114 

4.8.1 GPS.................................................................................................. 114 

4.8.2 TGRS ............................................................................................... 120 

4.9 Data Assurance ....................................................................................... 120 

4.9.1 Data Integrity................................................................................... 121 

4.9.2 Data Authentication......................................................................... 121 

4.9.3 Data Availability.............................................................................. 122 

4.9.4 Data Ease-of-Use............................................................................. 122 

4.9.5 Data Security ................................................................................... 122 

4.10 Voice Over IP (VoIP) ............................................................................. 126 

5.0 FUTURE LAUNCH VEHICLES .................................................................... 131

5.1 2nd Generation RLV (NRA 8-30)............................................................ 131 

5.2 X-Prize Vehicles ..................................................................................... 134 

5.2.1 Background...................................................................................... 134 

5.2.2 X-Prize Entrants (March 2002) ....................................................... 138 

5.2.3 Impact of X-Prize Crafts on Eastern Range & Spaceports.............. 142 

5.3 Space Tugs.............................................................................................. 144 

5.3.1 Background...................................................................................... 145 

5.3.2 Impact of Space Tugs on Range Architecture ................................. 146 

5.4 TAV (Black Horse)................................................................................. 147 

5.4.1 Background...................................................................................... 147 

5.4.2 Impact of TAVs on Range Architecture.......................................... 149 

5.5 Additional Launch Concepts .................................................................. 150 

5.5.1 Vertical Takeoff – Vertical Landing (VTVL) ................................. 150 

5.5.2 Vertical Takeoff – Horizontal Landing (VTHL)............................. 157 

5.5.3 Horizontal Takeoff – Vertical Landing (HTVL)............................. 165 

5.5.4 Horizontal Takeoff – Horizontal Landing (HTHL)......................... 166 

5.5.5 Railgun............................................................................................. 170 

5.5.6 Space Cannon .................................................................................. 177 

5.5.7 Space Elevator ................................................................................. 186 

6.0 FUTURE RANGE ARCHITECTURES......................................................... 193

6.1 Modified Existing Ranges ...................................................................... 193 

6.2 Test & Evaluation Ranges ...................................................................... 194 

6.3 Commercial Ranges................................................................................ 195 

6.4 Military Ranges....................................................................................... 196 

6.5 Advanced Ranges.................................................................................... 198 

7.0 EMERGING COMMUNICATION / DATA NETWORKS TECH............. 201

7.1 Ethernet over SONET (EoS)................................................................... 201 

7.2 Ethernet over Ultra-Wideband (UWB)................................................... 203 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 v

7.2.1 Background...................................................................................... 203 

7.2.2 Protocols for Ethernet over UWB.................................................... 204 

7.3 Wireless Ethernet.................................................................................... 207 

7.4 Free Space Optics (FSP) ......................................................................... 211 

7.5 Data Protocols......................................................................................... 216 

7.5.1 Basic Data Formatting Issues .......................................................... 217 

7.5.2 Open System Interconnection (OSI) Protocols ............................... 221 

7.5.3 Repeaters, Bridges, Switches, Routers, and Gateways.................... 224 

7.5.4 Multi-protocol Label Switching ...................................................... 228 

7.5.4.1 Background............................................................................... 228 

7.5.4.2 Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching........................... 231 

7.6 Human Interface Engineering................................................................. 234 

8.0 PROPOSED RISM PHASE 2 (ECT) ACTIVITIES...................................... 238

9.0 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTORS..................................................................... 242

9.1 RISM Biographical Thumbnail Sketches ............................................... 242 

9.2 FIRSTWG / SBRDSWG Participants & Affiliations ............................. 242 

10.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................. 248

11.0 GLOSSARY....................................................................................................... 250

APPENDICES................................................................................................................277 

A. TIMELINES...................................................................................................... 280

A.1 AEROSPACE ......................................................................................... 280 

A.2 COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................... 286 

B. LAUNCH CENTERS & RANGES ................................................................. 294

B.1 EASTERN RANGE................................................................................ 294 

B.1.1 Background...................................................................................... 294 

B.1.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 294 

B.1.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 296 

B.1.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 300 

B.1.2.1 Patrick AFB.............................................................................. 301 

B.1.2.2 CCAS........................................................................................ 303 

B.1.2.3 KSC .......................................................................................... 311 

B.1.2.4 JDMTA..................................................................................... 311 

B.1.2.5 Antigua ..................................................................................... 313 

B.1.2.6 Ascension ................................................................................. 315 

B.1.2.7 Argentia .................................................................................... 318 

B.1.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 320 

B.1.3.1 Radar......................................................................................... 320 

B.1.3.2 Telemetry.................................................................................. 323 

B.1.3.3 Optics........................................................................................ 325 

B.1.3.4 Command Destruct................................................................... 329 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 vi

B.1.3.5 Communications....................................................................... 331 

B.1.3.6 Weather..................................................................................... 336 

B.1.3.7 Timing ...................................................................................... 340 

B.2 Kennedy Space Center............................................................................ 342 

B.2.1 Background...................................................................................... 342 

B.2.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 342 

B.2.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 346 

B.2.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 364 

B.2.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 385 

B.2.3.1 Radar......................................................................................... 385 

B.2.3.2 Telemetry.................................................................................. 386 

B.2.3.3 Optics........................................................................................ 386 

B.2.3.4 Command Destruct................................................................... 387 

B.2.3.5 Communications....................................................................... 387 

B.2.3.6 Weather..................................................................................... 389 

B.2.3.7 Timing ...................................................................................... 394 

B.3 WESTERN RANGE............................................................................... 396 

B.3.1 Background...................................................................................... 396 

B.3.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 396 

B.3.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 398 

B.3.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 401 

B.3.2.1 General ..................................................................................... 401 

B.3.2.2 Launch ...................................................................................... 402 

B.3.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 406 

B.3.3.1 Locations .................................................................................. 406 

B.3.3.2 Equipment................................................................................. 408 

B.4 Wallops Flight Facility ........................................................................... 409 

B.4.1 Background...................................................................................... 409 

B.4.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 409 

B.4.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 409 

B.4.1.3 Present Mission ........................................................................ 410 

B.4.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 412 

B.4.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 414 

B.5 Reagan Test Site (Kwajalein) ................................................................. 415 

B.5.1 Background...................................................................................... 415 

B.5.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 415 

B.5.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 416 

B.5.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 417 

B.5.2.1 General ..................................................................................... 417 

B.5.2.2 Launch ...................................................................................... 417 

B.5.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 420 

B.6 Kodiak..................................................................................................... 427 

B.6.1 Background...................................................................................... 427 

B.6.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 427 

B.6.2.1 General ..................................................................................... 427 

B.6.2.2 Launch ...................................................................................... 430 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 vii

B.6.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 431 

B.7 White Sands Missile Range .................................................................... 432 

B.7.1 Background...................................................................................... 432 

B.7.1.1 Location.................................................................................... 432 

B.7.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 434 

B.7.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 436 

B.7.2.1 General ..................................................................................... 436 

B.7.2.2 Launch ...................................................................................... 440 

B.7.2.3 Major Test ................................................................................ 442 

B.7.2.4 Communications....................................................................... 449 

B.7.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 451 

B.8 Point Mugu ............................................................................................. 464 

B.8.1 Background...................................................................................... 464 

B.8.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 464 

B.8.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 466 

B.8.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 466 

B.8.2.1 Major ........................................................................................ 466 

B.8.2.2 Launch ...................................................................................... 470 

B.8.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 472 

B.8.3.1 Locations .................................................................................. 472 

B.8.3.2 Types ........................................................................................ 475 

B.9 Sea Launch.............................................................................................. 478 

B.9.1 Background...................................................................................... 478 

B.9.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 478 

B.9.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 480 

B.9.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 480 

B.9.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 483 

B.10 Poker Flats .............................................................................................. 484 

B.10.1 Background...................................................................................... 484 

B.10.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 484 

B.10.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 486 

B.11 Pacific Missile Range Facilitiy............................................................... 488 

B.11.1 Background...................................................................................... 488 

B.11.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 488 

B.11.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 490 

B.11.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 492 

B.11.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 494 

B.11.3.1 Radar......................................................................................... 495 

B.11.3.2 Telemetry.................................................................................. 495 

B.11.3.3 Optics........................................................................................ 495 

B.11.3.4 Command.................................................................................. 498 

B.11.3.5 Communications....................................................................... 499 

B.12 Eglin........................................................................................................ 500 

B.12.1 Background...................................................................................... 500 

B.12.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 500 

B.12.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 501 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 viii

B.12.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 504 

B.12.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 509 

B.13 China Lake.............................................................................................. 512 

B.13.1 Background...................................................................................... 512 

B.13.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 512 

B.13.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 514 

B.13.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 515 

B.13.2.1 General ..................................................................................... 515 

B.13.2.2 Launch ...................................................................................... 521 

B.13.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 522 

B.14 Holloman................................................................................................. 525 

B.14.1 Background...................................................................................... 525 

B.14.1.1 General ..................................................................................... 525 

B.14.1.2 History ...................................................................................... 526 

B.14.2 Facilities........................................................................................... 527 

B.14.3 Instrumentation................................................................................ 533 

C. Theoretical Basis of Railgun Physics .............................................................. 535

D. Shuttle Landing Sites........................................................................................ 537

D.1 Types of Landing Sites ........................................................................... 537 

D.1.1 EOM Sites........................................................................................ 537 

D.1.2 Augumented Landing Sites (ALS) .................................................. 537 

D.1.3 Emergency Landing Sites................................................................ 540 

D.2 Landing Site Equipment Requirements .................................................. 541 

D.3 Equipment / Services Descriptions ......................................................... 542 

D.3.1 TACAN............................................................................................ 542 

D.3.2 Microwave Scanning Beam Landing System (MSBLS)................. 542 

D.3.2.1 Microwave Scan. Beam Lndg Sys – Gnd Stat (MSBLS-GS) .. 542 

D.3.2.2 Microwave Scanning Beam Landing Sys – Jr (MSBLS-JR) ... 542 

D.3.3 Aim Point......................................................................................... 542 

D.3.4 PAPI Lights – OGS ......................................................................... 543 

D.3.5 Ball-Bar Lights – IGS...................................................................... 543 

D.3.6 Runway Lights................................................................................. 543 

D.3.6.1 Edge Lights............................................................................... 543 

D.3.6.2 Approach Lights ....................................................................... 543 

D.3.6.3 Threshold Lights....................................................................... 543 

D.3.7 Xenon Lights ................................................................................... 544 

D.3.8 Runway Distance Remaining Markers ............................................ 544 

D.3.9 Communications .............................................................................. 544 

D.3.9.1 Commercial .............................................................................. 544 

D.3.9.2 Air-to-Ground........................................................................... 544 

D.3.9.3 FM Portable Radios.................................................................. 544 

D.3.9.4 INMARSAT ............................................................................. 544 

D.3.10 Transportation.................................................................................. 544 

D.3.11 Security............................................................................................ 545 

D.3.12 Fire, Crash & Rescue....................................................................... 545 

D.3.13 Meteorology..................................................................................... 545 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 ix

D.3.14 Medical ............................................................................................ 545 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 x

LIST OF FIGURES 

No. Description Page 

Figure 1-1 German V-2 Rocket ....................................................................................1 

Figure 1-2 Early Bumper Launch From Cape Canaveral.............................................2 

Figure 1-3 Camp Cooke In 1958 ..................................................................................3 

Figure 1-4 ARTWG National Development Strategy ...................................................7 

Figure 1-5 ARTWG Integration / Interaction Process...................................................8 

Figure 1-6 Spaceport And Range Environments...........................................................8 

Figure 3-1 Sounding Rockets ......................................................................................23 

Figure 3-2 Space Shuttle Launch.................................................................................24 

Figure 3-3 Titan IV-B..................................................................................................24 

Figure 3-4 Saturn V Launch ........................................................................................25 

Figure 3-5 Eastern & Western Ranges ........................................................................26 

Figure 3-6 Locations of Eastern Range Facilities .......................................................28 

Figure 3-7 Cape Canaveral Launch Complexes (1960s & 1990)................................29 

Figure 3-8 Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral..............................................34 

Figure 3-9 Space Shuttle Launch.................................................................................35 

Figure 3-10 Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF)..................................................................35 

Figure 3-11 Crawler-Transporter With MLP & Shuttle At Pad....................................36 

Figure 3-12 MLP with Shuttle At Pad; Crawler Leaving..............................................37 

Figure 3-13 VAB With LCC To Right ..........................................................................37 

Figure 3-14 Western Range...........................................................................................40 

Figure 3-15 SLC-6 In 1986............................................................................................41 

Figure 3-16 Pillar Point Instrumentation Site................................................................42 

Figure 3-17 Wallops Flight Facility Three Main Sites..................................................44 

Figure 3-18 Wallops Island Launch Facilities...............................................................44 

Figure 4-1 GPS Satellite ............................................................................................114 

Figure 4-2 Installing VoIP Telephone to a Broadband Internet Connection.............130 

Figure 5-1 X-Prize Trajectory ...................................................................................135 

Figure 5-2 NASA 1985 Space Tug Concept #1 ........................................................145 

Figure 5-3 NASA 1985 Space Tug Concept #2 ........................................................146 

Figure 5-4 Mercury Capsule......................................................................................151 

Figure 5-5 Gemini Capsule........................................................................................152 

Figure 5-6 Apollo Capsule ........................................................................................152 

Figure 5-7 Lunar Lander............................................................................................153 

Figure 5-8 McDonnell Douglas Delta Clipper ..........................................................154 

Figure 5-9 First Stage Recovery of K-1 (concept) ....................................................155 

Figure 5-10 Second Stage Recovery of K-1 (concept)................................................155 

Figure 5-11 TGV X-Prize Entrant (concept)...............................................................156 

Figure 5-12 Roton X-Prize Entrant (concept) .............................................................157 

Figure 5-13 Space Shuttle Launch...............................................................................158 

Figure 5-14 Separation of External Tank (concept) ....................................................159 

Figure 5-15 NASA SLI General Concept....................................................................162 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xi

Figure 5-16 X-33 Concept...........................................................................................162 

Figure 5-17 X-37 in Shuttle Cargo Bay (concept) ......................................................163 

Figure 5-18 X-40 .........................................................................................................164 

Figure 5-19 X-38 .........................................................................................................164 

Figure 5-20 Orbital Sciences’ Pegasus........................................................................165 

Figure 5-21 X-30 (concept) .........................................................................................167 

Figure 5-22 X-34 (concept) .........................................................................................168 

Figure 5-23 Eclipse Being Towed For Takeoff By Large Commercial Jet (concept).169 

Figure 5-24 Magnetic Levitation Launch (concept)....................................................170 

Figure 5-25 Railgun Magnetic Flux & Current Impart Force (F) on Conductor ........173 

Figure 5-26 Paris Gun (WWII)....................................................................................180 

Figure 5-27 V-3 Gun (WWII)......................................................................................181 

Figure 5-28 HARP 7-Inch Gun....................................................................................183 

Figure 5-29 Space Elevator Concept ...........................................................................187 

Figure 6-1 Future Land Use For KSC & CCAS........................................................200 

Figure 7-1 National Highway System .......................................................................208 

Figure 7-2 The 12.4 km FSO Transmission Path ......................................................213 

Figure 7-3 ISTEF Electro-Optics Lab at KSC...........................................................214 

Figure 7-4 LCX-46 Service Tower............................................................................214 

Figure 7-5 Method for Hardware Connection Depends on OSI Layer .....................224 

Figure 7-6 Thomas Edison’s Universal Stock Ticker ...............................................236 

Figure B.1-1 Eastern & Western Ranges ......................................................................294 

Figure B.1-2 Locations of Eastern Range Facilities .....................................................295 

Figure B.1-3 Eastern Range In Early 60’s ....................................................................298 

Figure B.1-4 USNS Redstone .......................................................................................299 

Figure B.1-5 USNS Observation Island........................................................................300 

Figure B.1-6 Patrick AFB Entrance ..............................................................................301 

Figure B.1-7 Patrick AFB (Satellite Image)..................................................................302 

Figure B.1-8 Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) .......................................................304 

Figure B.1-9 Range Operations & Control Center (ROCC) .........................................305 

Figure B.1-10 Poseidon Warf & Trident Basin...............................................................306 

Figure B.1-11 AF Space Museum...................................................................................306 

Figure B.1-12 Cape Canaveral Light House ...................................................................307 

Figure B.1-13 Cape Launch Complexes in 1960’s .........................................................307 

Figure B.1-14 Cape Launch Complexes in 1990’s .........................................................308 

Figure B.1-15 JDMTA (Aerial View).............................................................................312 

Figure B.1-16 JDMTA (Ground View)...........................................................................312 

Figure B.1-17 Antigua, West Indies................................................................................313 

Figure B.1-18 Antigua Telemetry Antennas ...................................................................315 

Figure B.1-19 Location of Ascension Island ..................................................................315 

Figure B.1-20 Ascension Island ......................................................................................316 

Figure B.1-21 Map of Ascension Island .........................................................................316 

Figure B.1-22 Ascension Airfield (Wideawake Field) ...................................................317 

Figure B.1-23 Location of Argentia, Newfoundland ......................................................318 

Figure B.1-24 Argentia Navy Base (1941) .....................................................................319 

Figure B.1-25 PAFB 0.14 Radar – MIPIR (rear)............................................................321 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xii

Figure B.1-26 CCAS 1.39 – MOTR (Phased Array) ......................................................321 

Figure B.1-27 Antigua 91.14 – MIPIR (front) ................................................................322 

Figure B.1-28 Ascension 12.15 - TTR............................................................................322 

Figure B.1-29 TAA-8 & TAA-3 at Antigua....................................................................324 

Figure B.1-30 Antigua TAA-8 & TAA-3 .......................................................................325 

Figure B.1-31 DOAMS ...................................................................................................326 

Figure B.1-32 PIGOR (front) ..........................................................................................326 

Figure B.1-33 ATOTS.....................................................................................................328 

Figure B.1-34 ATOTS Telescope ..................................................................................328 

Figure B.1-35 KTM.........................................................................................................329 

Figure B.1-36 Jimsphere Weather Balloon .....................................................................337 

Figure B.1-37 ALDF .......................................................................................................338 

Figure B.1-38 Weather Tower.........................................................................................338 

Figure B.1-39 Typical Field Mill ....................................................................................339 

Figure B.2-1 KSC & Cape Canaveral Air Station (map)..............................................343 

Figure B.2-2 KSC & Cape Canaveral Air Station (photo)............................................344 

Figure B.2-3 Location of KSC ......................................................................................345 

Figure B.2-4 NASA Centers .........................................................................................345 

Figure B.2-5 Space Shuttle Launch...............................................................................346 

Figure B.2-6 Apollo 1 Fire............................................................................................347 

Figure B.2-7 Skylab (1973)...........................................................................................349 

Figure B.2-8 Apollo / Soyuz (1975)..............................................................................349 

Figure B.2-9 Assembled Saturn V Vehicle...................................................................351 

Figure B.2-10 Saturn V – First Stage (S-IC)...................................................................352 

Figure B.2-11 Saturn V – Second Stage .........................................................................352 

Figure B.2-12 Saturn V – Third Stage ............................................................................352 

Figure B.2-13 Lunar Lander............................................................................................353 

Figure B.2-14 Lunar Rover .............................................................................................353 

Figure B.2-15 Service Module ........................................................................................354 

Figure B.2-16 Command Module ...................................................................................354 

Figure B.2-17 Apollo Capsule ........................................................................................355 

Figure B.2-18 Apollo Capsule & Escape Rocket............................................................355 

Figure B.2-19 Apollo 11 Lifts Off for the Moon on 7/16/69..........................................356 

Figure B.2-20 Enterprise on Test Flight (1977)..............................................................357 

Figure B.2-21 Challenger Accident (1986).....................................................................358 

Figure B.2-22 VAB Under Construction (1965).............................................................359 

Figure B.2-23 LC-39A in Mid 60’s ................................................................................360 

Figure B.2-24 Saturn V & Mobile Launch Platform on Crawler-Transporter................361 

Figure B.2-25 Artist Concept of TDRS...........................................................................362 

Figure B.2-26 TDRS Constellation.................................................................................362 

Figure B.2-27 TDRS White Sands Ground Terminal (WSGT) ......................................363 

Figure B.2-28 Secondary TDRS Ground Terminal (STGT)...........................................363 

Figure B.2-29 TDRS Operation Concept........................................................................364 

Figure B.2-30 NASA’s Hangar AE on Cape Canaveral Air Station ..............................365 

Figure B.2-31 Clean Room at Hangar AE ......................................................................366 

Figure B.2-32 Recovered SRB Being Placed on Dollies at Hangar AF .........................367 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xiii

Figure B.2-33 Crawler-Transporter with MLP & Shuttle Approaching LC-39 .............368 

Figure B.2-34 KSC Cryogenics Test Facility .................................................................369 

Figure B.2-35 Right Orbital Maneuvering System Being Placed in HPF Cell...............370 

Figure B.2-36 KSC Headquarters Building ....................................................................370 

Figure B.2-37 Launch Control Complex (LCC) .............................................................371 

Figure B.2-38 LCC Firing Room During a Shuttle Launch............................................371 

Figure B.2-39 Merritt Island Launch Annex (MILA).....................................................372 

Figure B.2-40 MLP with Shuttle at Launch Pad.............................................................373 

Figure B.2-41 Apollo Unbilical Towers In Storage At KSC ..........................................374 

Figure B.2-42 Shuttle Being Towed Into the OPF..........................................................375 

Figure B.2-43 Shuttle Leaving OPF-2 For Short Trip To The VAB ..............................375 

Figure B.2-44 SRB With Drogue Chute During Descent ...............................................376 

Figure B.2-45 SRB Recovery Ship .................................................................................377 

Figure B.2-46 Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF)................................................................378 

Figure B.2-47 Space Station Process Facility (SSPF).....................................................379 

Figure B.2-48 International Space Station (ISS) in June 2002 .......................................379 

Figure B.2-49 VAB With LCC Off To Right .................................................................380 

Figure B.2-50 KSC Visitor Center..................................................................................381 

Figure B.2-51 Saturn V Building & Exhibits..................................................................382 

Figure B.2-52 Rocket Garden .........................................................................................382 

Figure B.2-53 Gift Shop..................................................................................................383 

Figure B.2-54 Shuttle Launch From LC-39 A or B ........................................................384 

Figure B.2-55 Cape Launch Complexes .........................................................................384 

Figure B.2-56 Multiple Object Tracking Radar (MOTR)...............................................386 

Figure B.2-57 DOAMS ...................................................................................................387 

Figure B.2-58 Jimsphere Weather Baloon ......................................................................390 

Figure B.2-59 ALDF .......................................................................................................391 

Figure B.2-60 Weather Tower.........................................................................................392 

Figure B.2-61 Typical Field Mill ....................................................................................393 

Figure B.3-1 Western Range.........................................................................................397 

Figure B.3-2 Camp Cooke Divided Between Air Force & Navy .................................399 

Figure B.3-3 Delta Launch............................................................................................403 

Figure B.3-4 Atlas Ready For Launch ..........................................................................403 

Figure B.3-5 Titan II Being Prepared For Launch........................................................404 

Figure B.3-6 Titan IV Launch From Vandenberg.........................................................404 

Figure B.3-7 SLC-6 in 1986..........................................................................................405 

Figure B.3-8 Minuteman III Launch .............................................................................406 

Figure B.3-9 Pillar Point Instrumentation Site..............................................................407 

Figure B.4-1 Capsule Escape Rocket Testing...............................................................409 

Figure B.4-2 Wallops Scientific Rocket .......................................................................411 

Figure B.4-3 Wallops Scientific Balloon ......................................................................411 

Figure B.4-4 Wallops Three Main Sites........................................................................412 

Figure B.4-5 Wallops Main Base..................................................................................413 

Figure B.4-6 Wallops Launch Facilities .......................................................................413 

Figure B.4-7 Wallops FPQ-6 Radar..............................................................................414 

Figure B.5-1 Kwajalein Atoll........................................................................................415 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xiv

Figure B.5-2 Kwajalein Island ......................................................................................416 

Figure B.5-3 Sounding Rocket Launch from Roi-Namur.............................................418 

Figure B.5-4 ERIS Launch From Kwajalein.................................................................418 

Figure B.5-5 Wake Island Launch ................................................................................419 

Figure B.5-6 RTS Alternative Launch Facilities ..........................................................420 

Figure B.5-7 RTS Instrumentation................................................................................421 

Figure B.5-8 RTS Telemetry Sites................................................................................421 

Figure B.5-9 ALCOR Radar .........................................................................................423 

Figure B.5-10 TRADEX Radar......................................................................................423 

Figure B.5-11 Millimeter Radar.....................................................................................424 

Figure B.5-12 MPS-36 Radar.........................................................................................424 

Figure B.5-13 RTS Optical Tracking Camera................................................................425 

Figure B.5-14 Airborne Surveillance Test Bed..............................................................425 

Figure B.5-15 Cobra Eye................................................................................................426 

Figure B.5-16 USNS Observation Island (Cobra Judy).................................................426 

Figure B.5-17 Halo.........................................................................................................426 

Figure B.6-1 Kodiak Launch Complex ........................................................................427 

Figure B.6-2 Launch Control & Management Center..................................................428 

Figure B.6-3 Payload Processing Facility....................................................................428 

Figure B.6-4 Spacecraft Assemblies Transfer..............................................................429 

Figure B.6-5 Launch Pad 1...........................................................................................429 

Figure B.6-6 Launch Pad 1 With Enclosure.................................................................430 

Figure B.6-7 Kodiak Star Launch Vehicle (Athena I) ..................................................431 

Figure B.7-1 White Sands Missile Range .....................................................................432 

Figure B.7-2 White Sands Missile Range Sites ............................................................433 

Figure B.7-3 Launch Complex 33.................................................................................435 

Figure B.7-4 V-2 Rocket...............................................................................................435 

Figure B.7-5 Delta Clipper (1993) ................................................................................438 

Figure B.7-6 Runway 17 ...............................................................................................439 

Figure B.7-7 Shuttle Columbia Landing 1982 ..............................................................439 

Figure B.7-8 TDRS Ground Station..............................................................................440 

Figure B.7-9 Aerial Cable Range..................................................................................443 

Figure B.7-10 Typical Altitude Test Stand ....................................................................444 

Figure B.7-11 Ambient Test Stand.................................................................................444 

Figure B.7-12 National RCS Test Facility (NRTF) .......................................................445 

Figure B.7-13 Large Blast Thermal Simulator...............................................................445 

Figure B.7-14 LB/TS Tunnel .........................................................................................446 

Figure B.7-15 RCS Advanced Measurement System ....................................................446 

Figure B.7-16 North Oscura Peak ..................................................................................447 

Figure B.7-17 HELSTF..................................................................................................448 

Figure B.7-18 MIRACL.................................................................................................449 

Figure B.7-19 THEL Beam Director..............................................................................449 

Figure B.7-20 MOTR (trailer mounted).........................................................................453 

Figure B.7-21 MOTR (fixed site) ..................................................................................453 

Figure B.7-22 Miss Distance Indicating Radar..............................................................454 

Figure B.7-23 Transportable Weibel Antenna System ..................................................454 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xv

Figure B.7-24 Major Telemetry Sites ............................................................................456 

Figure B.7-25 J-10 - Salinas Peak Telemetry ................................................................457 

Figure B.7-26 J-67 – Alamo Peak Telemetry.................................................................457 

Figure B.7-27 J-56 – Dry Site Telemetry.......................................................................458 

Figure B.7-28 Transportable Telemetry Acquisition System (TTAS)...........................458 

Figure B.7-29 Transportable Telemetry Acquisition & Relay System..........................459 

Figure B.7-30 Telemetry Mobile Van............................................................................459 

Figure B.7-31 Mobile Telemetry System.......................................................................460 

Figure B.7-32 Multimode Automatic Tracking .............................................................461 

Figure B.7-33 Launch Area Theodolite System.............................................................462 

Figure B.7-34 Distance Object Attitude Measurement System (DOAMS) ...................462 

Figure B.8-1 Location of Pt. Mugu & Other Navy Test Facilities...............................464 

Figure B.8-2 Point Mugu .............................................................................................465 

Figure B.8-3 Point Mugu Main Base ...........................................................................467 

Figure B.8-4 Laguna Peak............................................................................................467 

Figure B.8-5 San Nicolas Island ..................................................................................468 

Figure B.8-6 San Nicolas Island Facilities...................................................................469 

Figure B.8-7 Port Hueneme..........................................................................................469 

Figure B.8-8 San Nicolas Launcher .............................................................................471 

Figure B.8-9 San Nicolas Launch ................................................................................471 

Figure B.8-10 Point Mugu Telemetry Site.....................................................................473 

Figure B.8-11 Point Mugu ROCC..................................................................................473 

Figure B.8-12 San Nicolas Radar...................................................................................474 

Figure B.8-13 San Nicolas Telemetry............................................................................474 

Figure B.8-14 Laguna Peak Complex ............................................................................475 

Figure B.9-1 Sea Launch Ground Track ......................................................................478 

Figure B.9-2 Sea Launch Lift Off ................................................................................479 

Figure B.9-3 Sea Launch Base Facilities .....................................................................480 

Figure B.9-4 Home Port ...............................................................................................481 

Figure B.9-5 Sea Launch Commander .........................................................................482 

Figure B.9-6 Launch Control Center............................................................................482 

Figure B.9-7 Launch Platform......................................................................................483 

Figure B.10-1 Poker Flat Research Range .....................................................................484 

Figure B.10-2 Sounding Rocket Launcher.....................................................................485 

Figure B.10-3 Poker Flat Launcher Enclosure...............................................................485 

Figure B.10-4 Poker Flat Telemetry Systems ................................................................486 

Figure B.11-1 Map of Kauai ..........................................................................................489 

Figure B.11-2 PMRF Main Base....................................................................................489 

Figure B.11-3 PMRF Range...........................................................................................490 

Figure B.11-4 Maui Space Surveillance Site .................................................................493 

Figure B.11-5 Maui Space Surveillance Site (close up) ................................................494 

Figure B.11-6 PMRS Instrumentation Site ....................................................................494 

Figure B.11-7 AEOS Telescope.....................................................................................497 

Figure B.11-8 Maui GEODSS Site ................................................................................498 

Figure B.12-1 Location of Eglin ....................................................................................500 

Figure B.12-2 Eglin AFB With 10 Auxiliary Fields......................................................501 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xvi

Figure B.12-3 German V-1 Rocket (WWII) ..................................................................503 

Figure B.12-4 F-22 Under Test in the McKinley Climatic Lab.....................................505 

Figure B.12-5 PRIMES Anechoic Chamber ..................................................................507 

Figure B.12-6 Kinetic Kill Vehicle KWIL Simulation Facility.....................................508 

Figure B.12-7 Electromagnetic Munitions Experimentation Facility Site.....................509 

Figure B.12-8 Cape San Blas & Lighthouse ..................................................................510 

Figure B.12-9 Cape San Blas Lighthouse ......................................................................511 

Figure B.13-1 Locations of China Lake & Point Mugu Test Facilities .........................512 

Figure B.13-2 China Lake Facilities ..............................................................................513 

Figure B.13-3 Point Mugu Navy Test Facilities ............................................................513 

Figure B.13-4 Integrated Activities Between China Lake & Point Mugu.....................514 

Figure B.13-5 Range Control Center .............................................................................516 

Figure B.13-6 High Speed Test Track ...........................................................................516 

Figure B.13-7 Ejection Seat Testing ..............................................................................517 

Figure B.13-8 Bombing Targets.....................................................................................518 

Figure B.13-9 Bridge Target ..........................................................................................518 

Figure B.13-10 Tank Target.........................................................................................519 

Figure B.13-11 Randsburg Fuse Range .......................................................................520 

Figure B.13-12 Echo Range.........................................................................................521 

Figure B.13-13 KTM Optical Tracker .........................................................................523 

Figure B.14-1 Holloman AFB & White Sands Missile Range ......................................525 

Figure B.14-2 Holloman AFB........................................................................................526 

Figure B.14-3 Holloman High Speed Test Track...........................................................528 

Figure B.14-4 World Land Speed Record Holder (6121 MPH) ....................................528 

Figure B.14-5 Dispenser Test.........................................................................................529 

Figure B.14-6 SNARK Missile Launch from HHSTT...................................................529 

Figure B.14-7 Hypersonic Upgrade Test Sled ...............................................................530 

Figure B.14-8 Radar Target Scatter Facilities................................................................531 

Figure B.14-9 Radar Target Scatter Range ....................................................................532 

Figure B.14-10 Centrifuge ...........................................................................................533 

Figure D.1-1 Space Shuttle Landing Sites ...................................................................538 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xvii

LIST OF TABLES 

No. Description Page 

Table 2-1 Aerospace Timeline of Significant Events ................................................18 

Table 2-2 Communications Timeline (Wired, Wireless, Optical; Data Rates)..........21 

Table 3-1 Types of Launches At US Launch Centers & Ranges...............................26 

Table 3-2 Eastern Range Fixed Optical Sites.............................................................31 

Table 3-3 Eastern Range Mobile Optical Equipment ................................................31 

Table 5-1 Launch Concepts......................................................................................150 

Table 9-1 Future Integrated Range/Spaceport Technologies Working Group ........244 

Table A-1 Aerospace Timeline .................................................................................280 

Table A-2 Communications Timeline.......................................................................287 

Table B.1-1 Communications Timeline.......................................................................308 

Table B.1-2 ER Fixed Optical Sites.............................................................................325 

Table B.1-3 ER Mobile Optical Instruments ...............................................................327 

Table B.2-1 Summary of Apollo Program...................................................................348 

Table B.2-2 DOAMS Specification.............................................................................387 

Table B.5-1 RTS Telemetry Antennas.........................................................................422 

Table D.1-1 Space Shuttle Approved Landing Sites ...................................................539 

Table D.1-2 Landing Site Support Requirements ........................................................541 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xviii
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xix

Executive Summary 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is investigating alternative 

approaches, technologies, and communication network architectures to facilitate building 

the Spaceports and Ranges of the future. These investigations support the Second 

Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (2nd Gen RLV), and other associated craft presently 

under development in Government, academic, and private sectors, and provide a national 

centralized R&D forum for next-generation Spaceport and Range technology 

development. These sectors all share the common goal of changing the historic 

risk/reward equation for access to space, with the intent to: 

• Dramatically reduce launch cost 

• Greatly improve launch system reliability 

• Significantly reduce crew risk 

The shared and tacit goal is to achieve routine access to space. 

A fundamental paradigm shift is required to accomplish the desired goal. The historical 

approach of using dedicated and custom Range equipment situated at relatively few and 

widely dispersed Spaceports as the only access to space must change before routine 

access to space can occur. This change is analogous to the historical transformation that 

occurred in aviation; moving from dedicated, remote test sites where test pilots first 

experimented with jet-propelled aircraft to today’s thriving international and regional 

airports. 

 

Information networks at Spaceports and Ranges must transition to a total integration of 

existing, new, and emerging technologies that provide a new and robust way of 

interconnecting the Range assets, Range operations, and Range users during the launch 

event. This paradigm shift must occur despite the legacy of how the networks have 

evolved to this point. Instead of the dedicated, immobile, inflexible information 

infrastructures of today’s Ranges and Spaceports, a more flexible (i.e. space-based) 

approach is needed. Implicit in this flexibility is the need for modularization, to allow 

incorporation of newer technologies not yet imagined, without requiring scrapping future 

systems not yet even defined. The key is to envision a transition to a Space Based Range 

Distributed Subsystem. 

To accomplish this, the Range Information Systems Management (RISM) research task is 

providing a keen vision of both near and more distant future technologies in support of 

NASA’s Advanced Range Technology Working Group (ARTWG) and the Advanced 

Spaceport Technology Working Group (ASTWG). Consistent with the goals originally 

identified for RISM, while supporting these working groups; this technical report details 

the results of researching and documenting the technical needs and technical 

characteristics of future Ranges, Range systems, and Range users. This report explores 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xx

extant and emerging technologies and identifies the characteristics and likely 

requirements of a future Space Based Range Distributed Subsystem based on these 

technologies. This report is but the first step in implementing a future Space Based 

Range (SBR) Distributed Subsystem to support the Spaceports and Ranges of the future 

and to provide the infrastructure to enable routine access to space. 

The Vision

Before commencing the development of communication systems for future Spaceports 

and Ranges, a vision is necessary, for as one Japanese proverb states, “Vision without 

action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare." Further, as a classic Spanish 

play cautions, “... dreams are only dreams.”1 To accomplish the desired goals, it is vital 

to provide a carefully crafted vision upon which a cost-effective plan for action can be 

built. 

 

Vision, though, is more than the mere avoidance of ‘night-dreams’ or nightmares. It is 

also the food that nourishes mankind’s collective restless soul to explore beyond known 

scientific frontiers. Without a vision, expansion beyond existing scientific frontiers 

stops, for “Where there is no vision, the people perish." 2

 

The vision for Range Information System Management (RISM) is to provide a largely 

invisible infrastructure, supporting the following goals: 3

• Implementing an interoperable network that supports future generation vehicle 

operations without requiring reconfiguration 

• Supporting critical decision processes to insure public, crew, vehicle, and mission 

safety 

• Meeting the security, reliability, and availability needs by providing 

communication capability to any vehicle; worldwide, 24/7, manned or unmanned 

• Providing data throughput capability for meeting the real-time, on-demand, and 

timely information needs of the future with minimal latency 

• Integrating functionality across the Space Based Range (SBR) Distributed 

Subsystem, including Spaceport Range Systems (SRS), Weather Instrumentation 

and Systems (WIS), Decisions Models and Simulation (DMS), and the Space 

Based Range (SBR) consisting of terrestrial, satellite, and vehicle components 

 

1

 The ending is “y los sueños, sueños son.” in the verse “¿Que es la vida?” in the famous play “Life is a 

Dream” by Golden Age Spanish dramatist Pedro Calderón de la Barca (1600 - 1681). 

2

 Proverbs 29:18

3

 Much as the average passengers on airliners today are largely unaware of the behind-the-scene 

infrastructure of Air Traffic Control, Ground Control, maintenance, and communication networks, the goal 

for RISM is to achieve the same degree of tacit functionality. With this level of advancement, all 

communication needs are transparently met, and no burden is placed inordinately on any one vehicle or on 

any one particular Spaceport. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xxi

A vision is likely to remain just a daydream, or at worst, a ‘night-dream’, unless it is 

communicated to others. Communicating a shared vision to aerospace leaders from 

Government, industry and academia is especially critical for the success of this research, 

and to promote the development of communication/data architectures and advanced 

distributed networks that meet the needs of concurrent and future generations of 

Spaceports and Ranges. To support communicating this vision, a working group, the 

Space Based Range Distributed System Working Group (SBRDSWG), was formed as 

part of the NASA-funded RISM task order in the spring of 2002. This working group 

was subsequently renamed the Future Integrated Range and Spaceport Technology 

Working Group (FIRSTWG) at the conclusion of the RISM Phase I Project, to reflect 

better its inclusion of multiple technologies in response to an evolving understanding of 

changing communication needs. The numerous contributions from the members of the 

SBRDSWG, now FIRSTWG, in response to a shared vision communicated through biweekly technical exchange, permeate the information contained in this report.4

 Without 

the extensive support of these numerous aerospace leaders, this report could not have 

been written. 

Summary of Conclusions 

During the RISM Phase I Project, the RISM team, comprised of: 

• NASA and NASA-contractor engineers and managers, and 

• Aerospace leaders from Government, Academia, and Industry, participating 

through the Space Based Range Distributed System Working Group 

(SBRDSWG), many of whom are also 

• Members of the Advanced Range Technology Working Group (ARTWG) 

subgroups, and 

• Members of the Advanced Spaceport Technology Working Group (ASTWG) 

have together envisioned a future set of technologies for implementing future Ranges and 

Range systems that builds on today’s cabled and wireless legacy infrastructures while 

additionally seamlessly integrating both today’s emerging and tomorrow’s building-block 

communication techniques. As mentioned previously, the fundamental key is to envision 

a transition to a Space Based Range Distributed Subsystem. The further enabling 

concept is to identify the specific needs of Range users that can be solved through 

applying emerging communication technology. 

 

4

 Section 9.2 contains a list of the members of the SBRDSWG and their respective organizations. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xxii

As envisioned by these aerospace leaders, the future Spaceport and Range will constitute 

a single, global, communication and data-networking system, partially space-based, that 

will: 

• Contain mobile, portable, and fixed elements 

• Provide an always on, 24/7, communication environment 

• Provide high bandwidths, achieved without wires or cables, that will form the 

majority of new extensions to today’s infrastructure, to permit flexibly 

accommodating change, and to avoid stuffing more physical cables into the 

crowded cable trays and ducts that exist today 

• Be pervasively connected, in terms of linking wirelessly and without fibers (e.g., 

a “fiberless” extension to the existing infrastructure) nearly everything that is new 

or that is added to the Spaceport and Range environment 

• Provide seamless connections to today’s wired communications infrastructure, as 

well as to future systems 

• Provide Data Assurance, comprised of: 

o Data Integrity (i.e., protection against tampering, whether intentional or 

unintentional) 

o Data Authentication (i.e., anti-spoofing functionality) 

o Data Availability (which can range from minor latency issues (timeliness) all 

the way to data unavailability) 

o Data Ease-of-Use 

o Data Security (i.e., protection of data content to unauthorized personnel) 

The overarching conclusion from the RISM Phase I activities, culminating in this 

document, is that future communication and data networking will largely grow from the 

communications baselines that exist today, although customized for ease of use within a 

Spaceport and Range environment. This approach is both desirable and feasible, in terms 

of managing costs, as well as for accommodating the desired functionalities; but missing 

details remain where early development must occur directly to empower the needed 

future technology growth. 

For the buried fiber optic cables and much of the cabled and wireless infrastructure in 

place today, no recommendations are made; either for immediate removal or for 

wholesale ‘forklift’ replacements. Such an approach would be costly. Rather, the 

communication growth that is foreseen is, at least initially, strictly around the edge of the 

extant data networking and communication environment. Starting with what is often 

called the “First Mile” or “Last Mile” problem of traditional public communication 

networks, this document makes a strong case that three emerging technologies are likely 

to provide the majority of the technology additions needed to solve many communication 

problems, while additionally providing a future upgrade path that will counter 

obsolescence or performance issues. Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi), Ultra Wideband (UWB), 

and Free Space Optical (FSO) are the three disruptive and emerging technologies that can 

augment today’s communication infrastructure. These three technologies can provide 

performance over three decades of data rates, while augmenting communications in the 

near future and providing flexibility for future needs. However, a key caveat is 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xxiii

necessary. As they exist today, these three technologies are clearly not yet suitable for 

wide scale deployment on Spaceports and Ranges. In terms of their underlying strengths, 

and within the realm of where these technologies are headed, within the next five to ten 

years these technologies will likely become ‘industrial-strength’, having all the necessary 

attributes necessary to meet the combined requirements that will then be desired. Table 

E.3-1 lists the key attributes of these three technologies. Among these technologies, an 

assortment of data rates from less than 10 Mb/s to greater than 10,000 Mb/s, supporting 

operation over various distances, with a choice of power consumptions (as needed, for 

example, to select body-worn, battery-powered portable apparatus) are provided, thereby 

meeting communication needs for Range users over the next few decades.5

 

As presented in this document, the time to understand these three technologies and to 

slightly shift the commercial plans for their ongoing developments is now, while there is 

still time to inexpensively effect fundamental changes. To introduce desirable no-cost or 

low-cost features into integrated circuits (ICs) intended for mostly commercial product 

uses and presently being developed is entirely possible. Managing future life-cycle costs 

is often best done by managing technological developments. Once products are fully 

designed, adding any change is often not cost-effective, and at that point, the ability to 

affect life-cycle costs is long lost. It is possible, within only a narrow window of 

opportunity open over the next few years, to insert performance features for nextgeneration Wi-Fi, UWB, and FSO related ICs, into what are ostensibly commercial 

product ICs, since the recurring cost for Spaceport and Range features (once 

implemented into the ICs) is negligible. 

The future, though, is not about the technology, although that is the focus of this 

document. Instead, it will be about the engineers, scientists, explorers, and visionary 

leaders who first enable the technology and who then use it. For this reason, this 

document additionally makes a strong case that for future communication and data 

networks to be effective, human interface engineering must be carefully considered. 

This is necessary to achieve ubiquity for effective interface devices. Once ubiquitous, 

the advantage of a standardized, efficient, human interface becomes even stronger. 

Technological novelty for the sake of novelty must not be introduced at the expense of 

effectiveness. Although specific technologies on Spaceports and Ranges may be 

replaced in the future, the important lesson from the past is that newly introduced 

technologies usually must continue to interface in familiar ways, to avoid confusing the 

human users. Achieving acceptance of new human engineering interfaces requires a keen 

understanding of numerous computer-based information topics, coupled with a deep 

appreciation of historical practices. For this reason, an historical review of technologies, 

 

5

 Although not discussed in this report, it is assumed tacitly that some functions, such as range safety and 

flight termination, by the virtue of their need not to rely on other communication networks, must, by 

necessity, remain isolated from other communication and data networks, while having nonetheless to 

interface with other communication systems. Still, it would be an intriguing idea to consider UWB for use 

in future flight termination command systems, what with UWB’s inherent selectable security and 

simplicity of implementation as compared to existing systems. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 xxiv

aerospace timelines, and communications timelines are included in this document; 

establishing a reference framework for introducing new technologies. 

If success is ultimately to follow, whatever technologies are forthcoming in the near term, 

foreseen or not in this document; an underlying need will exist to keep human 

interactions smoothly integrated with the technologies. The writers and contributors to 

this document hope that the vision contained within this document enables humans to 

remain innately involved in achieving routine access to space. 

Key Technologies for Communication Network Edge & Core Extensions 

Technology 

Attribute Wireless 

Ethernet (Wi-Fi) 

Ultra Wideband 

(UWB) 

Free Space 

Optical (FSO) 

Location: 

Portable X X X 

Mobile X X X 

Fixed X X X 

Data Rate: 

Medium: 

<10 Mb/s – 100+

Mb/s X 

High: 

100 Mb/s – 1000+

Mb/s X 

Highest: 

1000+

Mb/s – 10,000+Mb/s X 

Power Consumption: 

Low X 

Medium X 

High X 

Data Security: 

Low X X 

Medium 

X 

(With planned 

extensions) 

X X 

High 

X 

(When merged with 

UWB) 

X X 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

1

1.0 RISM PHASE 1 PROGRAM

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1.1 Historical Perspectives

On May 29, 1947, with the memories of World War II still fresh in the minds of many, a 

major international event unfolded. The US Army was conducting tests of a captured 

German V-2 (Figure 1-1) at the White Sands, New Mexico, Rocket Ordnance Proving 

Grounds. During the test, control was lost and the rocket headed South instead of North, 

with the unfortunate result that a cemetery in Juarez, Mexico, was the final resting place 

of the wayward V-2. The accident investigation identified the cause of the errant flight as 

a cross wiring of the guidance system. Interestingly, this error was an exact repeat of an 

earlier error that had occurred at Peenemunde on June 13, 1944, in which another V-2 

rocket under German control had crashed near the village of Knivingaryd, in southern 

Sweden. In both cases, Dr. Ernst Steinhoff was responsible for the guidance system and 

was the cause of the cross wiring errors.6

 The incident made apparent to all that more 

positive Range safety was badly needed to corral errant rockets. Rockets were growing 

in their reach, with the risk increasing with each launch that an errant rocket could 

literally crash most anywhere on Earth if control were lost during launch. 

Figure 1-1 German V-2 Rocket 

 

6

G. Harry Stine, ICBM (New York: Orion Books, 1991) pp. 84-85 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

2

The Cold War and nuclear proliferation were growing, too. On Christmas Day 1946, the 

first Soviet reactor had gone critical at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow and the first 

Soviet atomic explosion occurred 29 August 1949 at Semipalatinsk Test Site, 

Kazakhstan, with a yield of 22 kilotons, of an exact copy of an earlier U.S. Gadget/Fat 

Man design.7

 Clearly, if an errant rocket were to reach an area under the control of the 

Soviets, an unplanned escalation into a war, if not a nuclear war, could easily become the 

unfortunate outcome. The need for a more remote launch facility than the Rocket 

Ordnance Proving Grounds at White Sands, New Mexico, as well as the need for more 

positive Range control and containment functionality, was becoming evident to all. 

President Harry S Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape 

Canaveral, Florida, in October 1949. Cape Canaveral was nearly ideal for testing rockets 

(Figure 1-2). It was lightly inhabited and nearly undeveloped. The weather was suitable 

for year-round testing, barring any stray hurricanes passing through the area during the 

annual hurricane season; and more importantly, the proximity to the Atlantic Ocean 

meant that rockets could be launched eastward, as would be needed for later orbital 

testing, without endangering populated areas. Furthermore, a string of islands 

fortuitously extending from Grand Bahamas Island to Ascension Island in the South 

Atlantic meant that tracking stations could be built, once they were needed.8

Figure 1-2 Early Bumper Launch From Cape Canaveral 

 

7 http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html retrieved May 20, 2002. Website was 

subsequently removed sometime prior to July 17, 2002; due to security concerns of controlling publicly 

available information on nuclear weapons post September 11, 2001

8

 The Kennedy Space Center Story, NASA Public Affairs, 1991 Edition, http://wwwpao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/kscstory/ch1/ch1.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

3

After the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds were established, the Air Force assumed 

control of the World War II training base at the nearby Banana River Naval Air Station 

located 20 miles (32 km) south of Cape Canaveral, and renamed it the Patrick Air Force 

Base. Here, in 1951, the Air Force established the headquarters of the newly created Air 

Force Missile Test Center, which included a Range. These facilities were renamed the 

Air Force Eastern Test Range in 1964. Another name change occurred for the Range in 

1977, as the Eastern Test Range became part of Detachment 1, Space and Missile Test 

Center. Yet another name change occurred in 1979 with the renaming to the Eastern 

Space and Missile Center (ESMC). Since 1964, however, nearly everyone has referred to 

this Range as simply the Eastern Range.9

In the late 1950s, the beginning of the Western Range was established at Camp Cooke on 

California’s coast, north of Los Angles. In 1958, Camp Cooke was renamed Vandenberg 

AFB. Vandenberg AFB supports both polar launches and western launches of ICBMs. 

An additional range, known originally as the High Range, was established at today’s 

Edwards AFB in the 1950’s to support the X-15 rocket-powered aircraft program. 

Another range was developed at Wallops to test sub-orbital missiles and sounding 

rockets. At present, only the Eastern Range has a requirement to support manned 

launches. A lesser launch capability is also available at Kodiak, Alaska. Launches at 

Kodiak typically require installation of portable Range equipment for each launch. 

Figure 1-3 Camp Cooke In 1958 

 

9

 The Kennedy Space Center Story, NASA Public Affairs, 1991 Edition, http://wwwpao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/kscstory/ch1/ch1.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

4

1.1.2 Changing Needs and Changing Perspectives

For nearly 50 years, the Ranges operated under a long-held policy of Government 

ownership and Government control. On September 28, 2000, the Space and Aeronautics 

Subcommittee, under the leadership of Chairman Rohrabacher, R-California, of the 

House Science Committee, held a hearing on the commercial space launch industry and 

the construction of new, private launch ranges. Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., Chairman, 

Defense Science Board Task Force on Air Force Space Launch Facilities and CEO, The 

Aerospace Corporation, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on 

Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Key points from his testimony that 

pertain to RISM are: 

• Access to Space must be recognized as a national priority. 

• Space Launch Ranges are "National Assets". 

• The future "vision" of the space launch ranges must address the combined 

needs of Government and commercial users. 

• Existing Government Ranges are not "customer friendly". 

• The National Airport System (NAS) has the most direct applicability to 

future concepts for modeling space launch range operations. 

• New technologies can increase flexibility and reduce costs. Technology 

application (such as GPS navigation, Autonomous Flight Termination 

System, Satellite Telemetry Relay and improved weather forecasting 

systems) can play a large part in reducing future infrastructure costs by 

permitting the phase-out of old and expensive ground equipment and 

avoiding unnecessary weather delays. 

• Sufficient information is now available to describe a vision for future 

range operations. 

This RISM report uses the information available today to describe a vision for future 

range operations. This vision is one based on combining appropriate present 

technologies with a likely cadre of future technologies, that together will combine to 

form a total technology capability for the near and more distant futures. 

1.2 WORKING GROUP 

1.2.1 Description

As a part of the RISM effort, a need for a technical working group was quickly identified. 

Originally, this need was supported by the Advanced Range Technology Working Group 

(ARTWG) Communications Subgroup. Later a separate working group was created. 

The new working group was created with participants from the following organizations: 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

5

• NASA – KSC 

• NASA – Wallops 

• NASA – other centers 

• AF 45th Space Wing 

• AF SMC/CWP 

• Navy NOTU 

• Range Engineering Contractor (SLRSC) 

• FAA 

• Aerospace Industry 

• State Spaceport entities 

• Academia 

The original name for the working group was 

SBRDSWG (Space Based Range Distributed Subsystem Working Group). 

This was later changed to 

FIRSTWG (Future Integrated Range & Spaceport Technology Working Group). 

1.2.2 Vision Statement

The vision statement for the SBRDSWG / FIRSTWG is: 

The Space Based Range (SBR) Distributed Subsystem Working Group, 

comprised of aerospace leaders from government, industry and academia 

will promote the development of Communication architectures and advanced 

distributed networks that meet the needs of existing and future generations 

of Spaceports and Ranges. 

 

In support of this vision, it is the intent that the SBRDSWG / FIRSTWG: 

• Will be the professional working group of choice for promotion, support, and 

evolution of advanced communication architectures and networks supporting the 

combined Spaceport and Range shareholder and partner community 

• Will establish an organizational structure facilitating working group membership 

participation, with position rotation to preclude participant burnout 

• Will support the enhanced growth of Range capability by providing a diverse and 

widely disseminated array of options; including distributed and multiprocessing 

systems, efficient protocols, Radio Frequency (RF), Laser, Fiber Optic, and 

additional communications links supporting of Spaceports and Ranges integrating 

new formats, usage, and data delivery options 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

6

• Will encourage members to lead in aerospace technology, participating in both 

scholarly and civic development communication of Spaceport and Range 

technologies. To accomplish this, the members should be diverse; with a broad 

range of knowledge and expertise, to enable clear and effective communication of 

Spaceport and Range capabilities and issues to a wide range of government, 

industrial, and public audiences 

1.3 OBJECTIVES 

The primary objective for the Range Information Systems Management (RISM) task is to 

lead the development of a Space Based Range Distributed Subsystem (SBRDS) network 

providing the concurrent features and growth capabilities necessary for future Spaceports 

and Ranges to interconnect Range assets, Range operations, and Range users during 

launch and recovery events. 

 

SBRDWSG / FIRSTWG is a working group aimed toward addressing the day-to-day 

needs of Range workers who actually use the existing Range systems. 

 

The primary goals of the RISM research and documentation effort are to: 

• Proactively identify and provide reasonably accurate predictions for the evolving 

communications needs of the SBRDS 

• Research, document and understand the equipment, operation, and processes of 

the current Range architecture 

• Research and document the needs and characteristics of future Ranges, Range 

systems, and Range users 

• Research and document technologies that could be associated with future ranges, 

space operations and information systems 

• Identify the characteristics and requirements of a future SBRDS to meet the needs 

and desired characteristics of future Range users 

• Identify the terrestrial, satellite, and vehicle components necessary to interconnect 

Spaceport Range Systems (SRS), Weather Instrumentation Systems (WIS), 

Decisions Models and Simulation (DMS), and Space Based Range (SBR) 

elements; permitting them to communicate with one another, with test and 

processing facilities, as well as with space vehicles 

• Identify communication system architectures that will provide real-time 

information, on-demand, with minimal latency, to support critical decision 

processes; insuring public, vehicle, crew, passenger, and mission safety 

RISM further seeks to multiply the knowledge base of the in-house investigators through 

participation in the active efforts of: 

• SBRDSWG / FIRSTWG 

• ARTWG 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

7

• ARTWG Communication Subgroup 

• ARTWG other Subgroups 

• ASTWG (Advanced Spaceport Technology Working Group) 

• ASTWG Subgroups 

ARTWG is a collaborative NASA/US Air Force/Industry/Academia effort to focus 

interest and investment in Range technologies (Figure 1-4). It is co-chaired by NASA and 

the US Air Force, and comprised of aerospace leaders from industry, academia, and 

national, state, and local governments. ARTWG is a multi-layer (Figure 1-5) 

organization with functional subgroups as its base. ARTWG addresses Range (Figure 1-

6) development needs while its companion organization ASTWG (Advanced Spaceport 

Technology Working Group) addresses Spaceport development needs. 

Process: National Development Strategy

Other NASA

Centers

Requirements

Technology

Thrust Areas/

Capabilities

Entrepreneurial

Concepts

Air Force/DOD

Other Government

Agencies Contractors & OEMs

Capabilities

A R T W G / A S T W G

National Technology Roadmaps

Business

Thrust Areas

Technology & 

Business

Thrust Areas

Technology

Thrust Areas/

Capabilities

KSC Spaceport

Technology Center

Focus Areas

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008-2012

COMMAND, CONTROL & MONITORING

TECHNOLOGIES ROADMAP

2007 2013-2020+

TTA: Command

Sensors &

Instrumentation

Spaceport System

Health Management

Generic Software Architecture Standards

Intelligent Control

System

IVHM

Sh ttl ELV ISS/P l d P i

ELV ISS & Payload

Shuttle HEDS

Emerging Spaceports

Autonomous

Onboard

System

Sensor Connectivity Veri.

Non-intrusive Sensing Remote Monitor Real Time 

Space Traffic

Control &

Multi-Parameteric Sensors Nanotech Sensors Monitoring

Distributed

Intelligence

Sensor

System

Enhanced Ver. & Con.

Optimize VHM Software Investigation

Process Spec. Analysis Process/Design Synergy

Seamless 

Ground &

Avionics

Connectivity

Two Shuttle Control

CLCS Launch Capable

Investigate Architecture Proto Development Selection

Highly Reliable Computer Network

Intelligent Data Analysis Expert Control System

Next Generation

Health Man.

Hi Fidelity Training Sim

Near Term Goals Mid-Term Goals Far Term Goals

Hardware Systems

Reliability Simulation

System Checkout Sim

Simulation Technologies

Expert Control System

Expert Control System

Diagnostic

and Control

System

Goals Specific 

to Focus Area

Decrease 

Variable 

Costs:

Baseline=

$25M/Yr

-Near term 

Reduction

-Mid Term

$2.5M/Yr

contrib.

-Far Term

$250k/Yr

contrib.

Decrease 

Fixed Costs:

Baseline=

$175M/Yr

-Near term 

Reduction

-Mid Term

$20M/Yr

contrib.

-Far Term

$2M/Yr

contrib.

Gen 2/3 RLV

Focus Areas

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008-2012

COMMAND, CONTROL & MONITORING

TECHNOLOGIES ROADMAP

2007 2013-2020+

TTA: Command

Sensors &

Instrumentation

Spaceport System

Health Management

Generic Software Architecture Standards

Intelligent Control

System

IVHM

Sh ttl ELV ISS/P l d P i

ELV ISS & Payload

Shuttle HEDS

Emerging Spaceports

Autonomous

Onboard

System

Sensor Connectivity Veri.

Non-intrusive Sensing Remote Monitor Real Time 

Space Traffic

Control &

Multi-Parameteric Sensors Nanotech Sensors Monitoring

Distributed

Intelligence

Sensor

System

Enhanced Ver. & Con.

Optimize VHM Software Investigation

Process Spec. Analysis Process/Design Synergy

Seamless 

Ground &

Avionics

Connectivity

Two Shuttle Control

CLCS Launch Capable

Investigate Architecture Proto Development Selection

Highly Reliable Computer Network

Intelligent Data Analysis Expert Control System

Next Generation

Health Man.

Hi Fidelity Training Sim

Near Term Goals Mid-Term Goals Far Term Goals

Hardware Systems

Reliability Simulation

System Checkout Sim

Simulation Technologies

Expert Control System

Expert Control System

Diagnostic

and Control

System

Goals Specific 

to Focus Area

Decrease 

Variable 

Costs:

Baseline=

$25M/Yr

-Near term 

Reduction

-Mid Term

$2.5M/Yr

contrib.

-Far Term

$250k/Yr

contrib.

Decrease 

Fixed Costs:

Baseline=

$175M/Yr

-Near term 

Reduction

-Mid Term

$20M/Yr

contrib.

-Far Term

$2M/Yr

contrib.

Gen 2/3 RLV

Requirements

Small Businesses

& Universities

Requirements Technology

Thrust Areas/

Capabilities

KSC Technology Roadmaps

States

Figure 1-4 ARTWG National Development Strategy10

 

10 http://artwg.ksc.nasa.gov/ 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

8

16

Process: Team Integration/Interaction

Telemetry Comm.

Architecture Weather Tracking & Surveillance

Decision 

Making

Coordination 

of Assets Commanding

Sub Groups

Chair & Co-Chair

Membership

Chair & Co-Chair

Membership

Chair & Co-Chair

Membership

Chair & Co-Chair

Membership

Chair & Co-Chair

Membership

Chair & Co-Chair

Membership

Chair & Co-Chair

Membership

Chair: Phil Weber, NASA KSC

Membership:

•ARTWG Chair & Co-Chair

• Each Sub Group Chair & Co-chair

•ARTWG Vision Team

Project

Program

Senior Agency

ARTWG Executive 

Steering Committee

Senior Executive 

Steering Committee

Chairs: NASA KSC, Director, SE&T & TBD Equiv. USAF AFSPC

Membership:

•Chair & Co Chair Technology Integration Steering Committee

• ARTWG Chair & Co-Chair

• TBD Membership

Chairs: NASA Code M Rep & Equivalent AFSPC 

Membership:

•Chair & Co Chair ARTWG Executive Steering Committee

• Others: NASA Codes, Center Directors, etc & Equivalent AFSPC

•TBD

Notional

Final Roadmaps approved by: Under Secretary USAF 

NASA/Office of Space Flight (Code M), Associate Administrator

COMSTAC, AFSPC Ind. GRP

ARTWG Vision

Team

Technology Integration 

Steering Committee

Integration /Architecture

ARTWG:

NASA Chair

AF Chair

UCF Consultant

Industry Advisors 

Examples: 

CSA’s Extended Range Concept Definition Study –

Booz/Allen/Hamilton 

KSC’s Space Based Range Distributed Systems Working Group –

RISM Project

RISM

Figure 1-5 ARTWG Integration / Interaction Process 

* Controlled Range Volume opens and closes for launch operations

Range Environment Mission

• Enable transport of humans and cargo to and from space

• Ensure public safety during operations

• Satisfy customer requirements

Figure 1-6 Spaceport And Range Environments 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

9

1.4 SCOPE 

Activities associated with RISM during Phase I will provide: 

• Identification of technologies that should provide the greatest long term return on 

investment for the U.S. space program and its associated industries without 

prematurely choosing winners and losers; this includes identification of 

technology gaps 

• Equitable and open access to technical and administrative information wherever 

possible, while simultaneously meeting mission security, safety, and reliability 

needs 

• Service to the planned users of future Spaceports and Ranges 

• Cooperation, collaboration, and resource sharing to increase reuse of ARTWG 

and ASTWG generated data and resources 

• Redundant Spaceport and Range communication capabilities when needed to 

improve reliability and safety for the public, shareholders, and partners 

• A global perspective supporting the national needs of the United States while 

facilitating international use of Spaceports and Ranges within the United States 

through providing a well documented interface to the SBRDS 

Additional goals of the RISM participants in the ARTWG and ASTWG are to provide: 

• A clear, strategic vision of the goals desired for RISM 

• Conservation and preservation of communication architecture and telemetry 

architecture trade studies performed during RISM 

• Widespread dissemination of all information necessary to support the needs of 

shareholders and partners 

• Education of potential users to the technology capabilities initiated, developed, 

and expanded through the transition to a Space Based Range (SBR) Distributed 

Subsystem 

• A collaborative participation in the ARTWG and ASTWG permitting easy 

identification of disruptive11 technological breakthroughs improving mission 

reliability and efficiency wherever possible, thus improving safety for the public, 

vehicle, crew, and passengers 

• Timely research into alternative communication techniques and communication 

network architectures that best support initial communication needs while 

providing long-term growth potential 

 

11 Disruptive technologies refers to those new discoveries that represent an order of magnitude 

improvement of existing technology and which eventually replace the present technology. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

10

1.5 STRATEGIC PLANS 

To support the goals and aims of the RISM development effort for a future Space Based 

Range (SBR) Distributed Subsystem, the following six strategic plans, and enabling 

goals for each plan, are identified: 

Strategic Plan 1.0 

The Working Group recognizes the contributions that academic, industrial, and 

governmental members make in support of future Spaceports and Ranges by 

communicating Spaceport and Range technologies via their involvement in 

higher education, scholarly communication, and civic development to ensure 

public, crew, passenger, vehicle, and mission safety of space vehicles.

Enabling Goals

• Working group members understand their roles as information leaders in their 

respective institutions. 

• Working group members understand the need for the timely, open information 

sharing to resolve issues as quickly as possible, improving work accomplishment 

rates and the quality of work accomplished. 

• Working group members will promote an atmosphere in their respective 

institutions that, wherever possible, encourages the consideration of disruptive 

technological breakthroughs capable of improving mission reliability, safety, and 

efficiency. 

• Working Group Members understand the need for timely resolution of open 

issues, thereby reducing budget waste, improving the “bang-for-the-buck” of 

RISM funding. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

11

Strategic Plan 2.0

Non-governmental working group members may serve as advocates for public 

policy, legislation, and institutional changes that enhance the values and 

contributions they make to Spaceport and Range technology.

Enabling Goals

• ARTWG improves its ability to function as an authoritative and influential 

advocate for introducing modern equipment onto the Ranges, replacing the aging 

legacy hardware. 

• ARTWG enhances the visibility, credibility, and favorable resolution of issues 

affecting Spaceports at the federal, state, and local levels. 

• Academic and industrial working group members’ skills are developed and the 

ability of these working group members to implement institutional change and 

improve existing Range practices enhanced. 

• ARTWG activities increase collaboration and coordinate the efforts of the 

Spaceport Technology Center of Excellence goals with other NASA Centers and 

existing and potential Launch Sites. 

• ARTWG strengthens its partnerships with other aerospace-related, governmental, 

and higher education organizations. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

12

Strategic Plan 3.0 

RISM is an inclusive development effort serving governmental, industrial, 

and academic working group members as well as aerospace professionals 

working in related fields in support of Spaceports and Ranges 

Enabling Goals

• RISM participation within ARTWG/ASTWG/SBRDSWG/FIRSTWG continues 

to include working group members from diverse populations, facilitating effective 

communications with various governmental, industrial, and academic 

organizations having varied backgrounds. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

13

Strategic Plan 4.0

Governmental, Industrial, and Academic working group members are 

continually engaged in learning for their own professional development and 

growth.

Enabling Goals

• Leadership skills among all working group members are strengthened. "Every 

working group member a leader" is fully realized. 

• Governmental working group members are effective and productive 

professionals, who make significant contributions to their respective 

governmental organizations and working group membership, and who, through 

their involvement in the working group, promote trust of government employees 

by exhibiting and supporting sound policy-making and cost-effective followthrough. 

• Industrial working group members are effective and productive professionals who 

make significant contributions to their respective organizations and working 

group membership, and who support the development, production, and 

introduction of cost-effective technologies, whether established or disruptive, in 

support of the goal of reducing $/lb to orbit, providing increased launch 

opportunities. 

• Academic working group members are effective and productive professionals 

who make significant contributions to their respective organizations and working 

group membership, and who support the higher education of their students on 

Spaceport and Range issues, thereby teaching the future workers-in-training, who 

will run the Spaceports and Ranges of the future. 

• All working group members are encouraged in the development of their scholarly 

research skills through training and nurturing and providing mechanisms for 

publishing. 

• All working group members will support the enhanced growth of Range 

capability through a diverse and widely disseminated array of options involving 

distributed and multiprocessing systems, efficient protocols, Radio Frequency 

(RF), Laser, Fiber Optic, and additional communications links in support of 

Spaceports and Ranges, integrating new formats, usage, and data delivery options. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

14

Strategic Plan 5.0

RISM is a national, interactive supporter in creating, expanding, and 

transferring the body of knowledge of Spaceport and Range technology to its 

working group membership, and hence, to the general aerospace community 

with a need to know.

Enabling Goals

• RISM firmly supports its position as a leader in aerospace technology for 

Spaceports and Ranges. 

• The speedy dissemination of research and effective practices among 

governmental, industrial, and academic working group membership is increased. 

• Research that involves all of the SBRDS supporting organizational units is 

expanded and supported so that the value of contributions made is demonstrated. 

• Collaborative research and developmental projects that may involve risk, but 

whose results promise to make a positive difference to the goals undertaken for 

SBRDS, are developed and supported. 

• Security is maintained through the control of information regarding range destruct 

information to a strict ‘need-to-know’ basis. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

15

Strategic Plan 6.0

The ARTWG/SBRDSWG is an effective and dynamic organization that 

continually enhances its capacity to create its future and assess and improve its 

performance in carrying out its mission.

Enabling Goals

• Data about member and nonmember needs and requirements for Spaceports and 

Ranges is collected and analyzed within RISM on a regular basis. Action Items 

are generated, and progress is tracked against them, to address and meet the needs 

and requirements necessary to provide increased launch opportunities and to 

reduce the cost of operations by providing standardized services with minimal 

reconfiguration. 

• Relevant benchmarks to which the ARTWG/SBRDSWG/FIRSTWG membership 

aspires are established. 

• Assessment and evaluation of ARTWG/SBRDSWG/FIRSTWG meetings, 

telecons, and activities are expanded. 

• ARTWG/SBRDSWG/FIRSTWG audits are conducted and the organizational 

structure is regularly reviewed to determine if it lends optimal support for 

accomplishing the strategic plans desired. 

• Positions within the ARTWG/SBRDSWG/FIRSTWG are rotated on at least an 

annual basis to prevent participant burnout while performing the day-to-day work 

of his own organization. 

• The strategic planning process for the association becomes an integral part of 

operations and member leader activity. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

16
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

17

2.0 TIMELINE SUMMARIES

Timelines are convenient tools for giving a quick insight into how a particular technology 

is evolving. This section summarizes timelines for both the Aerospace and 

Communications technologies. The more detailed timelines for both of these 

technologies are included in Appendix A. 

Unlike the Communications Timeline presented later in this document, the following 

aerospace timeline covers a much shorter period of not quite one century. The history of 

aerospace flight certainly precedes the 20th Century, but the earlier history before the 

Wright Brothers’ famous flight in 1903 is largely discontinuous with much of the 

progress over the last century, the balloon flights by the brothers De Montgolfier, Joseph 

and Etienne, in 1783, notwithstanding.12 

Communications technology, on the other hand, still uses techniques that date, in many 

cases, nearly to pre-history, and which provide considerable guidance for envisioning 

communication systems of both today and tomorrow. Hence, the Communications 

Timeline covers a much longer period. 

Relative to future Spaceports and Ranges, an historical perspective commencing with the 

Wright Flyer best illuminates the trends of aerospace flight necessary for purposes of 

gaining an understanding of future likely trends. 

 

12 http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/montgolgiers.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

18

2.1 AEROSPACE 

Table 2-1 presents a timeline of key aerospace-related events that are of importance to 

future Spaceports and Ranges. These are the major milestones, which changed man’s 

perception of aerospace flight most drastically. This list is by no means meant to be 

comprehensive; rather, its purpose is merely as a necessary prologue for understanding 

future trends and for envisioning and understanding likely Spaceport and Range needs of 

the future. A more detailed timeline of key aerospace events is included in Appendix 

A.1. 

Table 2-1 Aerospace Timeline of Significant Events 

Date Events Range Vehicle

12/17/03 Wright Brothers - First 

powered flight

Kitty Hawk, NC Wright Flyer 

3/16/26 Robert Goddary tests 

worlds first liquid fuel 

rocket 

Auburn, MA 

5/20/27 Charles Lindbergh - first 

solo, nonstop transatlantic 

flight

Atlantic Ocean Sprit of St. Louis 

10/14/47 Chuck Yeager - First 

supersonic flight

Edwards Bell X-1 

7/24/50 First launch from ETR Cape Canaveral Bumper 8 (V-2 + 

Corporal) 

10/4/57 Sputnik launched Russia R-7 

1/3/58 Explorer-1 First US launched 

satellite in space 

Cape Canaveral Juno-1 

10/1/58 NASA formed out of NACA 

4/1/59 NASA selects original 7 

astronauts: Carpenter, 

Cooper, Glenn, Grissom, 

Schirra, Shepard, & Slayton

Cape Canaveral Mercury 

4/12/61 Yuri Gagarin - first man in 

space 

Russia Vostok 

5/5/61 Alan Shepard - First US 

manned flight (sub-orbital) 

- Mercury 

Cape Canaveral Redstone 

5/25/61 Kennedy's challenge to go to 

the moon 

Cape Canaveral 

11/22/63 President Kennedy 

Assassinated 

 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

19

Date Events Range Vehicle

1/27/67 Apollo 1 fire – Death of 

Grissom, White, & Chaffee

Cape Canaveral, LC-34 Saturn 1B 

7/20/69 Apollo 11 - First Lunar 

Landing 

Man on the moon 

KSC-39A Saturn V 

4/12/81 STS-1 - first launch of RLV KSC-39 Space Shuttle 

1/28/86 STS-51L - Challenger 

disaster 

KSC-39B Space Shuttle 

 1998 First two pieces of ISS 

placed in orbit 

Russia / KSC-39 Proton / Shuttle / ISS 

2000 First expedition to ISS Eastern Range Shuttle / ISS 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

20

2.2 COMMUNICATION 

The following table (Table 2-1) timeline covers the period from introduction to 

obsolescence (in many cases) of various types of communications, including wired, 

wireless, and optical communications systems. In addition, other major historical events 

and technical milestones along the path of progress, such as data rates of commercial 

modems, are included as well. 

As can be seen scanning through this timeline, the introduction of disruptive 

communications technology often causes serious turmoil relative to established 

technology. Yet, in many cases (such as for the 19th Century French optical telegraph 

based on semaphores mounted on large wooden structures), there are actually periods of 

multiple decades during which an old technology may co-exist alongside the new, for 

various reasons. 

For instance, the optical telegraph existed for sixty-one years as the primary method of 

quickly transmitting brief messages across France and Africa, and co-existed for many 

years with the more modern electric telegraph, due largely to the fact that the optical 

telegraph was more secure than the wired electric telegraph – the optical telegraph had no 

wires that could be cut between stations along the network! 

On the other hand, there are also instances in which an institution goes out of business 

within just days of the arrival of a replacing technology, such as for the demise of the 

Pony Express when the electric telegraph finally spanned the North American continent 

with the final ‘electrical golden spike’ connection at Salt Lake City, UT. A similar 

transition is associated with the purchase of Alaska, purchased largely by the insistence 

of the upper management of Western Union to construct a telegraph line between 

America and Europe by way of Alaska and Asia. The plans for this telegraph line 

evaporated almost immediately after the successful invention and installation of higher 

performance submarine cable that could survive the depths of the Atlantic. In the case of 

Alaska, though, the mineral wealth and physical beauty are remembered long after the 

original reason has been relegated to the pages of history. 

Historical timelines are valuable to broaden one’s thought process regarding linear time 

events. They illustrate that progress is never strictly linear, despite the use of timelines, 

and there are often evolutionary dead-ends along the path of progress, as well as 

disruptive technology periods, that completely change the time rate of change of 

progress. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

21

Table 2-2 Communications Timeline (Wired, Wireless, Optical; Data Rates) 

Date Events 

5/1794 French engineer Claude Chappe, creates a free space optical telegraph and coins the

French word “télégraphe” which becomes telegraph in English. His system uses a 

series of semaphores mounted on towers manned by human operators to relay 

messages from tower to tower. The network grew to 556 stations spanning 3,000 

miles across France, Algeria, and Morocco. A mobile network was built, and used 

during the Crimean War. Data throughput transfer rate was about 20 to 30 seconds 

per symbol. 

1836-1837 Samuel Finley Breese Morse invents the single-wire electric Telegraph. 

1/24/1838 Samuel F. B. Morse demonstrates his Telegraph over a 10-mile circuit at New York 

Univ. 

Data Rate: 10 WPM. 

5/1/1844 First test of 35 km Telegraph line by Morse between Annapolis Junction, MD and 

Washington, DC. 

1849 First teleprinter circuit (New York to Philadelphia) with printed letters instead of 

Morse symbols. 

8/17/1858 First Trans-Atlantic (US - Europe) telegraph cable becomes operational between 

Trinity Bay, Newfoundland and Valentia, Ireland. It was dubbed the “Eighth 

Wonder of the World.” First test signals were sent on August 5, 1858. Queen 

Victoria and President Buchanan exchanged messages on August 16, 1858. 

4/3/1860 Pony Express was inaugurated to deliver mail in only 10 days from St. Joseph, MO 

to Sacramento, CA. 

10/21/1861 Western Union connects East Coast telegraph lines with West Coast lines at Salt 

City, UT 

10/24/1861 Disruptive technology supersedes the Pony Express. Pony Express goes bankrupt, 

ruining investors. 

3/27/1867 United States signs treaty to buy Alaska from Russia on urging from Western 

Union to acquire the land needed for a telegraph cable to Europe. “Seward’s Day” 

2/14/1876 Patents filed for Telephone by both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray. 

10/21/1879 Thomas A. Edison invents light bulb with the thought of providing an optical 

telegraph without wired lines. 

1880 Alexander Graham Bell patents a free space optical telephone system, which he 

called the Photophone. The experimental Photophone was donated to the 

Smithsonian Institution, where it literally languished on the shelf for over half a 

century before light was once again used to transmit voice 

1888 Heinrich Hertz discovers Radio Waves. 

5/10/1894 Guglielmo Marconi sends a radio wave for 3/4 mile, inventing Wireless 

communication. 

12/23/1900 Reginald Aubrey Fessenden invents Wireless Telephony (Radio), transmitting 

voice for the first time. 

12/12/1901 First Trans-Atlantic Wireless communication. 

Date Events 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

22

1/18/1903 Marconi demonstrates first Trans-Atlantic two-way Wireless communication. 

12/24/1906 Fessenden broadcasts voice and music over radio for the first time, surprising radio 

operators aboard ships at sea. 

1921 First one-way wireless voice paging receiving equipment installed in police cars. 

(Detroit, MI. Callsign: KOP) 

1924 First Mobile two-way Telephone System (New York City Police Cars) 

1958 Schawlow and Townes at Bell Telephone Laboratories file for a patent on the laser

1960 Theodore Maiman builds the first working laser at Hughes Aircraft Company. 

1960 300 Baud commercial modem speeds first achieved. 

12/1968 ARPANet contract given to Bolt, Beranek & Newman (BBN) in Cambridge, MA. 

The output will become, in time, the Internet. 

7/1970 Alohanet, first packet radio network, operation at University of Hawaii. Pioneering 

ideas contained in this network will form the basis of Ethernet. 

9/1970 Low-loss fiber optic cable manufacturing techniques announced by Robert Maurer, 

Donald Keck and Peter Schultz of Corning Glass Works. They achieve a loss-limit 

of 20 dB/km, or less for optical fiber. 

1972 Ethernet is invented by Robert M. Metcalfe, David R. Boggs, Charles P. Thacker, 

and Butler W. Lampson to interconnect the Xerox Alto, a personal workstation, 

with other Altos, and to servers and shared printers 

1983 Cell phones commence nationwide operation in the United States 

1984 William Gibson’s novel, Neuromancer, provides the first vision of a globally 

interconnected network of computers. Gibson coins the word “cyberspace”. 

1987 56 kb/s commercial modem speeds first achieved. 

2/1997 10 Mb/s Cable Modem commercial modem speeds first achieved. 

6/1997 8 Mb/s ADSL commercial modem speeds first achieved. 

8/1999 The Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (WECA) is formed with just six 

member companies to certify interoperability of Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) products and 

to promote Wi-Fi as the global wireless LAN standard across all market segments. 

5/10/2000 FCC issues an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) to solicit comments on 

permitting Part 15 Ultra Wideband (UWB) transmissions. 

5/2/2001 Technology research firm Webnoize reports the number of songs swapped on 

Napster was down 36 percent between March and April 2001. It is estimated that 

nearly 1.6 billion MP3 files changed hands in March. Average song length is 

approximately 4 MB. Internet traffic starts to decline simultaneously, precipitating 

an increase in order cancellations for telecom equipment from system providers. 

11/30/2001 European Space Agency (ESA) Artemis satellite launched 12 July 2001 from the 

European launch base in Kourou, French Guiana on an Ariane 5 launch uses laserbased Silex Communication system to transmit 50 Mb/s to a SPOT 4 satellite in the 

first-ever publicly announced satellite-to-satellite laser-communication link demo. 

2/14/2002 FCC adopts a First Report and Order (FCC 02-48) permitting Part 15 Ultra 

Wideband (UWB) transmissions under limited circumstances. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

23

3.0 LAUNCH CENTERS AND RANGES (SUMMARY)

In order to evaluate future Range architecture needs, it is first necessary to understand the 

present Ranges and how their architectures evolved to today’s configuration. This 

section summarized most of the launch facilities within the U.S. and its protected 

territories. Detailed descriptions of each range are included in Appendix B. These 

descriptions provide the following type data (where available): 

• Background 

o General 

o History 

• Facilities 

o Major 

o Launch 

• Instrumentation 

There are numerous launch centers and missile ranges within the US and its protected 

territories. These centers and ranges launch various size rockets and missiles ranging 

from the small sounding rockets (Figure 3-1), all the way up to today’s Space Shuttles 

(Figure 3-2), Titan IV’s (Figure 3-3), and yesterdays Saturn V’s (Figure 3-4). 

Figure 3-1 Sounding Rockets 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

24

Figure 3-2 Space Shuttle Launch 

Figure 3-3 Titan IV-B 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

25

Figure 3-4 Saturn V Launch 

Launch Centers and Ranges are often categorized with respect to whether the rocket or 

payloads launched are Suborbital or Orbital. Most orbital ranges also support suborbital 

launches. 

A partial summary of US Launch Centers and Ranges discussed in this document is 

provided in Table 3-1. Detailed Range descriptions are included in Appendix B. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

26

Table 3-1 Types of Launches At US Launch Centers & Ranges 

Sect Range & Loc Oper Orbital Suborbital 

 

Launch 

Centers 

Gnd 

Launch

Air 

Launch

Sea 

Launch ICBM SLBM NMD 

Air 

Launch Sndng Others

3. 1 

Eastern 

Range Florida USAF X X X X X X 

3. 2 

Kennedy 

Space 

Center Florida NASA X 

3. 3 

Western 

Range California USAF X X X X X 

3. 4 Wallops Virginia NASA X X X X 

3. 5 

Reagan 

Test Kwajalein US Army X X X X 

3. 6 Kodiak Alaska State X X X 

3. 7 

White 

Sands 

New 

Mexico USAF X X 

3. 8 Pt Mugu California USN X x X 

3.9 

Sea 

Launch 

Pacific 

Ocean Boeing X 

3.10 Poker Flats Alaska U of AK X 

3.11 PMRF Hawaii USN X X X 

3.12 Eglin Florida USAF X X X X 

3.13 China Lake California USN X X 

3.14 Holloman 

New 

Mexico USAF X X X 

The above Launch Centers and Ranges contribute significantly to the U.S. space 

program. The primary U.S. launch locations are the Eastern Range, Kennedy Space 

Center, and the Western Range (Figure 3-5) for large missiles and Wallops Island for 

smaller missiles. 

Figure 3-5 Eastern & Western Ranges 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

27

3.1 EASTERN RANGE 

3.1.1 Background

The most active Launch Center and Range in the U.S. for large missiles is the Eastern 

Range (ER), headquartered at Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB), Florida. The Eastern 

Range is used for eastwardly launches in support of the following types of military, 

government and civilian missions: 

• Manned missions 

• Orbital 

• Suborbital 

• Inter-planetary 

• Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles 

The Eastern Range was created in 1949 and is presently operated by the 45th Space Wing. 

The area covered by the Eastern Range spans more than 5000 miles downrange 

(southeast) to Ascension Island in the south Atlantic. The Range also includes a 

northeast segment that runs to Argentia, Newfoundland. Launches are from Cape 

Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) on the Atlantic Coast of Florida at approximately 28.5N, 

80.6W. Advantages of launching from the Cape are: 

• Proximity to the equator to launch vehicles in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit 

(GEO) 

• Over-water flight trajectories that make long-range missile flights possible over 

an area relatively free of shipping lanes and inhabited landmasses. 

The Eastern Range is comprised of multiple operational locations. These are shown in 

Figure 3-6. This figure does not show Argentia, which is located off the picture to the 

north. Major Eastern Range facilities are located at the following: 

• Patrick AFB 

• Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) 

• Jonathan Dickinson Missile Testing Annex (JDMTA) 

• Antigua, West Indies 

• Ascension, South Atlantic 

• Argentia, Newfoundland 

NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is a separate entity from the Eastern Range and 

will be discussed in the next section. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

28

Figure 3-6 Locations of Eastern Range Facilities 

In the past, the Eastern Range utilized significantly more facilities to carry out its 

mission. In addition to today’s single south Florida site and two island sites, there were 

14 other south Florida, Brazil, South Africa and Caribbean island tracking sites. These 

were supplemented with up to 23 tracking ships. At one time the Eastern Range 

extended beyond South Africa into the Indian Ocean. 

Today, due to changing missions, range modernization, and NASA’s TDRSS satellites, 

most of the downrange sites have been closed. The only downrange sites remaining are 

at JDMTA, Antigua and Ascension. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

29

3.1.2 Facilities

General

The Eastern Range has the following major facilities: 

 Patrick AFB Headquarters, Radar, Optics, Test Beds 

 CCAS Launch Complexes (LC), Radar, Optics, Command 

Destruct, Control, Weather 

 KSC Telemetry, Optics 

 JDMTA Radar, Telemetry, Command Destruct 

 Antigua Radar, Telemetry, Command Destruct 

 Ascension Radar, Telemetry 

 Argentia Radar, Telemetry, Command Destruct 

 

In addition, facilities at NASA’s Wallops Island and the Air Force Satellite Control 

Network’s (AFSCN) site in New Hampshire may also be used for northern trajectories. 

Launch

Cape Canaveral, with adjacent KSC, has approximately 50 launch complexes (Figure 3-

7) numbered LC-1 through LC-47. Many of these are no longer in use. A select few are 

listed as National Historic sites. Some of the complexes contain multiple pads (i.e. 39A 

and 39B). 

 

Figure 3-7 Cape Canaveral Launch Complexes (1960s & 1990) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

30

3.1.3 Instrumentation

The Eastern Range has the following types of instrumentation: 

• Radars (all) 

• Telemetry (all) 

• Optics (CCAS, PAFB) 

• Command Destruct (CCAS, JDMTA, Antigua) 

• Communication (all) 

• Weather (CCAS, PAFB) 

• Timing (all) 

Radar

To enable precision tracking and range safety throughout the 5000-mile range, the 

Eastern Range has an assortment of launch head and downrange radars. The following 

radars are used on the Eastern Range: 

Site Designation Type Band Dia-ft Comments 

 PAFB 0.14 MIPIR C 29 

 CCAS 1.16 AN/FPS-16 C 12 

 CCAS 1.39 MOTR C 12 

 CCAS 1.8 X NA Sea surveillance 

 KSC 19.14 MIPIR C 29 

 KSC 19.17 MCBR C 12 

 JDMTA 28.14 MIPIR C 29 

 Antigua 91.14 MIPIR C 29 

 Ascension 12.15 TTR C 40 

 Ascension 12.18 AN/FPQ-18 C 29 

 Argentia 53.17 MCBR C 12 

 

Ongoing modernization of the ER is intended to eliminate the need for most of these 

radars. As currently planned, the modernized ranges will use differential GPS tracking 

systems supplemented by seven radars at the ER. Three of the seven radars at the ER will 

be necessary only to support launches of the space shuttle, and three others will be 

located at downrange facilities to support ballistic missile tests and space object 

identification13. 

 

13http://www.nap.edu/html/streamlining_range/ch4.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

31

Telemetry

A summary of Eastern Range Telemetry is as follows: 

 Site Telemetry Dia.-Ft. Comments 

 KSC TAA-3C 30 

 KSC TAA-24A 24 

 JDMTA TAA-50 50 4 systems 

 Antigua TAA-8 80 

 Antigua TAA-3C 33 

 Ascension TAA-3C-1 33 Enclosed 

 Ascension TAA-3C-2 33 Open 

 Ascension Four Foot 4 Fixed antenna 

 Ascension Shaped Beam 2.3 x 3 Fixed elliptic antenna 

 Optics

The Eastern Range has an assortment of fixed (Table 3-2) and mobile (3-3) metric optical 

systems near the launch head. 

Table 3-2 Eastern Range Fixed Optical Sites 

Site 

Designator

Instrument Site Location Lens Focal 

Length 

(inches)

Comments

Playalinda Bch DOAMS KSC 100 to 400 Canaveral 

National Seashore

CB DOAM DOAMS Cocoa Bch 100 to 400 Behind Ron Jon’s 

Surf Shop 

PIGOR IGOR PAFB 90 to 500 On A1A 

MB ROTI ROTI Melbourne Bch 100 to 500 On A1A 

Table 3-3 Eastern Range Mobile Optical Equipment 

System Metric Lens Focal Length (inches) Comments 

ATOTS Y 180 to 500 Advanced Transportable Optical Tracking System

Cinetheodolites Y 60 to 120 

MIGOR Y 90 to 500 Mobile Intercept Ground Optical Recorder 

IFLOT N Intermediate Focal Length Optical Tracker 

MOTS N Mobile Optical Tracking System 

KTM N Kineto Tracking Mount 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

32

Command Destruct

Command Destruct capabilities are provide at the following sites: 

• Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) 

• JDMTA 

• Antigua 

• Argentia 

Wallops Island also provides support for some ER missions. Each Command site has 

redundant but totally separate systems. The redundancy originates at the power source 

and continues through the transmitters and other components all the way up to the 

antennas. 

Communication

The Eastern Range has an extensive communication network consisting of the following: 

• Communication Satellites 

• Microwave links 

• High Frequency (HF) radio 

• Landlines (copper & fiber) 

• VHF/UHF 

Weather

Eastern Range Weather systems are at the following locations: 

• CCAS 

• Ascension 

Timing

The ER Timing and Sequencing system has major equipment at the following locations: 

• CCAS 

• KSC 

• JDMTA 

• Antigua 

• Ascension 

• Argentia 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

33

3.2 KENNEDY SPACE CENTER 

3.2.1 Background

NASA’s John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is the premier spaceport of the U.S. and, 

in many respects, of the world. It holds the following distinctions: 

• Only U.S. manned Spaceport 

• One of only 2 manned Spaceports in the world 

• Only world spaceport to launch men to the moon 

KSC is located on Merritt Island directly across the Banana River from the Cape 

Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) (Figure 3-8). It is a separate entity from the CCAS and 

the Eastern Range and contains its own launch facilities (LC 39A & LC 39B) and Launch 

Control Center (LCC). NASA and the Air Force share some facilities, operations and 

responsibilities at the two sites. Eastern Range assets are used for all launches. 

KSC is located on the east coast of Florida approximately midway between Jacksonville 

and Miami, about 50 miles east of Orlando. KSC also shares its property with the Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge and the Canaveral National Seashore. KSC covers more 

than 140,000 acres, making it about one-fifth the size of Rhode Island. Only about 6,000 

acres are used for Space Center operations, the remaining is a wildlife sanctuary14. 

 

KSC’s primary mission is processing and launching the Space Shuttles (Figure 3-9). The 

Space Shuttles and their rollout dates are summarized below15: 

Name Designation Delivered

 Enterprise OV-101 1975 

 Columbia OV-102 1979 

 Challenger OV-99 1982 

 Discovery OV-103 1983 

 Atlantis OV-104 1985 

 Endeavour OV-105 1991 

The Space Shuttles launch from LC 39A or LC 39B and, weather permitting, return for 

landing at the Shuttle Landing Facility (Figure 3-10). Alternate landing sites are 

Edwards AFB, California and White Sands, New Mexico. In case of a problem during 

launch, the shuttle may land back at KSC or select one of the Transoceanic Abort 

Landing (TAL) sites. The designated TAL sites are Ben Guerir Air Base, Morocco; 

Zaragoza Air Base, Spain, and Moron Air Base, Spain16. Appendix D has additional 

information on Shuttle landing sites. 

 

14 http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/html/ksc_map.html 15 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_overview.html#sts_program 16 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/nasafact/tal.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

34

Figure 3-8 Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

35

Figure 3-9 Space Shuttle Launch 

Figure 3-10 Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

36

3.2.2 Facilities

To complete its primary missions of recovery, preparation and launching the Shuttle, 

KSC has the following special facilities: 

• Crawler-Transporter (Figures 3-11 & 3-12) 

• HPF - Hypergolic Processing Facilities 

• LCC – Launch Control Center (Figure 3-13) 

• MILA – Merritt Island Launch Annex 

• MLP – Mobile Launch Platform (Figures 3-11 & 3-12) 

• OPF – Orbiter Processing Facilities 

• Recovery Ships 

• SLF – Shuttle Landing Facility (Figure 3-10) 

• SSPF – Space Station Processing Facility 

• VAB – Vehicle Assembly Building (Figure 3-13) 

• Launch Facilities –LC-39A & 39B (Figure 3-11 & 3-12) 

Figure 3-11 Crawler-Transporter With MLP & Shuttle At Pad 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

37

Figure 3-12 MLP with Shuttle At Pad; Crawler Leaving 

Figure 3-13 VAB With LCC To Right 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

38

3.2.3 Instrumentation

KSC has the following types of Range instrumentation: 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Optics 

• Command Destruct 

• Communication 

• Weather 

• Timing
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

39

3.3 WESTERN RANGE 

3.3.1 Background

Located on the Pacific Coast about 150 miles north of Los Angles, Vandenberg AFB is 

the headquarters for the Western Range (Figure 3-14)17 and the 30th Space Wing. It 

primarily launches unmanned government and commercial satellites into polar orbits. 

Vandenberg also tests intercontinental ballistic missiles by launching them into the 

Pacific Ocean, with splashdown usually occurring at the Kwajalein Atoll (Reagan Test 

Site) within the Marshall Islands. 

The Western Range presently has major land-based facilities at the following locations18: 

• Anderson Peak (Monterey County, Ca) 

• Pillar Point AFS (San Mateo County, Ca) 

• Santa Ynez Peak (Santa Barbara County), 

• Vandenberg AFB 

The Western Range often uses fixed and mobile resources from other ranges to carryout 

its missions. These include: 

 

• The Pacific Missile Range Facility19 (PMRF) in Hawaii 

• Reagan Test Site - Kwajalein, Marshall Island20 (Army) 

• Point Mugu (Navy) 

• Laguna Peak (Navy) 

• San Nicholas Island (Navy) 

• White Sands Missile Range (Army) 

• China Lake (Navy) 

• Navy NP3D based at Point Mugu 

• Air Force ARIA (Advanced Range Instrumentation Aircraft) at Edwards 

Vandenberg grew out of Camp Cooke that was built in 1941 from a large ranch. The 

Vandenberg area is ideally oriented for missile launches. The northern portion has a 

coastline facing west and the southern portion has significant coastline facing south. This 

unique geography permits launch azimuths ranging from 154 to 280 degrees, enabling 

over-ocean ballistic and polar space launches. Vandenberg is the only location in the 

continental United States permitting polar orbit spacecraft launches without over-flying 

any land mass. 

 

17 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/history/tanks_to_missiles/lineage/history_and_lineage.html 18 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/mrtfb/commercial/sw30/wspace.html 19 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/pubfac/pmrf.html 

20 http://www.smdc.army.mil/kmr.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

40

Figure 3-14 Western Range 

3.3.2 Facilities

Vandenberg provides the buildings, facilities and equipment essential for missile and 

spacecraft operations. Launch complexes include the following: 

• SLC-2W – Delta-II 

• SLC-3E – Atlas-II AS 

• SLC-4W –Titan II 

• SLC-4E –Titan IV 

• SLC-6 – Delta IV (Shuttle) 

• Silo – Minuteman III & Peacekeeper 

SLC-6 (Figure 3-15) was initially built for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). 

After MOL was cancelled in 1969, SLC-6 was abandoned for nearly a decade. In 1979, 

SLC-6 was reactivated and underwent an estimated $4 billion modification program in 

preparation for use by the Space Shuttle program. Following the Challenger accident in 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

41

1986 and after a joint decision by the Air Force and NASA, SLC-6 was again abandoned. 

Today, SLC-6 has been modified for use with the Delta IV.21 

Figure 3-15 SLC-6 In 1986 

3.3.3 Instrumentation

Western Range key instrumentation is located at the following sites: 

• Anderson Peak (Monterey County, CA) 

• Pillar Point AFS (San Mateo County, CA) (Figure 3-16) 

• Santa Ynez Peak (Santa Barbara County, CA) 

• Vandenberg AFB 

Additional instrumentation capability is provided by the Navy at Point Mugu, the Pacific 

Missile Range Facility, and by the Army at Reagan Test Site (Kwajalein) to support 

missions. 

 

21 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/history/tanks_to_missiles/launch%20programs/index.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

42

Figure 3-16 Pillar Point Instrumentation Site 

Range instrumentation includes the following: 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Command 

• Optic 

• Communications 

• Weather 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

43

3.4 WALLOPS ISLAND 

3.4.1 Background

Wallops Flight Facility is NASA’s primary facility for sub-orbital programs.22 It also 

supports a limited number of orbital launches. Since it was established in 1945, Wallops 

Flight Facility has launched over 14,000 rockets as part of its research programs. 

Wallops Flight Facility has been heavily involved in the manned space program and 

supports northbound launches on the Eastern Range. Wallops Flight Facility has also 

supported Project Mercury, Project Apollo, Project Gemini and Space Shuttle missions. 

3.4.2 Facilities

Wallops Flight Facility is located on the Atlantic coast of northeastern Virginia. It is 

accessible from Maryland and from Virginia via Newport News. Wallops Flight Facility 

is dispersed over three different land areas, as shown in Figure 3-17. 

Today, Wallops Flight Facility includes the following primary facilities: 

• launch pads 

• Tracking and Data Acquisition 

• Assembly facilities 

• Blockhouses 

• Hazardous Storage 

• Range Control Center 

• Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority 

• Research Airport 

 

22 http://www.wff.nasa.gov/pages/wallops_history.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

44

Figure 3-17 Wallops Flight Facility Three Main Sites 

Figure 3-18 Wallops Island Launch Facilities 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

45

3.4.3 Instrumentation

Wallops Flight Facility instrumentation includes the following23: 

• Telemetry 

• Radar 

• UHF transmitters & Range Safety systems 

• Film/video tracking 

• Communications 

• Weather 

Wallops Flight Facility radars often provide support for the Eastern Range during 

launches with northern trajectories. 

In addition, Wallops Flight Facility has mobile launch facilities that are offered as a 

service to other ranges. It has provided support at Argentia for the Eastern Range and at 

Cordova, AK for the Kodiak launch facility. 

3.5 OTHER RANGES 

There are numerous other Government ranges and test facilities in the U.S. that do not 

specifically support missile launches. Most major facilities are members of the Major 

Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB). The MRTFB is a set of service activities, which 

are regarded as "national assets." These assets are sized, operated, and maintained 

primarily for Department of Defense (DoD) test and evaluation missions. However, the 

MRTFB facilities and ranges are also available to commercial and other users on a 

reimbursable basis24. 

A list of MRTFB Ranges and Test Facilities includes the following: 

• Department of the Army

o Aberdeen Test Center, Aberdeen, MD 

o Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, UT 

o High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility, WSMR, NM 

o Reagan Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll 

o White Sands Missile Range, White Sands, NM (includes Electronic 

Proving Ground, Fort Huachuca, AZ) 

o Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, AZ (includes Cold Regions Test Center, AK, 

and Tropic Regions Test Center, AZ/HI/PR) 

 

23 http://www.wff.nasa.gov/vtour/pages/wff_vt_p23x.htm 24 http://www.dote.osd.mil/rr/mrtfb.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

46

• Department of the Navy 

o Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center, West Palm Beach, FL / Andros 

Island, Bahamas 

o Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, MD 

o Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, Point Mugu, CA 

o Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, CA 

o Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, HI 

• Department of the Air Force

o 30th Space Wing, Vandenberg AFB, CA 

o 45th Space Wing, Patrick AFB, FL 

o Air Force Air Armament Center 46th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL 

o Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, CA 

o Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tullahoma, TN 

o Nevada Test and Training Range, Nellis AFB, NV 

o Utah Test and Training Range, Hill AFB, UT 

• Department of Defense Agencies

o Joint Interoperability Test Command, Fort Huachuca, AZ 

Bold name sites are discussed in Appendix B. 

US and Foreign Ranges used by NASA since 1980 include the following25: 

 

• Wallops Island, VA (USA) 

• Poker Flat, AK (USA) 

• Ft. Yukon, AK 

• Cape Perry, Canada 

• Andoya, Norway 

• Ny-Alesund, Spitzbergen (Norway) 

• Esrange, Sweden 

• Ft. Churchill, Canada 

• Sondre Stromfjord, Greenland 

• Punta Lobos Peru 

• Alcantara, Brazil 

• Tortuguero, Puerto Rico 

• Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands 

• Kenya, Africa 

• White Sands, NM (USA) 

• Woomera, Australia 

 

25 http://rscience.gsfc.nasa.gov/opsrang.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

47

4.0 COMMUNICATION / DATA NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES

During the history of telecommunications, there have been relatively few major shifts in 

the high-tech landscape due to the introduction of disruptive technology. “Disruptive 

technology” is defined as technology that is not an evolutionary development built on 

previous technology; rather, “disruptive technology” is technology that results in a major 

shift in the way things will be done henceforth. Disruptive technology completely makes 

obsolete an earlier technology, or introduces a technological capability previously not 

possible. True disruptive technology must result in (at least) an order of magnitude 

reduction in cost, to overcome any pre-existing investments and any existing support 

infrastructure supporting an older technology competing in the same business space. 

Otherwise, a “disruptive” technology without a significant cost advantage merely 

becomes an alternative technology.26

 

Clearly, the historical transition from vacuum tube technology to solid-state technology 

represents such a shift. In the 1950’s, and even until the late 1960’s, nearly every corner 

drugstore in the United States had a vacuum tube test set and an assortment of vacuum 

tubes on display in a rack for the do-it-yourself home-TV repairman. The ubiquitous 

vacuum tube test sets quickly started vanishing once solid-state TVs came on the market, 

and were completely gone by the mid-1970’s. Solid-state technology was a disruptive 

technology that overwhelmed vacuum tube technology. 

Disruptive technology need not be a “replacement” technology. Consider the 

introduction of Ethernet. Prior to its invention in 1972, computers were not widely 

networked, even in Local Area Networks (LANs). Prior to the invention of Ethernet, an 

occasional computer would be networked with a physically co-located computer; but the 

thought of having a global computer network, interconnecting large numbers of 

computers, was still a topic that even science fiction had not speculated about in 1972; 

the first science fiction book on this topic to gather much public interest was published in 

1984.27 

 

26 An ‘order of magnitude’ is used in the precise mathematical sense here of being a factor of 10. A factor 

of five or even six is not usually sufficient to dislodge existing technology. At least a factor of 10, or more, 

is usually required for disruptive technology to displace pre-existing technology. Disruptive technology is 

also the key to changing the way things can be done, implementing new ways of accomplishing tasks, and 

by quickly creating the opportunity for new companies supporting significant private wealth creation. Old 

school, established companies typically do not recognize the advent of disruptive technology until they are 

overwhelmed by it in the marketplace. 

27 Gibson, William. Neuromancer. Ace Books, New York, 1984. This was the first science fiction book 

to explore the global information network (i.e., net, or matrix) culture of the near future. Gibson coined the 

term “cyberspace” and created a completely new cyberpunk genre of literature in this work, his debut 

novel. For more on Gibson, see: http://www.antonraubenweiss.com/gibson/index.html . Being largely 

unfamiliar with computers, Gibson did not extrapolate existing technology; instead, he envisioned an 

entirely new paradigm. Because of this, he largely ‘got it right’ relative to what actually transpired. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

48

In terms of modulation techniques, disruptive technology shifts are very few. One 

possible example that might, without careful thought, be considered disruptive 

technology is the introduction of Frequency Modulation (FM) by Armstrong, relative to 

older, pre-existing Amplitude Modulation (AM) techniques. Though FM provides a 

major improvement in the reduction of atmospheric induced noise effects, AM 

transmissions continue to this day on the commercial AM Broadcast band.28 FM was 

not a disruptive technology because it did not provide an order of magnitude cost 

reduction relative to older AM radio equipment. From this viewpoint, FM is merely an 

alternate (although improved) way of transmitting information, with technical advantages 

for niche applications. 

The following discussions explore both an historical and a current survey of the extant 

and disruptive technologies required for achieving seamless information networks at 

Spaceports and Ranges. These discussions support the overarching vision of the total 

integration of existing and new technologies to provide a new and robust way of 

interconnecting the Range assets, Range operations, and Range users during the launch 

event. Implicit in this integration is the requirement for flexibility and the need for 

modularization by function, as well as by physical module, to ease the incorporation of 

newer technologies yet to be fielded, or even imagined. 

The following views of key technologies establish and explore a technological 

foundation for implementing tightly-linked information networks that will enable a future 

Space Based Range (SBR) Distributed Subsystem to support the Spaceports and Ranges 

of tomorrow. These communication and data network technologies will be needed to 

provide the required infrastructure to enable routine access to space. Historical 

perspectives, in terms of failed technologies, are also discussed, to provide a reference for 

understanding the total landscape (such as for DSL) and for recognizing disruptive 

technology (DOCSIS). In addition, the disruptive technology of Ultra Wideband is 

identified and explored. 

4.1 ETHERNET 

Presently, Ethernet is the most commonly deployed protocol for connecting computers 

into a local area network (LAN). For the half-duplex versions, it is based on a Carrier 

Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) protocol, or on switching 

hubs for the full-duplex versions. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 

(IEEE) governs all the standards for Ethernet. Ethernet was invented in late 1972 by 

Robert M. Metcalfe, David R. Boggs, Charles P. Thacker, and Butler W. Lampson to 

interconnect the Xerox Alto personal workstation with other Altos, and to servers and 

shared printers. The application for the patent for Ethernet was filed with the US patent 

 

28 Even the latest, widely fielded fiber optic transmission systems, transmitting at speeds of 10 Gb/s, for 

example, still use NRZ (None Return to Zero) modulation, which is simply Amplitude Modulation of a 

fixed optical carrier. Some 40 Gb/s systems are starting to use RZ (Return to Zero) modulation, for 

reasons of improving performance – RZ is still fundamentally Amplitude Modulation, however. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

49

office in 1975, and the patent was granted to Xerox Corporation on December 13, 1977 

(US Patent 4,063,220). Available now in data rates from 10 Mb/s through 10 Gb/s, and 

soon to include 40 Gb/s, and even higher data rates, Ethernet is by far the dominant LAN 

protocol technology in use today. 

LANs are not the only place where Ethernet is being deployed. Extending Ethernet 

beyond LANs to WANs (Wide Area Networks) is also underway. Performance is one of 

the primary reasons that Ethernet is often considered in place of TCP/IP (Transmission 

Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) for longer physical runs, such as needed in a WAN.29 

The older WAN protocol technology of TCP/IP is prone to lose data, often haphazardly. 

Ethernet can eliminate jitter and increase efficiency in WANs through the provisioning of 

active flow control.30 This is a significant advantage of using Ethernet protocols over 

SONET and ATM relative to using TCP/IP protocols over SONET and ATM. Ethernet 

also provides 99.999% (i.e., five-nines) uptime, as well as support for VLANs (Virtual 

Local Area Networks) that are switchable within sub-seconds of a link failure (to switch 

around hardware failures) by using 802.1w Rapid Scanning Tree Protocol (RSTP). In 

addition, it is possible to aggregate VLANs into groups by using the 802.1s protocol. 

Class of Service is defined in Ethernet by the 802.1p protocol. Multi-point to multi-point 

service is defined in Ethernet by the 802.1q protocol. Combining 802.1p and 802.1q, it 

becomes possible to provide high CoS (Class of Service) operation for voice or other 

traffic requiring low latency. Because of these many features and advantages over 

TCP/IP, as well as the wide range of speeds supported from 10 Mb/s through 10 Gb/s and 

higher, Ethernet is considered the next-generation WAN technology.31 Ethernet is thus 

the premiere protocol for implementing both LANs and future WANs. It also provides a 

path that can be used to simplify network infrastructures to a common technology among 

LANs, WANS, and other networks. Because of these characteristics and trends, Ethernet 

is the primary candidate protocol technology for providing a seamless fusion of 

communication between widely separated LAN and WAN users on Spaceports and 

Ranges of the future. The following sections describe Ethernet in all its various 

variations, and largely follow Ethernet history in the order of presentation. 

 

29 There is also an economic labor-cost benefit, as well, in introducing Ethernet into the WAN. As there 

have been relatively few WAN engineers historically in contrast to LAN engineers, extending Ethernet into 

the WAN takes advantage of an already trained, and relatively inexpensive, Ethernet labor force for 

network administration and network installation tasks. WAN engineers historically have been highly 

compensated physical layer engineers, largely unfamiliar with Ethernet protocols. Extending LAN 

technology into the WAN thus can reduce the labor costs associated with both installing and supporting 

future WANs, in addition to providing performance improvements. 

30 Musich, Paula. Users clamor for 10-gig Ethernet. eWeek, May 15, 2000, p. 20. Ziff-Davis Publishing. 

31 Oliva, Val. Ethernet, The Next Generation WAN Technology. Version 1.0, May 2002. Foundry 

Networks. http://www.10gea.org/SP0502NextGenerationWAN.pdf Retrieved 3 June 2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

50

4.1.1 10 Base T

The IEEE 802.3 Standard defines and governs half-duplex Ethernet CSMA/CD, which is 

further defined as part of the Media Access Control (MAC) sublayer of the Layer 2 Data 

Link layer of OSI (Open Systems Interconnection).32 IEEE 802.3 specifies how 

information is formatted for transmission as well as the method network devices use to 

gain access to, or control of, a network for transmission of data. At present, the majority 

of installed systems commonly support two versions of half-duplex Ethernet. These two 

versions of Ethernet are denoted as 10BaseT and 100BaseT, and are the two most 

common versions of Ethernet existing in legacy systems. Although the ten-times-faster 

100BaseT version of Ethernet is better at handling the difficulties associated with peak 

traffic problems, both the 10BaseT and 100BaseT suffer from the same issues regarding 

data overload that occurs when too many users simultaneously try to use a LAN, or push 

too much data through a LAN. Specifically, for CAD or imaging application traffic, with 

a higher peak throughput, Fast Ethernet can address the data overload problem. But, if 

the problem is caused by an overload of users, neither 10BaseT nor 100BaseT works well 

above a 50-percent utilization rate due to collision detection overhead impacts.33, 34

(Fortunately, full-duplex versions of Ethernet can be used to reduce data congestion 

when trying to push LANs to higher throughputs.) 

The most common form of legacy Ethernet is 10BaseT, which denotes a peak 

transmission speed of 10 Mb/s using copper Twisted-pair cable. 100BaseT, also called 

Fast Ethernet, is an upgraded standard (IEEE 802.3U) for connecting computers into a 

local area network (LAN). 100BaseT Ethernet works just like regular Ethernet except 

that it can transfer data at a peak rate of 100 Mb/s. It's also slightly more expensive and 

less common among legacy systems than its slower 10BaseT predecessor. In newer 

systems, however, 100BaseT/10BaseT auto-switchable hardware is commonly fielded. 

Theoretically, cable runs up to 2500-meters are supported by 10BaseT, whereas 

100BaseT is theoretically limited to 250-meters. Within the 250-meter distance, either 

can be used, often over the same cabling, such that an upgrade to 100 Mb/s 100BaseT 

Fast Ethernet hardware often can be implemented without replacing the cable plant 

installed within existing facilities. 

 

32 OSI is divided into seven layers. They are defined as Layer 1, Physical, i.e., PHY; Layer 2, Data Link; 

Layer 3, Network; Layer 4, Transport; Layer 5, Session; Layer 6, Presentation, or Syntax; Layer 7, 

Application. Layer 2 is further divided into the MAC layer and the Logical Link Control (LLC) layer. 

Layer 2 encodes and decodes between bits and packets. The MAC sublayer of Layer 2 controls how a 

computer on the network gains access to the data and permission to transmit them, whereas the LLC layer 

controls frame synchronization, flow control and error checking. Layer 3 provides switching, routing, and 

packet sequencing. Layer 4 ensures complete data transfer. See: 

http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/OSI_Layers.html 

33 http://www.ethermanage.com/ethernet/ethernet.html

34 http://www.networkmagazine.com/article/NMG20000727S0014
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

51

The concept of Fast Ethernet was first proposed in 1992. The Fast Ethernet Alliance 

(FEA), comprised of a group of vendors, was formed in 1993 to standardize the 

requirements for a faster Ethernet to achieve 100 Mb/s in place of 10 Mb/s data transfer 

rates. The basic business argument that was used to “sell” the concept of 100BaseT Fast 

Ethernet was that 100BaseT would be a legacy and infrastructure-supporting technology. 

Specifically, it would use the same transmission protocol as older versions of Ethernet 

and would be compatible with the same types of cable and connectors. Also, because 

100BaseT would be a continuation of the old Ethernet standard, many of the same 

network analysis tools, procedures, and applications that ran over the old Ethernet 

network would work with 100BaseT. The end result would be that less capital 

investment would be required to convert an Ethernet-based network to Fast Ethernet than 

to other forms of high-speed networking, and vendors providing Ethernet could prevent 

any competing technologies from crowding their turf. 

Fast Ethernet comes in three basic configurations. These three configurations, based on 

the type of cable used, are 100BaseTX, 100BaseT4, and 100BaseFX. Both 100BaseTX 

and 100BaseT4 are intended for use with older twisted-pair cabling standards, while 

100BaseFX is meant for use over newer fiber optic cabling. 

The 100BaseTX standard is compatible with cables having two pairs of Unshielded 

Twisted Pair (UTP) or Shielded Twisted Pair (STP) wiring. One pair supports reception 

and the other supports transmission. Currently, two basic cable standards meet this 

requirement: EIA/TIA-568 Category 5 UTP and IBM's Type 1 STP. For new 

installations, Category 5 cables are considerably more expensive than the older Category 

3 cables, but provide enhanced range performance at the 100 Mb/s data transfer rates. 

100BaseTX can provide full-duplex performance with network servers. In addition, it 

uses only two of the four pairs of wiring in the cable, leaving two pairs in reserve for 

future enhancements to installed networks. 

The 100BaseT4 standard Fast Ethernet can use a less sophisticated, less-expensive cable 

than Category 5. The reason is that 100BaseT4 uses four pairs of wiring: one pair for 

transmission, one pair for reception, and two other pairs that can either transmit or 

receive data. Therefore, 100BaseT4 has the use of three pairs of wire to either transmit or 

receive data. By dividing up the 100Mbit/sec data signal among the three pairs of wires, 

100BaseT4 reduces the signaling bandwidths carried on each pair of wires, and allows 

the successful use of lower-quality cabling. Cable types denoted as Categories 3 and 4 

UTP cabling, as well as Category 5 UTP and Type 1 STP, all work well in 100BaseT4 

implementations. Category 3 and 4 cabling were once the best cable available, and still 

exist in many legacy cable plants within buildings. Even if cable is not already installed, 

they cost less than Category 5 cabling for new installations at the expense of not 

providing any future upgrade paths. Because 100BaseT4 uses all four pairs of wiring, it 

cannot support full-duplex operation even though the generic 100BaseT standard does 

support full-duplex operation. 

 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

52

The 100BaseFX Fast Ethernet offers operation with MMF (multi-mode fiber optic cable, 

i.e., fiber having a 62.5-micron core and 125-micron cladding). MMF is considerably 

easier to work with than SMF (single-mode fiber, 7-9 micron core, and 125-micron 

cladding), and is much cheaper than SMF. The drawback is that faster OC-48 2.5 Gb/s 

operation is not possible over the legacy MMF, and short of replacing hardware; there are 

minimal upgrade paths from 100BaseFX to links with data transfer rates at, and above 1 

Gb/s. The 100BaseFX standard often suffices for backbone use within a single building, 

connecting Fast Ethernet repeaters around the building and providing all the traditional 

benefits of fiber optic cabling such as protection from electromagnetic noise, increased 

security, while achieving reduced path losses relative to RF cables thereby permitting 

longer distances to exist between network devices. 

4.1.2 Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) (1000BaseT/1000BaseX) and 10GbE

Newer Ethernet standards surpass the performance of Fast Ethernet and include Gigabit 

(1000 Mb/s) Ethernet (802.3z/802.3ab), and 10 Gigabit Ethernet (also known variously 

as 802.3ae, 10 GbE, and 10Gbase). There are two Gigabit Ethernet standards describing 

Ethernet systems that operate at 1000 Mb/s. The 802.3z standard describes the 

specifications for the 1000BaseX fiber optic Gigabit Ethernet system.35 Present 

standards define and support operating distances of 100 meters and 300 meters over 

MMF (multi-mode fiber) at 850 nm with 1000BaseSX, as well as distances of 2, 10, and 

40 km over SMF (single-mode fiber) at 1300 nm with 1000BaseLX. The other Gigabit 

Ethernet standard, 802.3ab, describes the specifications for the 1000BaseT twisted-pair 

Gigabit Ethernet system.36 Both are mature standards, and as of June 200237, the price 

for Gigabit Ethernet Network cards has dropped below $100. With the transition of 

Gigabit Ethernet hardware to commodity pricing of hardware conforming to a mature 

standard, the 1 Gigabit Ethernet Alliance that established these standards has even been 

disbanded. In its place, the 10 Gigabit Ethernet Alliance has been working the process of 

defining the interface standards for Ethernet data transmission at 10 Gb/s, to be governed 

by the IEEE 802.3ae standard.38 Founded in February 2000, the 10 Gigabit Ethernet 

Alliance already had fifty-plus members as of May 2000.39 As of December 2001, this 

group had resolved all the open issues with the standard, and the final ratification of this 

 

35 http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/z/public/index.html

36 http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ab/public/index.html

37 Kopparapu, Chandra. 10 Gig to push Ethernet beyond the LAN. Network World, June 24, 2002, 

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/tech/2002/0624tech.html Retrieved 1 July 2002. 

38 http://www.10gea.org/index.htm

39 Musich, Paula. Users clamor for 10-gig Ethernet. eWeek, May 15, 2000, p. 20. Ziff-Davis Publishing. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

53

10 Gb/s standard was expected in 2002. Final ratification of 802.3ae actually occurred on 

June 13, 2002.40,41 

The new 802.3ae standard of June 2002 establishes a framework for successfully 

expanding Ethernet from just the LAN into the MAN and WAN. Further, unlike Gigabit 

Ethernet, full duplex is the only mode supported; the era of simplex Ethernet links is no 

longer an issue. The 802.3ae standard also preserves and supports all older Ethernet 

definitions regarding minimum and maximum frame size and frame formatting. In a 

clear break with older Ethernet standards, 802.3ae is only defined for optical networks. 

This is because it has become technically impossible to continue to provide operation 

over copper twisted shielded pairs at increasing data rates; the days of similar but 

different Ethernet standards at each data rate, operating over both copper and optical 

fibers, are over. Both LAN and WAN physical interfaces are defined in 802.3ae. The 

three most important physical interfaces for the LAN include full-duplex serial interfaces 

categorized as: 

• 10Gbase-SR, which details Short Reach operation at a wavelength of 850 nm 

using MMF (multi-mode fiber) at distances up to 990 feet 

• 10Gbase-LR, which details Long Reach operation at a wavelength of 1310nm 

using SMF (single-mode fiber) at ranges up to a little more than 6 miles 

• 10Gbase-ER, which details Extended Reach operation at a wavelength of 1550nm 

using SMF at ranges to more than 24 miles 

A WAN PHY (Wide Area Network physical layer) definition is also contained in 802.3ae 

that defines physical interfaces operating at a serial data rate of 9953.28 Mb/s, providing 

full compatibility with OC-192 10 Gb/s SONET operation. The WAN PHY definition 

includes the same short, long, and extended reaches as for the LAN, but further allows 

transport of Ethernet data over Layer 1 SONET networks. Because of SONET 

compatibility, it is now possible for service providers to use already-installed add/drop 

multiplexers or repeaters to transport Ethernet over SONET. Likewise, the 802.3ae 

WAN PHY significantly reduces the cost of OC-192 hardware, as the jitter requirements 

to achieve acceptable Bit Error Rates (BERs) are reduced relative to first generation OC192 SONET equipment and expensive stratum clocking is no longer required. Because 

of the lower costs, and reduced difficulty in fielding 802.3ae hardware relative to older 

OC-192 SONET gear, new 802.3ae equipment will largely eliminate the continued sale 

of first generation OC-192 SONET gear sold in large volumes in 2000-2001 by JDS 

Uniphase, Nortel, and other OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers). The disruptive 

technology of 10 GbE has largely captured the 10 Gb/s transponder market, at least for 

sales of new equipment to be fielded.42

 

40 http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/index.html

4110-GigE Vendors Get Cold Feet, Light Reading, 19 June 2002, 

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=17570, retrieved 20 June 2002. 

42 Kopparapu, Chandra. 10 Gig to push Ethernet beyond the LAN. Network World, June 24, 2002, 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

54

Despite final ratification of the specification, there have been relatively few sales of 10 

GbE equipments. This is due to both the economic downturn in the marketplace, and the 

high cost (in 2002) of $80,000 per port for 10 GbE. Over the 2002-2004 time span, 

equipments for 10 GbE will experience a slow ramp to full market acceptance. However, 

by 2005, as per port costs drop to $7,800 for 10 GbE, the economic equation for 10 GbE 

will toggle to very favorable and significantly larger numbers of 10Gbase WAN PHY 

equipments will likely become fielded.43 

A favorable transition to 10 GbE will occur because of the economics for users needing 

high bandwidths of leasing bandwidth versus buying bandwidth. Currently (June 2002), 

the cost of leasing T1 lines (1.544 Mb/s) is priced around $1,000/month to $750/month.44 

Minimal further price erosion is likely, as this cost is close to the minimum that can 

provide a still-acceptable Return on Investment (ROI) for equipment suppliers at current 

low interest rates. If anything, these prices per month for T1 equipments will likely rise 

slightly over the next two or three years as interest rates edge slowly upwards. 

The economic incentive to transition to 10 GbE will not occur until the onetime cost of 

purchasing 10 GbE equipment drops to approximately 10 times the per month cost of 

leasing T1 lines. It is only around this pricing breakpoint that the disruptive technology 

of 10 GbE, even if used wastefully in terms of bandwidth, becomes more than an order of 

magnitude cheaper than a single T1 set of equipment, even though 10 GbE provides over 

6,400 times more data throughput! The issue is not data throughput, but is instead simply 

the equivalence of price with significantly more data throughput. 

This results from the normal business practice of recovering the cost of leased equipment 

in 10 months by charging 1/10th of the total cost per month. For example, the price in 

mid-2002 of T1 equipment is around $7,500, if it can be leased for around $750/month. 

In this model, 10 GbE therefore will start to cross the economic price boundary necessary 

to become cost-effective with T1 equipment at a per port price of around $7,500-$7,800. 

With a rapid drop in price expected for 10 GbE equipment between 2002 and 2005, to 

drop the price to the $7,800 range, the general acceptance for 10 GbE will no doubt ramp 

quickly starting in late 2003 to early 2004, with high volume acceptance for 10 GbE 

occurring by 2005 if not by mid to late 2004. The subsequent result will be the decline in 

the numbers of T1 equipments sold to businesses needing high data rates, simultaneous 

with the improvement in sales of 10 GbE equipment. Low-cost 10 GbE equipments 

available starting in 2005 will largely replace the demand for all new sales of T1 

 

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/tech/2002/0624tech.html Retrieved 1 July 2002. 

43 http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=17570

44 http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=17570
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

55

equipment, in addition to replacing the demand for older generation OC-192 SONET 

serial transmitters/receivers and transponders. 

As stated previously, the migration of Ethernet technology from the LAN to the WAN, 

and to the physical layer of the WAN (i.e., the WAN PHY) is well underway, too. IEEE 

”802.3ae supports the WAN Sub-layer, which supports OC-192. Adding the WAN PHY, 

which is a “plug-in” to an existing OC-192 SONET interface, within 802.3ae has created 

an omnipresence for Ethernet within Layer 2. Carriers can leverage their existing 

SONET investments to expand and deliver Ethernet services cost-effectively.”45 All the 

OSI Layer 2 Data Link ‘hardware hooks’ are thus in place for supporting the LAN and 

the WAN infrastructures within an expanding Ethernet universe migrating from 1 GbE to 

10 GbE over the 2002-2005 timeframe. The days of deploying expensive OC-192 

SONET hardware employing stratum clocking and requiring stringent jitter performance 

due to limitations in receiving hardware for new installations are over. 

4.1.3 XAUI (10Gb/s), 40 Gb/s Ethernet (40 GbE), and 160 GbE

The 10 Gb/s Attachment Unit Interface, termed “XAUI” (pronounced “zowie”), with the 

Roman numeral “X” indicating “10” for 10 Gb/s, was also defined by the IEEE 802.3ae 

10 Gb/s Ethernet Task Force. The XAUI interface dramatically improves and simplifies 

the routing of electrical interconnections for SERDES (serializer-deserializer), ASIC 

(Application Specific Integrated Circuit), FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), and 

optical module interfaces and is well on its way to becoming the universal 10 Gb/s 

interface for all hardware. It largely mitigates data-skew offsets, and permits the 

“plugfest” (the ability to use any module from any vendor that adheres to the standard) 

capability so desired by users. . Instead of providing a single serial 10 Gb/s interface as 

provided in the WAN PHY definition of 802.3ae, XAUI uses four 3.125 Gb/s differential 

pairs to provide 10 Gb/s throughput capability. The XAUI has also been selected as the 

interface for the 10 Gb/s Ethernet Z-Axis Pluggable Module MSA (Multi-Source 

Agreements) XGP and XENPAK. 46 The first XAUI MSA Module Transceivers at OC192 (10 Gb/s) were developed in late 2000 through early 2001, and deliveries started in 

mid 2001 from the major manufacturers (JDS Uniphase, et al). As of 2002, over fifteen 

vendors have entered the XAUI MSA Module market and are producing transceivers. 

Major vendors plan to make transponders (i.e., transceivers with CDR functionality) with 

XAUI interfaces available in 2002. In 2003, nearly all current XAUI MSA Module 

transceiver vendors will provide transponders. 

Another 10 Gb/s interface worthy of note is the 10-Gigabit Small Form-Factor (SFF) 

Pluggable Multi-Source Agreement (MSA) Module (XFP) interface known as XFI. The 

 

45 Oliva, Val. Ethernet, The Next Generation WAN Technology. Version 1.0, p. 10, May 2002. Foundry 

Networks and 10G Ethernet Alliance. http://www.10gea.org/SP0502NextGenerationWAN.pdf. Retrieved 

3 June 2002. 

46 http://www.10gea.org/XAUI-An%20Overview_0302.pdf
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

56

governing specifications for this module and its interface were developed by the 10-

Gigabit SFF Pluggable Module Group MSA Association. The existence of this group, 

comprised of ten founding member companies: Broadcom Corporation, Brocade, 

Emulex Corporation, Finisar, JDS Uniphase, Maxim Integrated Products, ONI Systems, 

ICS (a Sumitomo Electric company), Tyco Electronics and Velio, was publicly 

announced in March 2002 at the Optical Fiber Conference (OFC) in Anaheim, CA. 

Finisar Corporation publicly demonstrated the first prototype XFP Module at the OFC 

2002 show. Since the initial public announcement at OFC, additional member companies 

have joined, and as of May 2002, the group has grown to forty-four companies. The 

group’s purpose is to develop a common specification for multi-sourcing an applicationagnostic, ultra-small form factor, 10 Gigabit per second (Gb/s) module for the 

telecommunications, data communications and storage area network (SAN) markets, 

supporting OC-192/STM-64, 10 G Fiber Channel, G.709, and 10 G Ethernet, all usually 

supported with the same module in different native modes of operation. The 

functionality will be such that support for 10 Gb/s Ethernet will be one of the native 

modes provided within XFP modules, thereby reducing the entry cost for obtaining 10 

Gb/s Ethernet hardware. The primary difference between the XFI/XFP Module interface 

and the earlier XGP interface is the transition to a small form factor (SFF) in the XFP. 

Because many of the same companies working to support XFP also developed XGP, the 

lessons learned while developing XGP will help reduce the risk of new XFP 

developments.47

Next on the roadmap for development are the 40 Gb/s (OC-768) Ethernet specifications. 

OIF (Optical Internetworking Forum) industry-wide working group meetings 

commenced in mid-2001, and are continuing through 2002, to develop the next 

generation of Ethernet specifications at OC-768. Multiple 40 Gb/s interconnection 

architectures are being planned and discussed, including 16-wide 2.5 Gb/s, as well as 4-

wide 10 Gb/s pathways. For now, the 16-wide OC-48 version looks to be the most 

promising, as it allows the use of lower-cost and lower power-consumption CMOS 

(Complementary Metal Oxide Silicon) SERDES chips. Still, the four-wide SiGe (Silicon 

Germanium) architectures, such as proposed by Intel/GIGA, Infineon, and a few other 

vendors, are likely to co-exist, at least for a while if not indefinitely, until all the 

economic issues are resolved and 40 Gb/s Ethernet standards are finalized. Finalization 

will likely not occur until after 2004-2006, due to the economic slowdown in telecom 

spending that started in early 2000. 

The early stage plans for OC-3072 (160 Gb/s) Ethernet are presently being discussed. 

This technology will probably not be seriously worked until after the OC-768 Working 

Group disbands, around 2006-2008. The first of these systems will not be available until 

2008-2010 at the earliest, if their data-handling capabilities make economic sense. (If 

 

47 XFP MSA Organization Website, http://www.xfpmsa.com/cgi-bin/home.cgi, retrieved 21 May 2002. 

Also, see http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=15377 for the XFP news release dated 20 

May 2002 from Finisar Corporation. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

57

there is no market for these data rates in Ethernet applications, then their development 

will not occur.) 

4.1.4 DOCSIS and DSL

DOCSIS (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification) is a Cable Modem protocol 

specification, analogous to SONET and ATM, which provides another transport method 

of Ethernet protocol signals.48 DOCSIS includes networking support for computers 

specifically communicating through Ethernet protocols, as well as for HDTVs (High 

Definition Televisions) and set-top TV boxes (such as for pay-per-view services). The 

DOCSIS 1.0 cable modem specification was approved by the ITU in March 1998. Within 

just nine months (by the end of 1998) there were 1.2 Million cable modems already 

installed within homes in the United States, providing the first widespread broadband 

Internet connectivity services to the home in the United States. Market forecasts predict 

24.3 Million cable modems will be installed in US homes by 2004.49 Although this 

number seems ambitious, it is likely to be achieved. In April 2002, Cable Modem users 

in the US already numbered 7.7 million versus 4.9 Million for DSL users.50 Further, the 

number of new Cable Modem users is increasing much faster than the number of new 

DSL users. DOCSIS is therefore rapidly becoming the dominant broadband technology 

in the US. 

DOCSIS defines downstream data transfer rates of 27 to 36 Mb/s over frequencies from 

50 MHz to 750+ MHz and upstream data transfer rates of 320 Kb/s to 10 Mb/s from 5 to 

42 MHz. This high speed data transfer is implemented in Cable Modems that connect to 

the 75-Ohm physical coaxial line of the cable TV provider and which provide a two-way 

output Ethernet port in a Cat-5 compatible RJ-45 socket, providing a high-speed Ethernet 

connection. As originally used by many home users, the output of the Cable Modem was 

often simply connected to an Ethernet NIC (network interface card) on a personal 

computer. This still works, but is not considered secure by modern networking practices. 

An older high-speed physical layer protocol is DSL (Direct Subscriber Line). DSL still 

provides the only significant alternative to cable modems for providing high-speed 

computer networking, and can provide bi-directional data transfer rates up to 32 Mb/s 

 

48 The major transport technologies over the past decade have included: SONET, ATM, T1, T3, and frame 

relay. Even older transport protocols included ISDN, X.25, and AX.25. ISDN (Integrated Services Digital 

Network) was developed as a high-speed, 64 Kb/s service for sending voice, video, and data 

simultaneously over telephone lines. Most ISDN services actually provide two simultaneous 64 KB/s 

lines, for 128 Kb/s, total. The X.25 protocol was intended for a closed, coaxial-cable system WAN, and 

AX.25 was intended for a WAN coverage via a wireless RF link, supported through digital repeaters 

(digipeaters). AX.25 was developed in the Amateur Radio marketplace, but spread quickly to the 

Department of Defense (DoD) for use in early VHF packet radio systems operating at relatively low bit 

rates (1200 b/s to 9600 b/s). 

49 http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/DOCSIS.html

50 Mowrey, Mark. Coming soon to your cable box: built-in wireless networking. Red Herring, July 2002, 

p. 23. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

58

over ordinary phone lines. In spite of a nearly 3:1 theoretical advantage over DOCSIS 

1.0’s upstream data transfer rates of 10 Mb/s, DSL has captured only a small fraction of 

the total market share. Due primarily to a failure to get hardware built and fielded quickly 

enough, DSL and xDSL – which is a more general technology – are not a significant 

factor within the US at this time. DOCSIS started from behind, with poorer performance, 

and still managed to capture nearly all the market within only about eighteen months. In 

spite of providing theoretically higher bi-directional data rate performance than DOCSIS 

1.0 was capable of providing, all indications are that xDSL is a technology that has 

largely been overcome by a failure to deliver DSL modems fast enough to capture market 

share. Making matters worse, DOCSIS 1.1, the latest version of the DOCSIS standard, 

now provides 54 Mb/s connectivity, the same as 802.11a and 802.11g Wireless Ethernet, 

beating DSL’s performance by 50%. The window of acceptance for DSL is closing. As 

DSL is not likely be a dominant WAN PHY technology going in the future, it will not be 

discussed further in this report. The disruptive technology of DOCSIS has largely already 

replaced DSL, through providing high-volumes of lower cost modems, thus capturing the 

high-speed Internet-to-the-home market. 

The primary concern with directly connecting a computer to a high-speed Ethernet WAN, 

with 24/7 connectivity, whether with DOCSIS or DSL, is security. Port probes of 

Ethernet WAN-connected computers by individuals attempting to obtain unapproved 

access to these computers are a real threat. In the fall of 1999, the numbers of ‘hits’, 

measuring the number of attempts to obtain surreptitious access to such connected 

computers, was typically no more than two or three tries per day on a Cable Modem 

system. As of May 2002, the number of attacks has increased to upwards of fifty to sixty 

attacks per day, an increase of over twenty times.51

Initially, the only way to protect such 24/7 connected computers was through the use of 

firewall software, such as BlackICE Defender®, or ZoneAlarm®.52,53 During 2000, with 

the numbers of attacks rising, and to reduce LAN network congestion from the attacks, 

the need for hardware solutions became obvious. By 2001, Cable/DSL Routers, intended 

for sharing high-speed computer networking among several co-located computers 

through a common Cable Modem, became available. By late 2001, functionality for 

newer Cable/DSL routers was increased to provide NAT (Network Address Translation) 

firewall functionality. With NAT firewalls, the isolation between the LAN and the Cable 

WAN provides an additional layer of protection, in addition to the software firewalls. 

Since Ethernet attacks through a router are possible, NAT firewalls, though, do not 

 

51 These numbers are for Time Warner Cable’s RoadRunner service in Brevard County, Florida. Highspeed cable modem service was first installed in parts of Brevard County, Florida in the summer of 1999. 

52 BlackICE Defender® is now BlackICE PC Protection® and has been acquired from Network ICE by 

Internet Security Systems (ISS) as of June 6, 2001. See: 

http://www.iss.net/products_services/hsoffice_protection/blkice_protect_pc.php. 

53 ZoneAlarm® is a product of Zone Labs. See: http://www.zonelabs.com/products/za/ It is free to noncommercial users, and private individuals. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

59

provide entirely adequate security to secure LANs connected to an Ethernet WAN 

through a Cable Modem, or as discussed shortly, a Fiber Modem. In addition, as 

discussed later in the Wireless Ethernet section, the installation of a Wireless Ethernet 

Access Point (WEAP) behind a physical NAT firewall also threatens system security 

through a backdoor that must be protected, as well. Protection within a LAN behind a 

firewall, whether against wired or wireless Ethernet attacks, still often requires softwarebased firewalls be installed for adequate security for many applications. 

 

Just one company, Broadcom, largely dominates DOCSIS chip sets. Broadcom is the 

acknowledged DOCSIS industry leader, with over 80% market share as of late 2001.54 

(Broadcom also wrote the original drafts of what became the DOCSIS 1.0 standard.) 

Broadcom’s chip sets are also being used to implement Ethernet functionality over 

SONET SR (Short Reach) and LR (Long Reach) fiber-optic links with Fiber Modems, 

functionally equivalent to Cable Modems, operating over SMF (single-mode-fiber) in 

place of 75-Ohm coax, to support Ethernet transport over high-speed DWDM (Dense 

Wavelength Division Multiplexing) optical networks. 

The trend is obvious; DOCSIS will increase in importance for providing PHY layer wired 

Ethernet transport, and will further reduce the cost of systems needed to implement 

Ethernet transport over high-speed, broadband networks. As discussed later under 

Wireless Ethernet, the next generation of Cable Modems and Cable TV set-top boxes will 

also contain built-in wireless networking, enabling sharing of video, data, and audio 

content throughout the SOHO environment from a single Cable Modem/Set-top box. 

This addition of wireless connectivity will likewise reduce the market share of DSL 

technology relative to Cable Modem technology.55 In Spaceports of the future, where 

Wireless connectivity fed though Cable Modems and Fiber Modems is likely, firewall 

solutions employing both hardware and software implementations will be necessary to 

provide adequate security of Ethernet connections. 

4.2 WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES 

Looking beyond the next five to seven years, three major types of wireless systems are 

likely to provide nearly all of the data networking needs of Spaceports and Ranges in the 

not so distant future: 

• WPAN systems 

• 3G (3rd Generation) Wireless systems 

 

54 http://www.broadcom.com/cablemodem.html

55 Mowrey, Mark. Coming soon to your cable box: built-in wireless networking. Red Herring, July 2002, 

p. 23. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

60

• WPAN, LAN, and WAN mixed capability systems 

WPAN (Wireless Personal Area Network) systems, typified by Bluetooth and Zigbee, are 

intended for low data-rate, short-distance communications. Due to technical limitations, 

WPANs cannot provide wireless versions of competitive LAN (Local Area Network) or 

WAN (Wide Area Network) services on future Spaceports and Ranges. On the other 

hand, although they are not necessarily configured into WANs, 3G (3rd Generation) 

Wireless services are intended to provide services over wide areas. 

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) plans to conduct “spectrum auctions” 

(i.e., the sale of licenses) for 3G Wireless services in September 2002. In Europe, similar 

spectrum auctions held in 2000 for 3G Wireless services resulted in raising revenue to the 

tune of billions, to tens of billions of US dollars (USD) per company, depending on the 

country/countries. The total European government ‘take’ for 3G licenses was 

approximately $180 billion (USD). The European 3G Wireless spectrum auction timing 

was unfortunately at the very peak of the telecommunications market ‘evaluation 

bubble’, and 3G licenses sold at overly high valuations. With the subsequent worldwide 

telecommunications market downturn seen in 2000 and 2001, the result, as of mid-2002, 

has been both a consolidation among existing European 2G Wireless companies that won 

3G bids, and the bankruptcy of many companies. The high prices paid for licensure, the 

subsequent slowness of the European 3G market to take off, and the resulting slow cash 

flows, have been simply too much for many of the successful 3G Wireless bidders to 

weather the ‘perfect storm’ of the telecommunications market melt-down. The result has 

been a very slow 3G Wireless services rollout, due both to high licensing costs and, as it 

turns out, somewhat limited technical performance. The outcome: 3G Wireless service 

companies have not been successful. Likewise, US companies planning 3G Wireless 

services have watched in horror as their European counterparts have folded, or, to stave 

off bankruptcy, have been forced to consolidate. This does not bode well for the FCC’s 

planned auction of 3G Wireless. 

The likely outcome, at least in the US, is that there is only one contender in terms of 

performance and cost for implementing high performance LANs and WANs in the near 

future: namely, Wireless Ethernet. Unlike planned 3G Wireless services, the spectrum 

for Wi-Fi is unregulated and freely available to all. Thus infrastructure costs for Wi-Fi 

have an inherent advantage ‘out of the gate’ relative to 3G Wireless, with very much 

higher performance than even planned for 3G Wireless services. In addition, over the last 

few years, the rapid rise of Wireless Ethernet has been nothing short of phenomenal. 

With low-cost, unregulated Wi-Fi equipment now available, the guerrilla wireless 

winner, winning the unconventional wireless war, is Wireless Ethernet.56,57 The present 

 

56 Hanfit, Adam. ALL THE NEWS THAT DIDN’T FIT. Worth Magazine, p. 84, May 2002. Worth.com 

57 Guerrilla comes from the Spanish root word guerra, meaning war; hence, guerrilla means ‘little war.” 

Guerrilla warfare concepts first became formalized in the first half of the 19th Century, in multiple fights 

for colony independence across South America. With guerrilla warfare, small, mobile forces defeated 

superior, larger, well-established European-trained conventional forces. The concept was then exported 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

61

leader, as well as the long-term likely ‘big’ winner in the WAN market space, even over 

3G Wireless, is Wireless Ethernet. For that reason, Wireless Ethernet is a major focus of 

this section, although the WPAN technologies of Bluetooth and Zigbee, as well as 3G 

Wireless, are also discussed in detail. 

4.2.1 Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi )

Wireless Ethernet equipment, dubbed Wi-Fi in the popular press, is predominately 

governed at present by the IEEE 802.11b High Rate WLAN Standard.58 First available 

in the marketplace in 1999 at very high prices, Wi-Fi equipment prices have since 

quickly dropped. Wi-Fi Adaptor cards for laptops now are priced at well under $100 

(PCC/PCMCIA form factor). Wireless Ethernet Access Point (WEAP) devices (i.e., base 

Wi-Fi Adaptor units) are also inexpensive, costing around $125- $200 (May 2002) for 

single-mode Access Point devices intended for use with wired, networked computers. 

Together, these Wi-Fi adaptors greatly simplify the wireless connectivity issues that exist 

while forging a total network solution among wired and wireless connected computers. 

The result is that implementing an overall wired and wireless network that operates much 

like a conventional, wired network, has become easy and very inexpensive.59

Network Interface Card (NIC) Adaptors for 802.11b come in three configurations in two 

basic form factors. For laptops, there are PCC/PCMCIA Wi-Fi adaptor cards. For 

desktops, there are USB port adaptor cards available, as well as standalone Wi-Fi Access 

Point devices. In addition, there are also PCI adapters for desktops that permit plugging 

PCMCIA Wi-Fi cards intended for laptops into a PCI Slot inside a desktop in Windows 

98/SE/ME systems.60 

 

back to Europe, especially to Spain and Italy, due to such European leaders as Garibaldi of Italy, who lived 

for many years in South America, participated as freedom fighters, learned guerrilla warfare tactics, and 

returned to Europe. Today, guerrilla wireless represents a similar fight for roaming wireless user 

independence in America against the bureaucratic control of wireless infrastructures. There is a strong 

likelihood of economic impacts occurring soon in Europe as Wireless Ethernet expands there, in a direct 

historical parallel to the adoption in Europe of the original guerilla warfare tactics developed in the 

Americas. This economic impact will likely be against the 3G Wireless regulated companies that have 

spent the equivalent of tens of billions to hundreds of billions of US dollars in Europe to secure 3G 

Wireless licensing. For an historical perspective on Giuseppe Garibaldi’s education in guerrilla warfare 

from 1836-1848 in South America, see: http://www.sc.edu/library/spcoll/hist/garib/garib1.html. 

58 Wi-Fi is an obvious wordplay of Wireless Fidelity that plays off the older Hi-Fi term denoting High 

Fidelity used for early stereo equipment and sound recordings. In addition, there is the modern wordplay 

of “Wireless” with “Fiber”. 

59 For comparison, the Intel 5000 LAN Access Point (WEAP) for the newer 54 Mb/s Wi-Fi 5 (802.11a) 

retails for $449, while 54 Mb/s PC cards retail for $179 (March 2002.) These prices are comparable to the 

prices of early 802.11b devices. For comparison, current 802.11b prices have fallen such that the total 

price for an 11 Mb/s Linksys Wireless Access Point (WAP-11) and it associated 11 Mb/s PCMCIA 

Linksys Wi-Fi card, is under $275, combined, retail. 

60 These DO NOT typically work on Windows 2000 or Windows NT, at least not with present cards. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

62

Wireless network interface card adapters for 802.11b operate in one of two modes: AdHoc Mode or Infrastructure Mode. Infrastructure Mode is the default mode used unless 

otherwise de-selected during initial setup. This mode routes all traffic through a WEAP 

that controls encryption on the network and that may bridge or route wireless traffic to a 

wired Ethernet network (or the Internet). WEAPs that act as routers also can assign IP 

addresses to connected PC's. WEAPs come in three varieties -- Bridge, Network Address 

Translation (NAT) Router and NAT Router + Bridge.61 Bridge-type WEAPs 

transparently connect a wireless network to a wired network and provide bi-directional 

communication. A NAT Router is a unidirectional WEAP that can route traffic from the 

wireless network to an Ethernet wired network, but which will not route traffic back to 

the wireless network.62 The third type of WEAP device is a hybrid NAT Router + 

Bridge, also known as a Wireless Cable/DSL router, that provides single-IP address 

connectivity for both wired and wireless networks. This third type of WEAP is often 

used for sharing an Internet connection among both wired and wireless interconnected 

computers in a single private home. Infrastructure Mode (with Bridge or NAT Router + 

Bridge type WEAPS) is the normal mode used for providing public Wi-Fi connectivity.63 

Slight variants of this third type of WEAP device also can serve as a WEAP router for 

splitting an existing wired 10/100 Ethernet network, utilizing a USB (Universal Serial 

Bus) port interface for initial set-up, only, and then utilizing a CAT-5 interface cable for 

interconnecting a port of a wired 10/100 Ethernet switch hub sitting on an existing wired 

network to up to 32 wireless devices. Although two internal antennas are available, such 

devices also permit using one or both internal antennas, or of connecting one or two 

remote antennas in place of either (or both) of the short, stubby ”rubber-ducky” antennas 

on the back of the device, to extend the range of the equipment. If NAT functionality is 

not desired, configurable DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) address 

assignments to wireless devices can be provided by the existing network. Such devices 

can also be configured to provide point-to-point bridge functionality, to enable, for 

example, a wireless point-to-point connection between two remote networks, especially if 

two high-gain, directional antennas are connected to the device, pointing in different 

directions, achieving in essence an Ethernet digital repeater. If they are so configured, 

though, these bridge-configured WEAP devices cannot then provide Infrastructure 

 

61 Network Address Translation (NAT) routers function to translate an Internet Protocol (IP) address used 

within one network to a different IP address known within another network. One network is designated the 

inside network and the other is designated the outside network. Typically, NAT routers map both local 

inside network addresses to a global value and unmap incoming global outside IP addresses on incoming 

packets into local IP addresses to ensure security. NAT functionality also conserves the number of global 

IP addresses that would otherwise be needed, and permits an inside network to use a single IP address in its 

communication with the world. NAT routers greatly simplify Internet communication. NAT routers 

provide a hardware firewall, thereby reducing the processor loading on gateway machines with software 

firewalls installed. 

62 This is most suitable for limited, one-way, pager-style communication. 

63 http://www.homenethelp.com/802.11b/index.asp
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

63

connectivity for multiple wireless devices in addition to bridge functionality. Another 

variant of this third type of WEAP provides built-in switch functionality, with 4, 5, or 

more, wired port outputs enabling several remote users to connect into a wired LAN off 

the remote WEAP. The primary difference, in choosing the third variant with or without 

a switch built-in, is whether 1:N (probably benefiting from a built-in switch) or N:1 (no 

built-in switch needed) connectivity is desired. With the flexibility presently available, it 

obviously can become a daunting task to select the optimal hardware to construct a 

wired/wireless network for the average home-user with multiple laptops and desktops, a 

single cable/DSL modem, a switch or two, and firewalls already in place on a wired 

network. Fortunately, in spite of possibly selecting less-than-optimal functionality 

WEAP equipment, there is usually enough overlap in features and enough flexibility in 

practice, such that the average user can easily obtain entirely satisfactory results once 

WEAP and PCMCIA Wi-Fi equipment is purchased and installed. 

In Ad-hoc Mode, two or more Wi-Fi equipped computers may communicate directly with 

each other without a WEAP in a peer-to-peer arrangement. However, for this to work, the 

individual wireless cards in each Wi-Fi equipped computer must be set to 'Ad-Hoc' mode 

instead of the default 'Infrastructure' mode. Ad-hoc mode is suitable only for the smallest 

private Wi-Fi systems, where limited utilization (e.g., a single roaming wireless user) is 

all that is to be supported. 

In either the Infrastructure or Ad-Hoc mode, IEEE 802.11B 11 Mb/s High Rate wireless 

Ethernet Wi-Fi equipment provides performance that is very nearly the same as that 

provided by the older, legacy 10BaseT wired equipment that provided 10 Mb/s 

connectivity. However, unlike the older legacy equipment, the flexibility of use is 

considerably more with Wi-Fi, since users can now roam throughout their coverage area, 

and are no longer tied to just one physical location or desk. 

The Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (WECA) was formed in August 1999 with 

just six member companies.64 It is now comprised of over 130 member companies, and 

has declared its mission to certify interoperability of Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) products and 

to promote Wi-Fi as the global wireless LAN standard across all market segments.65 

With nearly 200 certified devices as of September 2001, its success in terms of certifying 

interoperability has been significant.66 In further support of the long-range goals of their 

mission, WECA has recently petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

to permit unlicensed national operation of new equipment providing even higher data rate 

 

64 http://www.wirelessethernet.org/pr/pr_pdf/Wi-Fi_Fall_01_Briefing.pdf

65 Older wireless Ethernet equipment, with 2 Mb/s data rates using direct sequence spread-spectrum 

operation in the 2.4 GHz ISM band, has been in existence for many years, and not all newer 11 Mb/s High 

Rate equipment is completely compatible with this older equipment. Starting with 11 Mb/s speeds, though, 

WECA is now working this interoperability issue to avoid the future obsolescence of 11 Mb/s, and faster, 

equipment. 

66 http://www.wirelessethernet.org/pr/pr_pdf/Wi-Fi_Fall_01_Briefing.pdf
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

64

operation in the range of 5.470-5.725 GHz.67 This petition, filed January 15, 2002, has 

been assigned the Rule Making number of RM-10371 by the FCC. If approved, the 

WECA plan is to increase data throughput for Wi-Fi to around 100 Mb/s, or higher, 

typical, going to greatly higher data rates within just a few years, for its next steps up in 

data rate, analogous to the historical step taken going from 10 Mb/s 10BaseT to 

100BaseT that occurred in the wired Ethernet world. The newest version of wireless 

Ethernet presently available is referred to as Wi-Fi 5.68 Under perfect conditions, it runs 

at a maximum theoretical speed of 54 Mb/s. A new IEEE 802.11a standard governs the 

details of this faster Wi-Fi. The 802.11a modulation technique is OFDM (orthogonal 

frequency division multiplexing), unlike the 802.11b, which uses DSSS (direct sequence 

spread spectrum). The advantage is that OFDM operation allows packing more bits per 

second than DSSS into the same operating bandwidth with a single set of transmitter and 

receiver hardware.69 To reduce network congestion, OFDM modulation also will permit 

the simplification of routing, for 802.11a routers, once the need arises. 

The naming of both WECA and even of Wi-Fi 5 has met with confusion in the 

marketplace. “Wireless Ethernet” is a term that has largely been replaced in the public’s 

mind with the “Wi-Fi” term. The success of the Wi-Fi moniker in marketing terms has 

been at the loss of recognition for the underlying technology, Wireless Ethernet. 

Customers simply want to be wirelessly connected, and “Wi-Fi” is the term for which 

they search when attempting to buy a product. Attempting to change the underlying 

descriptive term from version to version simply confuses the average buyer standing in 

front of a Wi-Fi display in a store. The question asked by many, upon hearing the “Wi-Fi 

5” term for the first time, is what happened to Wi-Fi 2, 3, and 4? In addition, the typical 

customer assumes (wrongly) that Wi-Fi 5 should be backwards compatible with Wi-Fi (it 

is not.) Taken together, this indicates a clear misunderstanding that the 5 in Wi-Fi 5 

refers to the 5 GHz band in which Wi-Fi 5 operates, in contrast to the 2.4 GHz band in 

which Wi-Fi first emerged, which the public never knew in the first place. The further 

explanation that the ‘5’ in Wi-Fi 5 is not the version number of Wi-Fi being indicated 

simply confuses the issue more. When a typical customer learns that Wi-Fi 5 is not 

backwards compatible with Wi-Fi, the usual response is a sense of hostility and 

frustration. Clearly, these issues must be resolved prior to releasing Wi-Fi 5 hardware to 

the retail market. A new name is needed.70

 

67 http://www.wirelessethernet.org/index.html

68 The “5” indicates it uses the 5 GHz band, instead of the older 2.4 GHz ISM band used for 802.11b which 

is co-shared with numerous unlicensed FCC Part 15 devices such as cordless telephones, microwaves, etc. 

69 Theoretically, DSSS could pack the same number of bits into the same bandwidth as OFDM, provided 

that multiple DSSS carriers were overlaid, through using parallel transmitter and parallel receiver 

technologies, although, in practice, the leakage between parallel signals would negate some of the possible 

theoretical performance. OFDM thus represents a lower-risk technical solution to the problem, making 

OFDM more suitable than DSSS for high-volume production of 54 Mb/s Wi-Fi devices. 

70 Junko Yoshido. Group proposes catchall 802.11 labeling. Electronic Engineering Times, 15 July 2002, 

p. 1, p. 94. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

65

In an attempt to clarify Wireless Ethernet terminology to the public, and even to vendors 

who only do Wi-Fi product development, WECA itself is planning to change its name 

from WECA to the “Wi-Fi Alliance”. Likewise, WECA’s original plan of indicating WiFi 5 compatibility, through stamping a Wi-Fi 5 seal of approval sticker on boxed 

equipment, is not going to be used. Instead, “Wi-Fi” will become the basic compatibility 

sticker used, with versions of Wi-Fi indicated by the terms 802.11b, 802.11a, 802.11g, 

etc., analogous to Win98®, WinNT® and other terms used to indicate particular versions 

of Windows®. Wi-Fi will thus become the generic term for Wireless Ethernet, analogous 

to the generic term of Windows® used for indicating Microsoft’s operating systems.71,72

Another Wi-Fi technology scheduled for release within the next year is IEEE 802.11g. It 

runs at the same 54 Mb/s theoretical maximum data rate as 802.11a, and also uses OFDM 

modulation, but will operate in the same 2.4 GHz frequency range as the existing 802.11b 

devices. The ultimate plan for 802.11g is to provide seamless interconnectivity between 

existing 2.4 GHz 802.11a devices at 11 Mb/s with future 2.4 GHz 802.11g devices 

capable of 54 Mb/s, without obsolescing any of the older 802.11a devices. Future 

802.11g wireless access points (WAPs) will therefore include both DSSS modulation 

support and OFDM support, to provide backwards compatibility with legacy 802.11b 

WNA (Wireless Network Adaptor) devices, as well as future support for planned 

OFDM-based routers. 

As for 5 GHz 802.11a devices, backwards compatibility to 802.11b protocols is now 

possible, permitting the continued operation of already-installed 2.4 GHz 802.11b 

devices. The first Dual-Band Wireless Access Point device became available August 20, 

2002 with the introduction of the Linksys WAP51AB. Priced at $299, this Dual-Band 

Wireless Access Point permits users to support their present investment in 802.11b 

devices, while providing an upgrade path to the less-crowded 5 GHz band, and to the 

faster throughput provided by the 802.11a mode of operation.73 As to whether the 

802.11a standard or 802.11g standard will ultimately win the majority of market share in 

providing 54 Mb/s high speed Wi-Fi, only time will tell. Yet, the planned 802.11g 

advantages, to provide backwards compatibility to 802.11b devices, in addition to 

connecting new 54 Mb/s 2.4 GHz 802.11g devices, will likely mean that the 802.11g 

standard may ultimately become dominant over the 802.11a standard. If so, 802.11g will 

win market share for applications where cost advantages in supporting operation in only 

 

71 Ben Charny. Wi-Fi Group Clears Up Naming Confusion. CNET News, 18 July 2002, 

http://news.com.com/2100-1033-945023.html?tag=fd_top, retrieved 29 August 2002. 

72 Sam Costello. Group may change name of 802.11 certification. IDG News Service, 19 July 2002, 

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/0719weca.html, retrieved 29 August 2002. 

73 Linksys Press Release. New Dual-Band Wireless Access Point Connects IEEE 802.11a and 802.11b 

Wireless Networking Devices With a Cost Less Than Most 802.11a-Only Access Points, 

http://www.linksys.com/press/press.asp?prid=83&cyear=2002, dated 20 August 2002, retrieved 28 August 

2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

66

one band dominate in spectrally unoccupied locations, such as SOHO applications. With 

operation in only one band, the recurring cost savings possible by eliminating an 

additional RF front-end, RF power amplifier, and antenna for a second band should prove 

beneficial for 802.11g. However, due to lessened susceptibility of interference of 

802.11a standard devices operating in the 5 GHz band, the 802.11a protocol may still win 

in business applications in spite of a higher cost, due to increased throughput 

performance in spectrally crowded office environments. After all, relative to an 

increasingly crowded 2.4 GHz band for 802.11g, 802.11b, microwave ovens, cordless 

phones, and other 2.4 GHz ISM devices, the 2.4 GHz band Wi-Fi protocols will likely 

suffer from lessened throughput relative to the 5 GHz 802.11a band. As a result, the 

market will likely split, allowing both 802.11g and 802.11a devices to coexist in different 

market spaces, with both providing dual-mode operation sharing with legacy 802.11b 

devices, due to cost advantages in 802.11g for SOHO use and to 5 GHz band 

performance advantages in 802.11a for regular office use. 

Wi-Fi (802.11b) data transfer throughput is a function of the range from the base. Near 

the base, data transfer throughputs of 11 Mb/s are achieved for 802.11b. Practical indoor 

operational distances range up to 25-150 meters (75-450 feet) from the base, over which 

Wi-Fi is typically found to operate well, usually provide data transfer throughputs from 

3.5- 4.5 Mb/s. It is possible to specify in most of the Wi-Fi hardware available today 

how to handle this throughput data rate versus range capability. As normally configured, 

four steps (from 2.5 Mb/s to 11 Mb/s) can typically be set to adapt automatically to 

changing link margin conditions, while providing maximum throughput. On the other 

hand, it is also possible to lock the minimum data rate to some user-selectable rate among 

the four data rates provided, to maintain a minimum throughput, if any throughput exists, 

although this is not a commonly selected configuration. Provided that the system is 

allowed to adapt, as the user roams closer to the edge of Wi-Fi communication range, the 

data transfer rate often drops to around 2.5 Mb/s to 4 Mb/s, with just a few intervening 

walls setting the practical distance limit that can be roamed in many instances. Outdoor 

ranges up to 600 meters (1800 feet) are often possible, at rates from 4 Mb/s to 11 Mb/s, 

under perfect conditions. 

 

Whereas 802.11b sometimes provides a range of 100 to 150 feet indoors at its top speed 

of 11 Mbps, the faster Wi-Fi 5 (802.11a) can theoretically achieve only around 60 feet at 

its top speed. However, 802.11a users still theoretically achieve two times the throughput 

performance of 802.11b at the same distance. (The same will be true for 802.11g.) With 

a top speed of 54 Mbps, at distances greater than 60 feet up to around 120 feet, 802.11a 

theoretically only falls back to a still impressive 24 Mbps. At farther distances, 802.11a 

speeds further decrease to 6 Mbps, which is comparable to 802.11b's real-life top 

performance of 4 Mb/s often seen in practical installations. 

First generation WLAN security, denoted as WEP (Wired Equivalent Protocol, or 

Wireless Encryption Protocol, depending on vendor), is variable, depending on the exact 

vendor hardware selected. Encryption using 40 bit, 64 bit, and 128 bit keys are all used 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

67

depending on the vendor, with no guarantees as of yet of complete interoperability 

between vendors of their various full-strength encryption techniques.74 Provided WEP is 

used, however, data transfer throughput is reduced about 20-50% in most instances. In 

other words, the practical indoor 802.11b data rate of about 3.5-4.5 Mb/s seen without 

WEP enabled drops to around 2.5-3.5 Mb/s with 128-bit WEP enabled. On the other 

hand, with 64-bit keys selected, a negligible drop is often seen at close ranges (between 

neighboring rooms, for example.) The degree of security provided by WEP is marginal, 

although probably adequate for many SOHO (Small Office Home Office) users. 

With the 50% reduction in data throughput often seen, however, full WEP is often 

disabled in practice just to speed up wireless networks, and total dependence on security 

through ever-decreasing obscurity of the 802.11b protocol is the result.75 A likely 

necessary step to implement WEP fully in most commercial installations will be to 

change from 802.11b equipment without WEP to 802.11a or 802.11g equipment with 

WEP, or whatever replaces WEP. In practice, the data transfer throughput will be nearly 

the same, and users may not even be aware that encryption has been activated. At the 

same time, security will be enhanced. The wireless LAN (WLAN) threat is real, 

especially with the recent widespread introduction and availability of WEP securitycracking tools on the Internet such as Netstumbler, Airsnort, and WEPcrack.76,77,78 These 

are passive tools that require only an afternoon’s typical volume of traffic (i.e., around 10 

to 100 Million packets) to compromise an 802.11b network and obtain full network 

access.79 First generation vendor-supplied solutions to the WEP-cracking threats are not 

 

74 Due to differences in how key bits are counted, 64 bit systems actually provide the same number of key 

bits, i.e., 40 bits, as are used in what are called 40 bit systems. It is merely a difference in semantics, not a 

difference in degree of protection. Likewise, selecting keys through pass phrase selection between vendors 

is also not guaranteed to provide interoperability between Wi-Fi-certified systems made by different 

vendors. Instead, cryptographic keys must be entered by their hexadecimal values to meet Wi-Fi 

certification requirements for achieving interoperability when using WEP. 

 

75 Early experiments done at Harris Corporation (parts of which are now Intersil) with prototype PrismTM

chipsets during the early to mid 1990’s, prior to the public release of 802.11b, were actually fairly secure! 

Prism itself is technically an acronym for Packet Radio ISM, where ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) 

is the generic description of the 2.4 GHz unlicensed band where the first of these devices operated. 

‘Packet radio’ itself is a term referring to earlier AX.25 protocol transmissions using militarized versions of 

amateur (ham) radio terminal node controllers (TNCs) developed during the packet radio developments 

from the mid-1980’s. The early 1980’s AX.25 protocol was the Amateur radio modified version of the 

even earlier European X.25 communication protocol, modified for radio use. Wi-Fi is thus a logical 

descendant of the European X.25 protocol, with a firmware and specification development period having 

been spent in the ham radio communities around Melbourne, Florida and Tucson, Arizona, as well as at 

Harris Corporation and Intersil in Palm Bay, Florida (near Melbourne.) 

76 http://www.netstumbler.com/

77 http://www.wirelessethernet.org/pr/pr_pdf/Wi-Fi_Fall_01_Briefing.pdf

78 http://www.itsecurity.com/asktecs/sep1301.htm

79 http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/13102.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

68

expected until late in 2002. One of the possible solutions is TKIP (Temporal Key 

Integrity Protocol). TKIP is able to change keys on the fly approximately every 10,000 

packets, unlike WEP. TKIP is presently (as of May 2002) going through the IEEE 

standards process, where it is to be known as 802.11i.80 

Another possible solution to WLAN security is proprietary (i.e., vendor-specific) VPN 

(Virtual Private Network) client technology adapted for use by wireless roaming users to 

allow roaming between access points without re-authentication, in a VLAN (Virtual 

Local Area Network).81 In any case, since Windows XP provides native support for WiFi, continuing security threat code updates to Windows XP, and the other extant 

operating systems with native support for Wi-Fi, will likely be required to fix the WEP 

threats that presently exist with currently defined WEP protocols. 

Another, somewhat outlandish approach to Wi-Fi security being used by some, as a 

temporary, stopgap measure until real Wi-Fi security products become available, is 

FakeAP, a Gnu Public License (GPL) freeware Linux software package. The underlying 

idea is that if one access point is good, tens of thousands must be better. Similar to using 

chad in an electronic warfare environment to protect real airplanes against radar-focused 

attacks, Black Alchemy’s FakeAP allows a Wireless Access Point to generate what 

appears to be tens of thousands of fake 802.11b access points. An authorized user simply 

hides in plain sight, amongst an electronic barrage of fake beacon frames. FakeAP 

therefore confuses Wardrivers, NetStumblers, Script Kiddies, and other drive-by 

undesirables, who are unable to find the real Access Point among the protective 

camouflage of an electronic assortment of tens of thousands of fake Access Points. This 

‘security’ approach is clearly not an ultimate solution, but it is an interesting approach to 

achieving protection against drive-by hackers, at the expense of network congestion. 

This approach would only work in a very lightly occupied Wi-Fi environment. 

Eventually, it would also tend to attract drive-by hackers, who would be challenged to 

find the real Access Point. Although FakeAP is clearly not recommended, it does 

indicate the creativity being spent to solve the Wi-Fi security problem with low-budget 

approaches.82 

In many cases, through individuals desiring to extend wireless private portals for their 

own laptops, wireless networks have proliferated at the expense of security in what has 

become a guerrilla wireless movement within many large organizations. This is simply 

the next step of a long-standing tradition that has gone on in many large commercial 

 

80 Nobel, Carmen, Symbol crashes WLAN security party, eWeek, , Ziff-Davis Publishing, May 6, 2002, p. 

10. 

81 One vendor working this approach is Columbitech AB of Stockholm, Sweden. For more information, 

see: Nobel, Carmen, Symbol crashes WLAN security party, eWeek, May 6, 2002, p. 10. 

82 Black Alchemy Weapons Lab, FakeAP, Version 0.3, released September 3, 2002, 

http://www.blackalchemy.to/Projects/fakeap/fake-ap.html, retrieved 4 September 2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

69

companies for over a decade now, with the tacit support of mid-level Information 

Technology management. 

To understand this recent movement, consider an historical analogy. To stem the 

unauthorized outflow of company private data in the late-1980’s through the mid-1990’s 

many U.S. companies replaced all their analog phone systems with digital systems. With 

the rapid rise in Internet traffic, many of these same companies additionally installed 

Ethernet and Web-usage monitoring applications. This way, dial-up modems on laptops 

could not directly access outside computers, to leak company-private information in realtime, and Ethernet leaks could be detected, too, through monitoring Ethernet connections. 

FAX machines, though, could not operate over the new digital phone lines. The solution 

used was to run special analog phone lines just to the FAX machines to allow them to 

continue to function. Frustrated system administrators, though, quickly learned to install 

rogue power line analog modems on these same analog phone lines just to access other 

company-paid-for dial-up services, to access, for example, phone-line secure software 

security updates to manage Internet-connected servers during major Internet attacks.83 

Such power line modems are still sold to connect satellite TV devices to remote phone 

line jacks located next to a power receptacle to allow users to subscribe to pay-per-view 

services. They typically operate fairly well at rates up about 33-36 Kb/s, over distances 

up to 100 feet (30 m) as long as operation through power line transformers is not 

attempted. Moreover, their use can provide a much-needed method to access special 

dial-up computer services without having to pay expensive installation fees to install an 

additional analog phone line for what is (typically) a rare need. 

Likewise, many of the same technically savvy individuals that installed phone line 

modems surreptitiously to access phone-line dial-ups, have repeated the process by 

installing the first generation of Wireless Ethernet Access Points in a guerrilla wireless 

movement to provide their groups or staff members access for wireless connectivity, 

without always acquiring upper level management approval. The countermeasure for this 

security leak, though, was not long in coming. To prevent unauthorized WEAP devices 

from being installed and operated without network administration approval on wired 

networks, which can open an uncontrolled backdoor security threat to an otherwise 

secure network, it is now possible to acquire a Wireless Protocol Analyzer (WPA) to 

detect and find such rogue WEAP devices. This presumes, of course, that a private or 

secured wireless network is desired.84,85 For universities, which have historically 

 

83 When a major worm attack occurs on the Internet, the first step in many organizations is simply to sever 

the Internet connections of all the servers until security patches can be installed. This is exactly what 

happened in November 1988 with the Morris Worm. Hence, the need for a secure, phone-line dial-up line 

to secure badly needed Internet server security updates. For more on the first Internet worm, see: 

http://www.software.com.pl/newarchive/misc/Worm/darbyt/pages/worm.html. 

84 Brooks, Jason, Wireless LAN Security CRACKDOWN, eWeek, Ziff-Davis Publishing, May 6, 2002, pp. 

45-48. 

85 Chen, Anne, Sniffing out rogue wireless LANs, eWeek, Ziff-Davis Publishing, May 6, 2002, pp. 45-50. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

70

promoted open access to networks and knowledge in general, the use of WPA devices to 

detect and close down open-access Wi-Fi portals has been met with noticeable hostility. 

Yet, the haphazard acceptance of new technology without providing the means to insure 

the security of both the network and of the data flowing on it is certainly risky. The 

necessity to balance the security needs of an organization, while permitting technological 

improvement, begs for the highest-level management support and understanding in 

organizations. Otherwise, technological innovation is simply forced underground, to the 

approval of mid-level managers, without necessarily achieving all the global needs 

required for secure computing within many organizations. 

One of the newest WPA sniffer devices is by AirMagnet, Inc., and is dubbed AirMagnet 

1.2. This product started shipping in April 2002, and costs $2,495 for a set of software 

and an 802.11b PCMCIA wireless Ethernet card. Intended for installation on a handheld 

computer such as the Compaq Computer Corporation’s iPaq, this product provides the 

means to track down rogue Wi-Fi portals. Operating in what is termed full ‘tricorder’ 

mode (in honor of the mythical sensor device from the Star Trek TV series), scanning all 

frequencies available for 802.11b devices is provided. In addition, functionality for 

pinging any WEAPs that are found, to determine whether connectivity to a wired 

network exists behind the WEAP, is also supported. In ‘tricorder’ mode, it is possible to 

ferret out rogue WEAPs in a matter of minutes, without alerting the rogue network that a 

search is being conducted. This is because AirMagnet 1.2 conducts essentially a passive 

search, without sending traffic, and sending only occasional pings. With the introduction 

of such WPA devices, the days of unapproved rogue WEAPs are certainly numbered. In 

addition, operating WPA devices in ‘tricorder’ mode also can provide site feasibility 

information for the installation of authorized wireless network additions, to determine the 

best coverage versus installation locations, in addition to searching for unauthorized 

WEAPs.86 

Although most Wi-Fi networks implemented to date have been private, or, at worst, 

surreptitious, there is a growing move to provide mobile connectivity for a price to 

roaming Wi-Fi devices through public portals. Such a provider of wireless service is 

often generically referred to as a WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider).87 First 

advertised to high-end business-travelers, only, at just a few major airports during early 

2000 (e.g., Ottawa, Atlanta, San Francisco and Los Angeles), wireless connectivity is 

now available from WISP companies such as Wayport, iPass, and Boingo in many of the 

airports, hotels, and convention centers across the United States where business travelers 

congregate.88,89,90 Whereas only four major airports were initially covered in early 2000, 

 

86 Sturdevant, Cameron, AirMagnet 1.2 reveals WLAN trouble spots, eWeek, Ziff-Davis Publishing, May 

6, 2002, pp. 48-50. 

87 Shaw, Russell. More Web Users Look to WISP. Investor’s Business Daily, Monday, June 24, 2002, p. 

A6, Internet & Technology. 

88 http://www.wayport.com/

89 http://www.ipass.com/main.php
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

71

today there are several thousand locations with Wi-Fi service available.91 Rates for 

services are still expensive, compared to flat rate dial-up or 24/7 DSL/Cable pricing. For 

example, in North America, using the iPass network through WorldHook costs $5.00 per 

hour, plus an annual billing of $24.95 to cover account maintenance.92 Considering that 

the typical traveling business user uses from 30 to 50 hours of Internet access per month, 

the cost for Wi-Fi at commercial rates is still considerably more than the cost for a 

functionally equivalent company dial-up on an 800 number dial-up to a VPN (Virtual 

Private Network). For many small companies, Wi-Fi public access service has been 

priced out of the range where the value is worth the expense. 

The cost/benefit ratio, though, is changing weekly, improving especially with the 

introduction of the Wi-Fi service provided by Boingo that debuted in Spring 2002. 

Established by Internet Service Provider (ISP) Earthlink’s chairman, Sky Dayton, Boingo 

is purchasing nationwide Internet access from Earthlink, and is re-selling this Internet 

access to roaming wireless customers. Pricing options range from Boingo Pro® priced at 

$24.95 for ten connect days usage per month with unlimited access in single Boingo 

locations to Boingo Unlimited® which provides unlimited monthly usage for $74.95 per 

month. For customers who are uncertain of their usage, Boingo As-You-Go® provides 

service at $7.95 per day for unlimited access in single Boingo locations for up to 24-

hours. Within the span of just a few weeks, Boingo locations have appeared at 

numerous sites throughout the country. For example, in Brevard County, FL, home of 

Kennedy Space Center, there were no public Wi-Fi services as of mid-2002. Within the 

span of just a few weeks in late spring 2002, two local hotels in Cocoa Beach and 

Melbourne93 added Boingo service with lobby access for travelers to the Space Coast. 

Across Florida, twenty-six cities likewise now have Boingo locations (as of June 2002). 

Boingo also has made available free software to enable Wi-Fi equipped laptop users to 

know when they are within range of high-speed wireless Ethernet signals; both for free 

services as well as for premium pay-for-Ethernet services such as Boingo.94

In contrast to Boingo’s service aimed at business travelers, many universities are 

installing Wi-Fi networks to provide students with wireless Internet access on their nowrequired laptops in libraries, classrooms, and laboratories. The result has been to make 

 

90 http://www.boingo.com/whatisboingo.html

91 Consistent with airport expectations for wireless access today, the Spaceports and Ranges of the future 

will need to include similar capability to attract technologically savvy customers. 

92 http://www.worldhook.com/pricing.shtml

93

http://www.boingo.com/search.html?COUNTRY=1&METRO_SEARCH=on&CITY=136&CATEGORY=

0&STATE=10&SUBMIT=Show+Locations

94 http://www.boingo.com/whatisboingo.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

72

Wi-Fi adaptor cards a hot ‘back-to-school’ item on many students’ lists.95 Other 

universities, planning ahead, now require new students (commencing Fall 2002) to come 

equipped with laptops having both a built-in 10/100BaseT wired Ethernet connection and 

a spare PCMCIA slot to permit installing future Wi-Fi cards at varying data rates to allow 

easy options for accommodating Wi-Fi technology upgrades.96 

Undoubtedly, the expansion beyond the first few thousand “hotspot” Wi-Fi locations will 

continue. According to some market forecasts, it is likely that relatively inexpensive WiFi service will be available in almost all inhabited areas of the United States by 2005.97 

Connectivity for some of these areas will be made through the efforts of the high-priced 

companies that exist today, along with any new ISP companies that enter this business. 

The Spaceport and Ranges of the future will need such service to remain attractive to the 

traveling public. 

Private individuals, instead of companies, may also serve many of these “hotspot” areas. 

For example, one start-up named Joltage provides software to enable operators of private 

home and business Wi-Fi networks to sell their spare Wi-Fi capacity to any passerby with 

a need to be Wi-Fi connected.98 Based on a free software download that permits private 

Wi-Fi base operators to set up micro-ISP (Internet Service Provider)-controlled access to 

their private Wi-Fi network, private individuals can now benefit from providing Internet 

connectivity to the Joltage subscribers who pay $1.99 per hour ($24.99/month) for 

connectivity when within range of a participating private Wi-Fi network. At a fraction of 

the present commercial Wi-Fi rate charged across most of North America, this pricing 

rate seems destined to lure budget-conscious traveling subscribers. In turn, payment 

from Joltage is made once a month to each of the participating micro-ISP base owners 

scaled in accordance to the amount of traffic that has passed through each of their 

network(s). This payment is made electronically through the online PayPalTM service, an 

electronic payment service originally started to provide easy payment by credit card for 

Internet auction items sold on EbayTM. 99 Much like the increase in network congestion 

seen from Napster use during 2000 until 2001, which resulted in the banning of Napster 

 

95 http://www.wirelessethernet.org/pr/pr_pdf/Wi-Fi_Fall_01_Briefing.pdf

96 Agnes Scott, a small liberal arts college in Atlanta, GA, for example, requires both a wired Ethernet 

capability as well as a spare PCMCIA slot in student’s laptops for providing future Wi-Fi upgrade options 

for all freshmen starting in the fall of 2002. Wi-Fi is still too new, and the fear of selecting the wrong WiFi standard is still strong among university computer network administrators, hence the need for an empty 

PCMCIA slot. 

97 In contrast, 3G Wireless rollouts are not likely to occur before Wi-Fi guerrilla wireless achieves nearly 

total market saturation. This does not bode well for 3G Wireless service providers. 

 

98 http://www.joltage.com/jsp/home/home.jsp

99 Although Joltage only publicly announced its Joltage Provider ProgramTM service and free download 

software on March 22, 2002, considerable interest was generated within just few days in the general 

Internet community regarding its fledgling Wi-Fi micro-ISP service. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

73

and all other peer-to-peer sharing software programs on many college campuses, a 

similar recurrence is likely whereby existing broadband 24/7 ISPs ban entirely the reselling of even small amounts of wireless bandwidth connectivity through DSL and cable 

modems owned by private citizens. The result may be that most home users may be 

barred by their own ISPs from becoming micro-ISPs. Assuming civil disobedience 

against this rule, however, it is highly likely that by 2005 or 2006, if not before, wireless 

Internet access will be available at relatively low cost through privately-owned Wi-Fi 

portals in most inhabited locations in North America. 

An additional trend arose in June 2002; the fad of “warchalking” suddenly sprouted and 

spread throughout the high-tech geek world. Warchalking is an underground low-tech 

Wireless Ethernet fad that started in London for marking Wireless (i.e., ‘War-less’) 

Ethernet hotspots by chalk marks on sidewalks. These marks for digital hobos are 

analogous to the hobo codes used in America in the 1930’s to indicate information 

regarding dogs, food handouts, and other items of interest to hobos. Warchalking spread 

across high-tech geek hangouts within a matter of days to various locations in California, 

New York City, and other high-tech hotbeds around the world. Warchalking itself is a 

wordplay on “War-less”100 Ethernet and ‘wardialing’, an earlier term made popular in the 

1980’s in the movies, describing how computer users obtained surreptitious access to 

dial-up modem lines to gain Internet access through dialing through entire city telephone 

directories, in order to find modem lines. Through warchalking, users with high-speed 

Internet access mark the presence of Wireless Ethernet hotspots to share Internet access 

with others at no cost. Within a matter of only a few days, Time Warner Cable, owner of 

the RoadRunner® broadband Cable Modem service, issued cease and desist orders to 

users in New York City for sharing their broadband access upon publicly announcing 

their illegal Wi-Fi hotspots through warchalking.101,102,103,104

An additional issue that may slow acceptance of even legally-operating public Wi-Fi 

portals is that none of the present public networks implemented to date has had any form 

of WEP installed and activated in order to keep the Wi-Fi publicly accessible. 105 

Although a password is included, it is the word “Public” for most non-WEP, public 

systems. The threat is obvious, however. Anyone in a Starbucks or other similar Wi-Fi 

 

100 Warless is a word pun on “wireless’, pronounced with a dialect. 101A Wireless End Run Around ISPs, Business Week Online, 

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2002/tc2002073_1130.htm retrieved 15 July 2002.

102Warchalking. http://www.blackbeltjones.com/warchalking/ , retrieved 15 July 2002. 

103Loney, Matt. Want Wi-Fi? Learn the Secret Code. C/Net News.com, http://news.com.com/2100-1033-

939546.html , retrieved 15 July 2002. 

104 Boutin, Paul. Wi-Fi Users: Chalk this way. Wired News, 3 July 2002, 

http://wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,53638,00.html , retrieved 15 July 2002. 

105 http://www.wirelessethernet.org/pr/pr_pdf/Wi-Fi_Fall_01_Briefing.pdf
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

74

equipped establishment using a Wi-Fi equipped laptop to access, say, her online 

brokerage account, could be exposing her portfolio to rather serious threats, unless her 

brokerage account was set up with both VPN (Virtual Private Network) and SSL (Secure 

Socket Layer) protection. (Adding VPN security is being addressed in the pay-for-Wi-Fi 

marketplace. Boingo, for example, is initialing bundling a Personal VPN Service for free 

both to provide their Wi-Fi users with security and to encourage early adopters to sign up 

for their Boingo service.106) As for SSL, many of the smaller online brokerage houses 

are still operating with only 40-bit SSL protection, which is better than no protection, but 

does not provide much protection relative to even 128-bit key SSL protection. Adding a 

VPN connection to 40-bit SSL protection does result in a minimal acceptable level of 

protection. In most cases at present, private citizens, though, only have the minimal 40-

bit SSL protection, especially if they travel internationally with their laptop.107

Relative to Advanced Spaceport and Range use, the Ethernet-connected distances 

achievable with normal Wi-Fi would generally be too short to be of much use, certainly 

less than 600 meters. With small, inefficient, omni-directional antennas, especially 

within laptop cases inside lossy hotel buildings with metallic facades, this is certainly 

true. Yet, there are practical results reported publicly in which Ethernet-like speeds were 

achieved over a 5-mile wide valley, and plans are afoot for a 21-mile distance using stock 

Wi-Fi equipment.108 Since present FCC rules govern only the maximum output RF 

power permitted from 802.11b equipment, and do not prevent the use of external highgain antennas, or of restricting the maximum data rate on stock Wi-Fi equipments, the 

basic technique used is to employ directional antennas on both ends of the Wi-Fi link and 

slow down the transfer speed to extend the range.109 A separate, yet similar approach 

has also been reported operating up to 14 km, with anecdotal evidence of 57 km ranges 

for Wi-Fi as being possible.110 All of these ranges are entirely consistent within the link 

budget capabilities of augmented, existing commercial Wi-Fi equipment, and the 

conclusion is obvious. It is now (as of May 2002) possible to extend the range of 

commercial Wi-Fi equipment to distances of tens of miles with commercially available 

equipment. A Wireless Building-to-Building Bridge such as the National Datacomm 

Corporation’s NWH6110, promises 802.11b compatible coverage at 11 Mb/s rates over 

distances up to 18 miles (30km).111 

 

106 http://www.boingo.com/whatdoesitcost.html The normal price for Boingo’s Personal VPN Service 

software is $30. 

107 The exportation of 128-bit Web Browser software outside of the United States is of questionable 

legality at present due to US State Department requirements, although many travelers (and some customs 

agents) ignore this. 

108 http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/wireless/2001/05/03/longshot.html

109 This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Similar experiments were done over similar distances during the 

mid to late 1980’s at Harris Corporation (now Intersil) in Palm Bay, Florida with early discrete hardware 

implementations of what became the PrismTM chipset. Data rates in terms of Mb/s were achieved.

110 http://macintouch.com/airportantenna.html

111 http://www.ndc.com.tw/products/nwh6110.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

75

Extending Wi-Fi service to citywide WANs and providing the final mile of high-speed 

Internet connectivity to the SOHO (Small Office, Home Office) environment is also 

underway by at least one private company, Etherlinx Communications, Inc. of Cupertino, 

CA.112 Etherlinx has a prototype product nearing the end of a one year field trial in 

Oakland, CA and Campbell, CA (as of June 2002). 113 The basic approach that Etherlinx 

is using is to modify standard Wireless Ethernet Access Point bridges to create what they 

term a Consumer Premise Equipment (CPE) unit costing less than $100. EtherLinx does 

this by re-using standard 802.11b equipment and then loading modified firmware that 

they call Smart SpectrumTM. With their Smart SpectrumTM software, Etherlinx takes 

inexpensive 802.11b hardware and increases the functionality by running one side of the 

CPE normally, providing normal 802.11b operation throughout a home or business at 

adaptive rates up to 11 Mb/s. The other side of the CPE is re-configured within Smart 

SpectrumTM to operate at a rate of no more than 2 Mb/s, thereby extending the distance 

over which the upstream side of the equipment can operate. With high gain antennas and 

with the maximum data rate intentionally kept low, the radio link margin necessary for 

extending the range of the CPE relative to normal WEAPs is accomplished. 

With their very economical technology re-use approach, Etherlinx has operationally “lit 

up” the South Bay and Oakland, CA areas with 2MB Ethernet.114 With a data rate of 2 

Mb/s, very similar performance is achieved in practice by Etherlinx users relative to data 

rates usually experienced by Cable Modem users. Although Cable Modem users 

theoretically achieve a peak data transfer rate of 10 Mb/s on downloads, in practice, with 

many users connected, the typical rate is actually closer to 2 to 3 Mb/s. The typical 

monthly price of $39.95 paid by many Cable Modem users will no doubt encourage 

many of these same Cable Modem users to switch to a lower cost Etherlinx model once 

field trials are completed and wireless service expands. The likely outcome will be a 

further industry consolidation of Cable TV companies and DSL companies, once 

significant numbers of their currently-subscribed customers start to abandon wired 

broadband services for lower cost, wireless services. Considering that some mergers in 

the last two years have resulted in evaluations and prices of as much as $3,000 per 

customer that was paid to acquire an existing subscription base, any significant loss of 

customers switching to broadband wireless services will have dire consequences in terms 

of reduced cash flow for existing telephone and cable TV companies with DSL and Cable 

Modem revenues. 

 

112 http://www.etherlinx.com/index.htm

113 Markoff, John. 2 Tinkerers Say They’ve Found a Cheap Way to Broadband. NY Times, 6 June 2002, 

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/10/technology/10WIRE.html

retrieved 17 June 2002. 

114 http://www.etherlinx.com/about.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

76

Still, it is not wise to think that both DSL and Cable Modem services are ‘out for the 

count’ when it comes to adding wireless convenience. Although, due to total bidirectional throughput limitations of around 1 Mb/s DSL services are largely confined to 

providing single user computers within SOHO setups with high speed Internet 

connectivity, Cable Modem users can experience higher speed download rates up to 10 

Mb/s and typically have the bandwidth needed to simultaneously support multiple users. 

As a result, Cable Modem subscribers have been adding Wi-Fi routers and WEAPs to 

their SOHO setups to share high-speed access throughout their LAN to multiple 

computers. In their quest to win market share at the expense of DSL ISPs, this 

differentiator in download bandwidth advantage for Cable Modem users has not gone 

unnoticed by Cable Modem ISPs. Cable providers are now proactively addressing the 

future threat of WISPs (Wireless Internet Service Providers), as well as competition from 

existing DSL ISPs, through planning built-in wireless networking additions to Cable 

Modems/cable set-top boxes. Further, they plan to transmit video simultaneously to 

other TVs, as well as to handle Internet traffic, using the same technology. Wireless 

chipmakers such as startup Magis Networks of San Diego, CA, are developing chips to 

provide video, data, and even audio content over Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi). Both 

Broadcom and Intersil are likewise investigating this emerging market, to leverage 

technology from their DOCSIS and Wi-Fi chip designs, respectively.115,116 

With the introduction of such new Wi-Fi devices, services, and startup companies, the 

reason for focusing on Wireless Ethernet becomes obvious. Wi-Fi is already winning the 

lion’s share of the existing and emerging markets. Competing 3G Wireless services, 

being slow out of the gate, and with spectrum auctions not even planned in the US until 

September 2002, are already losing the market share race to Wireless Ethernet before the 

real race even starts. To make matters worse, planned 3G Wireless data transfer 

performance is much worse than existing Wireless Ethernet as demonstrated in field 

trials! Wireless Ethernet is rapidly becoming the clear winner in terms of market 

acceptance, infrastructure cost, and technology availability. 

Long-distance Wireless Ethernet technology would be of great benefit for installing a 

WAN around future Spaceports dispersed over large geographic areas. Obviously, such a 

Spaceport and Range WAN would need a more secure WEP than is presently available to 

 

115Mowrey, Mark. Coming soon to your cable box: built-in wireless networking. Red Herring, July 2002, 

p. 23. 

116 Magis Networks raised $40 million in second round VC funding in April 2002 from a pool of investors 

that includes AOL Time Warner (owner of Time Warner Cable and the RoadRunner® broadband Cable 

Modem service), Motorola, and Vulcan Ventures. Vulcan Ventures, a VC company, is run by Paul Allen, 

who is also the chairman of Charter Communications. Charter Communications and AOL Time Warner 

together serve more than 25% of US cable TV subscribers. Through funding wireless chip developments, 

both Charter Communications and AOL Time Warner are laying the necessary chip support infrastructure 

to support the wireless distribution of video, data, and audio content over Wireless Ethernet within the 

SOHO environment to their cable subscribers. This transition will likely be the final nail in the coffin for 

DSL, which has been slow to be fielded, and has been over-hyped for many years. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

77

prevent wireless intruders from gaining access. Such solutions may be available by 

2003. Nonetheless, once WEP security is improved, it would be possible to integrate 

numerous Spaceport and Range web pages and control interfaces and to make them 

remotely and securely accessible through a laptop with (at most) an external directional 

antenna being needed at the greatest ranges desired. Wi-Fi distance-extending hardware 

antenna kits with 14 dBi gains are commercially available now (May 2002), eliminating 

the expense of digging miles of trench to lay Ethernet cables.117 Such disruptive Wi-Fi 

technology significantly reduces the cost of providing reliable, Ethernet-speed 

connectivity over both WAN and LAN distances for Spaceports and Ranges of the near 

future. 

For the foreseeable future however, only 802.11b will likely be used in connecting 

Spaceports and Ranges. The communication ranges possible with 802.11a and 802.11g 

hardware simply will not support the expanses planned for the Spaceports and Ranges 

that are being considered. This will not change, either, since commercially produced 

802.11a and 802.11g hardware must be built in accordance with existing IEEE 801.11a 

standards and this hardware will NOT be good enough in terms of link budget 

performance to cover the distance expanses planned for Spaceports and Ranges. If 

anything, it may be prudent to stockpile 802.11b hardware capable of operating over the 

distances required in order to maintain basic Spaceport Ethernet-speed wireless 

communication capability far into the future. Alternatively, it would be possible to 

commission the design of special 802.11a/g hardware having improved receiver 

sensitivity performance and higher gain phased array antennas, while simultaneously 

petitioning the FCC to permit its use. The likelihood of this happening is rather low, due 

to protection requirements necessary to achieve non-interference with other 

communication links operating on adjacent frequencies to the approved frequencies for 

Wi-Fi. 

The more cost-effective and likely solution, therefore, would be just to stockpile 802.11b 

equipment, as the data throughput capability of this equipment would likely meet the 

basic Ethernet needs though at least the first ten years of operation for future Spaceports 

and Ranges. Although Spaceport users might complain of the ‘slow’ throughput of only 

11 Mb/s in the future, it would certainly be better than no service. Within Spaceport 

Terminals, though, faster, shorter range, wireless Ethernet equipment could be installed. 

The use of wireless laptops while sitting inside trans-Atmospheric vehicles, awaiting 

final clearance for gate rollout, could be based on long-range 11 Mb/s data rate 

equipment. 

4.2.2 Bluetooth

Besides Wireless Ethernet, it should be mentioned that there is one other short-range 

wireless technology that is also often mentioned as a possible replacement for cables over 

very short distances -- roughly 30 feet or less. This shorter-range technology, dubbed 

 

117 http://www.ndc.com.tw/products/nwa0214.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

78

Bluetooth, is named in honor of the 10th Century King Harold Bluetooth who united 

various tribes of Vikings that had formerly not worked together. Bluetooth is slower than 

Wi-Fi and is capable of data transfer rates of only about 1 Mb/s.118 Whereas Wi-Fi is a 

WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network) technology, Bluetooth is instead a WPAN 

(Wireless Personal Area Network). Bluetooth is therefore primarily designed to link a 

cell phone to a laptop, or a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) to a cell phone, or a laptop 

to a printer, or projector – all without cables. 

Bluetooth, also known as IEEE 802.15.1, is not a serious threat to Wi-Fi, even though 

Bluetooth’s power consumption is less than Wi-Fi.119 Some pundits claim that 802.11b 

has already won the competition.120 The reason is that Bluetooth data rates and 

operational ranges are simply too small relative to Wi-Fi, and Wi-Fi peripherals for the 

WPAN market envisioned for Bluetooth are already starting to appear. For example in 

November 2001 at COMDEX in Las Vegas, Linksys announced the introduction of a 

Wireless Ethernet print server, intended for putting printers onto Wi-Fi networks.121 As 

of May 2002, these Wi-Fi print servers are available nationwide at a retail cost of around 

$125.122 In volume, the prices for such print servers quickly drop below Bluetooth 

equivalent link equipments. 

In addition, at the same COMDEX show, Linksys announced an Instant Wireless 

Presentation Gateway (WPG11) to enable multiple Wi-Fi equipped PCs to control a 

presentation or projector screen from the user's keyboard. Serving WPAN functions in 

corporate meetings, conferences, or interactive training sessions, the Presentation 

Gateway provides a solution for a use that Bluetooth has yet to address. The Instant 

Wireless Presentation Gateway from Linksys has an estimated retail price of $299. 

From these examples, it is obvious that Bluetooth is losing market share for the very 

WPAN market for which it was developed, and Wi-Fi is already dominant in this market. 

If Wi-Fi adaptor cards and peripherals continue to drop in price, which is likely to occur 

as production volume ramps, Bluetooth will clearly have cost competitiveness problems 

relative to 802.11b. If the Bluetooth protocol survives, it will become a niche wireless 

connection technology with limited applicability on just the very fringe of the 

communication networks of the future. 

Relative to its possible use on the Spaceports and Ranges of the future, Bluetooth will 

likely be used, if at all, just to connect personal items (cell phone, PDA, laptop, printer) 

within just one office, or within single buildings, or between crew members and 

 

118 Bluetooth typically provides operation only up to 10 meters at maximum data rates up to 721 kb/s. 

119 Pete Fowler. 5 GHz Goes the Distance for Home Networking. IEEE Microwave Magazine, September 

2002, p. 53. 

120 http://www.mobilian.com/documents/WinHEC_whitepaper.pdf

121 http://www.80211-planet.com/news/article/0,4000,1481_922001,00.html

122 Linksys’ Wireless Print Server is termed a WPS11. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

79

passengers and their luggage in the WPAN mode. A more likely outcome is that 

Bluetooth will be abandoned for a mix of Wi-Fi technology for higher data rates and 

longer distance applications and Zigbee technology (to be discussed later) for lower-cost, 

lower-data rates and, especially, for battery-powered applications. Together, Wi-Fi and 

Zigbee will likely squeeze Bluetooth completely out of the marketplace. As such, 

Bluetooth hardly warrants more than a passing mention. Its impact on future Spaceports 

and Ranges will likely be minimal. 

4.2.3 3G Wireless

As introduced earlier, 3G (3rd Generation) Wireless services are intended to provide a 

wide range of telecommunication services in support of both fixed and mobile users 

worldwide. In addition, the hardware for 3G Wireless services will encompass a wide 

range of mobile terminal types linked to terrestrial and/or satellite-based networks, and 

the terminals will be designed for mobile or fixed use. To date, the overarching emphasis 

of 3G Wireless systems is an inordinate focus on seamless billing and collection of 

roaming charges from users while providing worldwide service connections. This 

emphasis is to be achieved through a high degree of commonality of designs worldwide, 

compatibility of international services, and the use of small pocket terminals with 

worldwide roaming capability. Further, unlike the majority of 2G Wireless Cell phone 

services seen today, 3G Wireless systems will support multimedia applications and 

provide interfaces to the Internet and a wide range of other services and terminals. 

According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) International Mobile 

Telecommunications 2000 initiative ("IMT-2000"), numerous 3G Wireless system 

services were scheduled for initial introduction in 2000, subject to market 

considerations.123 Only one field trial actually occurred in 2000, in October 2000 in the 

Republic of Korea.124 3G Wireless companies in Europe were licensed in 2000, and paid 

dearly for their licenses. However, with the worldwide slowdown in Telecommunications 

that commenced in March 2000, they have not achieved any semblance of breaking even 

on their license fees even, as of late 2002, nor have more than very limited field trials 

been conducted. The result has been relatively few functioning hardware 

demonstrations, and no significant service capabilities having been made available to 

significant numbers of customers in multiple countries. 125 

 

123 The Ultimate IMT-2000 Gateway on the World Wide Web, http://www.imt-2000.org/portal/index.asp , 

retrieved June 10, 2002. 

124 SK Telecom conducted the very first CDMA2000 1X field trial in October 2000. See: 

http://www.itu.int/osg/imt-project/Subdirectories_links/implementation.html. (Retrieved June 10, 2002.) 

125 Only seven very limited CDMA2000 tests have occurred only in the Republic of Korea, Canada, Japan 

and the US from 2000 through April 2002. None have occurred over April 2002 through June 2002. 

(CDMA2000 governs the 800/900/1800/1900 MHz bands.) From 2000 through January 2002, limited WCDMA tests have only occurred in Japan, Norway, Finland, Sweden, France, Italy, the Isle of Man, and 

Monaco. (W-CDMA 1885-2025 MHz, 2110-2200 MHz.) Since January 2002 through June 2002, no 

additional W-CDMA tests have occurred, due to the telecommunications market downturn and a lack of 

funding. The major technical problem causing the delay of 3G field trials has been a serious lack of 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

80

That 3G Wireless systems have been slow to enter the mainstream is due to several 

factors. First, 3G Wireless systems are not usually configured in WANs, nor do they 

support Ethernet, which is rapidly taking over the networked planet. Second, whereas 

Wi-Fi provides data rates ranging from 11 Mb/s up through 54 Mb/s, and even higher 

rates are planned for the future, 3G Wireless provides a much more limited and now 

dated capability to support circuit and packet data at significantly lower bit rates ranging 

over: 

 

• 144 kilobits/second or higher in high mobility (vehicular) traffic 

• 384 kilobits/second for pedestrian traffic 

• 2 Megabits/second or higher for indoor traffic 

To date, 3G Wireless’s primary focus appears to have been on billing users and not 

missing any charges, rather than on improving technical performance. For example, 

interoperability and roaming are established whereby service providers share common 

billing/user profiles through: 

 

• Sharing of usage/rate information between service providers 

• Standardized call detail recording 

• Standardized user profiles 

Likewise, capability to determine geographic position of mobiles and to report location 

data to both the network and the mobile terminal are provided. 

However, when it comes to performance, 3G Wireless is falling further behind Wi-Fi. 

When 3G Wireless was first investigated, the technical attributes deemed feasible were 

considerably less than what has become possible in the last eighteen months. Bluetooth, 

for example, was planned only for supporting data rates up to 1 Mb/s, or so, and the 

thought at the time was that providing data rates of 2 Mb/s for 3G Wireless would be 

more than enough bandwidth to support all possible future needs. As a result, the 

planned 3G Wireless network vision of multimedia services/capabilities is flexible 

although no longer truly broadband, with limited features such as: 

• Fixed and variable rate bit traffic 

• Bandwidth on demand 

• Asymmetric data rates in the forward and reverse links 

• Multimedia mail store and forward 

• “Broadband” access up to 2 Mb/second 

 

handsets. See: http://www.itu.int/osg/imt-project/Subdirectories_links/implementation.html (Retrieved 

June 10, 2002.) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

81

The development cycle for 3G Wireless has also been inordinately long, relative to 

commercial development cycles that are producing competing Wi-Fi products, with the 

result that the performance of 3G Wireless is rapidly being surpassed by newer, 

unlicensed services, such as Wi-Fi. “On October 13, 2000, the President executed a 

memorandum that articulated the need to select radio frequency spectrum to satisfy the 

United States' future needs for mobile voice, high-speed data, and Internet-accessible 

wireless capability. The Presidential Memorandum established for the Executive 

Agencies guiding principles to be used in selecting spectrum that could be made 

available for 3G wireless systems, and strongly encouraged independent federal agencies 

to follow the same principles in any actions they take related to the development of 3G 

systems. 

Noting the joint spectrum management responsibilities of the Executive Branch and the 

Commission, the Presidential Memorandum directed the Secretary of Commerce to work 

cooperatively with the FCC: (1) to develop a plan to select spectrum for third generation 

wireless systems by October 20, 2000; and (2) to issue by November 15, 2000 an interim 

report on the current spectrum uses and potential for reallocation or sharing of the 

bands identified at the 2000 World Radiocommunication Conference that could be used 

for 3G systems. These actions were taken to enable the Commission to identify spectrum 

for 3G systems by July 2001 and auction licenses by September 30, 2002. 

In accordance with the Presidential Memorandum, the Department of Commerce 

released a "Plan to Select Spectrum for Third Generation (3G) Wireless Systems in the 

United States" (Study Plan) on October 20, 2000. The Study Plan noted that although 

various frequency bands have been identified for possible 3G use, the Commission and 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) needed to 

undertake studies of the 2500-2690 MHz and the 1755-1850 MHz frequency bands in 

order to provide a full understanding of all the spectrum options available. The Study 

Plan called for the Commission to complete an Interim Report on the 2500-2690 MHz 

band and for NTIA to complete an Interim Report on the 1755-1850 MHz band by 

November 15, 2000. 

In March 2001, the Commission issued a Final Report on the 2500-2690 MHZ band and 

NTIA issued a Final Report on the 1755-1850 MHz band. The NTIA Final Report also 

addressed the 1710-1755 MHz Federal Government band. Comments were received on 

these reports in April 2001. In July 2001, FCC Chairman Powell and Commerce 

Secretary Evans exchanged letters, in which they agreed to postpone the July 2001 

deadline for the Commission to identify spectrum for 3G systems. Secretary Evans 

informed Chairman Powell that he has directed the Acting Administrator of NTIA to 

work with the FCC to develop a new plan for the selection of 3G spectrum, to be 

executed as quickly as possible. 

In September 2001, the Commission added a mobile allocation to the 2500-2690 MHz 

band to provide additional near-term and long-term flexibility for use of this spectrum, 

thereby making this band potentially available for advanced mobile and fixed terrestrial 

wireless services, including 3G and future generations of wireless systems. However, 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

82

because the 2500-2690 MHz band is extensively used by incumbent Instructional 

Television Fixed Service and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Services licensees, 

and in order to preserve the viability of the incumbent services, the Commission did not 

relocate the existing licensees or otherwise modify their licenses.”126

The result has largely been that 3G Wireless specifications in the United States reflect a 

wireless system designed by committee that unfortunately has became mired in the 

performance limitations that existed at the time the committee commenced work. 

Meanwhile, IEEE 802.11b largely grew out of the efforts of one company, Intersil 

(formerly Harris Corporation, Semiconductor Division), and a small number of 

associated companies. The result has been that Wi-Fi has made a much more rapid and 

intensified effort to encompass technological changes, sooner, providing much more 

quickly increasing performance. 

3G Wireless has largely fallen behind the existing Wi-Fi technology, and the situation for 

3G Wireless is actually worse than even the present situation would indicate. UWB 

(Ultra Wideband) technology, as discussed later, is on the verge of reconstituting the 

basic RF (Radio Frequency) technology used for Wi-Fi connections. With UWB, data 

compression is largely rendered obsolete. UWB can also meet much stronger security 

protection than even 3G Wireless can meet, while simultaneously extending battery life 

for portable wireless systems into the hundreds of hours without requiring any change 

from the battery technologies of today. 3G Wireless seems doomed both to miss the 

market of today, as well as to see its demise hastened further once UWB systems are 

fielded. 

For these reasons, 3G Wireless systems are not expected to play any significant datahandling role in the Spaceports and Ranges of the future. They will simply provide too 

little, too late, at too much cost.127 The only likely exception for 3G Wireless Systems is 

for providing international cell phone service, much as provided by the GSM (Global 

System for Mobile communication) services of today in Europe, and in some parts of the 

US.128 However, GSM is the de facto wireless telephone standard in Europe today, and 

boasts over 120 million users worldwide in 120 countries. The GSM service may 

therefore prevent the expansion of 3G Wireless for cell phone service. If this is the case, 

3G Wireless Services will have no significant market remaining. Cell phones, with the 

numbers of units already fielded, provide a significant hurdle to being replaced by newer, 

more costly, and not significantly more capable, 3G cell phones. The result is not going 

to be pretty, either, for shareholders of 3G Wireless licensed companies, as the impact of 

 

126 Federal Communications Commission, http://www.fcc.gov/3G/, retrieved June 6, 2002. 

127 Perhaps 3G Wireless should become 3Too Wireless, instead. 

128 The US GSM system operates in an incompatible and different frequency range than that used in 

Europe. A US GSM phone does not automatically provide service across Europe and the parts of the US 

where GSM is available, unless the GSM phone happens to be a multi-band GSM phone, intended for use 

in both Europe and the US. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

83

companies having bid so high for 3G Wireless licenses hits home further, causing new 

bankruptcies. Rather than 3G Wireless, it is likely that Wireless Ethernet services will 

meet the bulk of the communication network needs on future Spaceports and Ranges. 

4.2.4 Zigbee

The mantras of smaller, cheaper, and lower-power operation relative to existing wireless 

technologies are presently best exemplified by the IEEE 802.15.4 WPAN (Wireless 

Personal Area Network) standard. This standard is presently undergoing finalization of 

technical specification development for physical and media-access control layers. 

Known as Zigbee, this WPAN technology promises to reduce recurring hardware costs to 

less than $2 per communication node when implemented into systems.129 To accomplish 

its smaller, cheaper, and lower-power operation attributes, the trade made is reduced 

data-rates. The expected result is power consumption low enough to permit battery 

operation for services ranging from months to years, thereby permitting the introduction 

of wireless technology into areas that previously made no sense. Zigbee holds 

considerable promise for becoming the very low-cost, low-power consumption two-way, 

wireless communications standard for industrial and home automation use in diverse 

applications including agricultural crop sprinklers, thermostats, factory floor automation, 

wireless-enhanced toys, & PC peripherals. The third round of balloting for the Zigbee 

draft specification is scheduled for conclusion by the end of August 2002. After this, 

vendors plan to finalize system specifications by October 2002, and samples are planned 

of one-chip Zigbee solutions by March 2003.130,131

Zigbee originated as a “Lite” offshoot of the Philips’ HomeRF specification, based on 

additional specification contributions from Motorola. The Zigbee Alliance was formed 

quietly in early 2001, comprised of leadership from Philips, Honeywell and Invensys 

Metering Systems, among others. The top Zigbee Alliance goal was to address the 

disappointment that Bluetooth had largely became, especially in terms of achieving 

affordable performance. Like Wi-Fi, Zigbee is another Part 15 unlicensed wireless 

technology operating in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. Zigbee offers a data rate of less than 220 

kb/s at distances up to 75 meters. (Bluetooth, in contrast, provides operation only up to 

10 meters at data rates up to 721 kb/s.) As discussed earlier, Wi-Fi has already largely 

captured the high data-rate WPAN market that was intended for Bluetooth. Wi-Fi, 

though, is truly overkill for many wireless communications needs. It is a relatively 

expensive high-end solution. Zigbee, on the other hand, is intended to address the cost 

issues through fundamentally reducing the data rate and reducing (slightly) the maximum 

 

129 Zigbee is the current preferred generic name for IEEE 802.15.4 standardized technology. Earlier 

proprietary names for the same technology included PURLnet, RF-Lite, Firefly, and HomeRF Lite. 

 

130 Wireless spec stands out in crowd. EE Times. August 5, 2002, pp. 2, 10. 

131 Palowireless Zigbee Resource Center, http://203.147.194.107/zigbee/resources.asp, retrieved August 7, 

2002, representing the Zigbee Working Group. 

 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

84

distance over which two-way wireless connectivity is provided. At 2002 prices, 

complete Wi-Fi systems retail for around $150 for a pair of PCMCIA form-factor Wi-Fi 

cards intended for interconnecting, for example, two laptops in an ad hoc mode of 

operation. In this mode of operation, Wi-Fi provides 11 Mb/s connectivity over distances 

up to as much as 1800 feet outdoors. For users requiring this high data rate, and long 

communication distance, Wi-Fi is a good solution. 

Zigbee system prices are aiming at a different market, with a planned recurring cost of 

only $2 to $4 per system pair. For many applications, providing data rates up to 220 kb/s 

at distances up to 75 meters for less than $5 per system pair opens up an entirely new set 

of applications. Zigbee further allows up to 250 nodes per network, thereby permitting a 

higher density of nodes per network than Wi-Fi. Much as cell-phone networks have gone 

to micro-cells to increase their capability to handle more nodes per network, Zigbee 

promises to address similar density issues within the 2.4 GHz ISM band currently shared 

among Zigbee, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other services.132

Another fundamental difference with Zigbee is that there are no intellectual property 

issues such as exist with Bluetooth. The Zigbee Alliance specifically structured the 

Zigbee specification to make Zigbee an open standard. The Zigbee Alliance is, at heart, 

an alliance of chip companies that simply wish to concentrate on selling very large 

numbers of single-chip Zigbee solutions; in contrast to the Bluetooth consortium formed 

by system provider companies wishing to sell high-priced systems with wireless 

convenience capability. Much like the proverbial saying that a horse designed by a 

committee becomes a camel, having too many participants often results in trying to meet 

too many disparate needs in a new technology such that a technology developed by a 

committee often meets no user’s need well. Bluetooth, which started with great fanfare, 

has become a technological misfit solution that serves no specific need well. With fewer 

participants, fewer agendas that must be included in the Zigbee specification, and a 

streamlined specification that supports low-cost implementations in single-chip solutions, 

Zigbee appears positioned to become the dominant WPAN technology within the next 

five years. 

Relative to its use on future Spaceports and Ranges, Zigbee could very well become the 

dominant technology used to provide WPAN connectivity for travelers using future 

Spaceports and Ranges. Zigbee could be used for automation of non-critical functions, 

such as walk-around thermostats (to be used much as a TV remote control) for 

controlling comfort zones within Spaceports. It could also be used for data linking 

applications among PDAs, cell phones, cameras, laptops, and other personal, body-worn, 

or hand-carried items. In the pervasively wireless future envisioned in this report, Zigbee 

is likely to serve a major role for non-critical function data linking for WPANs. 

 

132 Yoshida, Junko. Group backs Zigbee as a pervasive wireless spec. EE Times, November 12, 2001, 

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011112S0005 retrieved 7 August 2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

85

4.3 FREE SPACE OPTICAL (FSO) COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 

In its simplest form, transmitting information by optical means through free space dates 

to pre-history. Signal fires on a mountaintop, or the mere absence or presence of a lit 

torch or lantern, likely were the earliest YES or NO digital modulation signaling 

techniques. Among the earliest recorded records of an optical signaling scheme are those 

attributed to Aeneas in 350 BC for sending alarm signals. This was followed by the torch 

signals used by Polybius in 150 BC to encode the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet, in the 

first recorded optical telegraph.133 Nearly 1,900 years would pass before the famous 

“One if by land, two if by sea” lantern encoding was used in a church steeple in Boston 

on the evening of April 18, 1775.134 Less than two decades after Paul Revere’s ride, 

optical signaling concepts had evolved into a formal Free Space Optical (FSO) 

communication system known as the optical telegraph. Invented in the early 1790s by 

French engineer Claude Chappe, who first coined the French word “télégraphe” to 

describe his system, the 18th Century optical telegraph used a series of semaphores 

mounted on towers manned by human operators to relay messages from tower to tower. 

From its inaugural network of May 1794, Chappe’s system eventually grew to 556 

stations spanning 3,000 miles across France, Algeria, and Morocco. A mobile network 

was even built, and was used during the Crimean War.135 Data throughput transfer rate 

was about 20 to 30 seconds per symbol.136

Across the English Channel, the English soon had their own version of an optical 

telegraph up and running. In 1795, the Royal Navy decided to construct its own free 

space optical telegraph system to enable the Admiralty in Whitehall to communicate with 

the Portsmouth Naval Base on the south coast of England. At first, a shutter technique 

was used, but in 1822 the link was upgraded to a semaphore system, much as the French 

had done, to speed signaling rates. Messages could be sent over the 108 km path to 

Portsmouth in about fifteen minutes, which was greatly faster than sending the same 

information via horseback. This early optical information superhighway was in operation 

until about 1847, when the electric telegraph superseded it.137 The French optical 

telegraph similarly became obsolete in 1855. Contributing to its 61-year longevity was 

its ability to resist sabotage; unlike the competing and more modern electrical telegraph, 

it had no wires that could be severed.138

 

133 http://www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center/cht_papers/dilhac.pdf

134 http://www.paulreverehouse.org/midnight.html

135 http://www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center/cht_papers/dilhac.pdf

136 ibid. 

137 http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Clarke/sema4/

138 http://www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center/cht_papers/dilhac.pdf
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

86

Long after the obsolescence of the landlubber optical telegraph, the Navies of the world 

continued to use the earlier optical telegraph shutter technique employed by the British, 

using Morse code modulation of a shutter physically located in front of an electrically 

powered search light. When staffed with experienced operators, this simple manually 

operated free space optics communications system could achieve 10 to 15 WPM (words 

per minute) data transfer rates. Assuming a 5-character word with 8-bit character 

representation, a 15 WPM modulated light is about the equivalent of a data transfer rate 

of 100 bps. By enhancing visual ‘reception’ through using two operators on the 

receiving end, whereby one equipped with binoculars would call out alphanumeric 

characters to the second who would write down the message, it became possible to 

communicate over several miles between ships at sea. With hooded searchlights, some 

degree of directional privacy was even possible. 

The next step in the development of free space optical communications systems was 

considerably more advanced. In 1880, after inventing the wired telephone, Alexander 

Graham Bell patented a free space optical telephone system, which he called the 

Photophone. Based on amplitude modulation of an incandescent light bulb, the 

Photophone was capable of sending voice over short distances in fixed, point-to-point 

applications. Unfortunately, it was not reliable, and the difficulty of connecting multiple 

parties to the communication line proved insurmountable, especially when compared to 

the ease of connecting wired telephones together into networks. The invention of lowloss optical fiber, which would have eased the implementation of Photophone technology 

greatly, would not occur until nearly a century later, in 1970. As for Bell’s optical 

communication system, his experimental Photophone was donated to the Smithsonian 

Institution, where it literally languished on the shelf for over half a century before light 

was once again used to transmit voice.139 During World War II, all private amateur 

(ham) radio wireless transmissions were banned. In areas where black-out rules were not 

in effect, some hams in both the US and Britain experimented with AM modulation of 

search lights to communicate by voice over distances up to several miles. As soon as the 

war was over, though, this optical communication experimentation largely stopped, and 

free space optical communication experimentation became dormant once more. 

After Bell’s Photophone, with the exception of the limited experimentation during World 

War II, the use of free space optics to transmit data was largely forgotten until 1960. The 

invention that changed everything, and which accelerated interest in FSO 

communication, was the laser. Invented in 1958 by Schawlow and Townes at Bell Labs 

who filed for a patent that year, the laser was an outgrowth of an earlier maser 

(Microwave Amplification through the Stimulated Emission of Radiation) device 

invented in 1953.140 Adding mirrors, and increasing the frequency into the light region, 

the maser concept became a laser, and the possibility of generating narrowband coherent 

light became not only theoretically possible, but practical in fact. Such a light source 

 

139Hecht, Jeff, City of Light: The Story of Fiber Optics, Oxford University Press, New York 1999. 

140 http://www.bell-labs.com/history/laser/
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

87

could be modulated at very high data rates, and, due to beam coherence, be transmitted 

over large distances with minimal beam spreading. It was an obvious FSO light source 

waiting to be used. In 1960, Theodore Maiman at Hughes Aircraft Company built the 

first working laser. In addition, in 1960, the Bell Lab’s patent on the laser, filed in 1958, 

was granted.141 In addition, in 1960, and because of this confirmation of the earlier 

theoretical laser research, forward-thinking government researchers started to pay 

particular attention to Free Space Optical (FSO) communication systems for transmitting 

data. 

Although FSO interest was sparked in 1960 with the reduction to practice of the laser, 

and research projects and experiments were funded and continued throughout the 1960s, 

during the 1960s FSO communication systems remained mostly a laboratory curiosity, 

with relatively few specialized communications systems being deployed. This state of 

affairs largely continued until the breakthrough discovery of low-loss fiber optic cable 

manufacturing techniques by Robert Maurer, Donald Keck and Peter Schultz of Corning 

Glass Works (now Corning, Inc.). The goal, in terms of being able to reduce fiber optic 

communications to a position of competitiveness with coaxial cable systems, had long 

been to achieve a loss-limit of 20 dB/km, or less. Their breakthrough discovery that 

accomplished this was announced in September 1970, and it heralded the arrival of 

single-mode fiber (SMF) cable with attenuation below 20 dB/km at the 633-nanometer 

helium-neon line. 

With this low-loss breakthrough, the progression of fiber-optic cable communications 

soon led to the development of ever increasingly sensitive photodetectors (PINs, APDs, 

MSMs, etc.) simultaneous to the development of more powerful light sources in the form 

of continuous output light sources based on laser diodes, Fabry-Perot lasers, Vertical 

Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers (VCSELS), and Distributed-Feedback (DFB) lasers, to 

take advantage of the new low loss SMF. Simultaneous to the development of short 

wavelength lasers at 850 nm wavelengths, the development of lasers at the commerciallysignificant wavelengths around 1310 nm and 1550 nm, where fiber dispersion and loss 

were less, were likewise developed. In addition, the introduction of Erbium Doped Fiber 

Amplifiers (ERDAs, or EDFAs) made the amplification of modulated laser light possible 

without the need for subsequent detection, conversion to electrical signals, and remodulation of another laser, while simultaneously reducing the lens issues associated 

with traditional FSO systems. 

Together, these developments over the thirty-year period starting in 1970 have provided 

all the building blocks required to go to the next step, in many cases entirely eliminating 

the need for fiber-optic cable for short-distance communications, and making FSO 

communications a commercial possibility. For example, the primary patent for Free 

Space Optics using EDFAs was only filed on April 24, 1998 and granted on May 29, 

2001 to LightPointe Communications of San Diego, CA.142 

 

141 U.S. Patent #2,929,922 

142 United States Patent 6,239,888 granted to LightPointe Communications, http://www.lightpointe.com/
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

88

EDFAs were originally developed as fiber optic cable link repeater amplifiers. Erbium 

doping of an optical fiber allows light amplification over a wavelength band of 

approximately 30 nm centered around a basic wavelength of 1550 nm. To operate at the 

wavelength whereby dispersion is tolerable and attenuation is the lowest, a wavelength of 

1550 nm is usually employed in long-haul fiber-optic communication systems. By taking 

advantage of the natural wavelength at which Erbium atoms are most sensitive, EDFAs 

are particularly advantageous in extending the range over which 1550 nm fiber optic link 

systems can operate. Previously, the 1550 nm wavelength has not been regarded as 

important in free space optical communication networks because of high atmospheric 

attenuation and refraction at 1550 nm, employing higher powers of the 1550 nm optical 

signal can be used to counter the less effective characteristics of the 1550 nm 

wavelengths. The end result is that FSO systems have only become truly practical in 

terms of their reliability and cost-effectiveness, while providing fiber-optic cable 

competitive data rates of 2.5 Gb/s, within just the last two years. 143

Whereas a Wi-Fi (Wireless Ethernet) connection can provide 10 Mb/s through 54 Mb/s 

data transfer speeds over a wide, largely omni-directional area, an FSO connection can 

provide a choice of 10 Mb/s, 20 Mb/s, 100 Mb/s, 155 Mb/s, 622 Mb/s and 1.25 Gb/s at 

850nm without EDFAs, and even higher rates of OC-48 2.5 Gb/s and OC-192 10 Gb/s 

data transfer speeds at 1550nm over long distances and narrow beam widths with 

EDFAs. FSO communication systems using EDFAs are therefore best suited for fixed, 

high data-rate backbone connections. 

In addition to the fixed, high-capacity FSO links employing EDFAs that behave much the 

same as Intermediate Reach (IR) buried fiber-optic lines, there are also shorter-range, 

lower-cost FSO links available without EDFAs. One of the leaders in this technology is 

Terabeam, located in Kirkland, WA.144 Through the use of their Elliptica Series of 

products, Fast Ethernet (100 Mb/s) and OC-3/STM1 (155 Mb/s) connectivity is available 

over short distances. Through the use of their Magna Series of products, both OC12/STM-4 (622 Mb/s) and Gigabit Ethernet (1 Gb/s) protocols are available over short 

distances. In terms of responsiveness, Terabeam is the present leader in the industry for 

rapidly installing new communications links. For example, after the attack on the World 

Trade Center on September 11, 2001, Merrill Lynch, one of the world's leading financial 

management and advisory companies, was able to replace its damaged conventional links 

installed in the area around Ground Zero in only two weeks using Terabeam hardware. 

These likewise do not significantly overlap in terms of their data rate s with Wi-Fi and 

Wi-Fi 5 technologies. 

 

143 http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=6001

144 http://www.terrabeam.com/
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

89

In addition to terrestrial uses of FSO communication systems, it is also possible to use 

them in space. In many ways, FSO communication systems are better suited to space than 

on earth since there are no weather or other atmospheric impairment effects.145 For 

example, the European Space Agency (ESA) Artemis satellite was built in Europe by a 

consortium of companies and launched 12 July 2001 from the European launch base in 

Kourou, French Guiana aboard an Ariane 5 launch vehicle.146 Orbiting at 31,000 km 

altitude, it used a laser-based Silex Communication system to transmit 50 Mb/s to a 

SPOT 4 satellite at 832 km altitude on November 30, 2001 in the first-ever publicly 

announced satellite-to-satellite laser-communication link demonstration. A Bit Error 

Rate (BER) performance of 10-9 to 10-10 was demonstrated, which is only slightly worse 

than the error-rate seen in traditional earth-bound fiber-optic links which typically must 

meet BERs of 10-12. From SPOT 4, a conventional 20 GHz microwave downlink was 

then used to downlink relayed earth images back to Toulouse, France. The immediate 

purpose was to provide a space-based relay capability demonstration to prove the 

feasibility of sending customer-requested data back to France in real-time when line of 

sight downlink look-angle geometries do not exist for any particular satellite. Although 

Artemis is a dual-purpose satellite built to demonstrate affordable, wide-coverage mobile 

communications satellite services and to test direct satellite-to-satellite communications, 

its revolutionary laser link shows the greatest promise for achieving truly secure spacebased relay communication systems. Based on Artemis’ success, it is likely that future 

ranges may very well need to include communication capabilities to interface with 

secure, space-based laser relay spacecraft used to implement critical parts of Space Based 

Range (SBR) Distributed Subsystems.147,148,149

The conclusion for both terrestrial and space-based communication links, therefore, is 

that FSO communication systems clearly provide disruptive technology capability 

unavailable through any other means for the advanced Spaceports and Ranges of the 

future. Wi-Fi and EDFA-enhanced FSO communication techniques do not overlap 

significantly in their basic functional utilities, providing different data rates and nonoverlapping range capabilities. In space, though, FSO systems can provide enhanced 

communication security relative to existing satellite-satellite microwave links. Through 

Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi 5 wireless Ethernet communications, data transfer rates into the hundred 

 

145 In addition, unlike normal microwave satellite-to-satellite transmissions, such FSO links are immensely 

more secure, as there is essentially no possibility for intercepting any communications transmitted over the 

links except from another satellite that is on-orbit. 

146 A malfunction of the launcher's upper stage left the satellite in a lower than intended orbit. After launch, 

the orbit was lifted using the satellite's own propulsion systems to an altitude of 31,000 km where the laserlink demonstration was done. To move on to its permanent home in the intended geo-stationary orbit, 

36,000 km above the Earth, the satellite will use its newly designed ion propulsion system using only 20 kg 

of xenon gas as fuel. 

147 Mechanical Engineering Magazine, March 2002. 

148 http://telecom.esa.int/artemis/fileincludes/overview/overview.cfm

149 Design News, May 20, 2002, p. 16. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

90

of Mb/s are possible with hardware that is either available now, or which will become 

available within a few years. For higher data rates, and for truly secure space-based 

links, FSO communications can provide the needed point-to-point backbone 

communication capability as well as the close-in LAN capability. The optimal advanced 

Spaceport and Range architecture of the future will therefore likely be a mix of wireless 

Ethernet and FSO communication systems (both terrestrial and space-based) in order to 

fit the matrix of data rates versus communication distance versus security, and whether 

point-to-point or multi-casting over wide areas is required. Continuing in the tradition of 

the optical telegraphs of Polybius in 150 BC and of Chappe in the 18th – 19th Centuries, 

future FSO communications systems will similarly provide optical communications for 

the Spaceports and Ranges of the 21st Century and beyond. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

91

4.4 SPACEWIRE 

Spacewire, a standard that governs high-speed data link communication protocols and 

requirements for use on space payloads, was: 

• Prepared by the European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) E50-12 Working Group 

• Reviewed by the ECSS Technical Panel 

• Approved by the ECSS Steering Board 

• Published by the European Space Agency 

 

Spacewire is based on multiple standards, including the DS-DE (Data Strobe, 

Differentially Ended150) part of the IEEE 1355-1995 Standard, as well as the ANSI 

TIA/EIA-644 Standard and the IEEE 1596.3-1996 LVDS (Low Voltage Differential 

Signaling) Standard. Its primary goal is to support equipment compatibility and re-use at 

both the component and system level within spacecraft. The present version of the 

Spacewire standard is ECSS-50-12 Draft 2 dated December 2001. 

Spacewire enables the sending of data at speeds ranging from 2 Mb/s to 400 Mb/s from 

unit to unit. For noise immunity, it encodes data using two differential signal pairs in 

each direction. Spacewire links are full-duplex, point-to-point, serial communication 

links. The requirements for the Physical Level, Signal Level, Character Level, Exchange 

Level, Packet Level, and Network Level are contained in the requirement clauses of the 

Spacewire standard. In addition, Error Recovery schemes and conformance statements as 

needed to establish Spacewire compatibility requirements for components and systems 

are also included in the Spacewire standard. Together, these layered requirements define 

the necessary physical interconnection and data communication protocols required for 

Spacewire to work reliably, to meet the EMC (Electromagnetic Compatibility) 

specifications of typical spacecraft, as well as defining the higher layer formatting and 

networking functions. The Spacewire standard also contains detailed definitions the 

terms used in the standard such that precise communication of the requirements can be 

clearly understood by both equipment designers and integrated system users. 

 

150 i.e., a link with differentially encoded data and strobe signals 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

92

Specifically, the Spacewire Standard defines: 

 A. The Physical Level 

1.) Connectors 

2.) Cables 

3.) Cable assemblies 

4.) Printed Circuit Board Tracks 

B. The Signal Level 

1.) Signal Encoding 

2.) Voltage Levels 

3.) Noise Margins 

4.) Data Signaling Rates 

C. The Character Level 

1.) Data and Control Characters used to manage the flow of data across the 

link 

D. The Exchange Level 

1.) Protocol for link initialization 

2.) Flow Control 

3.) Link Error Detection 

4.) Link Error Recovery 

E. The Packet Level 

1.) Defines how data for transmission over a Spacewire Link is split up into 

packets 

F. The Network Level 

• Defines the structure of a Spacewire Network 

• Defines the way in which packets are transferred from a source node to a 

destination node across the network. 

• Defines how link errors and network level errors are handled 

In order to meet the EMC and ESD (Electro-Static Discharge) requirements, Spacewire 

cables are comprised of four twisted pair wires with a separate shield around each twisted 

pair and an overall shield. With this well-shielded cable design, Spacewire links support 

operation aboard spacecraft while permitting cable runs up to 10 meters in length. The 

eight signal contacts resulting form the four twisted pair wires, along with the screen 

termination (shield) contact, are connected using nine-pin micro-miniature D connectors 

that are qualified for space use. 

In addition to the well-shielded cables, the characteristic impedances are matched to the 

line termination impedances to avoid signal reflections, and the data skew (offset) 

between each signal in a differential pair and between data and strobe pairs are specified 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

93

such that the operation over the cable runs up to 10 meters in length are not adversely 

affected due to equipment termination and time signaling issues. The actual 

characteristic impedance required for circuit board traces including backplanes 

interfacing to the Spacewire cables is 100 Ohms, differential. 

Low Voltage Differential Signaling (LVDS) is specified as the signaling technique used 

over the Spacewire cables. LVDS interconnects use balanced signals to provide a very 

high-speed interconnection while using a low voltage swing (350 mV, typical). Because 

balanced signaling is used over shielded twisted pair cables, adequate noise margin is met 

in spite of the low voltage swings employed. At the same time, because only low voltage 

swings are used, slew-rate limits within the internal transistor circuitry are kept within 

the ranges whereby very high speed signaling is kept possible. The actual LVDS mode 

of operation is current mode logic. Although the voltage swings are low, through using a 

current source that provides a constant 3.5 mA of current the current is kept nearly 

constant. Because this current is routed only, and is not switched ON and OFF, 

saturation affects are avoided entirely, and re-routing of current for the logic states is 

possible within the very short times consistent with supporting data rates up to 400 Mb/s. 

In addition to the speed advantages of LVDS, LVDS also provides an inherent fail-safe 

mode. The receiver automatically goes to a HIGH state, which is the inactive state, 

whenever the receiver is powered and the driver is not powered or is disabled, when the 

receiver inputs are accidentally shorted together, and when the receiver input wires are 

disconnected and are in an open circuit configuration. Whenever the receiver is not 

powered, its input goes to a known high-impedance state (> 100 kΩ). Together, these 

characteristics ensure that only known logic states result from all fault conditions, in 

contrast to earlier-generation voltage mode logic in which undefined states often could 

result. 

The only competing technologies that provide comparable speeds to LVDS are 

ECL/PECL (Emitter Coupled Logic, Positive Emitter Coupled Logic). These earlier 

current mode logic families typically use only single-ended modes of operation, which 

provide a greatly lessened noise immunity capability, relative to the differential mode of 

operation used by LVDS. In addition, the ECL/PECL driver/receiver pairs consume 120 

mW at the ends of each cable, versus the only 50 mW required for supporting LVDS. 

LVDS is therefore much more compatible with the high EMC levels typically seen 

aboard spacecraft, while simultaneously achieving the least possible power consumption. 

Timing in Spacewire is accomplished through DS (Data-Strobe) encoding. In this 

method of encoding, the data and clock are encoded together such that the clock can be 

recovered through an exclusive-OR (XOR) operation between the Data and Strobe lines. 

The data values are transmitted directly and the strobe signal changes states only when 

the data remains constant from one bit interval to the next interval. The same timing 

technique is used in both IEEE 1355-1995 and IEEE 1394-1995 (Firewire). The 

advantage of DS encoding is to increase the skew tolerance to almost 1-bit, versus a 

maximum of 0.5-bit maximum skew tolerance for simple data and clock signaling. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

94

The Spacewire standard defines the Character Level along the same character protocols 

as are defined in IEEE 1355-1995, but additionally extends the protocols to include Time 

Codes to support the distribution of system time information. Two types of characters 

are supported. Data characters hold a parity bit, a data control flag, and an 8-bit data 

value that is transmitted least significant bit first.151 The parity bit is set to produce an 

odd parity when appended to the previous 8-bits sent in the last character. The data 

control flag, by being set to ZERO, identifies the presence of a data character. If the data 

control flag is set to ONE, then the presence of a control character is denoted. Control 

characters are formatted similarly to data characters, containing a parity bit and up to four 

each two-bit control codes. Additionally, to provide the capability to form longer control 

codes, escape codes are also supported. With these extensions, Spacewire character 

protocols are such that presently required data characters, as well as rather flexible 

growth potentials regarding control characters and codes, are all supported. 

Above the Character Level is the Exchange Level. The Exchange Level provides 

provisions for initialization, flow control, detection of disconnect errors, detection of 

parity errors (computed from the parity bits provide in the Character Level), and link 

error recovery. Considerably more capability in the Exchange Level for Spacewire is 

implemented than in the earlier Exchange Level defined for IEEE 1355-1995. 

Specifically, once parity errors are detected in the just-sent data or control character, 

complete recovery is attempted through the link error recovery mode. This is done 

through a re-synchronize and restart technique using an “exchange of silence” protocol. 

The end of the link that detects a parity error goes silent, and this forces the other end of 

the link, that actually transmitted the character containing an error, to recognize the 

silence as being a link disconnect. The end that originally transmitted the character with 

the error then waits for 6.4 μs. The end that detected the error then waits for an 

additional 6.4 μs as well. At this point, an additional delay of 12.8 μs occurs, at which 

time a normal NULL/FCT handshake is used to re-establish the connection and ensure 

proper synchronization. The result is a robust protocol for the Exchange Level. 

The next level above the Exchange Level defined in Spacewire is the Packet Level. The 

Packet Level protocol follows the Packet Level protocol defined in IEEE 1355-1995. 

Each individual packet consists of a destination address, cargo, and an end-of-packet 

marker. Support for wormhole packet routing, i.e., direct connection routing, is provided 

for wormhole packet routing switches. Wormhole packet routing is supported because it 

reduces the amount of buffering that would otherwise be required. Wormhole packet 

routing eliminates conventional store and forward operation, since it results in the 

immediate re-transmission of an incoming packet prior to the receipt of the entire 

incoming packet. Provided that error correction protocols are carefully followed, 

wormhole packet routing does not cause any permanent data loss in the event of 

transmission of a packet containing an error, and increases throughput while reducing 

memory hardware storage requirements. 

 

151 LSB first is also known colloquially as little-endian in some circles. This is in contrast to big-endian for 

describing the reverse condition. See: http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/l/little-endian.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

95

Above the Packet Level is the final Network Level contained in Spacewire. The Network 

Level defines the Spacewire Network, describes the components that make up a 

Spacewire Network, explains how packets are transferred across a Spacewire Network, 

and defines how the Spacewire Network recovers from errors. Fundamentally, a 

Spacewire Network is comprised of a collection of Spacewire Nodes that are 

interconnected either by Spacewire Routing Switches or Spacewire Links. Spacewire 

Nodes provide and receive packets, as the sources and destinations of packets, and 

provide all the necessary interfaces to the application system(s). Spacewire Routing 

Switches provide link interfaces connected together by a switch matrix to allow any link 

input to pass the packets it receives on to any link output for re-transmission. 

Due to the physical limitation of providing only 10 meters for the maximum distances 

allowed between units, the need to support Spacewire interconnects relative to future 

advanced Spaceports and Ranges is likely to be limited. The best uses will be for 

performing final payload checkouts prior to the departure of the aerospace plane or 

launch vehicle. These will likely occur at various points in the staging of the payload, up 

to just before departure. Although Spacewire Networks could be used to interconnect 

some of the additional various equipments within the staging and final configuration 

areas of the Spaceport, this is not likely. Because of the lack of standard Spacewire 

interfaces on future planned test equipments, as well as the rather limited 10 meter 

maximum distance imposed by the Spacewire standard, the likely outcome will be to 

reduce the need for Spacewire as a general purpose interconnection technique. The 

predominant support for Spacewire will likely be limited to just performing final 

checkouts immediately prior to the launch of payloads built around the Spacewire 

standard. 

Potential users of Spacewire also need to be aware that the serial link always starts at a 

10 Mb/s rate, then goes up (or, in unusual cases, down) to the maximum rate that is 

reliably supported on both ends. However, there is also a 2 Mb/s minimum data rate that 

exists, too, that is determined mostly by time-out hardware issues that exist within the 

link. So, although there is a minimum data rate of 10 Mb/s in the spec, it is not really the 

minimum rate that can be supported, and future Spaceport and Range plans need to take 

this into account if lower data rates are required, to avoid Spacewire link timeout 

problems. One way to avoid this problem, for lower data rate items, is to encode user 

data on a higher rate signal, before sending the composite higher-rate signal through a 

Spacewire link. This would potentially impose difficulties for Spaceport and Range 

users unless it were made transparent to users. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

96

4.5 FIREWIRE 

Firewire, also known as 1394 and i-link, is an older serial digital interface standard that 

governs high-speed, real-time, data-link communication protocols and requirements, and 

operates at speeds up to 400 Mb/s, with up to 63 simultaneously interconnected highspeed devices.152,153 Apple Computer first developed Firewire in 1986 on a closedcomputer architecture, and to honor the speed of the interface standard trademarked the 

resulting technology with the name “Firewire”. By 1987, Apple had completed an 

internal specification for the link and had resolved all of the early difficulties in 

implementing the specification. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 

(IEEE) adopted the Apple specification in 1995 and coined the IEEE 1394-1995 standard 

to document the Firewire specification.154 

Unfortunately, one must become licensed for 49 groups of patents owned by nine 

separate corporations through the 1394 Licensing Authority even to view the current 

Instrument and Industrial Control Protocol (IICP) technical specification involving 

Firewire. 155 The fee for licensing varies from $8,000 to $4,000 as of May 2002 

depending on company gross revenues.156 Further, each licensed company must 

presumably pay royalties to use the standard in any hardware delivered using the 

technology. (Short of paying the fee, it is not possible to see what the terms and 

conditions of licensing actually are.) In spite of its performance, the closed-architecture 

mentality has greatly hampered the acceptance of the technology and has greatly pushed 

up implementation costs relative to lesser performing, cheaper, open-architecture 

technologies. It has also gone counter to the generally accepted principal of providing 

open-standards, free of cost, to all. The end-result has been that Firewire/1394 remains a 

niche market technology, unaccepted by the digital interface technology market at large, 

in spite of its many performance advantages. 

IEEE 1394-1995 includes such advanced features as self-configurability, guaranteed 

Quality of Service (QoS) (which is needed to support real-time multi-media 

applications), peer-to-peer networking, and an ability to commingle low-speed and highspeed devices on a single bus, all implemented in a low-overhead protocol. As a result, 

 

1521394 Trade Organization Website, http://www.1394ta.org/Download/Technology/iicpPaper2.pdf, 

retrieved 20 May 2002. 

153Yoshida, Junko, Association comes out fighting for Firewire. Electrical Engineering Times, May 6, 

2002, 

http://www.eet.com/story/OEG20020506S0041 retrieved 20 May 2002. 

154 1394 Trade Organization Website, http://www.1394ta.org/Technology/index.htm, retrieved 20 May 

2002. 

1551394 Licensing Authority Website, http://www.1394la.com/, retrieved 20 May 2002. 

1561394 Trade Organization Website, http://www.1394ta.org/About/Join/Application/, retrieved 20 May 

2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

97

the types of products that support the IEEE 1394-1995 standard today include multimedia products such as digital VCRs, digital cameras, and digital video editing 

equipment with a strong need for true real-time digital interface connectivity. Likewise, 

newer versions of Microsoft Windows now include native IEEE 1394-1995 support, 

allowing PCs to operate with the multi-media products that now include IEEE 1394-1995 

functionality.157

Yet, in spite of the fact that IEEE 1394-1995 promised to deliver a truly universal data 

connection for almost any computer, peripheral application, or consumer product 

requiring high-speed digital connectivity, the mass market has largely ignored IEEE 

1394-1995. In many ways, Firewire/1394 now competes rather unsuccessfully with the 

more primitive digital interface technologies of RS-232 Serial Interfaces, USB (Universal 

Serial Bus), DVI (Digital Visual Interface), as well as with both Wired and Wireless 

Ethernet. In addition, Hitachi, Matsushita, Philips, Silicon Image, Sony, Thomson, and 

Toshiba teamed in April 2002 to work on a standard known as the High Definition 

Multimedia Interface (HDMI), planned for a debut at the 2003 Consumer Electronics 

Show in Las Vegas, NV, to compete with Firewire/1394 on the issues where it does 

excel, in real-time multi-media connectivity. The future for Firewire/1394 appears bleak. 

It has already lost out on the existing, non-real-time, low-cost digital interface technology 

market. It also may very well lose its present niche market in interconnecting real-time 

multi-media devices.158

The reason comes down to just two major issues: an overly disruptive implementation 

complexity, and cost. The competing alternative digital interface technologies, although 

having no significant QoS features, are inherently supported by legacy IBM-PC clone 

hardware, and provide adequate performance for many applications. These less-capable 

technologies have developed slowly, with no perceived learning curve governing their 

use. Firewire/1394, on the other hand, is not an incremental technology. It broke with 

the existing technologies so as to add the high-level features of self-configurability, QoS, 

and the ability to commingle low-speed and high-speed devices. This was probably bad 

enough, but there was one other factor that played against the adoption of the standard for 

all digital interface uses: high cost. The total cost is high because of an underlying 

technical complexity, lack of supporting hardware, and Intellectual Property licensing 

fees even to view the specifications. There were, until mid-2002, no easy-to-adopt 

reference design platforms available providing proven-to-interoperate, low-cost reference 

designs. One-stop integrated solutions, integrating proven designs in silicon, complete 

with firmware and software, which are so very necessary to bring down the cost to 

implement Firewire, have only come onto the market in mid-2002. In many ways, 

Firewire/1394 is likely a technology that is too much, too little, too late, and too costly, in 

 

157 1394 Trade Organization Website, http://www.1394ta.org/Technology/index.htm, retrieved 20 May 

2002. 

158Yoshida, Junko, 1394 trade group fights back in home nets. Electrical Engineering Times, May 13, 

2002, p. 20. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

98

terms of market acceptance. Closed-architectures often inherently work from a severe 

cost disadvantage relative to open-architectures. 

To combat the difficulties in a perception that has become a reality for IEEE 1394-1995 

proponents, the 1394 Trade Association has started to revise the IEEE 1394-1995 

standard to address Ethernet competition through launching Firewire/1394 specification 

enhancements to add Internet Protocol operation over 1394, Wireless 1394, and 1394 

LAN home-networking. According to published reports, a protocol adaptation layer is 

even being developed in the IEEE 1394-1995 specification to permit the running of two 

different logical networks over one medium, to permit Firewire to co-exist with Ethernet 

in a new IEEE 1394-1995 network. To support this further, the 1394 Trade Association 

is also developing a hardware reference platform with embedded Intellectual Property 

(IP) software content. 

Adding further complexity, and a larger learning curve, will likely prove even more 

detrimental to the goal of achieving acceptance in the larger digital interface technology 

competition. It is likely that Firewire/1394 will not become the standard to which all 

users migrate. Instead, it is likely that the new Firewire/1394 standard will remain a 

niche standard, providing a rather complex, expensive solution to a problem that not 

every user has, or can afford. 

Relative to using Firewire/1394 on the Spaceports and Ranges of the future, it is not 

likely that this technology will be more than an outlier in terms of its utilization. For 

niche needs, with high QoS, quick reconfigurability, and where cost does not greatly 

matter, Firewire/1394 may have a small role. Other than that, however, it is not likely to 

play any significant role. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

99

4.6 COMMERCIAL SATCOM UTILIZATION & RE-USE 

The transition to commercial SATCOM (Satellite Communication) links, rather than to 

new or expanded Government SATCOM assets, until just a few years ago appeared 

firmly established as the obvious way to accommodate future communications growth 

while saving taxpayer dollars. With the numerous commercial LEO and MEO satellite 

systems then planned, it appeared that no Government dollars would be needed for 

serving the vast majority of mobile and fixed SATCOM users. The hope was that a 

totally space based communications system, based in large part on a growing reliance on 

commercial SATCOM links, could meet the majority of upcoming range needs based 

solely on investments that were already being supported by the commercial sector. 

Likewise, the belief was that by transitioning to a space based communications system, 

this would in turn ultimately lead to a global approach for supporting future Spaceports 

and Ranges. The ultimate plan would be simply to depend on the private sector to 

develop, field, and maintain competing constellations of privately owned satellite 

systems that could provide expanded data connectivity for use at future Spaceports and 

Ranges throughout the world. Among the commercial SATCOM systems then planned, 

were Iridium, Teledesic, Spaceway, Astrolink, Globalstar, and Skybridge. 

What a radical difference a few years make. Today, Globalstar is in operation with a 

largely fixed, but non-growing subscriber base, and has undergone bankruptcy 

reorganization. Iridium has likewise undergone bankruptcy reorganization and a 

government bailout, but remains in operation. Teledesic (which some now refer to as 

“Teledead”) is officially cancelled, Skybridge is on indefinite hold, and Astrolink has 

announced a total suspension of their SATCOM project. Overall, the viability of 

commercial SATCOM subscriber businesses has been cast in a questionable light with 

the only two operational systems in, or still emerging from, bankruptcy, and with most 

others on hold or cancelled. Depending on any of the existing, or planned, commercial 

SATCOM systems appears risky. 

The most popular handheld satellite system in use today is Globalstar. For the calendar 

year quarter ending March 31, 2002, Globalstar L.P.'s net loss declined to $129 million, 

and the number of subscribers remained stable at only 69,000. Globalstar’s rate of new 

subscriber growth has slowed from previous quarters, largely due to ongoing 

restructuring activities involving several of the company's service providers, where, in 

some cases, ownership changes disrupted business development efforts. Whatever the 

reason, the number of subscribers is not growing significantly.159 Because of the failure 

to capture increasing numbers of subscribers, Globalstar defaulted on repayment of its 

debt, commencing in early 2001.160 Globalstar subsequently filed voluntarily for Chapter 

 

159 http://www.globalstar.com/EditWebNews/307.html

160 Iridium Satellite Phone Re-launch, BBC News, 28 March 2001, 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1247000/1247385.stm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

100

11 bankruptcy on February 15, 2002, and court approval for reorganization was granted 

on February 21, 2002, under which Globalstar continues to operate for the near term.161

The second most popular handheld satellite system in use today is Iridium, originally 

developed by a group of companies led by Motorola. Whereas Globalstar does not 

provide uniform coverage of both inhabited and uninhabited parts of the world, Iridium is 

the only truly global and mobile satellite systems providing both voice and data operation 

at sea, over the poles, and everywhere else on Earth. Following the highly publicized $5 

billion bankruptcy of Iridium LLC in August 1999, Iridium Satellite LLC, a privately 

held corporation, acquired the assets of Iridium LLC in December of 2000 for $25 

million.162 These assets included the satellite constellation, the terrestrial network, 

Iridium real property and intellectual property. Funded by a group of private investors, 

Iridium Satellite LLC has essentially no debt and has set monthly operating fees for 

customers that are but a small fraction of the cost under the previous Iridium system. The 

rate presently charged for using Iridium is roughly $1.50 per minute, in contrast to over 

$7.00 per minute charged under the original billing rates.163 Through its own gateway in 

Hawaii, the U.S. Department of Defense presently relies on Iridium for global 

communications capabilities.164 With the retirement of $5 billion of debt through 

bankruptcy, and upon receiving financial support of from $72 million to $252 million 

through 2002 from the Department of Defense, Iridium should remain viable for the near 

term.165 

Unfortunately, the data throughput capacity of both Iridium and even Globalstar is 

miniscule relative to present-day wired networks. The problem of financial viability 

likewise remains for all portable/mobile equipment SATCOM providers, and is only 

worsened by the recent financial histories of both Globalstar and Iridium. Based on 

recent history, the sector fundamentally appears incapable of returning a reasonable 

return on principal, or even a return of principal.166 Fundamentally, though, neither 

Globalstar nor Iridium comes close to competing with terrestrial data throughput rates. 

Iridium provides just 2400 bps (2.4 kb/s) through a single channel. By simultaneously 

using multiple channels, it is possible to increase the throughput to around four to 

perhaps as much as ten times the nominal 2.4 kb/s data rate through Iridium. Globalstar 

 

161 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/globalstar-02a.html

162 Iridium Satellite Phone Re-launch, BBC News, 28 March 2001, 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1247000/1247385.stm

163 Iridium Satellite Phone Re-launch, BBC News, 28 March 2001, 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1247000/1247385.stm

164 http://www.iridium.com/corp/iri_corp-story.asp?storyid=2

165 http://www.iridium.com/corp/iri_corp-news.asp?newsid=14

166 A paraphrase of what American humorist Will Rogers once stated, “It's not my return on my principal 

that worries me, it’s the return of my principal.” 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

101

provides data rates of only 9.6 kb/s. This data rate is but a small fraction of the data rates 

possible through even a conventional 56 Kb/s dial-up modem. Relative to a Cable 

Modem or a DSL connection, both Globalstar and Iridium fall far short of being a viable 

wideband portal to the Internet from an isolated LAN or WAN. 

The benefit of always on, two-way, high-speed Internet access for remote sites not having 

the option of using DSL over phone lines, Cable Modems, or even dial-up connectivity 

remains obvious. Several companies are still planning to begin service in 2003 or 2004; 

despite the financial shortcomings of the first generation, two-way, low-speed services 

provided by Globalstar and Iridium. WildBlue is likely to be one of the leaders in 

providing such service for North America.167 Data throughput of up to 3.0 Mb/s for the 

United States and parts of Canada is planned for availability in 2003. WildBlue uses a 

26-inch dish connected to a WildBlue Modem to provide always on, high-speed Internet 

access for up to eight computers within a SOHO (Small Office, Home Office) 

environment. Unlike the Iridium system that is based on a constellation of 66 LEO 

satellites, WildBlue is based on a single GEO satellite. Spot beams at 20 GHz and 30 

GHz elegantly address the need for providing high bandwidth Internet service on demand 

for remote users in North America and parts of Canada. Although WildBlue is less 

ambitious than, say, Iridium, which provides truly global coverage, the benefit to cost 

ratio is drastically improved. Pricing is not yet announced, but the stated goal is to 

provide flat rate, unlimited wireless Internet service that is comparable in monthly cost to 

a mini-satellite TV system. (Mini-satellite systems presently cost around $50 to $70 per 

month, with further price drops to around $30 per month promised by some industry 

leaders.) WildBlue may very well have a financial crisis looming in its future unless 

market conditions change appreciably. (WildBlue uses the DOCSIS cable standard for 

its protocol. This is the same protocol as used on high-speed Cable Modem connections 

today, as discussed earlier.) 

It is certainly good that new, more cost-efficient systems are being proposed, for the 

existing mini-satellite Internet Service Provider market is in a total state of chaos. This 

chaos is due to the bankruptcies of multiple companies, carriers, and equipment 

suppliers, in addition to industry consolidations and a proposed purchase by EchoStar of 

Hughes Electronics, owner of DIRECTV. Likewise, the hybrid satellite/terrestrial 

systems, based on integrating DSL with satellite links, are similarly in a total state of 

confusion. 

To understand the current DSB/DSL chaotic situation better, it is necessary to understand 

a brief history of the companies involved. (Note: DSB – Direct Satellite Broadcast; DSL 

– Direct Subscriber Line, i.e., a phone line broadband Internet solution.) Hughes 

Electronics, a subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, merged with United States 

Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc. (USSB) in 1998 to acquire the business and assets 

of USSB in a transaction valued at approximately $1.3 billion at the time (on the basis of 

a stock price of $38.25 a share in Hughes Electronics [GMH]). DIRECTV thereby 

 

167 http://www.WildBlue.com/flash.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

102

became the world’s largest DSB company.168 With this purchase, DIRECTV essentially 

consolidated the DSB market, sharing the DSB market only with EchoStar. At present 

(June 2002), DIRECTV has approximately 10 Million subscribers in contrast to 

EchoStar’s 7 Million subscribers. 

Unfortunately, the price of becoming the dominant DSB company became much costlier 

than planned, for the stock price of Hughes Electronics dropped to only $13.05 (by 

October 2001), causing an accounting loss in terms of goodwill of nearly $860 Million 

relative to the 1998 purchase price of USSB. The result was that in October 2001, 

EchoStar tendered an offer to purchase Hughes Electronics, by which it would be 

possible to consolidate completely the DSB market, and simultaneously bail out Hughes 

Electronics from its mountain of debt through achieving further efficiencies of scale to 

reduce operating costs through merging DIRECTV and EchoStar. 

Meanwhile, consolidation was occurring in the DSL world, as well. WorldCom bought 

Rhythms NetConnections' assets at bankruptcy court for $31 million. (Rhythms was a 

former popular and very large, though unprofitable, DSL provider for residential and 

business customers in fifty-five major markets.) WorldCom then targeted business 

customers with the assets bought at the bankruptcy auction, and further signed an 

agreement in March 2002 to expand DSL services to DirecTV’s customers in the West 

and Midwest.169 WorldCom’s plan was to take advantage of the telecom industry 

turmoil, and further consolidate multiple technologies with the remaining assets of 

former bankrupt companies; thereby capturing as much of the mini-satellite and DSL 

Internet Service Provider market as possible. Then, in June 2002, WorldCom itself 

imploded upon the discovery of a fraudulently misstated $3.8 billion improperly 

accounted for as revenue in place of expenses, and bankruptcy now appears inevitable for 

WorldCom itself. 

As for EchoStar’s proposed takeover of DIRECTV, the merger process that started in 

October 2001 is still undergoing government scrutiny, for it will largely eliminate 

competition in the DSB market, while enabling mini-satellite services to compete with 

cable. For this reason, this takeover is not likely. Additionally, the FCC suspended a 

review of the DIRECTV deal in March 2002.170 The result was a further slide in Hughes 

Electronics (GMH) stock to a price of $10.05 (July 9, 2002 close.) The total loss to 

Hughes Electronics for the purchase of USSB now hovers around $1 Billion (as of July 

2002), and it is still unclear whether EchoStar can purchase DIRECTV. If not, it appears 

likely that Hughes Electronics may very well slide into Chapter 11 bankruptcy itself. 

 

168 Hughes Buys United States Satellite Broadcasting. Space Daily. December 15, 1998. 

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hugh-98l.html retrieved 9 July 2002. 

169 Smith, Jeff. A Dream Deferred. High-speed DSL Internet access remains out of reach for the majority 

of consumers. Rocky Mountain News, Colorado’s First Newspaper. April 1, 2002. 

170 FCC Suspends DirecTV Deal Review. Space Daily. March 8, 2002. 

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/satellite-biz-02q.html retrieved 9 July 2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

103

From this short financial history of the DSB/DSL market, it is obvious that for a 

multitude of reasons, the ultimate fate of millions of mini-satellite and DSL ISP 

customers remains uncertain at this time. Although there is clearly a market for 

providing broadband Internet service to SOHO customers, it remains unclear which 

company, or companies, will survive, and whether any will emerge dominant in this 

market. 

Meanwhile, until the financial smoke clears and companies either shut their doors or 

merge, several service alternatives still exist. A lower-performance, but higher priced, 

alternative to the two-way satellite data transport planned by WildBlue exists today for 

sites served in North America by DSL through the local phone company. DIRECTV 

DSL is a replacement for an earlier hybrid satellite/phone system that used a satellite 

distribution downlink with a phone-line dial-up uplink connection.171 (Telocity bought 

the rights to the DIRECTV name from Hughes, and has renamed itself as DIRECTV 

Broadband, Inc., selling what they call DIRECTV DSL). DIRECWAY, meanwhile, has 

retained the rights to the original hybrid satellite/phone-line system. 

DIRECTV DSL uses DSL for operation in both directions. Downloads can be as fast as 

784 Kb/s for SDSL and 1.5Mbps for ADSL. Upload speed is typically 128Kbps for 

ADSL and 392Kbps for SDSL. Pricing for DIRECTV DSL is presently $49.99.172 

Pricing for SDSL through local phone companies varies, but is approximately the same 

cost per month. The total monthly cost for DIRECTV DSL therefore runs around $100. 

DIRECWAY is the continuation of the legacy hybrid satellite/phone-line data network 

system, and provides two-way satellite Internet access without the phone-line. 

DIRECTV is possible on the same equipment (mini-satellite TV system) as 

DIRECWAY. Current pricing for the DIRECWAY hardware is $670, and monthly 

service is additional. 

The legacy hybrid satellite/phone-line system is known today as DIRECPC. It provides 

satellite downloads at speeds up to 400 Kb/s with 28 Kb/s or 33 Kb/s uploads over 

conventional phone lines. Pricing for DIRECPC hardware runs $280 with monthly 

service billed extra, and with additional phone line billing required for the dial-up portion 

of the link.173

Whatever the outcome, the commercial SATCOM market for mobile and data-hungry 

computer users remains in a state of chaos, and will continue to do so for the near future. 

 

171 http://www.theuse.net/telocity/

172 http://www.theuse.net/telocity/dsl-packages.html

173 http://www.expertsatellitedish.com/satellite_provider.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

104

Long-term, the emergence of disruptive technologies in the form of systems such as from 

WildBlue and Eutelsat may settle the commercial SATCOM data issue. 

Relative to the impacts on future Spaceports and Ranges, the dependence on commercial 

SATCOM, other than on Iridium or Globalstar appears unwise. There is excessive 

financial uncertainty to plan for two years out, let alone out to 2025 or 2030. This 

technology area will need to be revisited once the outcome becomes better known 

relative to DIRECTV, EchoStar, WildBlue, etc. In the meantime, it appears likely that 

Wireless Ethernet tied into existing communication infrastructures will be a wiser choice 

than even a partial dependence on commercial SATCOM technology for mobile and 

fixed remote data users. Short of moving to a Spaceport launch platform at sea, Wireless 

Ethernet appears safe in terms of providing the necessary levels of performance 

consistent with anticipated scenarios. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

105

4.7 ULTRA-WIDEBAND 

4.7.1 Background

UWB (Ultra Wideband) is an emerging and extremely promising wireless technology 

presently allowed operation under a restrictive Part 15 approval of the FCC (Federal 

Communications Commission). This is in cautious response to the concerns filed by 

more than nine hundred companies from around the world with the FCC responding to an 

FCC NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) issued May 10, 2000. In this NPRM, the 

FCC solicited inputs related to any unintended interference likely to occur by permitting 

UWB devices to operate. Significant rationalizing, by more than nine hundred companies 

were received in numerous, voluminous, and often acrimonious response filings, even to 

the point of claiming UWB technology would cause planes to fall from the sky and 

would even have prevented trapped cell phone users from using cell phones in the World 

Trade Center complex on September 11th, 2001.174 

Standing in opposition to this disruptive UWB technology are all the major wireless 

carriers, satellite radio companies, wireless Internet service providers, commercial GPSbased surveying companies, cell-phone manufacturers, wireless Ethernet equipment 

manufacturers, data compression companies, and every other company with a vested 

economic interest in existing wireless technology in the world. If unrestricted UWB 

technology were permitted by the FCC, all these companies stand to lose significant sales 

revenue to smaller, startup UWB companies; thereby losing their economic dominance in 

key portions of existing radio technologies. 

Not only companies with a business interest in wireless communications oppose UWB 

technology. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has also opposed the 

technology due to concerns regarding its possible detrimental impacts on aviation 

communication and navigation systems. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice 

(DoJ), has opposed the technology, as it would permit the use of LPI (Low Probability of 

Intercept) transmissions that would require costly development of new wireless intercept 

equipment by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to continue the interception 

(tapping) of private wireless transmissions. The 1995 capture of famed computer 

criminal Kevin Mitnick was only accomplished through interception of his cellular 

modem phone calls in North Carolina. This was done by the FBI using cell-phone 

interception equipment known as ‘Triggerfish’.175,176,177,178 If UWB versions of cell 

 

174 An emerging wireless technology fights for its life, Red Herring, Red Herring Communications, Inc., 

San Francisco, CA, June 2002, pp. 20-21. 

175 Carsten, Keith A. Bringing the Cyber-Criminal to Justice: An Essay for the Technologically Impaired.

Stetson University, 1997. http://www.law.stetson.edu/courses/computerlaw/papers/kcarstenf97.htm. 

176 Shimomura, Tsutomu and Markoff, John. Takedown: The Pursuit and Capture of Kevin Mitnick, 

America's Most Wanted Computer Outlaw - By the Man Who Did It. Hyperion. ISBN: 0786862106. 

Shimomura unfortunately neglects to mention that Triggerfish equipment was actually used by the FBI to 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

106

phones and other wireless products were permitted, development of a newer and more 

costly generation of cellular interception equipment would be required, to prevent the 

‘good-guys’ from falling behind in the technology needed for monitoring 

communications from criminals and terrorists. 

The capabilities engendered by UWB technology, if investigated on a purely technical 

basis rather than on an economic basis, are intriguing. By current FCC definitions, UWB 

is defined as a communication technology using 25%, or greater, fractional bandwidths, 

or occupying more than 1.5 GHz of transmitted bandwidth.179 UWB largely renders data 

compression technology obsolete. The requirement to pack more and more bits into a 

limited bandwidth is largely eliminated. Furthermore, in spite of occupying very large 

bandwidths, UWB is usually benign to existing wireless systems and services. In terms 

of causing interference to existing services, based on extensive testing by the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration, and as documented in reports to 

President Bush and to the FCC, UWB technology has minimal risks to existing wireless 

systems when operated between 3.1 GHz and 10.6 GHz at less than very high power 

levels. From early NTIA test results, and from the debate in the press that has ensued 

relative to UWB technology, it is obvious that economic issues are the predominant 

concern instead of real interference issues, at least for many existing companies. 

Historically, Part 15 rules have governed the use of low-power, unlicensed equipments 

that are permitted to operate without prior coordination among users, after the hardware 

is FCC type-accepted. Part 15 devices have previously been narrowband in nature, in 

contrast to UWB’s inherently broadband characteristic. Typical uses of Part 15 

transmitters have included garage door openers, baby monitors, cordless phones, and 

 

pinpoint Mitnick’s location, instead of his own, more primitive, cell phone intercept equipment. 

Shimomura’s gear was used initially to try to capture Mitnick, but was not powerful enough.

177Nelson, Sharon D., and Simek, John W., Takedowns: Legendary Successes in Computer Forensics, 

VSB Committee on the Technology and the Law, April 2002. 

http://www.vsb.org/publications/valawyer/apr02/tech_law.pdf retrieved May 31, 2002. 

178 http://dede.essortment.com/kevinmitnickco_rmap.htm

179 This differs from the classic definitions that have been used for over 20 years. The classic distinctions 

among narrowband versus broadband were based on fractional bandwidth, like the present FCC definition 

of UWB. However, spread spectrum, and UWB were usually distinguished by the ratios of their 

transmitted bandwidths relative to their baseband modulation bandwidths. Spread spectrum was the term 

usually applied when the transmitted bandwidth occupied more than the baseband bandwidth up to 100 

times the baseband bandwidth. UWB, however, was generally defined to be when the transmitted 

bandwidth exceeded 100 times the baseband signal bandwidth. Broadband was the term used when the 

occupied bandwidth occupied fractional bandwidths of at least 25%, but more often was reserved for only 

cases exceeding an octave or two of bandwidth. For example, if a 1 GHz carrier were directly modulated 

with a 250.1 MHz narrowband signal, in the classical definition this would not even be spread spectrum, 

and barely broadband, let alone UWB. Yet, by the current FCC definition, it is currently considered UWB, 

irrespective of the relationship between the transmitted bandwidth relative to the baseband bandwidth. 

 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

107

other short-distance, low-power, narrow-band transmitters.180 By their very nature, 

using pulse modulation with extremely short-duration bursts of RF (Radio Frequency) 

energy, UWB transmissions are inherently not narrowband like prior Part 15 devices, but 

instead occupy extremely wide bandwidths, typically greatly exceeding 1 GHz. Since the 

correlation bandwidth of the dense urban propagation channel is typically less than 10 

MHz over 3.1 GHz to 10.6 GHz, the use of extremely short-duration bursts causing ultra 

wideband occupancy over much greater than the correlation bandwidth completely 

mitigates the effects of destructive interference in multi-path signals.181 Because of this 

characteristic, for example, a high fidelity UWB replacement signal for FM broadcast use 

would completely avoid the fading so commonly heard when driving through dense 

urban downtown areas. 

As for the upper bound on transmitted UWB bandwidths, the only intentional bandwidth 

limitation of first generation UWB transmitters was the bandwidth limit of the attached 

wideband antenna. (This repeats an old practice last used prior to the ban in 1927 of 

spark-gap transmitters, as discussed later.) As a result, transmitted energy from UWB 

transmitters originally occupied frequencies reserved for other services, causing 

numerous political issues to exist. After all, the other services had paid the FCC for their 

spectrum. With the latest ruling from the FCC, constraining UWB output transmitted 

waveforms to occupy the band from 3.1 GHz to 10.6 GHz, the GPS frequency bands 

centered around 1575 MHz and 1227 MHz are protected, thereby addressing the 

concerns of interference to low-level GPS signals. 

As a result of the lack of interference, even without GPS protection filtering, as indicated 

through extensive testing by the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, the FCC approved on February 14, 2002, a First Order and Report (FCC 

02-48) amending FCC Part 15 rules to permit the marketing and operating of a limited set 

of new products incorporating Ultra-Wideband (UWB) technology. The effect of this is 

that UWB transmissions are effectively not approved for use over distances more than a 

few hundred feet, in practice. As such, these very weak UWB transmissions do not pose 

any economic threat to existing wireless carriers providing service over multiple miles, 

or, essentially, even to wireless Ethernet card makers, whose Wi-Fi cards are capable of 

operating over distances up to 1,800 feet in open areas. 

In addition to the purely technical performance advantages of UWB technology, UWB 

also has the inherent economic advantages typical of a disruptive technology. UWB 

transmitters and receivers do not require the oscillators, mixers, filters, and numerous 

 

180 Even the so-called “secure” spread-spectrum cordless telephones sold for home use occupy bandwidths 

of only a few MHz. This is considerable processing gain relative to voice bandwidths of less than 6 KHz, 

but still fundamentally results in a narrowband signal. No interference results from using these cordless 

telephones to other services. 

181 Correlation bandwidth refers to the bandwidth over which a spectral null is typically correlated and all 

signals fade simultaneously. It is the bandwidth over which a fade exists in, for example, an urban 

channel. Any signal within this bandwidth is simultaneously lost during fading events, and the fade is said 

to be ‘correlated’ over this range of frequencies. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

108

other expensive components required in conventional wireless gear. As discussed earlier, 

UWB likewise eliminates the need for data compression, and for the data compression 

and de-compression chip-sets, as well as eliminating the dc power required to run the 

data compression/de-compression chips. The result is that UWB equipment requires 

low-cost components totaling only around ten percent of the cost of the components 

required to implement conventional wireless gear. Likewise, UWB gear can use batteries 

that are only 10% to 25% of the cost, size, and weight of batteries required for existing 

wireless battery-powered equipment due to improved efficiencies of the short-duration 

transmitted signals, elimination of data compression, and elimination of other powerconsuming functional blocks. Because of these economic and performance advantages, 

existing wireless companies, whose technologies are based on old-era technology, will 

suffer immediate price undercutting in addition to obvious technology shortcomings, 

relative to newer UWB equipment, if in direct competition with UWB equipment. For 

obvious reasons, established companies do not wish to permit the legislative approval of 

UWB technology. 

Meanwhile, the acrimonious rhetoric continues: “Wireless companies that depend on the 

FCC to erect barriers to entry and protect their investments in spectrum are misguided. If 

they had invested in this powerful technology, instead of spending three and a half years 

to lobby the FCC, they might have developed new ways to lower their network costs and 

improve their service offerings” was the message carried in one magazine editorial.182 

Whether approved or not, the performance advantages and cost advantages for the 

consumer would be immense for UWB-based devices, despite the loss of sales of older 

wireless equipment by established vendors. 

Although the basic concepts related to UWB have been proven since the 1980’s for 

special purpose fielded hardware, and there are commercially developed chip sets 

presently available to implement UWB technology cost-effectively, the true 

commercialization of UWB equipment only became possible as of February 14, 2002 

with the latest FCC ruling. The FCC expressed its desire to proceed cautiously in FCC 

02-48, and identified that a further review of UWB standards will occur within six to 

eighteen months (relative to February 14, 2002). A much wider approval was hoped for 

by many of the smaller startups that have invested in the technology, but the present First 

Report and Order states that more general approval for UWB transmissions will not be 

reconsidered until more data are available regarding unintended interference due to UWB 

technology. 

Additionally, there is another factor at play at the FCC, too, in addition to the concerns of 

wireless companies worldwide. UWB technology inherently avoids the “FCC’s favorite 

money-raising tactic: the spectrum auction.”183 Approval of the technology would 

 

182 Right the wireless wrongs. Editorial Page. Red Herring, Red Herring Communications, Inc., San 

Francisco, CA, June 2002, p. 19. 

183 Right the wireless wrongs. Editorial Page. Red Herring, Red Herring Communications, Inc., San 

Francisco, CA, June 2002, p. 19. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

109

largely negate the economic viability of numerous prior spectrum auctions held by the 

FCC, opening the door to serious litigation. Additionally, if approved in the United 

States, the multiple billions of equivalent US$ worth of spectrum auctions spent for 3G 

Wireless technologies in Europe would become worthless, too. These same companies 

are planning to introduce versions of their 3G Wireless equipment into the United States 

after conquering Europe. 

The fact that UWB technology has proven so controversial resulted in an ultraconservative initial test phase in the FCC Report and Order of Valentine’s Day 2002, 

permitting only a limited number of low-power UWB applications be fielded in order to 

avoid any possibility of interfering with existing radio signals, especially low-level GPS 

signals. 

The proven benefits of UWB or, more properly, Time Modulated Ultra-Wideband (TMUWB) systems are many. TM-UWB systems can provide: 

• Voice and data communication with selectable degrees of security 

• Indoor, through-the-wall, and perimeter security radar functions 

• Precise ranging capability to determine the precise distances between objects with 

real-time tracking to within an inch 

• Elimination of data compression requirements to fit data into pre-set narrow 

bands 

• Nearly complete immunity to multi-path propagation, such as encountered in 

dense, urban areas, simultaneously increasing data throughput as well as avoiding 

low signals due to destructive interference of received multi-path signals 

With these diverse capabilities, TM-UWB technology can enhance numerous Spaceport 

and Range disciplines including: 

• Wideband operation during a launch event, in spite of considerable multi-path 

reflections caused by aluminum-based particle exhausts 

• Real-time tracking of high cost assets, with high precision 

• Reliable, high-speed, secure wireless voice, data and video transmissions inside 

buildings 

• Personal radar for security system functions for perimeter control 

• Radar functions, with through-the-wall sensing to penetrate materials such as 

brick and concrete to provide more defined images than conventional radar for 

security sweeps of buildings and cargo areas of tractor trailers 

Present SBIR investigations of UWB technology are being conducted in coordination 

with Johnson Space Center to enable in-helmet video transmission in next generation 

spacesuits. 

 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

110

TM-UWB systems use very low power (i.e., ‘flea-power’ is what some term it; Part 15 

levels of 5 mW or less), unlicensed, very short duration (< 2 ns, typically 10 to 1000 ps) 

UWB pulses at repetition rates from 10 to 40 MHz. Centered at a typical center 

frequency of 2 GHz, first-generation UWB typical system occupied 1.4 GHz. To avoid 

interfering with GPS signals and other low-power signals below 2 GHz, newer UWB 

systems, in compliance with Part 15 UWB requirements, now occupy 3.1 to 10.6 GHz. 

Because the pulses are pseudo-randomly (PN) shifted in time, transmitted signals 

resemble white noise to narrowband, conventional receivers. Because of their wideband 

characteristic, TM-UWB systems can co-exist with numerous other TM-UWB systems, 

as well as with existing narrowband communication systems, without causing significant 

interference. Likewise, because of their high processing gains of 30 dB or better due to 

occupying wide bandwidths, noise rejection performance of TM-UWB systems is 

superior to that seen in narrowband systems. Since the short duration pulses provide 

excellent multi-path immunity, the pronounced fades seen within buildings, or around a 

launch pad, with conventional narrowband systems are avoided; enhancing 

communication reliability of wireless LANs and other systems using UWB technology. 

In addition, because of the precise timing inherent from the time-modulated 

characteristics, precise position location functions are inherently features of UWB. 

For a given range, limited mostly by peak powers, TM-UWB systems provide an 

especially attractive solution for portable, battery-powered applications. Because they 

employ pulses, the average power is extremely low (5 mW, or less), whereas the range 

associated with the systems is more like that seen for transmitter powers of 30 dB or so 

higher, as associated with their peak transmitter powers. In other words, a 5 mW average 

power signal is equal to 6.98 dBm; a peak power of 30 dB higher is equal to 36.98 dBm, 

or, in terms of Watts, 5 Watts. So, for the battery drain associated with a 5 mW 

transmitter, the effective range for a TM-UWB system is more like that of a 5 Watt 

transmitter. Put another way, whereas a cell phone might have 90 minutes of talk time on 

a typical battery, if TM-UWB technology were used instead, talk time, ceteris paribus, 

would approach tens up to hundreds of hours for the same battery charge. Alternately, 

for a given talk-time, the size of the phone and the cost of the phone could be greatly 

reduced. Whereas battery technology is mature, and greatly increased battery capacity is 

not feasible with known battery chemistries, TM-UWB modulation could provide the 

equivalent effect of a disruptive technological breakthrough in battery technology with 

regards to body-worn, battery-powered communications gear. 

In short, TM-UWB represents a major shift in terms of implementation capabilities. 

Further, because of battery life extensions, it is possible to tailor the battery-life to reduce 

the cost of existing batteries through eliminating materials. With all the benefits, as well 

as the cost reductions possible, TM-UWB technology is truly a disruptive technology. 

The FCC authorized UWB transmission systems as of February 14, 2002, with their final 

report adopting the use of UWB technology. A commercial product is now available 

from Time-Domain, of Huntsville, AL, consisting of a pair of radios and an Ethernet link, 

along with controlling software to enable low-cost evaluation of their first generation 

UWB technology using standard LAN Ethernet technology. Likewise, XtremeSpectrum 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

111

of Vienna, VA, has announced a four-chip chipset providing 100 Mb/s data rates and 

consuming less than 200 mW costing only $19.95 in quantities of 100,000.184 

XtremeSpectrum’s chips are planned for use in wireless consumer products by Christmas 

2003. UWB technology is just now becoming available for use in wireless devices to 

support future Spaceports and Ranges. 

4.7.2 Historical Parallels of Ultra Wideband (UWB)

The last disruptive technology shift in wireless of a similar magnitude occurred during 

World War I. Early wireless signals (i.e., radio signals) were mostly transmitted from 

1896 until 1919 with broadband spark-gap transmitters. Capitalizing on this spark-gap 

transmitter technology, and on his own successful 1896-1898 wireless experiments, 

Guglielmo Marconi obtained funding in 1899 to found the British Marconi Company. In 

1901, he further expanded his company through opening an American subsidiary. With a 

successful demonstration of communication over the Atlantic Ocean from England to 

Newfoundland on December 12, 1901, the British Marconi Company became the 

dominant wireless company in the world. They remained dominant until 1919, when 

spark-gap radio was replaced with a more modern, disruptive technology. 

Not all was rosy, however, even during the early years of the British Marconi Company’s 

dominance. The existing trans-Atlantic cable companies and the telephone companies on 

both sides of the Atlantic were firmly entrenched, and applied considerable business 

pressure to counter the British Marconi Company’s upstart technology. No upstart 

‘wireless’ company would be allowed to threaten the dominant telecom businesses of the 

day. Because of political pressure from the existing Anglo-American Telephone 

Company, Marconi left Newfoundland and was forced to re-locate to Nova Scotia. 

Likewise, the international competition against more robust and established transAtlantic cable companies further squeezed Marconi’s company through eliminating 

international trans-Atlantic communication business. The only remaining profitable 

niche was purely marine business – i.e., the ship-to-ship and the ship-to-shore 

communication businesses, where, for purely technical reasons, neither of the existing 

companies could compete; and it was in providing these services where the British 

Marconi Company found its home. 

Spark-gap transmitter signals occupied multiple MHz of bandwidth in the course of 

sending information requiring 100 Hz or less bandwidth for transmission. Although 

wasteful of the RF spectrum, as long as spectral occupancy remained light, this approach 

provided more than enough success to interest even more users in attempting wireless 

communication. By about 1917, with increasing numbers of spark-gap transmitters 

attempting to transmit information over long distances, the result was pure bedlam. In 

an unsuccessful attempt simply to transmit over interfering signals, increasingly powerful 

transmitters and larger and larger antennas were tried. Transmit signal selectivity was 

 

184 Yoshida, Junko. Startup bets chip set on ultrawideband home nets. Electronic Engineering Times, June 

24, 2002, p. 4. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

112

initially determined only by the bandwidth of the antenna connected to the transmitter.185 

This was clearly not conducive to packing more users into the limited spectrum available, 

and circuit techniques to constrain the transmitted bandwidths even more, were 

developed during 1916-1919, i.e., the World War I era. 

Through the introduction of narrowband, continuous-wave (CW) Morse Code 

Transmitters, the disruptive technology of narrow-band oscillators was also starting to 

have an impact. The British Marconi Company, however, felt that in its niche market the 

broader bandwidth inherent with a spark-gap transmitter was better to attract the attention 

of a radio operator aboard a nearby ship or ground station in the event of a catastrophe 

aboard a ship. CW transmitters, though, soon started breaking the communication 

distance records held by typical spark-gap transmitters. Meanwhile, the British Marconi 

Company stubbornly held on to its spark-gap transmitters, and, relative to the primitive 

state of lobbying Congressmen in that day, attempted to obtain protection against the 

replacement of its transmitters aboard ship. Still, the writing was on the wall. Spark-gap 

transmitters could not be used in a crowded environment, and more and more signals 

were coming on the air each day. In just a couple of years, over 1918 through 1919, the 

British Marconi Company quickly lost the title of being the dominant wireless company 

to the new Radio Corporation of America (RCA) formed in 1919. The British Marconi 

Company had started to lose its market share due to disruptive technology changes. 

The British Marconi Company’s plan for survival was concentration in a niche marine 

market, where spark-gap transmitters still had an edge. Capitalizing on bandwidthreducing technology, in 1924 the U.S. government attempted to further reduce the 

cacophony of transmissions through limiting both the transmitter power and the operating 

frequency of spark-gap transmitters. When the new regulations went into effect, sparkgap transmitters suddenly lost most of their communication competitiveness, nearly 

overnight. Still, the number of new transmitters, both spark gap and CW increased. In 

1927, the U.S. government finally banned all spark-gap transmitters, even aboard ships 

far at sea. The result was that the British Marconi Company became more of an 

historical footnote than a continuing leader of the wireless industry. 

Whereas radio signals started as broadband signals occupying very wide bandwidths, the 

trend for many decades was increasingly to decrease bandwidths, while improving 

bandwidth efficiency. With the introduction of TM-UWB technology, the trade of 

bandwidth against power can again be re-evaluated, with the result that broadband 

signals once again represent a significant promise of creating new possibilities, and new 

opportunities for those companies willing to invest in the new technology. 

Similarly, today’s existing wireless companies risk becoming the modern-day equivalent 

of the British Marconi Company of 1927; surpassed by startup companies willing to 

develop TM-UWB products and market them. For existing companies, to fight the 

introduction of TM-UWB products through lobbying is very much like the attempts in 

 

185 This was also the case for the first generation UWB transmitters, developed in the 1980’s. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

113

the early 1920’s to legislate the required use of spark-gap transmitters onboard ships to 

insure the maximum likelihood of attracting the attention of nearby radio operators in the 

event of a disaster. Legislation then only delayed the inevitable and the British Marconi 

Company fell in importance in 1927, whereas, from 1901 through 1919 it had been THE 

dominant wireless company. The lessons of history are often forgotten in technology 

circles, much to the financial detriment of those companies, investors, and even 

individuals that forget the lessons. Instead of sending lobbyists to Washington to ban its 

use, wireless technology companies of today should instead become engaged in R&D to 

improve their understanding of UWB. The genie is already out of the bottle. It is better 

to profit from UWB technology than to try belatedly to ban its use. In the end, individual 

consumers and the marketplace in general will be the ultimate winners. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

114

4.8 GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITES 

4.8.1 GPS

On the night of August 31, 1983/September 1, 1983, a Korean Airlines civilian Boeing 

747, Flight KAL007, inadvertently flew over, or near, the Kamchatka Peninsula and 

Sakhalin Island, both of which were then highly protected Soviet military areas. In 

response to this over flight, Flight KAL007 was shot down by the Soviet Air Force, 

resulting in the death of over three hundred passengers and crewmembers, most of which 

were civilians. Amid the subsequent worldwide condemnation of the shoot down 

decision by the Soviets, a decision was made by then President Reagan, and by the US 

Congress, to prevent the future recurrence of such civilian tragedies. Their decision was 

to open the US Military’s Global Positioning System (GPS) for use by civilian users 

worldwide, to prevent the future recurrences of such tragic errors in navigation. 

Originally developed for the precise navigation of military aircraft and weapons systems, 

and freely available since the shoot down of KAL007 in 1983 for civil use, the US Global 

Positioning System is comprised of three main segments. These three segments are the 

Control, Space, and User Segments. 

The Control Segment is managed from the Master Control facility located at Schriever 

Air Force Base (formerly Falcon AFB) in Colorado. Monitoring stations within the 

Control Segment, located in Hawaii, Ascension Island, Diego Garcia, Kwajalein, and 

Schriever AFB in Colorado, measure signals from the GPS satellites, generally referred 

to as Space Vehicles (SVs) (Figure 4-1). Data taken from these SVs are then processed 

and incorporated into orbital predictive models for each of the satellites. The orbital 

models generate precise orbital data (ephemeris) and SV clock corrections for each 

satellite. The Master Control station in Colorado then uploads both ephemeris and clock 

data to the SVs. 

Figure 4-1 GPS Satellite 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

115

The Space Segment consists of the nominal 24-satellite constellation of SVs, each of 

which orbits the Earth every 12-hours. Orbital ground tracks of individual SVs repeat (as 

the Earth turns beneath them) once each day, returning over the same point on Earth 

approximately every 23 hours, 56 minutes. SVs are arranged in six orbital planes (with 

nominally four SVs contained in each plane), equally spaced around the Earth (i.e., at 60 

degrees separation). The individual orbital planes are inclined at about fifty-five degrees 

with respect to the equatorial plane, thereby providing users with between five and eight 

SVs visible from any point on Earth. To provide readily available backups in the event 

of a failure of one of the active SVs, generally, at least two spare SVs are kept in orbit, 

thereby providing a typical total constellation of 26-satellites, or more, on orbit. 

The User Segment is comprised of the GPS receivers and all the users that use GPS for 

obtaining precise position and velocity navigation as well as for time information. To 

provide an acceptable position fix, four satellites (minimum) are required within view of 

each user to compute the four dimensions of X, Y, Z (i.e., 3-Dimensional position) and 

Time (i.e., the 4th-Dimension). Furthermore, to provide as accurate information as 

possible, typically one to three additional SVs are needed, to insure that spatial 

geometries of the apparent positions of SVs from any point on Earth are adequate for 

generating good position solutions, avoiding Dilution of Precision (DOP) that would 

otherwise occur due to bad spacings/locations of SVs relative to any specific point on 

Earth. GPS receivers convert SV signals into position, velocity, and time estimates. 

GPS position accuracies vary, depending on the GPS code used by the GPS receiver. 

Typically, the two-dimensional positional accuracy provided by GPS C/A-code is around 

10 meters, whereas P (Y)-code provides two-dimensional position accuracies generally to 

less than 5 meters. Because of the high positional accuracy provided even by C/A-code, 

the Department of Defense (DoD) originally used SA (Selective Availability) to dither 

the short-term accuracy, to prevent enemy missiles from using GPS signals to target 

fixed, hardened targets, such as ICBM missile silos. With SA code, typical twodimensional position accuracies were degraded to around ±100 meters (95% horizontal 

accuracy). Due to the growing dependence of civilian aircraft and systems on GPS, and 

to the lessening worldwide threat of nuclear ICBM attacks, SA code was permanently 

deactivated on May 2, 2000 by order of President Clinton. Through using two 

commercial receivers, P-code, originally available only to military receivers, is also 

essentially available for special civilian purposes such as surveying. Even if P-code is 

derived using two commercial receivers, Spoofing (discussed later) can still cause 

significant errors, and further safeguards must be used to overcome the threat imposed by 

spoofing whenever using P-code. 

GPS signals, broadcast from the SVs to GPS receivers, are transmitted over spread 

spectrum radio signals at the Link 1 (L1) and Link 2 (L2) frequencies centered at 1575.42 

MHz and 1227.60 MHz, respectively. Most civilian receivers only receive on L1. At 

present, most military receivers must receive on L1 to acquire GPS, but often then switch 

to L2 for GPS tracking. GPS link margins for many receivers are typically only 3 to 4 dB, 

meaning that GPS is largely useless within buildings, or even under wet canopies of 

leaves in the fall along many city streets. Because of the low power levels (i.e., around 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

116

10-16 Watts at the Earth’s surface), and wide bandwidths in excess of 24 MHz, 

susceptibility to jamming is also a threat, whether intentional or unintentional. 

Harmonics of several UHF TV channels in the United States are notorious for causing 

what some have termed GPS ‘wormholes’, i.e., geographic areas in which GPS is 

unavailable. Specific TV channels especially known to cause frequent jamming 

problems are channels 66 (2nd Harmonic), and 23 (3rd Harmonic). In addition, smaller 

‘wormholes’ also exist around TV towers broadcasting on channels 5, 6, 7, and 10, which 

often have higher order harmonics, ranging from the 8th Harmonic through the 20th

Harmonic, that fall inband to the GPS bands. Due to their lower typical transmitting 

powers, and higher order harmonics necessary for harmonics to fall within the GPS 

bands, FM radio stations have even been known to cause GPS jamming problems, too; 

although typically over much smaller geographic areas. 

Susceptibility to GPS jamming varies among various GPS receivers. Surprisingly, during 

initial acquisition, civilian receivers often are more resistant to jamming than military 

receivers. This comes about due to the relative bandwidths of the coded signals involved. 

The GPS C/A (Coarse Acquisition) code is broadcast over L1. It is a narrowband signal 

required to obtain a precise time offset into the PN code known as P-code (Precise Code). 

The GPS P-code, as originally envisioned, was only used by military receivers to obtain 

precise location information. It is a wider bandwidth PN sequence, having a longer 

sequence before repeating. Because of the difference in bandwidths, and the need to 

keep costs low, civilian receivers typically have a very narrow RF front-end bandpass 

filter at the input to the receiver, to permit the use of a lower-cost, lower-performance 

Low Noise Amplifier (LNA) at the receiver input. Military receivers, having to operate 

with P-code, typically have much wider RF front-end bandpass filters. With the wider 

bandwidth required to receive P-code, their total equivalent input noise power, consisting 

of the integrated noise power spectral density due to thermal noise over the input 

passband, forces the selection of higher-cost, lower noise figure, LNAs in military 

receivers to maintain sensitivity comparable to sensitivities of civilian receivers. The 

unintended side effect is that military receivers are more susceptible to jamming, whether 

intentional or otherwise, during acquisition than civilian receivers because of their wider 

RF front-end filters. Once GPS is acquired, though, military receivers operating at L2 

often have higher anti-jam performance than civilian receivers operating at L1, due to the 

processing gain provided by the P-code that spreads the power of the (presumably) 

narrowband jammer over wider bandwidths than C/A-code does in the process of GPS 

code de-spreading. The solution for military receivers to acquire GPS is relatively 

simple, though. They simply acquire GPS outside the area where jammers are present. 

How real is the threat to GPS receivers from terrorist jamming? Unfortunately, it is 

severe. Several studies have consistently shown that a one-watt jammer can easily ‘take 

out’ GPS over wide areas, out to a radius of well over 50 miles from the jammer. 

Furthermore, experiments have been done whereby an effective jammer was built in a 

package the size of a standard soft-drink aluminum can, using low-cost parts available 

from a local Radio Shack store, for under $50. Likewise, a 400-watt jammer, operating 

at an altitude of 10,000 feet at Ft. Bragg, NC, for example, affected civilian GPS 

receivers out to even the neighboring states of Virginia, and South Carolina, while 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

117

denying GPS operation to civilian receivers over approximately 1/3rd of North 

Carolina.186 Battery-powered jammers, constructed inexpensively, could, in a worst-case 

scenario, be airdropped over a wide area, effectively denying GPS for days around a 

Spaceport, or on a Range, before exhausting self-contained battery power. 

Hardening GPS receivers against jammers, though, is not entirely possible using P-code 

processing alone. Processing gains, after all, are limited, and this limits the degree of 

anti-jam (AJ) protection that can be achieved through processing gain alone. The 

solution is to add additional AJ performance through spatial selectivity. This can be 

accomplished using phased array antennas. 

The basic decision that must be made in choosing a phased array antenna to provide AJ 

protection is to decide on the number of diverse directions in which jammers can be 

considered to exist simultaneously, and which must be nulled. This number of diverse 

directions equates to what is called the number of Degrees of Freedom (DOF) required to 

provide AJ protection. A typical Controlled Radiation Pattern Antenna (CRPA, 

pronounced as ‘serpa’), used to provide AJ GPS performance, provides nulling 

performance of either 3-DOF or 4-DOF. Relative to the number of antenna elements 

required to provide a specified number of DOF performance, the basic assumption is that 

one of the elements becomes the reference element. The remaining elements, combining 

against the reference element in a destructive interference fashion, then determine the 

DOF performance. In other words, the number of elements required for an AJ GPS 

Phased Array antenna is one more than the Degrees of Freedom performance desired. 

Hence, a four-element array can null up to three jammers that exist in diverse spatial 

separations.187

To achieve the destructive interference required along the lines of bearing, or look 

angles, at which jammers exist, the elements in an AJ GPS phased array must be adjusted 

in terms of the weighting applied to each antenna element output signal. This can be 

accomplished by using either phase shifters or complex weights. Using phase shifters, 

however, limits the ability to adjust the amplitude weighting, which is needed to account 

for partial masking of the reference element, which can occur at certain look angles from 

the reference element. The result is that purely phase-shifted phased arrays provide 

limited AJ nulling performance, and are usually are not used; except in the most 

inexpensive or lowest power consumption systems. 

A preferred approach is to use four-quadrant complex weights, which provide full X-Y 

control through a combination of amplitude and phase shifting functions. A typical RF 

Complex Weight provides in excess of 50 dB of dynamic range, over the full 360o range 

 

186 Williams, Drew. GPS Vulnerability. GPS Users Conference, SPAWAR System Center San Diego, 02 

November 2000. (LCDR Drew Williams, SSC-SD, Code D315, GPS Division) 

187 Likewise, a theoretically infinite number of jammers along a single spatial direction vector can be nulled 

with a single element when operated against a reference element. One element equates to nulling one 

jammer against a reference element only when the jammers are in diverse spatial orientations. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

118

of angles. In turn, such an RF Complex Weight can provide nulls against jammers in 

excess of 50 dB. The primary performance requirements for RF Complex Weights are: 

• Monotonicity, whereby no two X-Y states can have the same input conditions 

separated by a higher-energy state (otherwise, stable algorithm control is lost) 

• Orthogonality, whereby the X and Y-axis commanded states cannot overlap – i.e., 

when commanding, say at equal X and Y states, the goal is to be as close to a line 

with a slope of one as possible; otherwise, the effect of a change in the state of the 

X-axis setting affects the Y-axis setting, and vice versa, preventing stable 

algorithm control 

• Dynamic range, whereby the number of bits of control integral within an RF 

Complex weight digital to analog converters exhibits both resolution as well as 

true dynamic range, permitting the setting of precise positions in the complex XY space, as needed for setting deep nulls 

• Response speed, whereby the RF Complex Weight can be commanded quickly to 

a new state (this is mostly a requirement on the Digital to Analog converter within 

the RF Complex Weight, determined by both choice of semiconductor technology 

and by power consumption) 

• Power consumption (with the goal of limiting the heat that is dissipated, or which 

must be dissipated) 

The antenna element weighting algorithms, used to set the exact settings within the RF 

Complex Weights on each element’s output, vary depending on vendor, although many 

older algorithms are in the public domain. In general, the desire is to achieve AJ 

solutions within less than one hundred milliseconds, and typical microprocessors have 

long been capable of finding and updating AJ solutions in but a small fraction of this time 

frame. 

During the early 1980’s, AJ GPS phased array antenna systems occupied racks of 

equipment, and typically had associated costs in the multiple millions of dollars, each. 

By the late 1980’s, with the development of low recurring-cost Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) 

and Silicon (Si) RF Complex Weights fabricated on single integrated circuits, the price 

and physical volumes dropped dramatically. In high volume applications, recurring costs 

under a hundred dollars per AJ GPS phased array antenna, including digital controller 

and RF circuitry, became possible, contained within volumes measured in but a few cubic 

inches.188 With this reduction in volume and cost, the availability of AJ GPS phased 

array antenna appliqués became possible for use on handheld GPS Receivers. Likewise, 

it became possible to add AJ GPS even to smart bombs, comprised of World War II and 

 

188 The limit on physical size is now mostly determined by the physical spacing required to keep the 

antenna elements in the phased array from becoming over coupled. At the L-Band frequencies used by 

GPS signals, the need for roughly 1⁄2-wavelength spacing between elements, to limit element-to-element 

coupling, sets the lower bound on a small phased array for AJ GPS use to around four or five inches long 

and a couple of inches wide with a 3-DOF system. The depth is mostly determined by the internal 

electronics behind the GPS phased array antenna elements. Higher DOF performances, and deeper nulling 

requirements, often push the physical volume higher. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

119

Korean War vintage designs of dumb 500 lb and 2000 lb gravity bombs with strap-on, 

small control surface modules. These smart bombs, directed by GPS control, are capable 

of providing highly-accurate GPS-assisted targeting of fixed ground assets in mostly 

shoot and scoot scenarios, or, more accurately, lob toss and run, missions. After all, 

bridges and other fixed targets cannot run away when under attack. 

In addition to being susceptible to jammers, civilian GPS receivers are also susceptible to 

C/A-Code Signal Spoofing. Spoofing is the sending of intentionally deceptive fake GPS 

signals to prevent receivers from deriving accurate position and velocity information. 

Once tracking Y-code, military receivers are inherently spoof-resistant. To understand 

the difference between Y-code and P-code, it is necessary to realize that the DoD has 

historically used two techniques to encode GPS signals and deny the full accuracy of 

GPS to unauthorized users: Selective Availability (SA) and Anti-Spoofing (AS). With 

SA, the DoD dithered the time broadcast by each satellite and could introduce intentional 

errors into the broadcast ephemeris. This resulted in a range error measured by (civilian) 

GPS receivers, resulting in a non-deterministic position error. As discussed previously, 

due to the growing dependence of civilian aircraft and systems on GPS, and to the 

lessening worldwide threat of nuclear ICBM attacks, SA code was deactivated on May 2, 

2000. AS, on the other hand, is still used. When AS is activated, P-code is encrypted, 

creating Y-code, which prevents an appropriately designed military GPS receiver from 

being fooled by an intentionally deceptive fake GPS signal. Y-code is simply encrypted 

P-code. A military receiver must have a valid cryptographic key to enable the ability to 

remove the effects of SA (when it was used) and to use Y code.189 

Modernization plans for GPS include introducing a third carrier, known as L5, centered 

at a frequency of 1176.45 MHz carrying M-code (Military-code). Likewise, there are 

plans to add M-code additions on both the L1 and L2 frequencies. (M-code is intended 

for Civil Safety of Life Applications and New Military Applications.) In addition, to 

address the problems associated with every present military receiver having to acquire 

C/A-code on L1, there are plans to add C/A-code on L2, as well. In this way, increased 

flexibility will be provided, increasing the ability of future military receivers to overcome 

non-intentional jamming during acquisition. As part of the GPS-III Systems Architecture 

and Requirements Definition (SARD) phase, the 12-month contracts to complete these 

modernization plans were awarded on November 9, 2000 to Boeing and Lockheed 

Martin. Likewise, the modification letters were sent out in August 2000 for 

implementing changes to the Block IIR and Block IIF SVs to perform the necessary 

modification to unlaunched SVs. IOC (Initial Operational Capability) will occur over 

FY06 to FY08 for M-code and L5 additions. High-power M-code will occur on the first 

of the GPS-III SVs planned in about FY09. GPS-III SVs are planned to carry the bulk of 

the GPS workload out to 2030, which is the same date out to which the Advanced Range 

Technology Working Group (ARTWG) (and SBRDSWG) are likewise focusing. 

 

189 GPS Q&A, Earth Observation Magazine, January 1996, 

http://www.eomonline.com/Common/Archives/Jan96/gps.htm retrieved 16 July 2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

120

4.8.2 TGRS

TGRS (Translated Global Position System Range System) began as a USAF project 

providing engineering, development, and initial test sets of time-space-position 

information (TSPI) instrumentation primarily to provide range safety and weapon system 

testers with accurate position data during all phases of missile launch and flight. Based 

on Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, TGRS hardware is intended to meet 

joint Service requirements for providing precise TSPI. The major portions of the TGRS 

instrumentation are an airborne Digital GPS Translator (DGT) and a ground-based GPS 

Translator Processor (GTP). The DGT provides an extremely compact and accurate 

range capability module for installation on strategic and tactical missiles and spacecraft 

vehicles. The GTP, on the other hand, incorporates position information from allsatellites-in-view, with minimal data latency, as needed to track fast moving vehicles at 

up to 75g dynamics from the ground.190

To date, TGRS instrumentation is being used to replace the Flight Test Support System at 

Jonathan Dickinson Missile Tracking Annex (JDMTA) located at the Jonathan Dickinson 

State Park, Florida, as part of an ongoing $103.8M upgrade to the Eastern Range 

facilities by Computer Sciences Raytheon. This work was started in 2000, with the bulk 

of the change-out occurring in 2001 and 2002.191 Presently (May 2002), TGRS 

instrumentation is being used to provide TSPI for range safety for the routine launching 

of Naval missiles from the Eastern Range. 

4.9 DATA ASSURANCE 

Achieving data assurance for a range information system network requires understanding 

many computer-based information topics. Considering just the major topics, data 

assurance for this network must include provisions for achieving: 

• Data Integrity (i.e., protection against tampering, whether intentional or 

unintentional) 

• Data Authentication (i.e., anti-spoofing functionality) 

• Data Availability (which can range from minor latency issues [timeliness] all the 

way to data unavailability) 

• Data Ease-of-use 

• Data Security (i.e., protection of data content from access by unauthorized 

personnel) 

 

190 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/programs/cteip/af.html

191 https://www.patrick.af.mil/45lg/45cons/contract/rtsc/downloads/contract/mods/P00030.pdf
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

121

Data assurance also involves maintaining the operational computer-based data system, 

itself, to guarantee the timely delivery of data when needed, both in real-time and when 

retrieved later. Of course, this requires mundane preventive maintenance. Further, this 

identifies a need for including information management features for range information 

data archival (data backup) functionality along with data recovery and retrieval 

administration in future range information systems. 

Each of these areas, involving Data, the range information system infrastructure, and the 

paradigms for storing and retrieving information, must be individually addressed to 

achieve the level of Data Assurance required for the data created, used, and archived on 

future Spaceports and Ranges. Fundamentally, Data Assurance must become more than a 

metaphor for simply achieving good infrastructure plumbing to pipe information quickly 

and without loss around future spaceports and ranges. Additionally, data assurance must 

provide an infrastructure capable of establishing a commons for data, a virtual meeting 

place, where both humans and computers go (in a virtual sense), for all the information 

required to accomplish the business of accessing space. This must be done while 

simultaneously creating a culture for seamlessly supporting the flow of information 

needed for achieving routine access to space; along with paying, whenever possible, 

considerable attention to providing a pervasively wireless infrastructure. The following 

sections explore these data concepts in more detail. 

4.9.1 Data Integrity

Data Integrity refers to protection against data tampering, whether intentional or 

unintentional. For a rather unlikely example, intentional data tampering could be the 

result of an attempt to hide telemetry data, after a catastrophic launch event, perhaps to 

prevent the disclosure of an error on the part of an individual or group of individuals. It 

could also be the result of unauthorized modification(s) of existing data, perhaps to 

support a different conclusion than would otherwise be inferred from these data. Each of 

these occurrences is unlikely, but to achieve true Data Integrity, they must be guarded 

against in the fundamental design phase of a future range information system. 

Unintentional tampering of data, on the other hand, is a more likely threat to guard 

against. Consider, for example, lossy data compression methods. These could clearly 

have the effect of tampering with transmitted or stored scientific payload data. 

Evaluation of any so-called lossless data compression techniques would need to be vetted 

completely prior to a determination that the data compression technique was truly 

lossless. This would need to occur during the original design phase of the range 

information system. Another possibility that must be prevented, or at least mitigated, is 

the accidental damage of an operating system file, due perhaps to power surges or power 

outages. Signature analysis of files would be one way to detect the tampering of data 

files, whether intentional or otherwise. 

4.9.2 Data Authentication
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

122

Data Authentication refers to the ability to determine whether the source of a specific 

data packet or data stream was truly from the origination source claimed for it. This 

could be done through electronic signature techniques, by which it would be possible to 

verify the veracity of the source, although not necessarily the truthfulness of the source. 

The key to Data Authentication is to determine and vet the source, not the veracity, of the 

data. 

4.9.3 Data Availability

Data Availability refers to the presence of data when it is desired, at a specific location. 

At one end of the scale, Data Availability could refer to simple transport delays in a 

range information system, and could be expressed as a data latency issue. For example, 

if a high definition digital TV data stream from an HDTV camera observing a launch fed 

its data through an assortment of conversion techniques, perhaps as needed to feed older 

analog input TVs, a launch vehicle could literally be already off the pad and climbing 

into the sky before the visible indication would be observable on older analog TVs that 

were at a remote location from the launch. Similarly, data routing through the Internet, 

without quality of signal (QoS) guaranteed, could likewise cause delays in receipt of data 

requiring timeliness. 

At the other extreme, it would be possible to envision a scenario by which a nonredundant data path was broken, in which case no data would be available from the 

source. 

Data availability is a critical determining factor in the technical design details of future 

range information system networks. To confirm whether Data Availability needs were 

being met, it is likely that regular autonomous testing of Data Response Times would be 

needed in a range information system network. 

4.9.4 Data Ease-of-Use

Ease-of-use for range information system data, storing and retrieving data, ranges from 

smart data simplification, whereby information overload could be reduced to a level with 

which an individual can cope (perhaps through the use of fuselet agents, in the parlance 

of data fusion technology), all the way to simplification of complete launch vehicle 

preparation processes. Although computer interfaces are typically not thought to require 

ease-of-use, in reality, the necessity of achieving data latency requirements may very 

well require encapsulation of data into smaller logical packets, whereby it is possible to 

route data packlets in place of giant data packets in order to achieve low throughput 

latencies as desired. This equates to Data Ease-of-Use for computer interfaces. 

4.9.5 Data Security

Data Security consists fundamentally of controlling unauthorized access to the network 

and preventing the theft of data contained within the network. Subsequently, security, of 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

123

both the data and the system processing these data, must be based on fundamental 

characteristics of the entire system, and must be totally separate and removed from any 

attempt to maintain what is often called security by obscurity. Attempting to obtain 

security through using an elaborate, hidden, yet unsound, technical principle is doomed 

to fail against the efforts of evildoers. In our modern computer age it is simply no longer 

possible to follow the wise ancient advice of Sun Tzu, who wrote: “If a secret piece of 

news is divulged by a spy before the time is ripe, he must be put to death, together with 

the man to whom the secret was told.”192 A more humane way is simply to increase the 

robustness of data security techniques and protocols to prevent the unintended release of 

data. 

For just one modern example of why security by obscurity is bad, consider the 1999 

breaking of the Content Scrambling System (CSS) encryption method intended to prevent 

the illegal copying of movies released on DVDs. CSS encryption was originally intended 

to prevent reading data from a DVD unless an unencrypted 5-byte (40-bit) decryption 

key was made available.193 Unfortunately, the fundamental encryption algorithm was 

fundamentally weak, security by obscurity could not protect the deciphering of many 

keys given just one compromised key, and, worst yet, one of the companies participating 

in the DVD player encryption technique actually had used an unencrypted key that was 

then placed on every DVD.194 Once the algorithm was reverse engineered, neither 

deleting the one unencrypted key on future DVDs or issuing a legal decree that using 

such techniques was now illegal, could close the door and prevent access to DVD 

movies, as the knowledge horse was literally already out of the barn once the algorithm 

became known. Obscurity of the algorithm through protection of its inner workings 

ultimately failed to prevent it from being overcome. What are the lessons that can be 

learned from this data management fiasco? 

 

• First, security by obscurity of a weak data protection algorithm is the wrong 

approach for engendering data assurance in a range information system exposed 

to public scrutiny; instead, a strong algorithm should be used that is capable of 

withstanding public scrutiny. Public exposure additionally serves the dual 

purpose of ferreting out relatively quickly any weaknesses that may exist, while 

proactively working to close any weakness to prevent further endangering data 

assurance. 

• Second, the loss of any one key, encrypted or not, should (ideally) not 

compromise the entire data system. 

 

192 Sun Tzu, The Art of War. 

193 Although this is a short key by modern standards, 40-bit encryption was actually at the limit imposed at 

the time by the US Government on encryption techniques that could be exported. 40-bit keys were the 

maximum that were not export controlled. 

194 Andy Patrizio. Why the DVD Hack was a Cinch. Wired News. November 2, 1999. 

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,32263,00.html retrieved 13 August 2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

124

• Third, any data security system, assuming it is strong, should additionally use a 

strong cryptographic key to prevent the success of wholesale attacks against the 

key itself, given the full knowledge of the encryption/decryption machine. 

With these three lessons learned from DVD decryption history, the fundamental 

attributes and ideas needed to achieve data assurance become intuitively obvious. 

Yet, these ideas are not new. Rather, this fundamental approach for achieving security 

for data systems can largely be described using the six principles first identified by 19th

Century linguist and cryptographer Auguste Kerckhoffs. Although Kerckhoffs first 

developed, and then applied, his six principles to military ciphers, their underlying 

characteristics and strengths apply to all data networking systems, not just to military 

ciphers or range information systems. These six principles, known variously as 

Kerckhoffs’ Laws, Kerckhoffs’ Assumptions, and Kerckhoffs’s Principles, can be 

summarized as follows:195

1° Le système doit être matériellement, sinon mathématiquement, indéchiffrable; 

2° Il faut qu'il n'exige pas le secret, et qu'il puisse sans inconvénient tomber entre 

les mains de l'ennemi ; 

3° La clef doit pouvoir en être communiquée et retenue sans le secours de notes 

écrites, et être changée ou modifiée au gré des correspondants; 

4° Il faut qu'il soit applicable à la correspondance télégraphique ; 

5° Il faut qu'il soit portatif, et que son maniement ou son fonctionnement n'exige 

pas le concours de plusieurs personnes; 

6° Enfin, il est nécessaire, vu les circonstances qui en commandent l'application, 

que le système soit d'un usage facile, ne demandant ni tension d'esprit, ni la 

connaissance d'une longue série de règles à observer. 

These principles, when translated into English, become:196,197

1.1 The system must be practically, if not mathematically, undecipherable; 

1.2 It must not be required to be secret, and it must be able to fall into the hands 

of the enemy without inconvenience (i.e., “The system must not require 

secrecy and can be stolen by the enemy without causing trouble;”); 

1.3 Its key must be communicable and retainable without the help of written 

notes, and changeable or modifiable at the will of the correspondents (i.e., “It 

 

195 Auguste Kerckhoffs. La cryptographie militaire, Journal des sciences militaires, vol. IX, pp. 5-83, Jan. 

1883, pp. 161-191, Feb. 1883. A 35 page pdf version of this famous paper is available on the web at 

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fapp2/kerckhoffs/crypto_militaire_1.pdf

196 Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Kerckhoffs Law. http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Kerckhoffs'+law

retrieved 13 August 2002. 

197 http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fapp2/kerckhoffs/#english
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

125

must be easy to communicate and remember the keys without requiring 

written notes, it must also be easy to change or modify the keys with different 

participants;”); 

1.4 It must be applicable to telegraphic correspondence (i.e., in modern terms, it 

must be applicable to the telegraphic correspondence of the modern age, e.g. 

applicable to computer networking). 

1.5 It must be portable, and its usage and function must not require the concourse 

of many people (i.e., “The system must be portable, and its use must not 

require more than one person;”); 

1.6 Finally, it is necessary, seeing the circumstances that the application 

commands, that the system be easy to use, requiring neither mental strain nor 

the knowledge of a long series of rules to observe (i.e., “Finally, regarding 

the circumstances in which such a system is applied, it must be easy to use 

and must neither require stress of mind nor the knowledge of a long series of 

rules.”). 

In short, following Kerckhoff’s recommendations, any system claiming to provide data 

assurance through security techniques must be capable of withstanding public scrutiny 

during development, be easy to use, and must additionally employ an undecipherable 

(strong) key to provide a full defense against unintentional exposure of plaintext data or 

unencrypted keys. Otherwise, the system would likely not achieve the goals for which it 

was intended. 

Modern mathematics provides the best method of assuring robustness of cryptographic 

techniques. Robustness, though, is not just about increasing complexity and making 

complexity integral to the algorithms and keys used. As but one example of the failure of 

complexity alone to provide adequate protection, Phil Zimmerman, creator of the 

excellent public-key cryptography system known as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), created 

an earlier failed encryption system known as the BassOmatic. (The BassOmatic 

encryption algorithm was named in honor of a popular Saturday Night Live skit from late 

night TV in America that involved dropping a fish (a bass) into a blender; hence, the 

brand of blender in the fictitious commercial of the skit was “BassOmatic”.) Although 

Zimmerman’s BassOmatic encryption algorithm ‘chopped’ incoming data into very small 

pieces in a lengthy and complicated process, which could then be reversed to decrypt the 

‘encrypted’ data, the algorithm provided very little protection against decryption. 

BassOmatic was rendered unacceptable for its intended purpose after a less than tenminute review by an industry expert, at which point Zimmerman experienced an 

epiphany that led to the development of what became PGP. Robustness does not 

necessarily follow from complexity in devising cryptographic systems. 

The lesson to be taken from this is that complexity is no panacea for protecting data, not 

even if one depends on security by obscurity to protect the complexity. The true key to 

achieving data assurance on range information systems is to use robust algorithms within 

a framework of algorithm openness, and then to use cryptographically strong (i.e., long) 

keys. Short cryptographic keys, poor algorithms (even if hidden), and un-scrutinized 

data handling processes are a recipe for failure, and should be avoided. Data Security, as 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

126

needed to support future Spaceports and Ranges, must depend on robust (not necessarily 

overly complex) algorithms that have undergone a considerable public peer review 

process, and which are fundamentally dependant on the use of strong cryptographic keys 

instead of depending on a false sense of security by obscurity. 

4.10 VOICE OVER IP (VOIP) 

Upon installing broadband connectivity, alternative implementations of conventional 

services immediately become possible. A prime example is Voice over IP (VoIP) 

technology, which upsets the traditional methods for exploiting technology to which 

many are accustomed. For example, consider the conventional paradigm, whereby lowbandwidth Internet services are obtained over conventional, dial-up, analog phone lines. 

With VoIP, this paradigm is flipped; and instead one uses a high speed Internet 

connection, obtained through either a DSL or a Cable Modem connection to the Internet, 

to obtain local, instate, and state-to-state telephone services over the Internet. The 

introduction of 24/7, high-speed Ethernet connectivity is what enables a clear reversal of 

traditional technology roles. 

The risk of adopting new technology early, in such a paradigm shift, before it is fully 

developed, is that it may not work well. A common outcome is that the most desirable 

features demonstrated by a new technology may be little more than technological stunts, 

working but poorly. Borrowing a Samuel Johnson expression, new, ill-performing 

technology is much “...like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you 

are surprised to find it done at all.”198 

In many ways, the initial protocol for VoIP, known as H.323, and established by the ITU, 

is and was such a dog, walking awkwardly on its’ hind legs. This arose because VoIP 

technology first grew out of video conferencing techniques developed for use over a 

Local Area Network (LAN) under a ‘define everything first, in a rigid framework, even if 

it might not be needed’ philosophy. H.323’s mostly unused overhead leaves much to be 

desired, in that: 

• Addressing does not scale well, as H.323 cannot support URLs. 

• There are possibilities of delays of up to 7 or 8 seconds for initiating, 

manipulating, and tearing-down VoIP sessions. 

• Binary formats, not easily transportable across IP networks, are used in H.323. 

 

198 John Bartlett. Familiar Quotations. 10th Edition, 1919. Samuel Johnson (1708-1784) In full context, the 

quote was: “Sir, a woman preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you 

are surprised to find it done at all.” 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

127

• Voice-only traffic is permitted by H.323, whereas adding extensions to support 

transporting other traffic types requires adding non-standard, vendor-specific, 

modifications to the basic H.323 protocol. 

• H.323 is built around a vertical philosophy concept, which means everything is 

included in H.323 (i.e., details regarding codecs, terminals, gateways, 

gatekeepers, and all other features). This increases the complexity, cost, and 

scope of providing VoIP capability. 

Even as recently as early 2000, VoIP traffic initiated, manipulated, and torn-down using 

the H.323 suite of protocols was still a notoriously poor quality substitute for 

conventional telephone service; providing service that was poorer in audio quality and 

convenience than both conventional wired and current cell phone service. H.323 may be 

a suite of well-defined protocols, but the protocols are both cumbersome and inflexible, 

thereby precluding adding new features. For a young industry such as VoIP, such an 

approach, to define everything first and let technologists sort out the deficiencies later, 

often prevents fixing the very shortcomings that must be remedied to improve 

performance.199 It is better to define a minimalist approach that is more easily adaptable, 

containing the inherent flexibility needed to accommodate changes to fix problems as 

they arise. 

Within the last six months, with the large-scale adoption of the emerging standard 

Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) in place of the older H.323 legacy suite of protocols, the 

sorely needed flexibility lacking in H.323 has been achieved.200 The outcome, from 

switching to SIP in place of H.323, has been that VoIP technology has greatly improved 

quickly so that it now provides better audio quality, on average, than typical cell phone 

service. Current VoIP service is nearly indistinguishable from conventional wired 

telephone service. Relative to the earlier, less capable H.323 VoIP protocols, SIP 

provides unsurpassed high-speed Internet phone service without monopolizing a highspeed Internet connection. SIP is a low percentage bandwidth user of a broadband 

Internet connection. Instead of trying to contain all Internet functionality internally, it 

uses a scalable hierarchical URL style-addressing scheme and builds on existing Internet 

protocols, such as URLs, MIME formats, and DNS resolutions. SIP is developed around 

a horizontal, simple philosophy, and provides an application level protocol for 

establishing, manipulating, and tearing down connections transporting voice over 

existing Internet protocols. It starts with the same basic design philosophy as employed 

within C Programming and Unix environment circles, of building modular components 

that do but one function well. Because of this fundamental, simplistic, minimalist design 

decision, SIP messages are text, instead of binary; thereby enabling them to be passed 

 

199 http://www.sipcenter.com/aboutsip/siph323/h323sip.htm

200 SIP is being driven not from within the ITU like H.323, but from within the IETF (Internet Engineering 

Task Force). The IETF is inherently pro-Internet, desiring to build on what has already been achieved in 

the Internet world. For more information, see the IETF’s website: http://www.ietf.org/, especially the SIP 

related information section at: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/simple-charter.html. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

128

quickly through various types of networks while quickly setting up connections. 

Additionally, because of the underlying simplicity, SIP is able to seamlessly interact with 

media types other than voice, while achieving a minimal delay much smaller than the 7 

or 8 seconds typically seen in H.323 networking. Although SIP contains no QoS 

(Quality of Signal) provisions in its defined protocol, in practice, the low overhead and 

fast throughput inherent with SIP sessions do allow achieving high QoS. Because the 

simple, horizontal philosophy approach within SIP reduces complexity, the VoIP costs 

associated with managing SIP sessions are extremely low; relative to the costs of 

managing H.323 sessions. 

How is VoIP user equipment currently installed? For the typical user, it is but a simple 

add-on to an existing high-speed Ethernet LAN. As shown in Figure 4-2, an Analog 

Phone Adaptor is simply plugged into a broadband Ethernet connection, and a 

conventional telephone is then plugged into the Analog Phone Adaptor. Unlike in early 

VoIP systems, no dedicated computer running custom software is required to receive 

unplanned or unexpected telephone calls. As shown in the setup diagram, a router with an 

integral Ethernet Switch output provides the necessary outputs needed for sharing a high 

speed Internet connection between an existing computer and the Analog Phone Adapter 

for the VoIP phone. 

The leading provider of VoIP service (as of August 2002) is Vonage, of Edison, NJ.201 

Following the same basic setup shown in Figure 4-2, customers simply subscribe to 

Vonage’s VoIP service, connect an Analog Phone Adaptor to their broadband Internet 

Ethernet connection, and then plug in any conventional telephone to the Analog Phone 

Adaptor. Using a VoIP telephone is then as easy as picking up a conventional phone, 

listening for the dial tone, and dialing the desired phone number (along with the desired 

area code if the destination is outside the area code chosen for the VoIP phone number, 

which is not necessarily the same area code in which the VoIP phone is physically 

installed). There are no extra access numbers to be dialed, as required with long distance 

calling cards, nor are there any long distance fees charged for calls made to phone 

numbers registered within the United States.202 Additionally, it is possible to pick any of 

several popular area codes for the VoIP phone, thereby creating an easily implemented 

virtual presence in any of several major population areas within the US.203 This option 

 

201 Vonage home page, http://www.vonage.com/index.php , retrieved 29 August 2002. 202 It would be possible to have two VoIP phones located in separate countries, but with both VoIP phones 

having stateside area codes assigned through signing up for VoIP service with Vonage. It would then be 

possible to call toll free between these two VoIP phones located in separate countries. All that would be 

required would be high speed Internet connectivity in each country for accessing the Vonage network. 

Additionally, any two phones with Vonage VoIP service likewise have free unlimited connectivity between 

them available. 

203 As of August 2002, phone numbers from all of the following US area codes are available for 

assignment to new Vonage VoIP phones, irregardless of the physical location of the VoIP phone: 

CA: 213, 310, 323, 408, 415, 510, 562, 626, 650, 661, 707, 714, 760, 805, 818, 831, 909, 925, 949; 

FL: 305, 561, 786, 954; 

GA: 404, 678, 706; 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

129

additionally works from anywhere in the world; thereby allowing, for instance, an 

Internet user in Europe or Asia, or anywhere else in the world with a high speed 

connection, to call toll free throughout the United States from overseas. In the reverse 

direction, conventional PSTN (Public Standard Telephone Network) calls to a VoIP 

phone are indistinguishable from calls made to any other phone; specialized VoIP 

equipment is only required by the user subscribing to the Vonage VoIP service. 

Pricing for Vonage VoIP service depends on the service plan offered. For unlimited US 

local and long distance (in state and state-to-state) service, the price is $39.00 per month, 

which includes a free Cisco ATA-186 Analog Phone Adaptor. For users requiring less 

service, there is a lower priced service option priced at $19.99 per month, that provides 

up to 500 minutes of local and long distance service, again with a free Analog Phone 

Adaptor. International calls placed through the Vonage VoIP network incur additional 

costs, ranging from approximately 5 cents per minute for calling the UK, Japan, Canada, 

and other high bandwidth wired areas of the world, up to a high of 91 cents per minute 

for calls made to remote, non-Internet wired areas, such as Afghanistan. 

The only drawbacks to the VoIP service at present are that international calls to phones 

outside the United States can be pricey, depending on the destination country’s support of 

high speed Internet connectivity, and emergency 911 type calls are not yet supported, 

although there are plans to resolve the 911 issue within the 2002-2003 time frame. 

In terms of supporting remote, down-range, tracking stations with high speed Internet 

connectivity, VoIP service through companies such as Vonage can provide a very lowcost way to make in state and state-to-state calls back stateside. As such, VoIP 

technology seems destined for future use on and between future Spaceports and Range 

assets. 

 

IL: 312, 630, 708, 773, 815, 847; 

IN: 219; 

MA: 508, 617, 781, 978; 

NJ: 201, 732, 908, 973; 

NY: 212, 347, 516, 631, 646, 718, 845, 914, and 917. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

130

Analog Domain Ethernet LAN

Figure 4-2 Installing VoIP Telephone to a Broadband Internet Connection 

Cable Modem or 

DSL Modem 

Cable/DSL 

Router (with 

Switch & NAT 

Firewall) 

Internet-Connected Computer 

Ethernet 

Analog Phone Adaptor 

(Cisco ATA-186, or equivalent) 

Conventional Telephone 

and/or Answering Machine 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

131

5.0 FUTURE LAUNCH VEHICLES

Future Ranges and Spaceports will be heavily dependent on advanced launch vehicles 

being utilized by the commercial sector. This section will discuss: 

• Future vehicle concepts 

• Additional Concepts that explore the matrix of almost all rocket concepts and that 

further identify non-rocket launch concepts. 

The first category includes the second generation of the Shuttle, the X-Prize concepts, 

Space Tugs and the Trans Atmospheric Vehicle (TAV). 

The second category includes the generic launch vehicle matrix plus more advanced 

concepts such as Railgun, Space Cannons and Space Elevator; which are likely to be 

implemented, if at all, in the more distant future. 

Because of the inherent dependence of Future Ranges and Spaceports on the fundamental 

characteristics of the launch vehicles, a clearer understanding of the varied possible 

launch vehicles is required for a complete view of their likely impacts. 

5.1 2ND GENERATION RLV (NRA 8-30) 

Bold new starts in the developments of US space launch systems and vehicles occur only 

infrequently. For example, 

• August 15, 1958 marked the start of the Saturn Program, which developed the 

boosters used to put man on the moon on July 20, 1969, not quite eleven years 

later. 

• January 12, 1972 marked the start of the 1st Generation of Reusable Launch 

Vehicles, resulting in Columbia (OV-102), the first of NASA's orbiter fleet, being 

delivered to Kennedy Space Center in March 1979. Columbia initiated the Space 

Shuttle flight program when it lifted off Pad A in the Launch Complex 39 area at 

KSC on April 12, 1981, just over nine years after the formal start of the Shuttle 

program. 

• October 12, 2000 marked the start of the 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle 

(RLV) Program, planned for development by 2005, only five years after the start 

of this program. 

The 2nd Generation RLV Program was formally commenced upon the issuance of the 

NASA Research Announcement (NRA) 8-30 Request for Proposal (RFP) on October 12, 

2000. NRA 8-30 defines two cycles of activities for the 2nd Generation RLV Systems 

Engineering and Risk Reduction activity. Through the accomplishment of these two 

cycles of activities, it enables full-scale development of commercially-competitive, 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

132

privately-owned and operated Earth to Orbit (ETO) RLVs; and develops an integrated 

architecture with systems that build on commercial ETO launch vehicles to meet NASAunique requirements that cannot be economically served by commercial vehicles alone. 

Total NRA 8-30 funding is $900 Million, with approximate budgets of $150 Million in 

fiscal year 2001 (FY-01), $230 Million in FY-02, and $520 Million in FY-03 through 

FY-05. As a cost comparison, this five-year expenditure amounts to roughly 1/3rd of 

NASA’s current annual space shuttle program cost, which, for six to eight, launches, is 

approximately $3 billion per year.204 In terms of historical cost comparisons, the total 

estimated cost of the Saturn Program, when made in 1960, was $8 billion (in 1961 

dollars) for up to 1975.205 Actual costs through the development phase, up to Apollo 4, 

totaled $616 Million.206 Relative to the actual development costs for the Saturn Program 

and to actual current annual Shuttle Program costs, the program cost savings anticipated 

by incorporating privately-owned and operated approaches in NRA 8-30, in place of 

using solely government-owned and operated ETO launch vehicles, is obvious. It is even 

more remarkable when compared in terms of constant dollars. The reduction in the 

number of years required for development of each subsequent system is likewise 

noteworthy. The time to develop each successive program is significantly reduced 

through incorporation of increasingly powerful computer analysis tools, thereby reducing 

design cycles; as well as through re-use of knowledge previously learned. 

Coordinated through the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) at the Marshall Space Flight 

Center, the deadline for NRA 8-30 Cycle 1 proposals to solicit research and development 

ideas in support of 2nd Generation RLVs was November 27, 2000. The deadline for 

Cycle 2 proposals to provide more focused activities to finalize architecture preliminary 

design and advanced development of high risk, high priority items was November 15, 

2001. The intended outcomes of the Cycle 1 and 2 activities are to meet NASA’s highest 

priority goals for the new 2nd Generation RLV; improving safety such that the probability 

of crew loss is reduced to less than one in 10,000 flights, and cost to orbit is reduced to 

less than $1,000 per pound of payload. 

SLI is built on four principles: 

1. Commercial convergence: NASA seeks to maximize the convergence 

between commercial, NASA, and where possible Department of Defense 

(DOD) mission needs, technology requirements and operations 

 

204 http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Groups/Nanotechnology/publications/MGMS_EC1/program/paper.html and 

http://venus.hq.nasa.gov/office/budget/fy96/as-1.html and 

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/1999_shuttle_ar.pdf

205 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report60.html

206 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch9-4.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

133

considerations. NASA seeks to fly its unique missions on privately owned 

and operated launch systems within an integrated architecture. 

2. Competition: NASA seeks to create an environment of competition to assure 

the best and most innovative ideas are developed and supported by the SLI. 

SLI seeks to enable at least two viable commercial competitors in the 2005 

timeframe. 

3. Assured access: NASA seeks to provide access to the International Space 

Station (ISS) on more than one U.S. launch vehicle. Assured access will be 

facilitated by developing systems flexibility and standardization as keys to 

enabling access on more than one launch vehicle. 

4. Evolvability: NASA seeks to develop systems that can affordably evolve to 

meet future mission requirements. 

The 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Program Office will implement 

SLI. The 2nd Gen RLV Program is supported by NASA Field Centers and is led by the 

Marshall Space Flight Center. NRA 8-30 solicited and implemented the Phase 1 activities 

selected in Cycle 1 through soliciting involvement with U.S. industry, educational 

institutions, nonprofit organizations, and U.S. Government agencies (acting as part of a 

team led by industry or academia) for a broad range of systems engineering and risk 

reduction research activities. Respondents to NRA 8-30 proposed a variety of research 

investigations including integrated RLV architectures, systems engineering approaches, 

architecture trades, business analyses, and required risk reduction activities. 

NASA remains committed to obtaining a thorough understanding of the total life cycle of 

RLV architectures. The Phase 1 architecture definition studies of NRA 8-30 culminate in 

a detailed System Requirements Review (SRR) by the end of fiscal year 2002. Phase II 

activities, associated with the decisions made in Cycle 2, will be implemented by 

separate procurement(s) initiated in mid FY03. NRA 8-30 identifies the timeline for 

these later Phase II activities, but only solicits and implements the Phase 1 activities.207 

 

207 Complete documentation for the NRA 8-30 RFP is available for review at: 

http://nais.msfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/EPS/sol.cgi?acqid=83261#Other

Whereas the actual RFP is available for review at: 

http://nais.msfc.nasa.gov/EPS/EPS_DATA/083261-SOL-001-001.doc

And a PowerPoint overview is available for review at: 

http://nais.msfc.nasa.gov/EPS/EPS_DATA/083261-OTHER-002-001.ppt
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

134

5.2 X-PRIZE VEHICLES 

5.2.1 Background

In 1927, Charles Lindbergh won the $25,000 Orteig prize and proved, once and for all, 

the feasibility of non-stop airplane flights across the Atlantic. A practical and profitable 

trans-Atlantic airline market that exists to this day developed only a few years after this 

prize was won. Continuing the prize tradition that encouraged Charles Lindbergh, today 

the X-Prize encourages the development of privately funded and constructed low-cost, 

reusable space launch vehicles. Recognizing the effects of inflation since 1927, the XPrize is set at a value of $10 Million, and was established May 18, 1996, in St. Louis, 

MO to encourage the creation of low-cost, passenger-carrying space vehicles.208 The XPrize rules are simple: 

• Only privately funded and constructed vehicles can compete. 

• An altitude of 100 km (62 miles) must be attained. 

• There must be room on-board for three individuals, although only one individual 

need be on the first two flights, in which case added weight, equal to the weights 

of two other people, must be added. (Each is assumed to be 6’2’’ and 198 lbs.) 

• Two flights must be made within two weeks. 

• No more than 10% of the flight vehicle's first-flight non-propellant mass may be 

replaced between the two flights. 

The X-Prize Board of Trustees, which includes Erik Lindbergh, grandson of the famed 

aviation pioneer, created these rules specifically to encourage the development of a 

mostly reusable, hence cheap, launch vehicle with low operating costs that would be 

suitable for providing cheap access to space for both private individuals and companies 

for space tourism and low-cost experimental access to space. By restricting the altitude 

to 62 miles (100 km), which is above the 50 Miles required for qualifying for Astronaut 

status as established by NASA, the development of reusable yet risky heat shield and 

high Mach technology capability is discouraged. Further, by requiring private funding 

and construction, governments are barred from claiming the prize simply by using any 

craft already developed to claim the $10 Million prize.209 A typical X-Prize trajectory is 

shown in Figure 5-1. 

 

208 The present value of the $25,000 Orteig Prize as set in 1919 is estimated to be slightly over $227,000 in 

1996 dollars and slightly over $260,000 in 2002 dollars. See: http://www.cjr.org/resources/inflater.asp for 

one inflation calculator. Examined this way, the X-Prize is actually seen to be a significantly larger prize 

incentive in relative terms than the Orteig Prize. 

209 With the Russians selling tourism access to space for only $20 Million a seat, a $10 Million prize would 

likely attract their attention. For example, their Buran (Snowflake) heavy-lift space shuttle, capable of 

lifting nearly ten times more weight into orbit than NASA’s own shuttle, has reusable hydrogen, oxygen, 

and kerosene boosters that drop back to an airstrip. The Soviets built two shuttles and three main re-usable 

boosters, all of which have been mothballed since the early 1990’s and which are today under the control 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

135

Figure 5-1 X-Prize Trajectory 

 

of the Russians. The Buran system is being updated (2002) and funds from space tourism will likely foot 

much of the bill for its continued operation. One of the extant Buran shuttles was destroyed during a 

hanger collapse in May 2002. 

See: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/russia-space-general-01m.html . 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

136

By having three seats, with presumably one for the pilot, the intent of the X-Prize is to 

stimulate the development of a vehicle that can commence space tourism operation 

almost immediately after claiming the prize. By having a turnaround time of only two 

weeks, the amount of “touch-labor” required for flight preparations is likewise reduced. 

Altogether, these rules encourage the creation of the world’s first affordable space 

vehicle, intended for sub-orbital flights. 

Presently, nineteen entrants from the United States, Russia, Canada, the United Kingdom, 

and Argentina are registered and competing for the X-Prize. With the downturn in 

private wealth resulting from the economic conditions that came after Y2K and the 

subsequent dot-com bust, private project funding has proven especially difficult over the 

last two years. The team building the ship Pathfinder has even placed requests for 

funding on their website. Nonetheless, there is a good likelihood that the X-Prize will be 

won in 2003-2004, i.e., approximately seven or eight years after it was established. (For 

comparison, the Orteig Prize stood eight years before Lindbergh won it.) 

The range of technologies proposed to win the X Prize span from an updated V-2 rocketmotor-powered design resembling Buck Roger’s ship from the 1930’s to a flying-saucer 

disc. Likewise, planned launches from runways, sea, and even elevated air launch 

methods achieved either by balloon lift assist or from towing the reusable launch vehicle 

aloft behind a Boeing 747 are all proposed. One especially optimistic approach plans a 

single stage and a half to orbit hybrid approach whereby in-flight refueling of rocket 

propellants is proposed to cut both the weight and cost of expendable first stage boosters. 

This latter approach bears a close resemblance to the established practice used for fueling 

SR-71 aircraft, which involves topping-off the fuel tanks only after the aircraft is airborne 

and the fuel tanks have completely sealed. 

Of the many entrants, there are four ships that appear particularly noteworthy and likely 

to develop into useful sub-orbital vehicles. These four ships are named Thunderbird, PAX2, Eclipse Astroliner, and MICHELLE-B. 

Thunderbird is the ship whose development is being led from the physics department of 

Salford University (UK) by team leader Steven Bennett. It is a jet-powered vertical 

takeoff vehicle with turbofan and liquid oxygen and kerosene rockets. The reusable 3-

crew capsule is jettisoned from the reusable launch vehicle in flight, and is then flown 

back to earth suspended from a steerable parasail. Four of the six astronauts for the first 

two flights have been chosen. The fifth astronaut seat position is (as of March 2002) 

available for purchase for $650,000, and the sixth astronaut position is being offered as 

an international contest prize. Early unmanned test flights have already been conducted 

to test the various systems, and this craft’s attempt for the X-Prize is planned for 2003. It 

is likely that the Thunderbird will win the X-Prize in 2003 or early in 2004, barring any 

major unforeseen problems. As presently configured, this ship will likely not be suitable 

for much other than very limited space tourism, as the design is optimized for just space 

tourism, and is not robust enough for use on more than two test flights. The bulk of the 

reusable launch vehicle market for low-cost access to space for research applications will 

likely go to another design. Specifically, a design that is more highly reusable and robust 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

137

enough to support dozens, if not hundreds, of flights over its useful life, will likely win 

over Thunderbird in actual tourism and research applications. 

The PA-X2 ship is based on updated twenty-year old NASA rocket engine designs, 

modified to take advantage of modern technology. Dr. Rick Fleeter, President and CEO 

of AeroAstro, Inc. of Herndon, VA is leading this development. This ship features a 

rocket-powered liquid oxygen and kerosene rocket engine generating 12,000 lb thrust, 

and uses a guided, deployable parafoil for recovery. Engine tests have already been 

conducted, but completion of the crew capsule appears to be several years away. This 

ship is being developed as the next logical business extension from their present business 

of building nano-satellites. Although this ship may eventually fly in a manned 

configuration, it is likely that the X-Prize will already have been won by the time it flies. 

Eclipse Astroliner is the ambitious entrant of the project led by Michael Kelly of Kelly 

Space and Technology of San Bernadino, CA. It is probably the most ambitious of the 

competing designs, and is based heavily on results of studies done in conjunction with 

NASA for replacing the present Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle). It 

features an air-towed launch from a Boeing 747 from any 10,000 ft runway, with the inflight firing at 20,000 ft of liquid oxygen and kerosene rocket engines. Included in the 

design is a pivoting nose cone that flips open for launching satellites into orbit when at 

maximum altitude, before the Eclipse Astroliner itself returns to land on a conventional 

10,000 ft runway. Although this design no doubt may become the prime candidate for 

replacing the present Space Shuttle and Space Transportation System, it is not likely to 

win the X Prize, for its complexity is so great that complete development will likely not 

be finished in time to win the $10 Million X-Prize. 

MICHELLE-B is the ship being built by TGV Rockets under the direction of Kent 

Ewing. This design features pressure-fed kerosene-oxygen engines used for both vertical 

take-off and vertical landing, with reduced engine power planned during its vertical 

landing. On the return flight, a drag-shield, shaped like a badminton shuttlecock, is first 

deployed to reduce the descent speed until within one mile up from the landing site, at 

which time the engine is re-started at reduced power for the final deceleration and soft 

vertical landing. This ship is being built specifically to provide low-cost access to space 

for experiments, and will likely be the second ship to meet the requirements for the XPrize. Although not the likely winner for the X-Prize, MICHELLE-B will probably 

become the workhorse that both replaces the present generation of expensive sounding 

rockets, based on expendable launch vehicles; and which ultimately succeeds at capturing 

the largest share of the early space tourism market. This is because its no-nonsense robust 

design should garner the most contracted launches, thereby establishing its safety record 

first, as required to attract the general space-traveling public.210

 

210 History indicates that one should not rule out an underdog from winning. In 1927, the favorite to win 

the $25,000 Orteig Prize was Commander Byrd, who only the year before supposedly had been the first to 

fly over the North Pole. (Modern skeptics are dubious of Byrd’s North Pole claim based on a closer review 

of his supposedly contemporaneous journal that provides evidence that he did not succeed in his claim.) 

Byrd’s attempt at the Orteig Prize cost a well-publicized $100,000. Lindberg, dubbed “The Flying Fool’ in 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

138

Ultimately, though, one of the other competing designs for the X-Prize, resembling a 

conventional airplane or airliner, will undoubtedly capture the bulk of the space tourism 

business within a decade; analogous to the market success performance of the DC-3 

airliner which rolled out on December 17, 1935, only eight years after Lindberg crossed 

the Atlantic. It largely replaced the Ford Tri-Motor 5-AT, which had rolled out in the 

summer of the next year following Lindbergh’s flight. Analogous to the Ford Tri-Motor, 

the MICHELLE-B will likely lose its market share within a decade of when it first flies 

to a spaceliner having a larger coach compartment and carrying more tourists, thereby 

reducing the cost per seat to fly into space on sub-orbital flights. Likewise, through 

having conventional jet engines, and likely being both heavily legislated and ultimately 

restricted to flying only offshore during both launch and re-entry to eliminate noise 

pollution over populated areas, such a spaceliner could actually be aloft long enough 

actually to be able to provide the first-class accoutrements expected by its deep-pocketed 

paying passengers.211 

The following table contains summary information on all nineteen of the current entrants 

as of March 2002.212

5.2.2 X-Prize Entrants (March 2002)

1. Ship Name: Advent 

 Team Leader: James Akkerman 

 Team Description: NASA Retirees 

 Propulsion: Oxygen/Natural Gas Rocket 

 Citizenship: Houston, Texas, USA 

 Launch Site: Water, Vertical 

 Landing: Water, Horizontal 

 Website: www.ghg.net/jimakkerman/ 

 

the press for relying on but a single engine and pilot, actually won. Commander Byrd’s “safe” attempt at 

winning the prize failed at take-off, fogged-in by the same bad weather in which the brash, young 25-yearold Lindbergh felt comfortable flying. To his credit, Commander Byrd was the third to succeed at flying 

across the Atlantic non-stop, shortly after Lindbergh won the Orteig Prize. 

211 As of March 2002, at least one company is already taking reservations for such flights. Space 

Adventures, which is the same company that has previously provided access to the orbiting space stations 

for $20 Million a trip, and edge-of-space flights aboard a Mig-25 for $12,595 a trip, is presently taking 

reservations for sub-orbital flights in 2003-2005 at $98,000 per flight. For more sub-orbital reservation 

information, see: http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital/index.html . 

212 For more on the X-Prize entrants, http://www.xprize.org/~Xprize/teams/index.shtml
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

139

2. Ship Name: PA-X2 

 Team Leader: Dr. Rick Fleeter 

 Team Description: AeroAstro, Inc. 

 Propulsion: PA-E LOX / Kerosene Rocket Engine (12,000 lb thrust) 

 Citizenship: Herndon, Virginia, USA 

 Launch: Rocket Powered Vertical Launch 

 Landing: Guided Deployable Parafoil Recovery 

 Website: www.aeroastro.com

 

3. Ship Name: Lucky Seven 

 Team Leader: Mickey Badgero 

 Team Description: Mickey Badgero & Associates 

 Propulsion: Rocket Engines 

 Citizenship: USA 

 Launch: Rocket Powered Vertical Launch 

 Landing: Parasail Landing 

4. Ship Name: Ascender 

 Team Leader: David Ashford 

 Team Description: Bristol Spaceplanes, Ltd. 

 Propulsion: Jet and Rocket Engines 

 Citizenship: United Kingdom, Bristol, England 

 Launch: Conventional Runway 

 Landing: Conventional Runway 

 Website: www.bristolspaceplanes.com

 

5. Ship Name: Canadian Arrow 

 Team Leader: Geoffrey Sheerin 

 Team Description: Private team. 

 Citizenship: Ontario, Canada 

 Propulsion: Liquid Fuel 1st Stage Rocket Engine (V-2); 2nd Stage JATO Rockets 

 Launch Site: Coastal location 

 Landing: Floatation in water 

 Website: www.canadianarrow.com

6. Ship Name: Kitten 

 Team Leader: James Hill 

 Team Description: Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company (telecommuting team) 

 Propulsion: Methane & Liquid Oxygen 

 Citizenship: Oroville, Washington, USA 

 Launch: Conventional Runway 

 Landing: Conventional Runway 

 Website: www.thriftyspace.com
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

140

7. Ship Name: Cosmopolis XXI 

 Team Leader: Sergey Kostenko 

 Team Description: 

 Propulsion: Rocket Engines 

 Citizenship: Moscow, Russia 

 Launch Site: Undecided 

 Landing: Airplane style, or parachute 

 Website: www.cosmopolis21.ru

8. Ship Name: daVinci 

 Team Leader: Brian Feeney 

 Team Description: Canadian Volunteers 

 Propulsion: Liquid Oxygen/Kerosene System 

 Citizenship: Canada 

 Launch Site: Air launch from hot air balloon 

 Landing: Parachute 

 Website: www.davinciproject.com

9. Ship Name: The Space Tourist 

 Team Leader: John Bloomer 

 Team Description: 

 Propulsion: Blastwave-Pulsejets 

 Citizenship: Portland, Oregan, USA 

 Launch: Conventional Runway 

 Landing: Conventional Runway 

10. Ship Name: The Green Arrow 

 Team Leader: Dr. Graham Dorrington 

 Team Description: 

 Propulsion: Kerosene and Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets 

 Citizenship: United Kingdom 

 Launch: Rocket Powered Vertical Takeoff 

 Landing: Parachute Recovery 

11. Ship Name: Aurora 

 Team Leader: Ray Nielsen 

 Team Description: Design team in Altamonte Springs, FL 

 Propulsion: Throttle-able Kerosene & Hydrogen Peroxide Rocket Engine 

 Citizenship: Orlando, FL, USA 

 Launch Site: Conventional Runway, subsonic until above 60,000 ft. 

 Landing: Conventional Runway 

 Website: www.funtechsystems.com
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

141

12. Ship Name: Eclipse Astroliner 

 Team Leader: Michael Kelly 

 Team Description: Private company + Vought Aircraft; based on early NASA support 

 Propulsion: LOX / Kerosene Rocket Engines 

 Citizenship: San Bernadino, California, USA 

 Launch: Air Towed launch from a 747 from any 10,000 ft. Runway 

 Landing: Conventional Runway (10,000 ft.) 

 Website: www.kellyspace.com

13. Ship Name: Cosmos Mariner 

 Team Leader: Dr. Norman LaFave 

 Team Description: Lone Star Space Access Corporation (LSSA), founded in 1995 

 Propulsion: Jet and Rocket Engines 

 Citizenship: Houston, Texas, USA 

 Launch: Conventional Runway 

 Landing: Conventional Runway 

 Website: www.lonestarspace.com

14. Ship Name: Gauchito (The Little Cowboy) 

 Team Leader: Pablo DeLeon 

 Team Description: Pablo DeLeon & Associates 

 Propulsion: Rocket-Powered 

 Citizenship: Buenos Aires, Argentina 

 Launch: Vertical 

 Landing: Thermal Shield, Parachute 

15. Ship Name: XVan2001 

 Team Leader: Len Cormier 

 Team Description: 

 Propulsion: Jet and Rocket Engines 

 Citizenship: Washington DC, USA 

 Launch: Conventional runway 

 Landing: Vertical landing 

 Website: www.tour2space.com

16. Ship Name: Pathfinder 

 Team Leader: Mitchell Clap 

 Team Description: Pioneer Rocketplane, NASA Ames, Scaled Composites (Rutan) 

 Propulsion: Turbo-fan, Kerosene/O2 Rocket, SS 1⁄2 TO in-flight propellant re-fueling 

 Citizenship: Ann Arbor, MI, USA 

 Launch: Conventional Runway 

 Landing: Conventional Runway 

 Website: www.rocketplane.com (web-pages dated1999; funding appears desperate.) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

142

17. Ship Name: Thunderbird 

 Team Leader: Steven Bennett 

 Team Description: Salford University (UK) + Sponsors; 4 of 6 astronauts selected 

 2 Seats Open: $650,000 buys 5th Seat (2nd flight); 6th Seat offered as contest prize 

 Propulsion: Turbofan + LOX/Kerosene Rockets 

 Citizenship: United Kingdom, Cheshire, England 

 Launch: Jet-Powered Vertical Takeoff 

 Landing: Steerable parasail 3-crew capsule; parachutes for launch vehicle 

 Website: www.starchaser.co.uk

 Launch: 2003 

18. Ship Name: MICHELLE-B 

 Team Leader: Kent Ewing 

 Team Description: TGV Rockets; with strong, no-nonsense management, 

 See: www.tgv-rockets.com/Ops_Manual.htm

 Propulsion: Pressure-fed kerosene-oxygen engines 

 Citizenship: USA, Bethesda, Maryland 

 Launch: Vertical takeoff under primary propulsion 

 Landing: Vertical/Soft with drag shield under reduced engine power 

 Website: www.tgv-rockets.com

19. Ship Name: Unknown. (Most secretive entrant in the competition.) 

 Team Leader: Unknown 

 Team Description: Earth Space Transport System Corporation 

 Propulsion: Unknown 

 Citizenship: Unknown 

 Launch: Unknown 

 Landing: Unknown 

 Website: None 

5.2.3 Impact of X-Prize Crafts on Eastern Range & Spaceports

There are two distinctively different phases to be considered in terms of the impacts of XPrize Crafts on Eastern Range and Spaceport planning. The first phase will consist of the 

early test flights, whereas the second phase will be the operational flights. Within ten 

years of becoming operational, it is not likely that the spaceliner type of sub-orbital 

vehicles resulting from X-Prize activities will require any customary Eastern Range 

support whatsoever. To attract large numbers of space tourism customers, it would be 

most convenient simply to base these spaceliners at existing airports with 10,000 ft 

runways, and add the Spaceport moniker to the Airport name. The spaceliners would 

take-off and land using the same runways used by airliners. The extant Air Traffic 

Control system would provide normal tracking of the horizontal flight portion of the 

flight plans to and from the sub-orbital launch and re-entry areas. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

143

The requirement for minimizing noise over both populated and agricultural animalhusbandry areas would likely put the closest sub-orbital launch and re-entry areas 

offshore a few hundred miles from existing coastal airports through a requirement for 

noise reduction over populated areas, as well as through conventionally-powered flight 

for a significant horizontal flight profile. For enhancing safety, and further to minimize 

common airspace usage conflicts with slower-flying civilian aircraft, the space launch 

and re-entry areas would be reserved strictly for sub-orbital crafts and would additionally 

be clearly marked on air navigation charts. 

Likewise, once in-flight during the horizontal flight portion of the excursion, the 

similarity with existing airliners would likely be maintained. Flight attendants could 

serve ‘victory’ drinks and snacks while en route back from the designated launch and reentry areas. (For minimizing space sickness, serving beverages and snacks en route to 

the launch would probably become prohibited.) 

Airport/Spaceport communications, on the other hand, would need to be enhanced to 

provide high-speed, high-bandwidth communication channels for both on-board 

entertainments directly beamed to the spaceliner, as well as HDTV in-flight adventure 

video signals beamed back from the spaceliner to the Spaceport. This adventure video 

would be popular with Internet-connected family and friends who are following the 

adventures aboard the spaceliner, as well as being of interest to the merely curious. For 

ease of use, Web-based forms would likely be popular, allowing Internet-connected 

observers to select which of several video feeds they would like to watch. This Internetavailable video would additionally serve the purpose of providing a sales pitch to 

interested viewers contemplating a sub-orbital space tourism flight of their own. 

To provide the HDTV signals to/from the spaceliner, directional microwave links would 

be needed to provide these services if directly sent from the Airport/Spaceport, although 

LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellites could also provide some of the functions. Groundbased phased arrays could reduce the transmitting power requirements from the 

Airport/Spaceport, although this would not be a firm requirement. Onboard the 

spaceliner, on the other hand, thin form-factor planar phased arrays would likely be the 

only way to provide link-budget margin by providing adequate gain with minimal 

aerodynamic drag while simultaneously reducing power consumption and the size of 

hardware equipment avionics modules within the spaceliner. 

For initial flights during the first phase of acceptance of X-Prize Crafts, prior to full-scale 

acceptance of such sub-orbital flights by both governmental agencies as well as by the 

space-traveling public, Eastern Range support would likely be required on a sporadic, 

test-basis only, level of support. These requirements would be similar to the present uses 

of the Range. During the earliest flights, while still unmanned, Destruct-modes would be 

required. Upon the inclusion of manned crews, the Destruct-modes would likely be 

dropped. The need for Internet-accessible and selectable on-board video would be 

minimal, although intensive test telemetry capability would need to be provided. 

Additionally, it would be during this time that the on-board black-box development 

upgrades could be done, perhaps providing an emergency data-dump mode for the black 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

144

box in the event that a destructive craft break-up occurred during re-entry. Powered by 

internal primary cells, and perhaps using Ultra Wideband (UWB) modulation techniques, 

significant data burst throughput consistent with low battery-power consumption would 

be possible. Once clear of the plasma event of re-entry, it would be useful to have the 

black-box attempt to burst broadcast its contents prior to sinking into the ocean or 

impacting the ground. This would expedite the data retrieval in trying to determine after 

the fact just what went wrong for expendable launch vehicles, especially if the black box 

were not recovered. The need to encrypt such black box data would be a point of 

concern, although, in general, it is not likely that any particularly high level of encryption 

would be required for satisfying operational security concerns. Although security by 

obscurity is not truly safe, it could suffice for a test mode. 

5.3 SPACE TUGS 

Space Tugs are space vehicles that service other space vehicles or satellites that are 

(usually) located in higher orbits. Some of the services a Space Tug might provide 

include: 

• Refueling 

• Boosting to higher orbit 

• Boosting to and from lunar orbit 

• Repositioning within similar orbits 

• Repair/Replace critical parts 

• Return to lower orbit for servicing 

• Return to earth via another vehicle 

• Surrogate Navigation/Propulsion system 

• Removal of space debris by ejecting dead or non-responding satellites out of earth 

orbit 

Theoretically, a Space Tug should be a reusable vehicle; although a label such as 

“expendable tug” could easily become commonplace. If not reusable, the vehicle is no 

longer a tug in the “tug boat” concept but a single use expendable rocket with perhaps 

one of the same missions described above. 

One proposed Tug concept is a Geosynchronous Spacecraft Life Extension System 

(SLES)213. The economic basis behind the SLES is to refuel working communication 

satellites near the end of their lives; thus avoiding destruction of usable equipment that 

has simply run low on fuel214. 

 

213 http://www/spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=9170 214 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/020903/12/d8r07.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

145

5.3.1 Background

Lockheed proposed a manned, multi-arm, Space Tug in 1963.215 NASA proposed two 

different space tugs in the 1980’s. Plans were usually based on the aerobraking concept. 

A NASA/Marshall concept from 1985 was equipped with a large disc-shaped aeroshell 

that slowed the vehicle down as it passed through the Earth's upper atmosphere (Figure 5-

2). The space tug could then return heavy payloads from geostationary or lunar orbit 

without using any fuel to rendezvous with the low Earth orbit space station216. The 

second vehicle was a lifting body that was also based on aerobraking (Figure 5-3)217

General Dynamics proposed a modular design in 1984. Modular spherical LOX & LH2 

tanks would be added as needed for the mission. 

Figure 5-2 NASA 1985 Space Tug Concept #1 

 

215 http://www.astronautix.com/craft/loccetug.htm. 216 http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spacetug.htm 217 http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld007.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

146

Figure 5-3 NASA 1985 Space Tug Concept #2 

Russia presented a large space tug concept in 1998 at Berlin Exhibit218. 

5.3.2 Impact of Space Tugs on Range Architecture

The Space Tugs should have little impact on Spaceport or Range designs since they will 

likely spend most of their life in orbit. Processing for launch through a Spaceport or 

Range would likely be handled as cargo. 

 

218 http://studweb.studserv.uni-stuttgart.de/studweb/users/lrt/lrt28256/vehicles/salytug.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

147

5.4 TAV (BLACK HORSE) 

5.4.1 Background

Military planners predict that by 2020, a U.S. Aerospace Force will be a reality. Based on 

squadrons of rocket-powered TransAtmospheric Vehicles (TAVs), also referred to as 

Black Horse vehicles, the individual vehicles of the U.S. Aerospace Force are expected to 

be about the size of an F-16 fighter. Each of these vehicles will be capable of placing an 

approximately 5,000 pound payload into low earth orbit (LEO), or of delivering slightly 

larger payloads on sub-orbital trajectories, from and to anywhere in the world. 

Additionally, these vehicles will be designed to support fast response needs, and to 

launch LEO or sub-orbital sorties within one hour of completion of mission planning. 

Aerospace superiority is the ultimate goal for the Black Horse vehicles when in orbit. 

When operating in support of an area conflict, an aerospace wing will have the capability 

to put mission specific payloads either on-orbit (i.e., mission-tailored satellites) or ontarget (i.e., precision guided munitions) literally anywhere in the world within just a few 

hours after identification of a need.219 

The overarching difficulty in meeting Black Horse vehicle capability is the choice of a 

space propellant suitable for in-flight refueling that also provides start and re-start 

capabilities during highly variable mission sorties. Current generation NASA and 

commercial launch vehicles use only four types of propellants: 

• Petroleum-based rocket fuel is a type of highly refined kerosene called RP-1 

(Refined Petroleum-1) that is, at present, burned with liquid oxygen (the oxidizer) 

to provide thrust. 

• Cryogenic propellants are liquid oxygen (LOX), which serves as an oxidizer, and 

liquid hydrogen (LH2), which is the fuel. To guarantee production of thrust, the 

LOX and LH2 require an ignition source. The distressing tendency of cryogenics 

to return to gaseous form unless kept super-cold makes it difficult to store LOX 

and LH2 over long periods of time, or to accomplish in-flight refueling safely. 

• Hypergolic propellants (i.e., hypergols) are fuels and oxidizers that ignite on 

contact with each other and which require no ignition source. This easy start and 

restart capability makes them especially attractive for spacecraft maneuvering 

systems used during docking and orbit-modifying maneuvers. Another plus is 

their storability — they do not have the extreme temperature requirements of 

cryogenics, and are more easily stored for long periods of time. The fuel is 

monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). 

Their toxicity is extreme to say the least, and leakage of either fuel or oxidizer 

during in-flight refueling would at the least be extremely toxic, and potentially 

disastrous, in terms of both vehicle and crew safety. 

 

219 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/spacast3.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

148

• Solid-propellant rocket motors are the oldest and simplest of all rockets, dating 

back to the ancient Chinese. In their simplest form, these consist of a casing filled 

with a mixture of solid-form chemicals (fuel and oxidizer) that burn at a rapid 

rate, expelling hot gases from a nozzle to achieve thrust. The disadvantage is that 

once started, they usually cannot be extinguished, and cannot easily provide the 

start and re-start capability necessary for orbital maneuvering and attitude station 

keeping. Neither can they easily be refueled while in-flight. 

In place of any of these existing propellants, a new type of propellant is planned for 

Black Horse. To minimize complexity, reduce operating cost, and improve response 

time, the Black Horse vehicles will likely use a petroleum-based standard jet fuel and a 

non-cryogenic oxidizer in the form of hydrogen peroxide (H202). This fuel was selected 

by a U.S. Air Force study conducted in 1993-1994 by the U.S. Air Force’s Phillips 

Laboratory in association with WJ Schafer Associates and Conceptual Research 

Corporation. With this choice of fuel and oxidizer, the myriad propellant drawbacks of 

cryogenics, hypergolics, and solids are all avoided, thereby simultaneously eliminating 

the numerous difficulties of toxicity, limited storage life, spontaneous combustion, and 

in-flight refueling. With this Aerial Propellant Transfer (APT) technology, the reuse of 

existing tanker and in-flight refueling technology is likewise maximized, and 

development costs are minimized. 

In addition to the choice of fuel and oxidizer, the 1993-1994 study also investigated the 

two in-flight refueling methods currently used for U.S. military jet aircraft and for Air 

Force One: the Navy’s probe and drogue system and the Air Force’s boom refueling 

system. The probe and drogue system eliminates the need for detailed in-flight, secondby-second cooperation between the tanker aircraft crew and the receiving craft pilot 

during refueling operations, but it can only provide fuel transfer rates up to 250 gallons 

per minute. For the boom system, a higher transfer rate of 1,200 gallons per minute is 

possible, but requires second-by-second cooperation between the boom operator and the 

receiving craft pilot. Because of its higher rate of fuel transfer, the boom approach was 

recommended for the Black Horse refueling method over the probe and drogue system. 

Both the KC-10 and KC-135 tankers support boom system refueling. However, the KC135Q and KC-135T additionally provide an isolated fuel system from which the aircraft 

does not draw its own jet fuel. These two aircraft would therefore permit the storage of 

the new proposed Black Horse jet fuel and hydrogen peroxide mixture in the refueling 

tank(s) while retaining the standard jet fuel and engines of existing KC-135Q and KC135T tankers. Using either of these two specific tankers, no re-design of existing tanker 

technology will be needed to support Black Horse in-flight refueling.220

Maintenance and ground operations for the Black Horse will require no greater 

specialized skills than those for other aircraft. TAVs returning from a mission will 

 

220 http://www.rocketplane.com/History.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

149

normally be serviced and returned to ready-for-flight status in less than a day and can be 

surged to fly multiple sorties per day, if necessary. If tankers were pre-positioned intheater, TAVs could also fly high-priority, global, cargo-delivery missions. 

To fully exploit the Black Horse's capabilities, designers need to adopt a new approach to 

satellite design --- one that maximizes miniaturization and modularity. Most space 

systems' designers will take advantage of the vastly lower cost per pound to orbit (less 

than $1,000 per pound) that the Black Horse concept provides. Orbital payloads too large 

to fit in a single TAV can be designed in modular form, launched in pieces, and 

assembled on-orbit. High-value satellites can be serviced, repaired, and modernized in 

space by utilizing space tugs. Space tugs will move payloads launched on the TAVs to 

the mission orbit. With space launch and operations made routine by the Black Horse, 

multiple new uses for space systems will emerge, and the design cycle for new systems 

will be greatly reduced. Such systems will be less expensive, simpler, and quicker to 

make. They will likewise allow more rapid inclusion of emerging commercial 

technologies. 

The strategy advocated with TAV’s, considering their reduced payload size and low 

operating costs, rests on the following three assumptions: 

• The technology that drives space payloads (sensors, electronics, software, etc.) is 

advancing rapidly, even accelerating. This makes large, complex satellites 

(because of their lengthy cycles of design and construction) more vulnerable to 

obsolescence on orbit and favors an approach that regularly places more up-todate systems on-orbit. 

• These same technological advances will increasingly allow more capability to be 

packaged into smaller volumes. Modularity, interferometry, bi-static radar 

techniques, and other technologies may allow functions traditionally believed to 

require large, monolithic platforms to be put in space incrementally and 

subsequently either assembled on-orbit or operated as a distributed system. 

• Economies of scale have proven elusive for the first forty years of launching 

space systems. Large boosters are not appreciably (an order of magnitude) more 

cost effective (measured in dollars per pound on orbit) than small boosters, and no 

projected demand or incremental improvements will significantly (again, by an 

order of magnitude, or more) reduce the cost of current boosters. 

5.4.2 Impact of TAVs on Range Architecture
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

150

TAV’s may be a major driving force in developing a future Military Ranges (see Section 

6). Their classified missions, mission planning, ordnances, ground fueling, aerial 

refueling, maintenance, logistics, basing, training, vehicle turn-around and mission 

debriefing can best be accommodated within the closed security and infrastructure of an 

RLV-Military future range, i.e., a future U.S. Aerospace base. 

5.5 ADDITIONAL LAUNCH CONCEPTS 

There are many ways to categorize launch vehicles. Historically, the following 

classifications have been used: 

• Reusable / Expendable 

• Orbital / Sub-orbital 

• Air Breathing / LOX Powered 

Another way to categorize launch concepts is with respect to their takeoff and landing 

characteristics. Table 5-1 presents a matrix that summarizes the majority of all launch 

concepts. 

Table 5-1 Launch Concepts 

Landing / Takeoff Vertical TO Horizontal TO 

Vertical Landing VTVL HTVL 

Horizontal Landing VTHL HTHL 

In addition, there are some concepts where the vehicle does not fit into any conventional 

rocket category. These concepts, such as Railgun, Space Cannon and Space Elevator are 

discussed later in this section. 

5.5.1 Vertical Takeoff – Vertical Landing (VTVL)

Vertical Takeoff – Vertical Landing is one of the more flexible concepts. Examples can 

be simple and very energy efficient while others are complex and require large energy 

sources. 

Some of the vehicles that use this concept are as follows: 

• Mercury/Gemini/Apollo 

• Lunar Lander 

• Delta Clipper 

• K-1 

• TGV 

• Roton 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

151

Mercury/Gemini/Apollo – America first family of space vehicles were vertical takeoff 

and vertical landing. Various rockets were used to launch the one-place Mercury (Figure 

5-4), two-place Gemini (Figure 5-5) and three-man Apollo (Figure 5-6) capsules. 

Landings were parachute-assisted splashdowns. 

Figure 5-4 Mercury Capsule 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

152

Figure 5-5 Gemini Capsule 

Figure 5-6 Apollo Capsule 

Lunar Lander - The Lunar Lander (Figure 5-7) was a vertical takeoff - vertical landing 

vehicle. Its mission required that these be executed in reverse of the usual order. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

153

Descent to the moon was vertical using rocket thrust to counteract moon’s gravity. 

Takeoff from the moon was vertical using rocket thrust to escape the lunar surface and to 

return to the command module. 

Figure 5-7 Lunar Lander 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

154

Delta Clipper – The Delta Clipper (Figure 5-8) was a single stage to orbit, fully reusable 

launch vehicle designed by McDonnell Douglas221. The concept used a rocket powered 

vertical takeoff with a rocket powered vertical landing. Various test flights were 

successfully flown before the prototype exploded in 1996. The 43-foot vehicle was 

destroyed during a post-landing tip-over and fire while being tested at White Sands 

Missile Range, NM. The primary cause of the vehicle mishap was that the brake line on 

the helium pneumatic system for landing gear #2 was not connected. The vehicle became 

unstable upon landing, toppled onto its side, exploded, and burned.222

Figure 5-8 McDonnell Douglas Delta Clipper 

K-1 – The Kistler Aerospace K-1 is a fully reusable vehicle designed to return its two 

stages to earth to be reused repeatedly. It uses a rocket powered vertical takeoff. At an 

altitude of 135,000 feet, 121 seconds after liftoff, the first and second stages separate. 

After separation, the second stage, or "orbital vehicle," ignites a single NK-43 rocket 

engine and proceeds to low earth orbit with its payload223. The first stage returns to earth 

using a parachute system (Figure 5-9). Parachutes are deployed at 10,000 feet and 

airbags are deployed just prior to a soft touchdown. The stage is then prepared for 

another flight. 

 

221 http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/ssrt/ 222 http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/ssrt/news/97-q1/970108-dcxa-report.txt 223 http://www.kistleraerospace.com/k1_flight_profile/flight2.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

155

Figure 5-9 First Stage Recovery of K-1 (concept) 

After achieving orbit, the payload is deployed and the orbital vehicle does a pitch over 

maneuver and fires the maneuvering engines to de-orbit. It re-enters the earth's 

atmosphere nose first on a controlled trajectory to the launch site. At 10,000 feet, 

parachutes are deployed to brake the descent velocity. Airbags are deployed just prior to 

touchdown for a soft landing at the launch site (Figure 5-10). The vehicle is then 

prepared for the next flight, within days after landing. 

Figure 5-10 Second Stage Recovery of K-1 (concept) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

156

TGV – TGV has proposed an X-Prize entry (Figure 5-11) that uses rocket powered 

vertical takeoff and landing. The concept also uses aero-braking. 

Figure 5-11 TGV X-Prize Entrant (concept) 

Roton - The Roton (Figure 5-12) is a reusable, single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) space 

vehicle designed to transport up to 7000 lbs to and from low earth orbit. The Roton is 

conical in shape, 22 feet (6.7 meters) in diameter at the base, and about 63 feet (19.2 

meters) tall. The rounded base of the Roton contains the vehicle's main propulsion 

system, and the engines fire through apertures in the base. During reentry from orbit the 

base doubles as the vehicle's heat shield. The Roton deploys a rotor system to provide a 

controlled gliding approach to the landing site. Scaled Composites is currently building 

the ATV (atmospheric test vehicle). This is a full size prototype to test the rotor recovery 

system224. 

 

224 http://www.scaled.com/ 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

157

Figure 5-12 Roton X-Prize Entrant (concept) 

5.5.2 Vertical Takeoff – Horizontal Landing (VTHL)

The Vertical Takeoff – Horizontal Landing is a familiar concept, having been selected for 

the first reusable space vehicle, the Space Shuttle. This is an efficient concept because it 

allows use of nearly all of the fuel during the ascent stage of the mission. The vehicle 

then returns for a glider type landing, with little or no fuel left onboard. 

 

Some of the vehicles that use this concept are:

• Space Shuttle 

• SLI (Shuttle 2nd Gen) 

• X-33 

• X-37 

• X-38 

Space Shuttle – The Space Shuttle is the world’s first reusable space vehicle. In the 

launch configuration, the orbiter and two SRBs are attached to the external tank in a 

vertical (nose-up) position on the launch pad. Each SRB is attached at its aft skirt to the 

mobile launcher platform by four bolts. At launch, the three Space Shuttle main engines 

– fed liquid hydrogen fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer from the external tank – are ignited 

first. When it has been verified that the engines are operating at the proper thrust level, a 

signal is sent to ignite the SRBs. At the proper thrust-to-weight ratio, initiators (small 

explosives) at eight hold-down bolts on the SRB are fired to release the Space Shuttle for 

liftoff. All this takes only a few seconds (Figure 5-13). 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

158

Figure 5-13 Space Shuttle Launch 

Approximately 1 minute later (2 minutes into the ascent phase), the two SRBs have 

consumed their propellant and are jettisoned from the external tank. The boosters briefly 

continue to ascend, while small motors fire to carry them away from the Space Shuttle. 

The boosters then turn and descend, and at a predetermined altitude, parachutes are 

deployed to decelerate them for a safe splashdown in the ocean. Splashdown occurs 

approximately 141 nautical miles (162 statute miles) from the launch site. The boosters 

are recovered and reused. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

159

Meanwhile, the orbiter and external tank continue to ascend, using the thrust of the three 

Space Shuttle main engines. Approximately 8 minutes after launch and just short of 

orbital velocity, the three Space Shuttle engines are shut down (main engine cutoff), and 

the external tank is jettisoned on command from the orbiter (Figure 5-14). 

Figure 5-14 Separation of External Tank (concept) 

 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

160

The external tank continues on a ballistic trajectory and enters the atmosphere, where it 

disintegrates. Its projected impact is in the Indian Ocean. 

The orbital altitude of a mission varies depending upon that particular mission. The 

nominal altitude can vary between 100 to 217 nautical miles (115 to 250 statute miles). 

The forward and aft Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters (engines) provide attitude 

control of the orbiter as well as any minor translation maneuvers along a given axis on 

orbit. 

At the completion of orbital operations, the orbiter is oriented in a tail-first attitude by the 

reaction control system. The two Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines slow the 

orbiter for deorbit. The reaction control system then turns the orbiter’s nose forward for 

entry. The reaction control system controls the orbiter until atmospheric density is 

sufficient for the pitch and roll aerodynamic control surfaces to become effective. 

Entry interface is considered to occur at 400,000 feet altitude approximately 4,400 

nautical miles (5,063 statute miles) from the landing site and at approximately 25,000 

feet per second velocity. At 400,000 feet altitude, the orbiter is maneuvered to zero 

degrees roll and yaw (wings level) and at a predetermined (40 degrees) angle of attack 

for entry. 

The forward RCS engines are inhibited prior to entry interface, and the aft reaction 

control system engines maneuver the spacecraft until a dynamic pressure of 10 pounds 

per square foot is sensed, which is when the orbiter’s ailerons become effective. The aft 

RCS roll engines are then deactivated. At a dynamic pressure of 20 pounds per square 

foot, the orbiter’s elevators become active, and the aft RCS pitch engines are deactivated. 

The orbiter’s speed brake is used below Mach 10 to induce a more positive downward 

elevator trim deflection. At approximately Mach 3.5, the rudder becomes activated, and 

the aft reaction control system yaw engines are deactivated at 45,000 feet. 

Entry guidance must dissipate the tremendous amount of energy the orbiter possesses 

when it enters the Earth’s atmosphere to assure that the orbiter does not either burn up 

(entry angle too steep) or skip out of the atmosphere (entry angle too shallow) and that 

the orbiter is properly positioned to reach the desired touchdown point. 

During entry, energy is dissipated by the atmospheric drag on the orbiter’s surface. 

Higher atmospheric drag levels enable faster energy dissipation with a steeper trajectory. 

If the orbiter is low on energy (current range-to-go much greater than nominal at current 

velocity), entry guidance will command lower than nominal drag levels. If the orbiter has 

too much energy (current range-to-go much less than nominal at the current velocity), 

entry guidance will command higher-than-nominal drag levels to dissipate the extra 

energy. 

Excess energy is dissipated with an S-turn; and the speed brake can be used to modify 

drag, lift-to-drag ratio and flight path angle in high-energy conditions. This increases the 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

161

ground track range as the orbiter turns away from the nearest Heading Alignment Circle 

(HAC) until sufficient energy is dissipated to allow a normal approach and landing 

guidance phase capture, which begins at 10,000 feet altitude. The spacecraft slows to 

subsonic velocity at approximately 49,000 feet altitude, about 22 nautical miles (25.3 

statute miles) from the landing site. 

 

The approach and landing phase begins at about 10,000 feet altitude at an equivalent 

airspeed of 290, plus or minus 12, knots 6.9 nautical miles (7.9 statute miles) from 

touchdown. Autoland guidance is initiated at this point to guide the orbiter to the minus 

19- to 17-degree glide slope (which is over seven times that of a commercial airliner’s 

approach) aimed at a target 0.86 nautical mile (1 statute mile) in front of the runway. The 

spacecraft’s speed brake is positioned to hold the proper velocity. The descent rate during 

approach and landing is greater than 10,000 feet per minute (a rate of descent 

approximately 20 times higher than a commercial airliner’s standard 3-degree instrument 

approach angle). 

At 1,750 feet above ground level, a pre-flare maneuver is started to position the 

spacecraft for a 1.5-degree glide slope in preparation for landing with the speed brake 

positioned as required. The flight crew deploys the landing gear at this point and 

touchdown occurs shortly thereafter225. 

SLI – The Space Launch Initiative is investigating technologies for the second generation 

of Space Shuttle. Many, but not all, concepts have chosen a VTHL (vertical takeoff – 

horizontal landing) configuration using multiple stages226. Each stage would have the 

capability to return to the launch site for refurbishment and reuse. Many concepts have 

the returning Stage 1 and Stage 2 vehicles as unmanned drones. One such concept is 

shown in Figure 5-15. 

X-33 – The X-33 (Figure 5-16) or VentureStar was an unmanned vehicle that would have 

taken off vertically like a rocket and which would have landed horizontally like an 

airplane. This Lockheed-Martin designed test vehicle was to have reached an altitude of 

50 miles and high hypersonic speeds. The X-33 program was managed by the Marshall 

Space Flight Center and was to have been launched at a special launch site on Edwards 

Air Force Base. One of its unique features was its Linear Aerospikes engine227. Due to 

technical problems with the liquid hydrogen fuel tank, and the resulting schedule delay 

and cost increase, the X-33 program that began in 1996 was cancelled in February 

2001228. 

 

225 http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/profile.html 226 http://www.slinews.com/concepts.html 227 http://members.lycos.co.uk/spaceprojects/x-33.html 228 http://trc.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-33/HTML/EC95-43320-1.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

162

Figure 5-15 NASA SLI General Concept 

Figure 5-16 X-33 Concept 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

163

X37 – NASA’s X-37 (Figure 5-17) is an advanced technology flight demonstrator. It is 

an unmanned, reusable launch vehicle, and is designed to operate in both the orbital and 

reentry phases of flight. 

Figure 5-17 X-37 in Shuttle Cargo Bay (concept) 

 

The X-37 is capable of being ferried into orbit by the Space Shuttle or an expendable 

launch vehicle. It is designed to operate at speeds up to 25 times the speed of sound and 

to test technologies in the harsh environments of space and atmospheric reentry. 

The X-37 program began in 1998. Its purpose is to demonstrate dozens of advanced 

airframe, avionics and operations technologies that can support various launch vehicle 

and spacecraft designs. A major focus of the X-37 will seek improvement of today’s 

spacecraft thermal protection systems. 

The Boeing-designed X-37 is 27.5 feet long — about half the length of the Shuttle 

payload bay — and weighs about 6 tons. Its wingspan is about 15 feet, and it contains an 

experiment bay 7 feet long and 4 feet in diameter. 

The X-37’s on-orbit propulsion is provided by the AR-2/3, a high reliability engine with 

a legacy stretching back to the 1950s. Hydrogen peroxide and JP-8 will propel the X-37 

engine. 

The X-37’s shape is a 120 percent scale derivative of the Air Force’s X-40A (Figure 5-

18), also designed and built by Boeing, which was released from a helicopter and glidetested in 1998.229

 

229 http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/x37.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

164

Figure 5-18 X-40 

X-38 – The X-38 (Figure 5-19) was designed as a crew rescue vehicle (CRV) for the 

International Space Station. It would be carried aloft in the space Shuttle cargo bay 

(vertical takeoff) and would land using a lifting body and steerable parafoil.230 When 

operational, the CRV would be an emergency vehicle to return up to seven International 

Space Station (ISS) crewmembers to Earth. If an emergency arose that forced the ISS 

crew to leave the space station, the CRV would be undocked, perform a deorbit burn, and 

return to Earth much like a space shuttle. The vehicle's life support system would have a 

duration of about seven hours. A steerable parafoil parachute would be deployed at an 

altitude of about 40,000 feet to carry it through the final descent and the landing.231 

Two airframes were manufactured and a total of 15 flights were flown between 1997-

2001. 

Figure 5-19 X-38 

 

230 http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/History/x-planes.html 231 http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAO/PAIS/HTML/FS-038-DFRC.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

165

5.5.3 Horizontal Takeoff – Vertical Landing (HTVL)

Horizontal Takeoff – Vertical Landing has, to date, not been a popular configuration. 

Some air launched expendable vehicles do fall under this concept 

The vehicle closest to using this concept is as follows: 

• Pegasus 

Pegasus – The Pegasus (Figure 5-20) is not a true Horizontal Takeoff – Vertical Landing 

concept since it usually is full expendable and has no landing component. In theory, a 

payload could be ejected and parachuted back to earth; thus allowing it to fit this concept. 

Orbital Sciences Corporation, (OSC), developed the Pegasus launch vehicle. The 

Pegasus launch vehicle consists of three solid rocket motor stages with a wing and fins 

for lift and attitude control of the first stage and gimbaled rocket nozzles on the second 

and third stages. The vehicle is carried aloft horizontally by an L-1011 aircraft. It is 

dropped from the carrier aircraft at approximately 40,000 ft and .8 Mach. Upon motor 

ignition, the vehicle accelerates to a velocity of 8,300 fps (8.3 Mach) and performs a 2.5 

g positive pull up to the correct trajectory angle. The 2nd and 3rd stages are then fired 

sequentially to place the payload into orbit232. 

Figure 5-20 Orbital Sciences’ Pegasus 

 

232 http://www.scaled.com/ 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

166

5.5.4 Horizontal Takeoff – Horizontal Landing (HTHL)

The Horizontal Takeoff – Horizontal Landing can be an energy efficient concept. 

Various future air launch designs will use this concept. An aircraft will take off 

horizontally and climbs to altitude where it releases the space vehicle that continues into 

orbit (or sub-orbit). Both the aircraft and vehicle will then land vertically. 

Some of the vehicles that use this concept are as follows: 

• TAV (TransAtmospheric Vehicles) 

• SLI (Shuttle 2nd Gen) 

• X-30 

• X-34 

• Eclipse 

TAV – The TAV or Black Horse is a proposed military space plane about the size of an 

F-18. It would take off horizontally and climb out to a waiting tanker. The tanker would 

refuel the TAV with fuel (JP-5) and oxidizer (H2O2). The vehicle would then proceed 

with its suborbital or orbital mission. Upon completion of the mission, the vehicle would 

return to earth and land horizontally.233

SLI – At least one concept for the Space Launch Initiative’s Second Generation Shuttle 

uses a HTHL (horizontal takeoff – horizontal landing) approach. Northrop 

Grumman/Orbital Sciences Corporation investigated many concepts. One of their 

concepts involves a spaceplane riding aloft piggyback on a large flying wing with 

multiple jet engines234. Upon reaching altitude, the two vehicles separate, and the 

spaceplane continues to space with its payload. The flying wing returns to base under its 

own power.235,

236

X-30 – The X-30 program was to develop a horizontal takeoff and landing, single stage 

to orbit, space plane. It was sometimes referred to as the Orient Express. A 1/3-scale 

concept demonstrator (Figure 5-21) was built, and "flown" only in a high-temperature 

tunnel between 1986-1994. This joint effort by NASA, the Department of Defense, and 

five major contractors explored development of technologies for a new generation of 

aerospace vehicles for hypersonic cruise in the atmosphere or single-stage-to-orbit using 

air breathing primary propulsion and horizontal takeoff and landing. The program had 

expected to produce a vehicle that could fly at Mach 25. The program developed 

 

233 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/spacast3.html) 234 http://www.slinews.com/concepts.html 235 http://www.slinews.com/videoarchitecture.html 236 http://www.slinews.com/video/grumman.mov 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

167

significant advances in high-temperature, carbon-carbon materials, lightweight titanium 

and beryllium alloys, and high strength, corrosion-resistant titanium-alloy composites.237 

Figure 5-21 X-30 (concept) 

 

237 http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/History/x-planes.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

168

X-34 – The X-34 (Figure 5-22) was a reusable, unmanned suborbital spacecraft designed 

by Orbital Sciences Corporation. The vehicle was to be launched from a Lockheed L1011 airplane. After its mission, it would land horizontally like an airplane. The X-34 

had a 27-foot wingspan and was 58-feet long238. It is designed to reach speeds up to 

Mach 8 at altitudes of up to 50 miles. The craft was designed to have a small ground and 

support crew of about 12 people to service it and provide a two-week turnaround time 

between flights. The program began in 1996 and was cancelled in February 2001239. 

Figure 5-22 X-34 (concept) 

 

238 http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/x34_825.html 239 http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/x34_update.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

169

Eclipse – The Eclipse (Figure 5-23) is an X-prize contestant that uses a unique tow 

arrangement for takeoff. Eclipse will first be towed, like a glider, behind a large jumbo 

jet. All fuel and cargo will be onboard. Once an altitude of 20,000 ft is reached, the 

Eclipse will detach from the jet and fire its engines to reach sub-orbital altitudes where it 

can release its payload. It uses a horizontal landing concept that will enable it to operate 

from any commercial airport.240

Figure 5-23 Eclipse Being Towed For Takeoff By Large Commercial Jet (concept) 

 

240 http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/xprize-htol2sto.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

170

5.5.5 Railgun

Railguns have been proposed by some as an inexpensive, cost effective method of 

placing space vehicles into orbit. Unlike magnetic levitation launch systems (see Figure 

5-24) that merely accelerate launch vehicles to a relatively low speed to reduce the 

volume of on-board fuel that must be carried during launch, railguns are instead intended 

to be used to accelerate launched items without engines to extremely high velocities near 

the ground. Railguns also require a current-carrying conductor to be embedded in the 

launch vehicle, unlike magnetic levitation launch systems, and additionally require the 

launch vehicle to maintain contact with the rail during acceleration to permit current flow 

to occur. 

Figure 5-24 Magnetic Levitation Launch (concept) 

Before discussing the applicability of Railgun launch platforms to Spaceports, an 

overview of the key characteristics of railguns is warranted. As discussed in this section, 

railguns: 

• Use electromagnetically energized rails to launch payloads in place of chemically 

powered rockets 

• Can provide quick launch-responsiveness for small payloads 

• Are environmentally friendly 

• Can achieve low launch costs 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

171

• May expose payloads to accelerations in excess of 1,000 Gs for practical-sized 

railguns. Such loads would limit their use to especially designed small, inorganic 

payloads 

• Generate loud sonic booms (reports) at launch, limiting railgun launchers to use 

only at remote Spaceports where noise is not an issue 

• Require dc launch currents in the hundreds of millions of amps at extremely high 

voltages 

• Benefit from having their rails operated in a vacuum 

Because of their theoretical advantages, railguns are often considered for launching nanosatellite payloads from future Spaceports. For this reason, their likely influence on 

Advanced Range requirements within the next several decades should be addressed. 

However, because of their present disadvantages, barring any major breakthroughs in 

either creating high-temperature super-conducting materials to fabricate the rails or 

launched item current-carrying conductor, or in easing high-current, high-voltage dc 

power generation; it is not likely that widespread, general use of railgun launchers will 

occur at Spaceports over the next three decades. In support of these claims, the following 

investigation explores railgun technology in considerably more detail. 

Instead of forces derived from explosive propellant charges or rocket engines, a railgun 

uses electromagnetic forces to accelerate objects to high velocities. Relative to 

conventional terrestrial launch techniques, railguns entirely avoid any reduction of suborbital payload mass due to carrying onboard fuel and engines. Theoretically, railguns 

also provide quick responsiveness for launching items, have minimal environmental 

impacts in comparison with solid or chemical rocket boosters, and should achieve an 

excellent operating cost in terms of pounds of payload launched. On the other hand, 

because of a lack of fuel and engines, each item launched by a railgun is also at its 

highest velocity at the instant it leaves the railgun, which is where the payload is at its 

lowest possible altitude in its entire trajectory, and where air resistance is at its 

maximum. Payloads launched from railguns must typically be designed to withstand 

accelerations of 1,000 Gs or greater.241 And, not all the acceleration is in one direction, 

either. The 1,000 Gs encountered during the railgun acceleration stage is followed by a 

lesser g-force deceleration due to atmospheric high-Mach ablative effects immediately 

after railgun launch. For comparison, manned flight is preferentially kept below 12 Gs, 

although humans can tolerate up to 17 Gs for periods of less than 2 minutes.242 When 

seated in a contour couch, humans can tolerate more than 20 Gs for short periods of 

time.243 Alan Shepard, on his May 6, 1961 sub-orbital flight, experienced 11 Gs on 

re-entry.244 Ham, the chimpanzee on the earlier Mercury Redstone 2 flight of January 31, 

 

241 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/spacast3.html

242 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch4-2.htm

243 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch4-5.htm

244 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/history/mercury/mr-3/mr-3.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

172

1961, experienced an even higher 14.7 Gs during a sub-orbital flight.245 Instantaneous, 

crash-landing accelerations from 38 to 58 Gs were even tolerated in the infamous NASA 

“pig-drop” tests of April-May 1959 when four Yorkshire pigs demonstrably got up and 

walked away after being dropped and accelerated to these levels.246 All these 

accelerations, though, are miniscule in comparison to what will occur during railgun 

launches. Railgun launches at 1,000 Gs are compatible only with inorganic payloads 

consisting of specially designed, and probably expensive items.247

First demonstrated by Michael Faraday around 1831-1832, a railgun conceptually 

consists of two parallel conductors (hence the term rail) through which both a current and 

a magnetic field are both made to flow at right angles relative to the desired direction of 

acceleration of an object to be launched by the railgun. (See Figure 5-25.) To conduct 

the necessary current, a conducting bar that is part of the object to be accelerated and 

launched is located physically across the two parallel conductors and makes continuous 

contact with the two rails. As long as the object to be launched does not lose intimate 

contact with the rail, the launching force is developed solely by the spatial interaction 

between the flowing current and a fixed magnetic field. (Provided that continuous 

contact is kept with the rails, no electric field generated forces exist.) Appendix C 

provides a more detailed theoretical overview of the basic physics of railguns, resulting 

in the derivation of the key railgun equation, expressing the magnitude of the launching 

force in Newtons, given by: 

F = Bli N 

where B is the assumed constant magnetic flux existing orthogonal to the rails, l is the 

length of the conducting bar in meters (i.e., the distance between the two rails), and i is 

the current in amps passing uniformly through both the rails and the conducting bar 

between the two rails.248 

The acceleration applied to the object is given by: 

M

Bli

M

F

a = = m/s2

 

245 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/history/mercury/mr-2/mr-2.htm

246 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch6-5.htm

247 In other words, launch cost savings in terms of reducing the cost per launched pound of payload may 

become less of an issue than the recurring cost of the payloads designed to withstand 1,000 Gs launch 

acceleration! 

248 In contrast to the Appendix, for a non-technical introduction to railguns, without involving any of 

Maxwell’s Equations, see http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse130.pdf. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

173

where M is the mass of the object being launched. The acceleration is therefore 

proportional to the magnetic flux, the physical length between the rails, and the current 

flowing through the conductor. It is inversely proportional to the mass of the object 

being launched. The velocity is a function of the acceleration acting on the object 

proportional to the length of the railgun, with longer railguns providing the possibility of 

achieving higher ‘muzzle’ velocities. 

Figure 5-25 Railgun Magnetic Flux & Current Impart Force (F) on Conductor 

From these force and acceleration dependence equations, it becomes obvious that to 

accelerate any object with significant mass quickly, the current i must be increased to 

rather astounding values, i.e., to values in the tens or hundreds of millions of amps for 

practical systems having any significant launch capability and a reasonable railgun 

length. This comes about as the maximum magnetic flux that can be generated is, in 

practice, limited to rather quickly reached asymptotic limits due to a variety of reasons 

(permeability limits, air gap reluctances, etc.). The maximum usable gap between the 

rails, which provides the length factor in the equations above, is likewise limited to the 

width of the object being launched for reasons of keeping the total drag on the 

hypersonic-launched object as small as possible in order to maintain a high velocity once 

the object is clear of the railgun, to reduce ablative effects. To retain an adequate 

conductor cross-section capable of carrying the extremely high currents required by the 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

174

railgun during launch, the mass of the current-carrying conductor on the payload likewise 

could only be reduced to some fairly large lower limit. 

Generating the tens to hundreds of millions of amps required to power a railgun is not an 

easy task. For example, conventional capacitors have internal series resistances that 

prevent them from discharging quickly enough to generate dc currents this high. 

Fortunately, there does appear to be a solution to this problem, at least for smaller 

railguns. Specifically, one power source that has been proposed for powering railguns is 

a homopolar generator. This high-current producing power source has also been known 

as a rotating disc dynamo, a Faraday Disc, an N-Machine, a Unipolar Dynamo, as well as 

other names over the years.249 These dc power generation devices are capable of 

generating extremely high current pulses and inherently cannot generate high currents for 

very long if they are to avoid overheating. Their duty cycle capability is therefore ideally 

suited for the low duty-cycles required in railguns. Whether they can be scaled 

adequately to power truly sub-orbital launch-capable railguns remains to be seen. 

Whatever the power source, generating the extremely high dc currents required for 

powering practical railguns remains a major obstacle. 

Assuming that the railgun is powered properly, the next issue to consider is the length of 

the rails necessary to achieve the desired velocities required for launch. Escape velocity 

from earth is approximately 11.2 km/s. Orbital velocities depend on the perigee and 

apogee of the orbit, but are around 8 km/s for items in orbit at altitudes of 150 miles.250 

Launch velocities of around 4 or 5 km/s are typically required for achieving sub-orbital 

launches. At sea level, this equates to a hypersonic velocity of around Mach 15. 251 

 

249 This rather obscure dynamo was discovered by Michael Faraday around 1831-1832 and has as its 

distinctive characteristic the honor of being the only rotating electromechanical power generation device 

which intrinsically produces dc current without requiring any commutating phase reversal switching (i.e., 

either mechanically sensed and switched or magnetically sensed and electrically switched). Some of the 

more famous scientists over the years who have studied this generator include Nikola Tesla and Albert 

Einstein. Although its operation has mystified scientists since its discovery, over the last decade it has 

become a topic of study among General Force Theory (GFT) and General Unified Theory (GUT) 

researchers who hope to unify the various weak and strong forces in the universe with Einstein’s Theory of 

Relativity. One paper that claims to provide at least an explanation for the operation of the homopolar 

generator using one version of the GFT is available online (see: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~williebo/). 

The ultimate fallout from GFT, if the claims of GFT are somehow eventually rationalized with present 

“real” science, is the theoretical possibility of generating artificial gravity through electrical means by 

spinning electrons. Such a device would clearly revolutionize space vehicles, and their requisite 

Spaceports, provided that the likely high currents required for such devices could be met. The reader is 

cautioned that homopolar generators are intertwined with new-age pseudo-science techno-babble and much 

of what is published on the World Wide Web is patently wrong (e.g., 

http://users.erols.com/iri/homopolar.html, http://alexfrolov.narod.ru/n-machine.htm, and 

http://www.padrak.com/ine/RS_REF14.html, etc.) 

 250 http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/index.htm

251 Mach 1 is 330 m/s (700 mph) at sea level. Assuming a sea level launch, which is probably the least 

likely for implementing practical railguns, a launch velocity of 5 km/s would be a hypersonic velocity of 

Mach 15 or so. This launched item is clearly going to cause a sonic boom (a railgun report) at launch. For 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

175

Velocities of this magnitude are obtained with a railgun only through accelerating 

payloads for distances measured in kilometers if g-forces are to be minimized. On the 

other hand, if an acceleration of 1,000 Gs (e.g., 9,800 m/s2) at launch is acceptable, 

around 500-900 meters of rail could suffice to achieve sub-orbital launch velocities. 

To improve launch power efficiencies, it would also be beneficial if these rails were 

placed in a vacuum. If so, then the end of the enclosed, air-evacuated rails, positioned 

inside of a launch tube, would need to terminate against a reusable sealing window 

pointed at the sky. It would also be necessary to pump down the vacuum with roughing 

pumps, which, considering the hundreds of meters of length of track required and of the 

likely diameter of possible payloads, would require a significant number of hours of 

pumping even for a rather large number of vacuum roughing pumps used prior to the 

initial launch. However, if a large, quickly re-sealing window were used at the end of the 

rail, a minimal amount of air would enter the railgun track launch tube during each 

launch, thereby reducing the amount of time required to pump the launching tube back 

down between launches, improving the launch responsiveness of the railgun launcher. 

Assuming that the desired velocities can be achieved within the acceleration, vacuum, 

and minimum length of rail limits desired for the railgun launcher, the next question is 

the determination of the direction for launch. First, to avoid introducing additional high 

g-forces onto payloads during launch, above the already high 1,000 Gs due to railgun 

acceleration alone, there could be no concave-up railgun track curvature used (e.g., it 

would be desired to avoid the use of any “J”-shaped track laid on its side). Straight 

railgun tracks would be most desirable. To avoid having to make large changes in 

tangential velocity vectors at altitude and wasting fuel, such as when launching upper 

stages of orbital payloads, long, naturally-sloping terrain would be most desirable for 

locating the railgun launcher. For low-g launch railguns, such terrain exists only a few 

places on earth at high elevations near the equator. Low-g acceleration railgun launch 

platforms would therefore be compatible with only a small subset of all possible 

Spaceport locations. High-g railguns, on the other hand, could be placed at most 

Spaceports. The noise from the hypersonic payload streaking into the sky would have to 

be managed through placing the railgun launcher and the Spaceport in non-populated 

areas. With spaceliner concepts, whereby sub-orbital and orbital craft take off and land 

at reduced speeds, the need for noise abatement could be more like the methods used for 

existing airports. For a railgun launcher, however, only truly remote Spaceports could be 

used to reduce in advance the objections that would otherwise arise in populated areas 

from sonic booms sounding each and every launch. 

The inherent dc resistance of the rails, proportional to rail length, reduces the current that 

can flow through the rails for any given dc voltage. Generating high dc currents through 

the rail while overcoming this rail resistance requires a significantly high voltage be 

applied. However, upon applying the high dc voltages needed to generate high currents, 

 

Mach velocity background information, see the information at NASA Glenn Research Center 

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mach.html. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

176

an inherent danger arises. If, while traveling down the rail, the current conductor on the 

payload is even momentarily disconnected from continuous contact with the rail, a large 

arc will develop. Welding of the conductor to the rail, or, at the very least, severe pitting 

of the rail and of the conductor on the payload, is the most common outcome when this 

happens. This characteristic immediately begs the question of what happens at the end of 

the rail, where clearly the object ceases contact with the rail? A disconnection obviously 

occurs there, and the rail clearly runs the risk of severe damage during every launch. The 

likely result is that there will be excessive wear and shortened lifespan for every railgun 

built that does not contain replaceable end sections.252 

Furthermore, based on construction practicalities and on plasma-induced conduction 

occurring due to localized heating of the contact between the rail and the object being 

launched, and the maximum speed at which a plasma flame can be pushed through an air 

atmosphere, or that an object can be propelled in a hypersonic flight profile through the 

lower atmosphere, a maximum velocity of around 4-6 km/s is about the limit that can be 

obtained under terrestrial conditions. Because of this ‘speed limit’, orbital flights would 

be possible only if the railgun-launched payload carried its own booster that would ignite 

at the top of the sub-orbital ballistic trajectory. But, such added mass could quickly 

become more than any particular size railgun could launch to high sub-orbital altitudes. 

Considering this, it is likely that railguns would be most useful for launching sub-orbital 

flights, only. 

This section has explored the difficulties of: 

• Generating hundreds of millions of amps of current, at high dc voltage 

• Passing launch payloads down microscopically smooth, low-resistance rails, as 

required for launching even very tiny satellites 

• Maximum velocities of only 4-6 km/s, suitable for sub-orbital launch only 

These difficulties all combine to limit the usefulness of railguns for launching satellites. 

Although these difficulties could be overcome, it is not likely that all these difficulties 

will be overcome and the sub-orbital and orbital launching of items of any significant 

mass will result within the span of time identified as germane to the scope of this 

investigation. For that reason, barring any major disruptive scientific breakthroughs in 

high-voltage, extremely high-current dc power generation or in high-temperature 

superconductors; the widespread and general use of railguns in the near future (i.e., 

within 15-30 years) at Spaceports does not warrant additional study in terms of their 

likely non-impact on general Spaceport and Range designs. 

 

252 The wear and pitting at the very end of the rail could be resolved through the use of replaceable railends, designed to be quickly, cheaply, and easily replaced between launches. No more than a few meters of 

replaceable rail would likely be required for regular replacement at the end of the rails after each launch. 

The wear and pitting along the rails, however, due to payload bounce (i.e., the pogo up and down effects of 

the payload bouncing on the rail during launch) would not be as easy to overcome. Whether or not to 

include this end of the rail within the vacuum of the launch tube would need to be carefully studied. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

177

5.5.6 Space Cannon

Although railguns theoretically can launch small payloads into orbit, as discussed 

previously, the use of conventional cannons to accomplish the same goal should not be 

dismissed out of hand. After all, unlike railguns, cannons require no breakthroughs in 

electromagnetics or high-current power supplies to launch items into space. Furthermore, 

cannons have been capable of reaching the edge of space with small projectiles since 

World War I. Serious research has been underway for over eighty years to develop 

cannons with the ability to launch larger payloads into space. Regrettably, since 1967, in 

spite of considerable long-standing research, cannons have not generally been considered 

suitable for providing access to space for small payloads and have not garnered recent 

support within the United States. Nonetheless, as investigated in this section, 

considerable merit remains in using large cannons for special purpose sub-orbital and 

orbital launch applications. 

The key characteristics of cannons for launching small payloads into space are that they: 

• Use chemically powered explosives to launch payloads (in place of chemically 

powered rockets or difficult-to-generate high intensity electromagnetic fields) 

• Can provide quick launch-responsiveness for launching small payloads into 

common, largely similar orbits 

• Can be environmentally friendly 

• Can achieve low launch costs 

• Expose payloads to accelerations in excess of several hundred Gs for practicalsized cannons, limiting their use to especially designed, small, inorganic payloads 

• Generate loud reports at launch, limiting cannon launchers to use only at remote 

Spaceports where noise is not an issue 

• Require no dc launch currents in the hundreds of millions of amps at extremely 

high voltages, in contrast to railguns 

• Often have limited launch trajectories available that are highly dependent on the 

final azimuth and elevation selected for installation of the final cannon bore, and 

remain fixed after the final installation of the cannon 

Because of these theoretical advantages and long development history, cannons are often 

considered for launching nano-satellite payloads from future Spaceports. Unfortunately, 

cannons do not engender the same support as conventional rockets, and, instead, any 

discussion regarding using them to provide low-cost access to space inevitably provokes 

archaic 19th century images of a Jules Verne science fiction novel instead of promoting a 

technology of the future. Paraphrasing the words of a more modern science fiction 

author, Arthur C. Clarke, who one stated space elevators (to be discussed later) would 

probably never be built until about fifty years after people stopped laughing about them, 

giant cannons for launching small objects into space will likewise probably never be 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

178

completed until about twenty years after people stop laughing about them.253 In spite of 

a bad image, however, cannons have long been capable of launching small projectiles and 

payloads into space, and could easily provide a very low-cost launch capability for 

launching future micro-satellites into space. 

The first mathematically-sound accessible treatment for using cannons to launch items 

into space dates to 1687, when Sir Isaac Newton published his Philosophiae Naturalis 

Principia Mathematica, generally known today as the Principia Mathematica, or, more 

often, just the Principia. Newton worked on his Principia from about 1684 through 

1686. It was largely the outgrowth of practically applying the calculus of fluxions 

(which today we call the differential calculus, or derivatives) he had developed from 

1665 to 1666 during a forced holiday from Cambridge during an outbreak of the 

plague.254 In the Principia, Newton wrote: 

“Imagine a mountain so high that its peak is above the atmosphere of the 

earth. Imagine on top of that mountain a cannon that fires horizontally. As 

more and more charge is used with each shot, the speed of the cannonball 

will be greater, and the projectile will impact the ground farther and 

farther from the mountain. Finally, at a certain speed, the cannonball will 

not hit the ground at all. It will fall toward the circular earth just as fast as 

the earth curves away from it. In the absence of drag from the atmosphere, 

it will continue forever in an orbit around the earth.”255

This earliest description of an orbital trajectory used a cannon to achieve it, although 

arguably the use of the cannon was more for the pedantic purpose of explaining in 

layman’s terms what an orbit was, instead of actually proposing a cannon for launching 

items into space. Newton was essentially doing a gedanken experiment (i.e., a thought 

experiment), solely for the purpose of reasoning theoretically. His gedanken experiment 

just happened to include a cannon for connecting with the reader.256 Nonetheless, 

Newton’s investigation was the first ever to consider using a cannon to launch an item 

into orbit. 

Newton’s mathematics also was the basis for the next widely known suggestion for a 

space cannon that appeared in Jules Verne’s 1865 novel titled From the Earth to the 

 

253 Ziemelis, Karl, Space Elevators Get a Lift, Space Daily, London, May 2, 2001, 

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/future-01f.html, retrieved 8 May 2002. Arthur C. Clarke once stated, 

"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing". 

254 http://www.hao.ucar.edu/public/education/sp/images/newton.html

255 http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/lvs/newannon.htm

256 The Jargon Dictionary, online edition, http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/gedanken.html which is 

available as a snapshot in time in conventional book form as The New Hacker’s Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 

compiled by Eric S. Raymond, MIT Press; ISBN: 0262680920; 3rd edition (October 11, 1996). 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

179

Moon. In this novel, Verne writes about a moon cannon that is situated in Florida, 

presaging the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) of today. Verne situated his fictional 

spaceport only 132 miles from where KSC is today. Numerous parallels have been 

drawn from comparison between his novel and the actual launch of Apollo 11 in 1969.257 

What is interesting is that Verne based his novel on the best scientific thought of his day, 

and the mathematics had not changed since the days of Newton. Because of Verne’s 

detailed engineering estimates and analyses, many of his estimates, and even his choice 

of a Spaceport location at approximately 28 degrees north latitude, were particularly 

accurate, even though there were certainly other issues that Verne did misjudge. For 

example, Verne conveniently neglected launch acceleration, into the thousands of Gs, 

which would have proven instantly fatal to human passengers. Nonetheless, in spite of 

numerous slight scientific shortcomings, Verne’s novel became a virtual blueprint 

followed by many of the actual participants in the early US space program, as it was the 

first detailed effort to explore many of the same issues that were ultimately addressed in 

actuality.258 

The first major step in bringing the concept of a space cannon into reality was The Paris 

Gun of World War I (Figure 5-26). Known variously as Big Bertha (in apparent 

confusion with a separate ‘gun’ called Big Bertha that was actually a large mortar), 

Lange Max [Long Max], and Kaiser Wilhelm Geschuetz (i.e., Kaiser Wilhelm’s Cannon), 

this gun used a 180 kg (400 lb) powder charge to hurl 120 kg (265 lb) shells (with 

explosive payloads of 7 kg) to distances of 140 km (87 miles), with the shells traversing 

the very edge of space at 40 km (25 miles) altitudes. Aimed higher, for altitude instead 

of distance, the 120 kg (265 lb) shells could be fired to altitudes of 65 km (40 miles), 

which were clearly altitudes into space. The psychological impact of The Paris Gun was 

greater than its military effectiveness. From March through August 1918, three of the 

giant guns lobbed a total of 351 shells at Paris, killing 256 and wounding 620. As an 

effective weapon, The Paris Gun was largely a failure, lobbing only 7 kg explosive 

payloads, and requiring re-boring of badly eroded barrels from a diameter of 21 cm to 24 

cm after only 65 shots per barrel. Until the V-2 flights of World War II, though, the 

altitudes at the very entrance to space reached with The Paris Gun would not be 

equaled.259

After The Paris Gun of World War I, it was not until World War II that the next major 

step was taken in developing a practical space cannon. Less well known than the V-1 

and V-2 Vergeltungswaffen (i.e., vengeance, or reprisal, arms/weapons/branch of service) 

of World War II, a third German weapon was developed known as the V-3, (i.e., 

Vergeltungswaffe-3). The V-3 was also known officially as the Hochdruckpumpe [High 

 

257 http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/lvs/julongun.htm

258 Well-worn copies of the novel are still in the Kennedy Space Center library to this day in the NASA 

Headquarters building. (May 2002.) 

259 http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/lvs/parisgun.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

180

Pressure Pump], HDP, as well as non-officially as Fleissiges Lieschen [Diligent Little 

Lisa; literally, Diligent Listened], and Tausend Fussler [Thousand Kicker].) This super 

gun featured a 140 m (460 ft) long cannon capable of delivering a 140 kg (308 lb) shell 

over a range of 165 km (102 miles), achieving a muzzle velocity of 1500 m/s. 

Construction began on a bunker for the cannons in September 1943 at Mimoyecques, 

France, based on earlier successful tests conducted during April-May 1943 of a 20mm 

(0.8 inch) prototype at Misdroy (Miedzyzdroje), Poland. Based on the test results in 

Poland, Hitler believed this could be a third terror weapon to supplement the more 

infamous V-1 and V-2. He ordered fifty of the guns to be built in concrete bunkers in 

France with which to bombard London. Fortunately, Allied bombing damaged these 

bunkers before the V-3 guns (Figure 5-27) went into operation, and no full-size V-3 guns 

were ever completed. 

Figure 5-26 Paris Gun (WWII) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

181

Figure 5-27 V-3 Gun (WWII) 

Two shorter-length (45 m (147 ft) long) V-3 guns were built at Lampaden about 13-kms 

from Trier in support of the Ardennes offensive (i.e., the Battle of the Bulge) in 

December 1944. The Lampaden guns were used from December 30, 1944 through 

February 22, 1945 and fired a total of 183 projectiles into Luxembourg city from a 

distance of 42.5-kms, of which 143 actually exploded, killing ten and wounding thirtyfive. With the Allies advancing rapidly, the guns were hastily disassembled starting 

February 22, 1945. The disassembled guns were later captured by the Allies and sent to 

the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland for detailed test and evaluation, where they 

were eventually scrapped in 1948. Although the total military impact of the V-3 guns at 

Lampaden on Luxembourg was minimal, they were used to attack an already liberated 

Luxembourg, which had been freed by the United States Army in September 1944. Loss 

of life is always sad, but for the citizens of Luxembourg, who had already been liberated 

from the Nazis, and no doubt were starting to believe the war might actually be over for 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

182

them, the use of the V-3 was particularly cruel. Of the ten killed, four died while 

attending evening Church services when a V-3 projectile struck the Church belfry. 260

The design of the V-3 super gun was ingenious. Electrically activated charges were used 

to overcome pre-mature explosions of the distributed charge inside the gun bore caused 

by expanding gases from the base charge moving ahead of the shell and igniting auxiliary 

charges and retarding the shell. To further control uncontrolled detonations, and provide 

for a modular design, angled lateral combustion chambers were placed at regular 

distances along the gun’s bore. Because it was a modular weapon with replaceable 

lateral chamber sections, its design avoided the re-boring maintenance issues seen with 

The Paris Gun of World War I. Had the full-size V-3 guns been finished, it is likely that 

they would have routinely launched projectiles into space in the course of bombarding 

London. 

The next period of development for space cannons was largely the result of the work of 

just one man, astrophysicist Dr. Gerald V. Bull of Canada. Starting in the 1950’s through 

March 1990, he single-handedly dominated the large cannon and artillery scene 

worldwide. As a professor at McGill University in Montreal, his early research attracted 

the attention of the Canadian Armament and Research Development Establishment 

(CARDE) in the mid-1950s for using guns as small as 3-in (76 mm) to launch sounding 

probes into the very edge of space. By the late 1950s, Dr. Bull's work with CARDE had 

progressed to the point that it had attracted the attention of the US Army's Ballistic 

Research Laboratory (BRL), and this, in turn, led to joint feasibility studies during the 

early 1960s at both CARDE and BRL. The result was a 5-inch (127 mm) gun-launch 

system later incorporated into a larger joint US-Canadian funded program known as the 

High Altitude Research Program (HARP) - the ‘HARP’ acronym being considered 

especially appropriate as angels traditionally are considered to fly at high altitudes and 

obviously associate with harps. Initially launching items from the island of Barbados, 

Dr. Bull’s small 5-inch (127 mm) guns fired projectiles to altitudes of over 70 km (43.5 

miles), and 7-inch (178 mm) guns (Figure 5-28) later fired projectiles to nearly 100 km 

(62 miles). Later, in Barbados and Arizona, larger 16-inch (406 mm) HARP guns were 

constructed. On 19 November 1966 the sixteen-inch gun in Arizona fired a 185-lb (84 

kg) payload to an altitude of 111 miles (180 km). Ultimately, the sixteen-inch HARP gun 

was intended to launch a small three-stage rocket carrying a 22-lb (10 kg) payload into 

space. 

The five-inch HARP gun-launch systems were used for launching projectiles weighing 

up to 10 kg (22-lb) to altitudes of up to 76 km (47 miles). More typically, the application 

was to launch to altitudes of up to 40 miles (65 km) typical 2-lb (0.9 kg) scientific 

payloads that were ejected at apogee. Included in the two-lb ejected payloads were 

reflective chaff, used for radar tracking of upper wind speeds, as well as sensors with 

radio telemetry capability, used to transmit measured upper atmosphere temperature and 

humidity data. Taken in total, the data collected expedited the quick development of new 

 

260 http://www.nat-military-museum.lu/pageshtml/museumspecial.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

183

supersonic atmospheric vehicles and missile systems in both the United States and 

Canada. Altogether, these scientific payloads allowed considerable low-cost research 

into the properties of the upper atmosphere; achieving results impossible to achieve with 

lower-altitude balloons and aircraft.261 In contrast to expensive sounding rockets, which 

could reach similar altitudes (or even higher), the five-inch gun-launch platforms 

achieved a typical launch cost of only $300- $500 per launch.262

Figure 5-28 HARP 7-Inch Gun 

The five-inch HARP gun-launch system was based on modified 120 mm (4.75 in) T123 

service guns, modified to a smoothbore barrel configuration, and having a welded-on 

extension to the barrel to extend the bore to a total length of 8.9 m (29 ft). Six launch 

sites for the five-inch HARP gun-launch systems were set up at Barbados; Highwater, 

Quebec; Ft. Greely, Alaska; Wallops Island, Virginia; White Sands, New Mexico; and 

Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. Over three hundred flights were achieved over five 

years. 

 

261 No doubt, what was truly high ‘bang for the buck’. 

262 http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/lvs/5inrpgun.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

184

For higher flights, and larger payloads, a fixed sixteen-inch gun-launch installation was 

first installed at Barbados, with the Range extending over the Atlantic for safety. A 

surplus 125-ton sixteen-inch diameter gun from the US Navy was modified to extend its 

standard 20 m (65.6 ft) barrel to 36 m (118 ft). The gun was further converted to 

smoothbore; eliminating the rifling that would otherwise have spun the payload to 

unacceptable spin rates. From 1962 through 1967, Bull launched over 200 atmospheric 

probes to altitudes of up to 180 km (111 miles). To increase the altitude by just four 

additional miles, a pumping system was even used to pump down most of the air from the 

gun barrel. An airtight cover over the muzzle was then blown away during the shot.263

The lack of mobility, however, greatly limited the usefulness of the sixteen-inch gun 

launch system to provide atmospheric data at widely dispersed geographic locations. The 

sixteen-inch guns were only installed in Barbados and Arizona. As a result, after the 

five-inch guns and sixteen-inch guns had demonstrated their usefulness for upper 

atmospheric research, a portable seven-inch HARP gun-launch system was developed to 

reach altitudes in excess of 100 km (62 miles) with three times the payload capacity of 

the five-inch HARP gun. This represented the optimal trade between capability and the 

upper size limit imposed by portability. The seven-inch gun barrel was 55 ft (16.8 m) 

long. Two of the seven-inch guns were built. A total of sixty operational flights were 

achieved over a three year period for the seven-inch HARP, prior to the sudden and 

unplanned disbandment of the entire joint US and Canadian HARP research in 1967 due 

to severely strained relations between the two countries over the involvement of the 

United States in the Viet Nam war. 

Despite the breakdown of relations between Canada and the United States, Dr. Bull 

negotiated the right to retain title to the assets of the HARP program, becoming a 

consultant to artillery manufacturers worldwide, and formed a company known as Space 

Research Corporation. Furthermore, because Bull's lack of American citizenship became 

a hindrance in the Pentagon arms trade, and the Canadian Government had tried to 

dissuade Dr. Bull from supporting the U. S. Navy in the development of long range shells 

for shelling North Viet Nam from far at sea, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona 

introduced an unusual bill by which Dr. Bull became an American citizen by an act of 

Congress.264 This procedure was a rare honor, previously given only to Prime Minister 

 

263 http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smartlet.htm

264 Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona, where the HARP research was being conducted in the United States 

was in Senator Goldwater’s home state. Sen. Goldwater, a powerful conservative Republican, was also 

known for his strong support of the U.S. military and of weapons of all kind, including, it might be added, 

nuclear weapons – a stand that probably cost him the Presidency when he ran for President in 1964 against 

President Johnson. An infamous Democratic National Party TV ad that ran only one time, depicting a girl 

plucking petals from a daisy, with a countdown, followed by a giant mushroom cloud, certainly played a 

factor in his defeat. Likewise, Barry Goldwater’s 1964 speech accepting the Republican Party's 

nomination to run for president, in which he responded to repeated accusations of "extremism" with: "I 

would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that 

moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" certainly played a factor, as well. Democrat Lyndon 

Johnson soundly trounced Republican Goldwater in the presidential election after responding with the 

quote: "Extremism in the pursuit of the Presidency is an unpardonable vice. Moderation in the affairs of the 

nation is the highest virtue." [ 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

185

Winston Churchill of England and the Marquis de Lafayette of France. Unfortunately, 

one of Dr. Bull’s customers later was South Africa, and this relationship, plus his 

awarded American citizenship, landed Dr. Bull in prison for six months in 1980 for 

illegal arms dealing, in what was clearly an unintended side effect of his appointed 

American citizenship.265 The result, upon his release from prison, was that Dr. Bull 

moved once more, this time to Europe; where he could continue to develop designs for 

artillery customers worldwide without the interference of the American or Canadian 

governments. One of his customers was the Iraqi government, from whom he received a 

contract for the Project Babylon super gun. This gun was designed to launch payloads 

into orbit, as well as to launch warheads over extreme ranges. 

The basic design of the Babylon super gun was displayed at the Baghdad International 

Exhibition for Military Production in May 1989. The barrel of the super gun was 156 

meters long, with a diameter of 1 meter. Weighing 2100 tonnes, and fixed in azimuth 

and elevation, the gun would have been a minimal threat had it been aimed in an 

innocuous direction. But, unfortunately for Dr. Bull, the gun was to be constructed at a 

site in Iraq and aimed at Israel. 266 Clearly, though, the super gun was not a pressing 

threat to Israel, as it was fixed, unable to be moved, and would have been an easy target 

for cruise missiles or even a single air attack prior to being completed and becoming a 

real threat to Israel. The Israeli government repeatedly warned Dr. Bull to terminate his 

contract with Iraq. Dr. Bull ignored the warnings from the Israelis, and then made his 

fatal mistake. He agreed to assist Iraq further in designing the nose cone for a multistage multi-warhead missile using clusters of Scud Rockets, simultaneous to his ongoing 

work in developing the Project Babylon super gun. As a result of Dr. Bull’s refusal to 

stop providing technical support for the Iraqi projects, and especially of his MRV nose 

cone design work for the Iraqis, agents (presumably of the Mossad) assassinated Dr. Bull 

in a professional hit outside his apartment in Brussels, Belgium in March 1990. Dr. 

Bull’s body was found with five shots to the back of his head. No one heard the shots. 

Nor was anyone ever arrested.267 

After ‘Desert Storm’ (i.e., the Gulf War), United Nations disarmament teams discovered 

(in 1991) that the Project Babylon super gun had not only been under construction, but 

had also been aimed directly toward Israel, 300 miles distant. At this range, the gun 

would have easily been able to fire projectiles with various payloads (chemical, 

biological, etc.) directly into Israel from Iraq. To prevent the gun from being finished, 

 

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/1998/july/july98_bury_extremism_gw.htm Capitalism Magazine, 

July 1998, retrieved 10 May 2002.] Dr. Bull’s supporter and sponsor, Senator Goldwater, retired from the 

Senate in 1987, just three years before Dr. Bull was assassinated at his home. Retired Senator Goldwater 

himself died May 29, 1998 at home in his beloved Arizona of natural causes. 

265 http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/SGbull.htm 

266 http://world.std.com/~jlr/doom/bull.htm

267 http://world.std.com/~jlr/doom/bull.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

186

the U.N. team proceeded to disassemble the Project Babylon site. Likewise, and only a 

few weeks later, eight pieces of the barrel were intercepted in Britain, marked as 

chemical industry components. Other pieces of the gun were shortly discovered by 

customs officials and seized in Greece and Turkey. Although the loss of innocent lives 

was avoided in Israel through the dismantling of the gun, the dream of Dr. Bull, to 

achieve a gun-launch system for launching payloads into space, died with Dr. Bull, as no 

action was undertaken to recover the pieces of gun for removal to the United States. 268 

 

Since 1990, research into giant space cannons has languished. Sparse reports have 

emerged that the Chinese are working on a launch system similar to the Project Babylon

gun, perhaps as an outgrowth of Dr. Bull’s earlier work consulting for them during the 

1980’s. According to some reports, this super gun has a 22m (72 ft) long barrel and is 

capable of launching projectiles to Taiwan. No detailed development information has 

been publicly announced since Dr. Bull’s death.269 On the artillery front, announcements 

have emerged in November 2001 that South Africa still leads the world in its howitzer 

range. Building on its Dr. Bull-designed system from the 1980’s, which achieved an 

operational 39 km range versus the then NATO forces’ range of 18-30 km, South 

Africa’s G6 155 mm howitzer is currently being revamped to achieve ranges of up to 70 

km, thereby continuing their lead on howitzer technology. Dr. Bull’s legacy lives on.270 

Clearly, giant cannons could provide an interesting method for the low-cost launching of 

small satellites. Further, the design of the projectiles and of the satellites themselves, to 

withstand the launch accelerations, could be done. Altogether, the total budget for Dr. 

Bull’s early work was only around $10 Million (US). For a small fraction of the cost of 

developing a new space launch vehicle, a cannon launch system could be designed, 

fabricated, and assembled. Perhaps, if the laughter analogous to that described by Arthur 

C. Clark has stopped, such a system could become a reality within the next twenty years, 

providing low-cost, niche-market access to space for nano-satellites. 

5.5.7 Space Elevator

The Space Elevator (SE) is an age-old disruptive technology concept for a geostationary 

(GEO) orbiting platform tether to provide extremely low-cost access to space. To date, 

work on this advanced concept has largely been coordinated at the NASA Marshall 

Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL.271 The most recent Advanced Space Infrastructure 

Workshop on the SE was held June 8-19, 1999 by the Flight Projects Directorate in 

cooperation with the Advanced Projects Office, Office of Space Flight, NASA 

 

268 For more information on Dr. Bull, see Bull's Eye--the assassination and life of supergun inventor 

Gerald Bull by James Adams, 317 pp., NY Times Books 1992. 

269 Jane’s Defence Weekly, Friday, February 10, 1995. 

270 Jane’s. WWW.JANES.COM, http://www.janes.com/press/pc011109.shtml

271 http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/fd02_elev.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

187

Headquarters, Washington, DC and the Advanced Space Transportation Program, NASA 

Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. A summary report was issued in 2000, 

and the key points of this report are summarized in the following pages.272 

The easiest way to visualize this low operating cost approach to space is through the 

following artist’s concept by Pat Rawlings, Science Applications International 

Cooperation, prepared as part of the NASA summary report from 2000 (Figure 5-29). 

The viewpoint for this rendering of the concept is from a vantage point aboard the GEO 

transfer point looking back along the length of the elevator structure toward earth. 

Figure 5-29 Space Elevator Concept 

Propelled by high-speed electromagnetic motors, aerospace vehicles traverse the length 

of the elevator, transferring passengers and cargo between geostationary earth orbit and 

the surface of the earth. As envisioned in this artist concept, six vehicular tracks would 

surround a high-strength tubular core structure constructed from future advanced carbon 

nanotube material. Three of the tracks would be dedicated to maintenance vehicles 

necessary to maintain the elevator; leaving just three tracks for passengers and cargo. As 

there would need to be a mechanism for adjusting the center of mass of the geostationary 

station to exactly geostationary altitude to provide the adjustments necessary to set 

 

272 http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/pdf_files/elevator.pdf
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

188

exactly the GEO length of the elevator, large spherical structures containing reels of high 

strength cable are depicted. 

The primary economic driving force behind the SE concept is the very low-cost that 

would be achievable for putting payloads into orbit. An estimated energy of only 14.8 

kWh/kg would be required to achieve GEO altitudes using the SE. Assuming an 

electrical energy cost of around $0.10/kWh, launching a mass into GEO orbit would cost 

only around $1.48/kg. For comparison, a cargo equivalent to an average space shuttle 

cargo of 12,000 kg would cost only around $17,760 for launch into orbit; in contrast to 

the approximate cost of $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 for launching the shuttle today 

(depending on how exactly one tallies up the total). Similarly, launching an individual 

person with luggage, for an assumed total mass of 150 kg, would cost only around $222. 

The price for such a ticket, even assuming a seven or eight times markup to around 

$1,500 for commercial profit, would be far less than the $20,000,000 reportedly paid to 

the Russians by South African millionaire Mark Shuttleworth for a ten day journey to 

visit the International Space Station in April-May 2002.273 Such a radical reduction in 

launch costs means that an SE would open the door to a fundamental shift in the 

economic equation for using space. 

The concept for building a tower to the heavens from the surface of the earth is ancient. 

Moses, writing in about 1450 B.C., described an early attempt from around 2100 B.C. by 

the Babylonians, to build such a structure in ancient Mesopotamia known as the Tower of 

Babel. Another similar concept was Jacob’s Ladder, a staircase or ladder ascending to the 

heavens, which dates to around 1900 B.C. The writer Tsiolkovski, writing in 1895, 

described a similar concept in his Speculations about Earth and Sky and on Vesta. 

Obscure reports regarding the concept appeared throughout the 1960-1975 era. 

Arthur C. Clarke, building on the ideas of these obscure reports, wrote his 1978 science 

fiction novel The Fountains of Paradise that greatly popularized the SE concept in the 

public’s eye. 

None of these earlier writings came close to addressing the engineering and material 

strength difficulties implicit in building an SE, nor do they provide any sound 

consideration of the technological details required simply to fabricate the pieces required 

for such a structure. To be geostationary, such a structure would have to be 36,000 km 

long, as a minimum, neglecting mass counterbalancing. Then, to avoid collisions with 

aircraft or other aerospace vehicles, maneuverability requirements would require even a 

slightly longer structure capability, with control mechanisms for bending, twisting, or 

otherwise maneuvering the SE track to avoid collisions with aircraft, spacecraft, or 

orbital debris. To allow easy movement of the ground segment, and to reduce the risk of 

 

273 According to many reports, $20,000,000 almost exactly matches the actual cost of launching the Soyuz 

TM-34 spacecraft into orbit to rendezvous with the International Space Station (ISS). Dennis Tito, the first 

space tourist, supposedly paid the same fee in 2001 for his trip into space with the Russians. The tourism 

fee charged therefore largely reimburses the Russians’ expense of launching a spacecraft to the ISS, which 

would have to go even if not supported by tourism. Incidentally, Mark Shuttleworth returned to earth in a 

different Soyuz spacecraft, a TM-33, which had served as a lifeboat for the ISS since last year. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

189

such a structure failing and falling from the sky, as well as to accommodate political 

needs for a multi-national effort, the earth station would likely have to be floated at sea, 

on the equator. Likewise, to reduce energy usage requirements, it would be extremely 

beneficial to recover the potential energy contained in returning payloads during descent 

braking, to achieve as efficient a total system as possible. 

Two approaches have been considered for achieving a center of gravity at GEO for the 

entire SE structure, providing a counter-balance to counter the weight of the system and 

to prevent it from falling to earth. First, if an asteroid counterbalance were used, a total 

length of approximately 47,000 km of SE track would be needed to “sling” an asteroid at 

near escape velocity around the earth as needed to counter the mass of the SE structure. 

Alternatively, if no asteroid counterbalance were used, then a total length of 

approximately 144,000 km of SE track would be required. Clearly, between these two 

possibilities, an asteroid counterbalance would be preferred to reduce the construction 

difficulties associated with the construction of the SE in the most cost-efficient manner 

possible. 

Obviously, though, the total tensile strength of the space track is a major issue that must 

be overcome if the SE is to become a reality. The strength required for the core structure 

is believed to be around 62.5 GPa (Giga Pascals). High strength steel has a yield point of 

only slightly more than 0.3 GPa; it clearly is too weak and heavy for the central core. 

Carbon nanotubes, on the other hand, have already demonstrated strengths in excess of 

100 times that seen for steel at a fraction of the mass. This performance, at least for 

small samples, is clearly in the same range as the strength of 62.5 GPa required for the 

SE. Of course, many properties of materials do not scale up in simple proportional 

terms. Just because nanotubes in a test tube exhibit the necessary properties does not 

prove the supposition that nanotubes by the ton would have the same needed physical 

properties, nor that they could even be fabricated in space and installed in a continuous 

strand for more than 36,000 km. 

Due to the continual mind-numbing scanning, inspection, and routine repair and 

maintenance of a 47,000 km, or longer, track; the construction of the SE, as well as the 

continual maintenance, would require considerable advancements in autonomous robotic 

systems. Yet, without continual repair and maintenance, it is not likely that the SE could 

survive for long even if it were built. Micrometeoroid damage would bring the SE down 

in a matter of only a few years, even if a massive strike by a larger meteoroid were 

somehow avoided. To avoid damage from larger meteoroids, a self-defense system 

comprised of lasers, or another similar vaporizing technology, would likely be required to 

protect the SE. 

These dangers, however, assume natural catastrophes, only. Clearly, considering the 

World Trade Center complex was a highly prized target of terrorists, the World Space 

Elevator would become an even higher prized target. As such, it would be forever the 

goal of terrorists worldwide to destroy this structure, if it were to be built. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

190

Fortunately, the physics of the SE do mitigate some threats. Hurricanes, for example, 

cannot exist at the equator, but instead form at some minimum distance from the equator, 

and then proceed to travel away from the equator on their recurving journey to colder 

waters. Overall, weather around the equator is typically balmy and benign throughout 

the year. On the other hand, tsunamis could be a potential threat, as earthquakes far 

removed from the equator could create giant waves. Likewise, icing could be an issue at 

altitudes of 4-5 km above the equator along the SE. At higher altitudes, atomic oxygen 

could be a threat, potentially causing erosion of the SE tracks and SE vehicles. UV 

radiation would likewise be a danger that would have to be addressed, to prevent 

chemical changes or structural weakening of the SE track. Above the atmosphere, space 

debris would need to be considered. Even small paint chips traveling through space 

could pose a threat to eroding the SE track. As tracking technology evolves, the risk 

from larger items could largely be mitigated. However, items in the range of diameters 

from 1 mm to 10 cm could prove difficult to track, dodge, or even destroy in a timely 

fashion. Consider especially the uncommon event of either a seasonal meteor storm (e.g., 

the Leonids of November or similar) or of orbiting space debris. Altogether, there will 

be considerable dangers that must be addressed and overcome before the SE can become 

a reality. 

Whether it would be desirable to have a rocket-assisted lift capability, to lift the upper 

part of the SE to a higher orbit if an unintended break did occur, or whether it would be 

better to steer the failed structure into a controlled, destructive re-entry into a remote part 

of the ocean are decisions that would have to be made while designing the system. 

Protecting passengers and cargo, in the event of an SE failure, would likewise require an 

assortment of techniques. Perhaps an automated pilot capability for the elevator vehicle, 

as well as a high Mach thermal protection system and/or a simple ablative system, would 

need to be employed for use in what would presumably be a one-time occurrence in the 

event of a catastrophic track break. Presumably, designing in the capability for achieving 

a safe return of an SE vehicle from anywhere along the tether would be preferable to 

assuming that such a failure would never happen. At the lowest altitudes, this would be a 

parachute system, although, at the higher altitudes, considerably more would be required. 

Needless to say, once such a system were built on earth, it would presumably be 

considerably easier to replicate smaller versions on the moon and on Mars, both of which 

have smaller gravitational fields. Furthermore, it is likely that the threat from terrorists 

could be largely mitigated on the moon and on Mars due to careful screening of all 

individuals prior to their launch from earth. When considered with advanced engines 

such as Hall effect engines, and ion engines, a total transportation scheme could be put in 

place that could largely obviate the need for chemical rockets for slow solar system travel 

among the inner planets. On the other hand, equatorial GEO orbits are a poor choice for 

escape velocity departures from planets and from the moon, and large plane changes for 

the orbit would be required. When coupled with long travel times, exceeding 24 hours 

traveling up or down the SE, and even longer, multi-month times required to shift orbits 

using ion engines followed by multi-year times to accelerate slowly to other planets; 

compared simply to using more direct and shorter duration travel times using oldfashioned chemical rocket vehicles it could be economically prohibitive to travel to 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

191

nearby planets using an SE. The geo-political issues must not be overlooked, either. At 

relatively few times in the history of earth has it been possible for any government to 

maintain a fixed focus on a single task for periods of 20 years or longer, as likely would 

be required for designing, fabricating, and building an SE. 

More importantly, for the purposes of considering SEs for use on Spaceports and Ranges 

of the future, there are four major factors that must now be considered: 

• Carbon nanotubes are only now being fabricated in small quantities in 

laboratories. Whether their manufacture, or the manufacture of similar 

performing material, can be extended into multiple tons remains to be seen. 

• None of the present-day United States lies exactly on the Equator, with nearby 

access available for existing public transportation. An SE would be outside the 

continental United States, requiring a massive investment in building 

infrastructures to support the SE in what would presumably be a rather remote 

part of the world. 

• The lengthy development and fabrication timeframe implies that construction of 

an SE would not occur within the timeframe identified as germane to this report, 

if indeed by even the latter twenty-five years of the 21st Century. The 

technological breakthroughs required are still simply too distant for serious 

consideration at this time. 

• The political and legal wrangling implicit in undertaking such a massive project 

(that could fall most anywhere on earth in the event of a catastrophic failure) 

would require major shifts in governmental policies throughout the world. 

Obtaining the necessary legal approvals and treaty agreements required in 

advance to building such a system are certainly not likely in the next thirty years. 

 For these reasons, in spite of the obvious cost savings likely to be achieved in terms of 

$/lb to GEO orbit, it is not likely that SEs will impact continental US Spaceports and 

Ranges through the 2030 timeframe. SEs need not be seriously considered at this time. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

192
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

193

6.0 FUTURE RANGE ARCHITECTURES

There have been numerous reports, papers and presentations attempting to predict both 

the future of the space industry and the future architectures of spaceports and ranges. 

The Advanced Range Technology Working Group (ARTWG)274 and its counterpart, the 

Advanced Spaceport Technology Working Group (ASTWG),275 were created to establish 

these future architectures and to formulate the road maps to success. 

Since the future is by definition infinitely long -- existing from now to infinity -- it is 

necessary to specify what parts of the future are under consideration. Through 

coordination with numerous other efforts, ARTWG has chosen the following periods: 

• Immediate: Present to 2009 

• Mid Term: 2010 to 2015 

• Far Term: 2016 to 2028 

In reviewing available technical papers and articles on proposed space programs, space 

vehicles, military space needs and other space users; common range needs and 

characteristics begin to emerge. When these characteristics are integrated with our 

present knowledge of range history and general industry development patterns; and 

assuming that one size does not fit all, it is possible to predict that ranges might easily 

evolve along the following categories: 

• Modified Existing Ranges 

• Test & Evaluation Ranges 

• Commercial Ranges 

• Military Ranges 

• Advanced Ranges 

The above predictions are made based on the evolution of existing technologies, space 

vehicle design and fuel sources. Obviously somewhere along this timeline, one must 

consider the possibility of disruptive technologies being introduced. These technologies, 

by their very definition, are unpredictable and can redirect, or make obsolete, an entire 

industry. 

 

6.1 MODIFIED EXISTING RANGES 

Although there are varying opinions on how the range of the future may function and on 

how to draw an accompanying roadmap, it is obvious where the roadmap starts. The 

starting point must be the present ranges and their current architecture. The present 

space industry -- with its vehicle manufacturers, satellite manufacturers, range designers 

and range operators -- is organized and designed to work within the constraints of the 

 

274 http://artwg.ksc.nasa.gov 275 http://astwg.ksc.nasa.gov 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

194

existing ranges. In today’s economy, it is unlikely that a business plan case study can be 

made that would totally ignore or scrap the infrastructure, assets, experience base, and 

investments already in place at the Eastern Range and Western Range. Therefore, it is 

easy to predict that in the near future, range architecture will evolve from the existing 

architecture of the Eastern Range and Western Range. Even the smaller ranges (Kodiak, 

Wallops, PMRF, Sea Launch, etc.) presently use similar architectures. 

Starting with the existing ranges, the general architecture out to year 2009 can be 

predicted based on current, in place, modernization programs. Both major ranges are the 

property of the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force has a Range Standardization and 

Automation program (RSA-II) currently in place. This program covers modernization 

and standardization of both the Eastern and Western Ranges out until about 2009. 

Lockheed-Martin is the RSA-II contractor. The RSA-II program supports the Spacelift 

Range System (SLRS) by providing architecture & integration, standard & automated 

open hardware and software, range safety, range operations, weather, planning & 

scheduling, digital Comm (ATM), Mobile CMD & TLM, Optics, and GPS for Metrics276. 

A major goal of the Air Force is to lower the cost of operating the ranges. Some of the 

plans to achieve this goal are as follows277: 

• Standardize both the Eastern and Western ranges 

• Automate resources to minimize the “standing army” 

• Eliminate or significantly lower downrange (Antigua & Ascension) operating 

costs 

• Eliminate un-necessary range radars 

• Switch to a GPS-based tracking system 

• Switch to a space-based tracking and command destruct system 

 

In summary, near-term ranges will probably be evolved versions of the existing ranges 

with significant modifications to control costs. Ranges will probably look much like the 

RSA-II blueprint. New technologies, that quickly mature, may be implemented and 

result in changes to the existing blueprint. For example, the use of mobile, unmanned 

assets may start to appear during this time period. 

6.2 TEST & EVALUATION RANGES 

As future spaceports and ranges mature, there will still be a need to test and evaluate 

(T&E) the early prototypes and unperfected one-of-a-kind space vehicles. T&E ranges 

will be required for both Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELV) and Reusable Launch 

Vehicles (RLV). 

 

276 http://lmso.houston.external.lmco.com/es/rsa/ 277 “Transition to a Space Based Range”, Space Congress 2002, Lt Col M. Coolidge, Patrick, AFB 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

195

The laws of physics, when applied to hardware with known efficiencies, dictate the 

minimum amount of energy required to lift any particular mass from the earth’s surface 

to orbit. These chemical energies are significantly higher that what is publicly acceptable 

today in large modern commercial aircraft (even SSTs). When stored in thin wall tanks 

adjacent to large quantities of onboard oxidizers, the task of protecting the public and 

spaceport workers becomes very difficult unless significant geographic safety zone 

buffers are selected. 

Even if the launch (or takeoff) is successful, a public hazard still exists since the chemical 

energy is not being consumed but only converted into kinetic energy (vehicle velocity) 

and potential energy (vehicle altitude). Both of these can quickly combine to pose a 

significant threat to humans and property. The problem is now aggravated by the speed, 

accuracy, and consequences of abort decisions. Protection may eventually come from 

increasing reliability of launch hardware, but until such time, physical protection through 

safety zone buffers will remain necessary. 

Multi-stage ELVs that drop off heavy components within the earth’s atmosphere will 

require even more protected space to assure these components do not fall on people or 

property. Oceanfront spaceports could remain optimal for space vehicle test and 

evaluation missions, long after inland spaceports become the norm for spaceports. 

6.3 COMMERCIAL RANGES 

Many States are investing now so that they will be in a position to capitalize on 

Commercial Spaceport and Ranges when they become technically and economically 

feasible. One of the keys to commercializing inland spaceports and ranges is a family of 

economical RLVs with safety and reliability characteristics similar to today’s commercial 

airliners. Other key factors include: 

• Customer base willing to support an expanded launch capability 

• Trained workforce 

• Available insurance 

• Solutions to environmental concerns 

NASA, the US Military, and X-prize278 contestants are all working to solve the reliable 

and economical RLV problem. They all recognize the potential launch cost savings that 

can materialize with the development of an economical RLV. These vehicles will also 

simplify the task of designing spaceports and ranges for commercial applications. 

Being able to reuse a significant portion of a space vehicle will help in lowering the 

overall $/lb cost-to-orbit. The Space Shuttle is an example. The Space Shuttle is a 

 

278 http://www.xprize.org/ 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

196

hybrid RLV, not a true RLV. The External Tank (ET) is not recovered and the Solid 

Rockets Boosters (SRBs), although recovered, require expensive remanufacturing and 

must be returned to the factory for refueling. Although with the current Shuttle design it 

is not feasible to recover and reuse the ET, if it were possible to recover, refuel, and 

quickly reuse these fuel-storage components, significant hardware costs and man-hours 

would be saved and a lower cost-to-launch would be achieved. 

The future spaceport and range architecture for a family of RLVs will no doubt be highly 

dependent on the RLV configuration. RLVs that include a vertical takeoff or vertical 

landing segment in the operational profile will probably require larger buffer zones than 

those that operate in a pure the horizontal configuration. With the horizontal 

configuration, lift is provided by aerodynamic forces that continue, even with an engine 

out, as long as forward motion remains. This configuration should be inherently safer 

that a vertical takeoff or landing configuration that is relying totally on engine thrust for 

lift. Spaceports for horizontal configuration RLVs will probably have many of the 

characteristics of existing airports. 

So far we have only discussed RLVs. Commercial spaceports and Ranges could also 

service reliable single-stage-to-orbit ELVs that, after delivering the payload, can dispose 

of all their hardware in space or can assure its complete disintegration during re-entry. 

Operationally, such a single-stage ELV would be similar to a RLV that never returns for 

landing. 

6.4 MILITARY RANGES 

Future military plans suggest that space and access to space will be key strategic 

elements of any military plan and its execution. The Air Force Space Command’s 

Strategic Master Plan for FY02 and Beyond279 talks in terms of: 

• Globally integrated aerospace force 

• Air and space superiority 

• Dominating the space dimension of military operations 

• Protecting against air and space threats 

• Space forces and the information they provide are a preeminent force 

multiplier 

• Space control 

• On-demand space transportation and space asset operations 

• Our ability to control space will be crucial 

• Mission Support capabilities to support a fully integrated Aerospace forces 

 

279 http://www.spacecom.af.mil/hqafspc/library/AFSPCPAOffice/2000smp.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

197

These topics clearly drive home the significance of space in future military operations 

and indicate the military’s plans to control space, and, through this control, to: 

• Enhance their ability for controlling space in the ‘kill cycle’ 

• Dominate more completely against any terrestrial threats in terms of 

o Enhanced reconnaissance 

o Delivery of precision guided munitions 

o Post-strike target damage assessments 

Other open literature documents describe the configuration and missions of future 

military spaceplanes: 

• TAV (Transatmospheric Vehicles)280

• MSP (Military Spaceplane)281

• X-40282

From these perspectives, it is obvious that the military will continue, well into the future, 

to require their own spaceports and accompanying ranges. Successful military missions 

require that the following activities be carried out in a secure and often secret 

environment: 

• Mission planning 

• Mission briefing 

• Deploying and staging of assets and resource, including space vehicles 

• Outfitting, arming and configuring both manned and robotic space vehicles 

• Outfitting and integrating intelligence gathering payloads with space vehicles 

• Preparing for launch 

• Establishing launch times, inclinations and directions 

• Mission debriefing 

• Mission turn around 

Accomplishing the above activities within the constraints of a commercial or joint-use 

spaceport and range would be difficult and probably would result in unacceptable 

mission compromises. 

So, if the military continues to have their own spaceports and range facilities well into the 

future, what will be their architecture? Probably, these facilities will remain very similar 

to state-of-the-art commercial spaceports and ranges at that time; except with additional 

infrastructure to carry out and protect their unique assets and to accomplish their 

classified requirements. If heavy-lift ELVs are being used for some portions of the 

mission (e.g., launching intelligence gathering satellites), then an oceanfront or 

 

280 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/spacast3.html 281 http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/msp.htm 282 http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/History/x-planes.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

198

uninhabited buffer zone will still be of significant importance. Military spaceplanes that 

have perfected horizontal takeoff and horizontal landing could operate from spaceports 

that look very much like today’s airbases. Isolation of the spaceport/base from the public 

will still be an asset due to the following: 

• Loss of the intelligence value of 

o Preparation activities 

o Vehicle types and configuration 

o Launch times and directions 

• Energy hazards 

• Noise and other environmental considerations 

 

6.5 ADVANCED RANGES 

Advanced Range (and Spaceport) architectures will be heavily dependent on the types of 

advanced launch vehicles being utilized by the commercial and military sectors. As 

reliability increases and operating profiles are perfected, the buffer zone requirements 

should decrease and the human and cargo loads should increase significantly. 

To summarize what the future likely holds for spaceports and ranges, it is best to look at 

the numerous plans that others have prepared. Descriptions and insight into future range 

architectures are available from the following: 

• KSC/CCAS 50 Yr Master Plan283 – 8/02 - Interagency collaboration 

between: U.S. Air Force, Florida Space Authority, and NASA, as well as 

our other Cape partners—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National 

Park Service, and the U.S. Navy. (Figure 6-1) 

• Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan284 – 7/02 – Detailed Cape plan 

with 690 pages; part of 50 Yr Master Plan above 

• Projected Mission Support Functions For Next-Generation Spacelift and 

Test Range Architectures285 - 2/02 – Booz, Allen & Hamilton 

• Strategic Master Plan for Fy02 And Beyond, 2/00, Air Force Space 

Command286

• Future Management and Use of the U.S. Space Launch Bases and Ranges287 - 

2/00 – Interagency Working Group 

 

283 http://spaceport.ksc.nasa.gov/offices/nasaafmgmt/masterplan.cfm 284 http://spaceport.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/CapeCanaveralSpaceportMasterPlan2002.pdf 285 “Projected Mission Support Functions For Next-Generation Spacelift and Test Range Architectures”, 

Booz, Allen, Hamilton, Feb 2002 

286 http://www.spacecom.af.mil/hqafspc/library/AFSPCPAOffice/2000smp.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

199

• Joint Advanced Distribution Simulation (JADS) - Prototype Virtual Range288

- The JADS PVR project is improving the interoperability and interconnectivity 

among test centers, ranges, and facilities by establishing communications between 

various test facilities involved in the JADS Joint Test and Evaluation (JT&E). 

• ARTWG web site289

• ASTWG web site290

As the advanced ranges approach the far term (2016 to 2028), non-traditional launch 

concepts such as the rail gun or space elevator could start to appear. 

 

287 “Future Management and Use of the U.S. Space Launch Bases and Ranges”, Interagency Working 

group, Feb 2000 

288 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/programs/cteip/af.html#1 289 http://artwg.ksc.nasa.gov 290 http://astwg.ksc.nasa.gov 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

200

Figure 6-1 Future Land Use For KSC & CCAS 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

201

7.0 EMERGING COMMUNICATION / DATA NETWORKS TECH.

7.1 ETHERNET OVER SONET (EOS) 

The recent trend, at least since 1998 in SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) systems, 

has been to use framer/mapper chips to concatenate lower data rate bit streams. For 

example, OC-12 (622 Mb/s) streams have commonly been aggregated four at a time to 

form OC-48 streams, or sixteen at a time to form OC-192 streams. Similarly, there have 

been approaches for generating aggregate OC-768 (Optical Carrier 768, i.e., 40 Gb/s) 

streams either from four-each OC-192 streams, or, from sixteen-each OC-48 streams, 

depending on particular vendor implementations. 

The major problem with this framer/mapper concatenation product upgrade approach 

using incompatible interfaces has been the ‘forklift upgrades’ that are required.291 In 

other words, entire racks of equipment must be written off, and scrapped, to implement 

upgrades based on shifting framer/mapper boundary technologies, and this approach is a 

severe financial burden when implementing upgrades for companies using existing 

equipment. Additionally, the market preference is to provision OC-48 SONET pipes in 

units of OC-1/STS-1 (51.84 Mb/s) or OC-3/STS-3 (155.52 Mb/s), instead of wastefully 

provisioning in larger minimal units (chunks) of bandwidth. Together, these issues have 

forced many companies to rethink their optimal approach to aggregating data. The 

economic and technological pressure for generating new revenue streams, through more 

efficient techniques for provisioning and upgrading services, is now forcing upgrade 

techniques to be based on reuse rather than on the complete substitution of racks of 

equipment. Reuse-based upgrades are simply more efficient, less costly, and less 

disruptive to install. 

The answer to being more efficient, thereby avoiding ‘forklift upgrades’, is Ethernet over 

SONET (EoS), sent using equipment already designed around fixed industry standards, 

and fielded. Together, chip and equipment developers are now supporting the transport of 

EoS in the metro sector. 292 At least two different approaches exist for implementing 

EoS: Virtual Concatenation techniques and Generic Framing Procedure. 

A Virtual Concatenation (VC) spec by the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) 

is guiding designers to work in unison to provide hardware that provisions support for 

various data streams for reusing already fielded non-framer/mapper hardware.293 The 

result is a non-disruptive, evolutionary approach for transporting data using existing 

protocols and, more importantly from a user’s viewpoint, existing infrastructure 

 

291 Keenan, Robert. E’net-over-Sonet gaining in metro. Electronic Engineering Times, pp. 2, 10, June 10, 

2002. 

292 Keenan, Robert. E’net-over-Sonet gaining in metro. Electronic Engineering Times, pp. 2, 10, June 10, 

2002. 

293 ITU-T G.707 2000 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

202

hardware. Further, since the majority of traffic today in a metro space is generated from 

a PC connected to the network with either 100BaseT or Gigabit Ethernet anyway, 

efficiencies result from not having to re-format data from Ethernet to another format. 

EoS therefore provides a method of right-sizing the payload to match customers’ 

preferences for a given yet non-fixed data rate, based on hardware that is already fielded. 

In terms of a technical overview of what is occurring, a SONET Virtual Concatenation 

payload is nothing more than a set of byte lanes, for which the individual bytes are 

carried in separate channels. An input data stream is sequentially mapped, on a byte-bybyte basis, into separate channels, called lanes. Each of the channels that comprise the 

VC payload is then independently transported over an existing SONET network set of 

hardware; usually with overhead for including error correction coding, which pushes up 

the total bit rate of the composite signals as transported.294 The difficulty comes when 

realigning the channels containing bytes back into a contiguous SONET VC payload, as 

caused by differences in latency of arrival between the fastest and the slowest channels, 

and for accommodating statistically varying error correction coding operations. The only 

way to put the pieces back together again is to buffer all the data with lower latencies and 

fewer errors until the slowest-arriving and most error-prone channel is available, before 

reassembling the entire SONET VC payload so that data can be extracted. 

The alternative approach to SONET VC techniques is Generic Framing Procedure (GFP), 

which is likewise governed by an ITU spec.295 Like VC, GFP can better size a SONET 

payload. However, GFP data packets further carry an 8-byte header to indicate the start, 

type, and length of the data frame. GFP further supports the use of an extended header to 

provide increased flexibility for future addressing and multiplexing functions, perhaps for 

implementing a yet-to-be defined GMPLS. To date, VC techniques seem to be winning 

over GFP in terms of providing the maximum flexibility and freedom over proprietary 

framing/mapping techniques specific to a single vendor. 

No doubt, some devices will support both VC and GFP technologies if a true market need 

arises. These devices could sit within an ADM (Add/Drop Multiplexer) or within a 

cross-connect switch. Such mixed technology devices may provide the ultimate in 

flexibility, thereby avoiding the costly ‘forklift’ upgrade. 

Still, at least one remaining ‘forklift upgrade’ will still likely occur, in transitioning from 

legacy OC-192 SONET physical layer gear to newer physical layer gear, built and sold in 

compliance with the new 10 Gb/s Ethernet standard 802.3ae dated June 2002. Since both 

LAN and WAN physical interfaces are defined in 802.3ae, this standard establishes a 

 

294 The generic technique is called FEC (Forward Error Correction). Higher performance systems now 

sport what is termed Super-FEC, which increases the performance during some types of errors. The exact 

data rates used are proprietary to each vendor, with some going to 12.7 Gb/s or higher, and some only 

using 10.7 Gb/s. At least four different data rates are in common use today, but all provide for a common 

operation for 10 Gb/s Ethernet through put at the input and the output of the entire system. 

295 ITU-T G.7041 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

203

framework for successfully expanding Ethernet from just the LAN into the MAN and the 

WAN. 

Within the LAN category, 802.3ae establishes short, long, and extended reach 

capabilities at all three wavelengths in widespread use today: i.e., 850, 1310, and 1550 

nm. With these three reaches, operation at short distances up to 990 feet through 

operation at extended reaches of more than 24 miles are now possible. 

Within the WAN PHY (Wide Area Network physical layer) definition of 802.3ae, there 

are now definitions for physical interfaces operating at a serial data rate of 9953.28 Mb/s, 

thereby providing full compatibility with OC-192 10 Gb/s SONET operation, in support 

of VC technologies. (For a more detailed Ethernet-centered view of 802.3ae, please refer 

back to section 5.1.2.) For now, though, Virtual Concatenation technologies appear to 

have the edge in transporting Ethernet over SONET using new-to-the-market 802.3ae 

equipments built in accordance with new 10 Gb/s XENPAK-compliant Ethernet 

designs.296 These are all based on XAUI interface designs, provisioned with four each 

3.125 Gb/s channels called lanes. Running at a raw data rate of 12.5 Gb/s, including 

error correction coding and overhead, a full 10 Gb/s of Ethernet throughput is provided. 

7.2 ETHERNET OVER ULTRA-WIDEBAND (UWB) 

7.2.1 Background

As discussed previously regarding Ethernet over SONET (EoS), the recent trend has been 

to use framer/mapper chips to concatenate a number of lower data rate bit streams, using 

Virtual Concatenation techniques. Reviewing this concept but briefly, a SONET Virtual 

Concatenation payload is nothing more than a set of byte lanes, for which the individual 

bytes are carried in separate channels. Each of the channels that comprise the VC 

payload is independently transported over an existing SONET network set of hardware. 

The only way to put all the pieces back together again is to buffer all the data lanes with 

lower latencies and fewer errors until the slowest-arriving and most error-prone data lane 

becomes available, before reassembling the entire SONET VC payload so that Ethernet 

data can be extracted. This is not easily implemented, nor can costs be greatly reduced 

for new installations. The cost-savings for EoS comes from re-using already-fielded 

equipment. 

Clearly, this technique allows using presumably already paid for, or at least financed, 

equipment, to transport Ethernet over SONET. Nevertheless, therein lies the problem. 

EoS is not efficiently implemented to reduce initial installation costs by an order of 

magnitude or more, due to the need to re-use a legacy hardware backbone comprised of 

already fielded, but expensive, equipment. Due to not providing an order of magnitude 

 

296 JDS Uniphase Corporation, Press Release 07 May 2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

204

reduction in costs, EoS is not a disruptive technology, in the classic sense of the 

definition. Instead, EoS is simply a low-cost way to make the best of a bad situation, and 

avoid replacing one set of expensive equipment for another set of expensive equipment, 

while providing better provisioning in terms of bandwidth/data rate allocation to users. 

UWB technology on the other hand starts with a clean slate, thereby permitting a truly 

disruptive technology effect to occur. It is possible to optimize a UWB system from the 

ground up, as this equipment is, with only a very few exceptions, not yet fielded. UWB 

technology inherently offers the performance to achieve extremely wide bandwidths and 

data rates with low power consumption, unlike any other radio transmission technology. 

Interference immunity is high, and data compression, although needed in EoS system (for 

example to fit FEC (Forward Error Correction) techniques into a fixed, limited 

bandwidth), is not required to fit high data rates into a UWB system. 

With the current FCC Part 15 rules for UWB, the transmitted spectrum is limited to 3.1 

GHz to 10.6 GHz. This is more than enough bandwidth to transmit several Gb/s of 

equivalent throughput without resorting to esoteric high bits/Hz efficient modulation 

schemes. A simple technique would provide adequate performance. The real limitation 

at present is the low output power permitted by the present Part 15 rules. With the 

present power limits, ranges of only a few hundred feet will be possible at low data rates 

up to 100 Mb/s or so, likely dropping to a few dozen feet at Gb/s data rates. 

The situation with UWB is likely to change, though, once consumer products start to 

proliferate, and there becomes collective proof that UWB-based systems do not interfere 

with existing communication systems. Once the rules change to permit full-power use of 

UWB systems at power levels of tens to hundreds of Watts of average power output, the 

goal of achieving seamless, wireless LAN/MAN/WAN data connectivity will become 

possible. Data rates in the Gb/s over WAN distances will become possible, solving the 

final problem of wideband connectivity to the home or office without requiring the 

installation of a costly infrastructure, such as needed for Cable Modems employing 

DOCSIS and DSL over phone lines. One possible path to accomplishing this goal will be 

to support the Open Mobile Alliance in an expansion of wireless standards to include 

UWB technology. (Refer to section 7.5.1, Basic Data Formatting Issues, for more on the 

Open Mobile Alliance.) 

7.2.2 Protocols for Ethernet over UWB

The wireless standards required for establishing UWB radio technology as a transport 

method for Ethernet will involve creating a new physical layer definition. To better 

understand this physical layer technology, it is necessary first to understand just how 

UWB signals are transmitted and received. 

UWB signals start with the generation of a narrow pulse of energy, ranging in length 

from 10 ps to 1000 ps. (Early systems used a common duration of typically around 500 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

205

ps.) The basic pulse train, resulting from a series of these constant-phase pulses, avoids 

the discontinuous steps at the pulse edges that would result in narrow spectral spikes for a 

collection of non-constant-phase pulses. Instead, with constant-phase pulses, a very 

broad (sin x)/x power spectrum results, consisting of a single large power peak, with an 

infinite number of smaller peaks occurring both lower and higher in frequency. The 

primary energy signature, though, is for a single rounded power peak versus frequency. 

To disperse this single large peak further, PPM (Pulse Position Modulation, i.e., TimeDomain Modulation) can be applied. This both modulates the output spectrum and 

simultaneously spreads the transmitted energy over a wide bandwidth. Depending on 

whether there is a constant data input, though, it is still possible to see a collapse of the 

output power spectrum to the same (sin x)/(x) power spectral density signature as seen 

when unmodulated. Likewise, it is possible to generate a different, but fixed, signature 

spectrum for a fixed modulation tone. Neither condition provides a Low Probability of 

Intercept (LPI). 

The solution to this spectral collapse, in the event of non-varying modulation, is to 

modulate the PPM modulation signal with a PN (pseudo-random) signal prior to 

modulating the pulse train. The PN signal further provides a selectable security function, 

whereby squaring loops, typically used for the detection of unknown modulation signals 

in conventional intercept receivers, are largely rendered useless. With a PN overlay to 

the PPM signal, the ratio of communication range versus detectability range (which is 

typically a key figure of merit in designing covert LPI communication systems) is greatly 

improved. Further, even if an interception receiver is operated close enough to detect 

that a transmission is occurring, within the range in which detection of the signal can be 

accomplished with a squaring loop, the PN signal provides a further degree of inherent 

data scrambling, thereby providing additional protection of the information content 

transmitted. 

Transmission of the signal, though, is but the first step to solving the communication 

problem. It is necessary also to receive the signal before useful information can be 

passed through a UWB communication system. The detection solution is to use a timegated correlator, which multiplies the incoming received RF UWB signal with a stored 

template of the PN code used to modulate the original PPM signal. The output, 

converted to baseband, is then a replica of the original PPM signal, which can be 

demodulated using conventional PPM receiver techniques.297

 

297 Although UWB systems often claim the existence of processing gain, the same as exists for spread 

spectrum systems, this is not totally true. In a direct-sequence PN spread spectrum system, the spreading 

PN code spreads the modulation over a wide bandwidth, and the spread spectrum receiver then collapses 

the spread signal back down to its original bandwidth, simultaneous to spreading out any interfering 

signal(s). This ratio of spread bandwidth to non-spread bandwidth defines what is called processing gain. 

This processing gain reduces the power level of interferers in the spread spectrum receiver, providing AntiJam (AJ) performance. Processing gains of 30 dB up to 50 dB, or more, are possible with modern spread 

spectrum systems. A UWB system does provide the analogy of processing gain in terms of spreading a 

modulating signal, but, unlike in a spread spectrum system, there is no corresponding collapse of the 

wideband signal in the receiver. There is likewise no equivalent degree of AJ protection due to processing 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

206

All of the original UWB systems used PPM modulation only. However, at least one 

company, XtremeSpectrum of Vienna, VA, is now using BPSK (Binary Phase Shift 

Keying) to modulate the phase of the signal to be transmitted by zero or one hundred 

eighty degrees in place of using time position modulation of the pulse train. The 

advantage of a BPSK system is that it contains a much more controlled (sin x)/x spectrum 

that rolls off faster. It theoretically becomes easier to meet the spectral roll-off masks 

required by the FCC for the output from the UWB transmitter with the use of BPSK 

modulation. There is also a theoretical 3 dB advantage in sensitivity for Bit Error Rate 

(BER) for a given input signal level, assuming that coherent detection is used for 

receiving the BPSK signal. Such a receiver is considerably more complex than a noncoherent detector, however, and is therefore not often feasible. 

A bigger disadvantage for BPSK modulation is that many transmitters display a 

phenomenon whereby the RF power output amplifier goes slightly unstable during the 

zero phase crossings, especially at cold temperatures where the output power tends to 

increase anyway. When this occurs, the advantage touted for BPSK, of providing better 

spectral output cleanliness, is often largely negated. Such anomalous spurious behavior 

in the RF power amplifier can be very bad, for it results in a decaying steady state pulse 

at a fixed frequency coming out of the UWB transmitter. This is neither covert, nor is it 

spread over wide bandwidths. Fortunately, this can be addressed in the design of the RF 

Power Amplifier, but, as is usually the case, this phenomenon goes un-noticed during the 

development phase of a BPSK transmitter transmitting what is, in essence, a form of 

spread spectrum. 

Assuming that the PPM method actually provides a less complex design, with better 

spreading of energy over wide bandwidths, thereby reducing interference to co-existent 

communication systems, the standards needed for transporting Ethernet over UWB could 

be simplified into only two parts. The first part, dealing with standard Ethernet frame 

issues, could be specified much the same as always. The second part, dealing with UWB 

details and the associated timing issues, additionally defining a short, fixed PN training 

sequence to acquire the link, followed by transmission of an offset into a longer PN code, 

such as is used in GPS, for example, would enable establishing whatever degree of 

security would be required. With this technique for sending Ethernet over UWB, while 

permitting quick indexing into a longer, secure, PN sequence, a choice of security level 

versus ease of access would result. Such a technique could eliminate the need for WEP 

(which is weak anyway), or TKIP (which is still not implemented uniformly among all 

manufacturers) for Wireless Ethernet. 

 

gain operating against interferers. A UWB system therefore does not benefit from the same degree from 

its ‘processing gain’, as time-gated correlators can be overwhelmed with receiving total power levels only 

20 dB to 30 dB above a noise floor in a given bandwidth. Now, 20 – 30 dB immunity against jammers is 

not trivial, but it is vastly different from the much larger 50 – 70 dB seen in many modern spread spectrum 

systems. In this context, UWB systems do not truly have AJ processing gain directly proportional to the 

spreading bandwidth as seen in direct sequence PN spread spectrum systems. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

207

The best way to accomplish establishing a standard for sending Ethernet over UWB 

would be to encourage the development of an industry standard working group, to 

establish standards and protocols. Such an effort would likely take no more than eighteen 

months, to reach a consensus among chip suppliers, potential UWB vendors, and leading 

customers. Although this may sound like a long time, it is not significantly different 

from the duration of the negotiations that the 10 Gb/s Ethernet standards committee went 

through to formalize the 802.3ae specification. Such an effort would go a long way 

toward establishing a commercial product category that does not yet exist; namely, a 

wideband scheme for achieving much the same data rates as seen in fiber optic cables, 

without the need for fiber optic cables. Such a scheme would finally solve the missing 

“To the Home” link seen with today’s fiber optic transmission systems. The Open 

Mobile Alliance would be one of the most likely candidates to coordinate this 

standardization, assuming that it were possible to attract their attention to the matter. 

(Refer to section 7.5.1, Basic Data Formatting Issues, for the Open Mobile Alliance.) 

The overarching probability, however, is that UWB is the next likely transport 

mechanism for a robust Wi-Fi of the near future. As it is likely that a Wi-Fi with the 

additional features available with UWB will become a fundamental resource analogous to 

the ac power grid of today in terms of benefiting future Spaceports and Ranges, UWB is 

one of the three technologies recommended for further exploration during year two of the 

RISM-related activities. 

7.3 WIRELESS ETHERNET 

The recent trend in Wireless Ethernet has been to exploit Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi) 

technology in areas for which it was not originally envisioned. This agrees well with the 

Wi-Fi philosophy espoused by Sky Dayton of Boingo and Earthlink fame, who claims, 

“Wi-Fi will be built into everything. It’s like trying to imagine all the uses for electricity 

before it was invented.”298 If the impact of achieving “last mile” Internet connectivity via 

Wi-Fi technology happens, this visionary’s philosophy may not be far from the truth. 

The grandiose vision of the dot.com era fiber-optic technology bubble was predicated 

largely on an underlying belief that one “could build it, and they (i.e., customers) would 

come.” However, the fundamental piece of the puzzle that was still missing and had been 

missing all along was the “final mile” connectivity. A good analogy would have been if, 

in the 1950’s, the United States had built the Eisenhower Interstate System portion of the 

National Highway System (Figure 7-1) without on ramps and exit ramps to enable 

neighborhood access to the new super highway!299 If that scenario had played out, the 

boon to commerce would have been limited to just large companies, government 

facilities, and others with deep pockets that paid for their own egress, and the widespread 

benefit to the public would not have occurred. The benefit to the public of the 

Eisenhower Interstate System only became possible with the construction of on ramps 

 

298 Brendan I. Koerner. The Long Road to Internet Nirvana. Wired (Magazine) 10/2002, p. 111. 299 US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

208

and exit ramps. With Wi-Fi, the promise of all the hype of the late 1990’s relative to the 

dot.com vision could just happen after all, for Wi-Fi enables on ramps and exit ramps to 

the Internet. 

Figure 7-1 National Highway System 

In addition to providing egress to the Internet for the “final mile” problem, Wi-Fi also 

will likely result in a continued loss by Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) 

technologies, such as Bluetooth, of their originally planned and envisioned functionalities 

and connectivities. Wi-Fi is capturing their market space. In a larger sense, though, this 

is nothing but the inevitable trend of successful technologies to grow beyond their 

original purpose(s), and to crowd out less-than-successful technologies. In other words, 

technical Darwinism acts to establish de facto standards at the expense of the also-rans. 

As an historical analogy, wired Ethernet, in its early days, was simply a LAN connection 

technology, competing with numerous other technologies that co-existed at the same time 

(X.25, Frame, etc.). None of the original founders of wired Ethernet technology in 1972 

envisioned the largely wired world of today, mostly interconnected through wired 

Ethernet, amid a total void of X.25 and other LAN technologies that once coexisted with 

wired Ethernet. Yet, that is what has happened. 

Much the same is becoming true for Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi). Wi-Fi is well positioned 

to solve the “first mile” problem, even though it was originally intended just for use in 

office LAN environments, to lessen the complexity of interfacing laptops with printers 

and other such traditional connectivities over bulky infrastructure cables. The 

functionality of Wi-Fi quickly moved into the WPAN space, as discussed previously in 

this report, for such additional functions as interfacing to digital projectors and print 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

209

servers. Today, it is expanding into the “first mile” and “final mile” domain. In terms of 

these product spaces, Wi-Fi interface appliances providing WAN, LAN, and WPAN 

connectivities have become common. All three of these functions are now mostly 

accomplished through Wi-Fi appliances in many commercial, newly installed, Wi-Fi 

equipped offices. Zigbee (discussed previously in section 4.2.4), the next WPAN 

technology, may very well carve out its own niche; but a low-cost, low-performance 

niche is all that it will likely capture. Barring the introduction of a new disruptive 

technology that replaces it, Wi-Fi will probably retain the majority of market share in 

WAN, LAN, and WPAN markets, especially for applications requiring high performance. 

The overall conclusion derived from watching these trends is that a majority of wireless 

connectivity for the next decade will likely be accomplished with Wi-Fi, covering the 

entire set of WPAN, LAN, and WAN market spaces. Eventually, though, an Ultra 

Wideband (UWB) transport layer may emerge, in place of the ISM spread spectrum 

technology used today, but it is likely to be but a different underlying transport 

mechanism for Wireless Ethernet, while still covering the same WPAN, LAN and WAN 

functions. Wireless Ethernet will likely reign supreme, simply implemented on different 

bands, across different frequencies (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and UWB, i.e., 3.1 GHz through 

10.6 GHz). 

Reigning supreme in terms of capturing the WPAN, LAN, and WAN markets, Wi-Fi is 

also enabling the rise of entirely new product paradigms and markets. As an example of 

this, consider the introduction of voice-activated communication badges, intended to 

provide real-time, instant communication among hospital workers, technicians, 

production managers, and other work groups needing portable, instant communication. 

Resembling functionally the communication badges long ago envisioned on the science 

fiction TV series of Star-Trek: The Next Generation, worn by the crew of the mythical 

starship Enterprise, the real-world implementation of this same functionality became 

available in May 2002 through Vocera Communications of Cupertino, CA.300 Vocera’s 

wireless platform provides hands-free, voice-activated communications throughout any 

Wi-Fi 802.11b-networked area. 

The Vocera Communications System is comprised of two basic building blocks, 

consisting of Vocera Server Software that resides on a customer server and a Vocera 

Communications Badge, which operates over a wireless LAN (802.11b interface). In 

use, one merely taps the communication badge and speaks the name of the individual 

with whom communication is desired. In return, the Vocera Server Software parses the 

name of the individual desired and opens a two-way communication link over the 

802.11b Wi-Fi to the person addressed. 

Before the advent of Wi-Fi, this technology would have made little economic sense, for 

the spread-spectrum, 11 Mb/s connectivity hardware required would have been 

prohibitively expensive to embed into such a product unless high production rates, as 

 

300 Vocera Communication press release. Vocera Communications to Provide Instant Voice 

Communication over Wireless LAN. Cupertino, CA. 01 May 2002, 

http://www.vocera.com/news/press1.shtm, retrieved 13 September 2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

210

necessary to reduce recurring costs, could be guaranteed a priorì. A business plan based 

on such a leap of technology without an underlying infrastructure to support it would 

have been doomed from the start. For a single product use, this leap would not have been 

likely. With Wi-Fi gaining widespread acceptance, though, and the delivered numbers of 

Wireless Access Points (WAPs) now numbering in the millions, the recurring current 

price of new WAPs permits the successful introduction of new products such as Vocera’s 

voice-activated communication network that stand on the shoulders of the Wi-Fi 

technological breakthroughs implemented earlier. Assuming an underlying infrastructure 

of Wi-Fi, the business case for a communicator badge becomes a likely success. 

This ‘success’, though, is not without its perils, for there are other functions that are 

needed in a communication badge to enable it to become a long-term success. Without 

adding additional functionality, the voice-activated Wi-Fi market for a communication 

badge product such as Vocera’s current offering would likely not last much longer than 5 

years, at the most. The reason is that, looking ahead, there are other features that are 

needed with a product such as Vocera’s communication badge. (In other words, if 

Vocera does not add these features, the ‘half-life’ of market acceptance of their product 

will not last much longer than about 5 years.) First, it would be desirable to reduce the 

size of these badges, while simultaneously increasing battery life. Second, it would be 

desirable to add an additional feature of being able to locate instantly where any 

individual communication badge (individual) was located within a building. The logical 

way to accomplish all these goals would be to use an Ultra Wideband (UWB) transport 

link, in place of the 2.4 GHz ISM narrowband spread spectrum. UWB technology 

eliminates most of the bulky analog RF (Radio Frequency) components needed for 

conventional radios, such as that used in Wi-Fi apparatus today. With UWB, the bulk of 

the functionality (~95%) is accomplished in easy-to-miniaturize digital circuitry. 

Likewise, with UWB’s pulse modulation, peak powers are increased while average 

powers are decreased. This greatly increases battery life, relative to conventional radio 

links. The ability to locate the source of UWB transmitters to within inches, based on 

time arrival information derived at multiple WAPs, could additionally provide geolocation functionality essentially “for free” with an UWB-based communication badge 

system. 

With advantages such as these, and no clear roadblocks in terms of the underlying 

technologies, it is very likely that within the next decade communication badges largely 

indistinguishable from those first envisioned on a science fiction TV series could become 

widely available. If so, they would no doubt become critical for future use around 

Spaceports and Ranges, as well as even on-orbit. The international space station has 

grown to the size of a 3-bedroom house over the last year; over the next few years, it will 

grow to the size whereby communication badges that can instantly locate individuals will 

no doubt become of great value. The limitation on communication badges with instant 

location of individuals would likely become more of a privacy issue than a technology 

issue. Once it became possible to track individuals to within inches continuously, day-today, around their work place, it is inevitable that privacy issues would probably normally 

preclude the continuous monitoring of where individuals were spending their time. At 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

211

the least, a management security override, to permit the occasional location of individuals 

unable to respond, perhaps during an emergency, would be the best way to overcome 

privacy issues.301

The overarching conclusion, however, is that Sky Dayton’s description of Wi-Fi may be 

most prescient, for it is likely that the communicator badge is but the first of a long line 

of appliances based on Wi-Fi. Whereas the first uses of electricity were mostly to replace 

animal-powered prime movers, the uses today would have seemed largely 

indistinguishable from magic to 19th Century early adopters of electricity.302 It is likely 

that much the same will happen with Wi-Fi, making it a fundamental resource analogous 

to the ac power grid of today in terms of benefiting future Spaceports and Ranges. 

Because of this fundamental enabling characteristic, and of the perceived importance of 

Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi is one of the three technologies recommended for further exploration during 

year two of the RISM-related activities. 

7.4 FREE SPACE OPTICS (FSP) 

Optical communications systems provide the largest available carrier frequencies. 

Because of this, they can achieve the fastest data rates possible today, far surpassing the 

data rates possible with wireless links. The expense of conventional fiber-optic cablebased communication links, at least for commercial users, typically run over $1 million 

dollars (US) per mile installed, including the costs of leasing or buying real estate for 

right-of-way and of equipment. Even when there are no costs associated with obtaining 

the real estate, installation costs are still significant, as trenches must be dug, and 

protective conduits or heavily armored cables must be installed. The data rates, though, 

are very attractive. A much lower-cost alternative to conventional fiber-optic cablebased communications links, providing nearly the same very high and attractive data 

rates, are Free Space Optical (FSO) communication links. As reiterated throughout this 

document, the advanced systems on future Spaceports and Ranges will likely need far 

fewer fibers, cables, and wires to accommodate flexibly linking communication and data 

networking equipments. In terms of meeting low costs while supporting maximum 

flexibility with the highest data rates, FSO communications clearly surpass most other 

communication technologies. 

 

301 The hardest problems to solve are often ‘electro-political’ or ‘photonic-political’, instead of being 

simply electrical or photonic in nature. Such personnel-related issues are often the overarching or limiting 

factors preventing the acceptance of new, advantageous technology. 

302 Arthur C. Clarke. Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible. Henry Holt & 

Company, Inc. 1984. Summarizing, Clarke’s Three Laws of Technology are: 1.) When a scientist states 

that something is possible, he/she is always certainly right. When he/she states that something is 

impossible, he/she is very probably wrong. 2.) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to 

venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3.) Any sufficiently advanced technology is 

indistinguishable from magic. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

212

FSO links are based on infrared lasers and optical detectors. Over short ranges, and often 

over even greater distances, they are ideally suited for the very highest data rate 

requirements. They can provide flexible configurations, wide bandwidth, high data rates, 

small-size, high reliability, and a high degree of safety (compared to RF transmitting 

links) around pyrotechnics, such as explosive bolts and solid rocket booster segments. 

Because of their small-size and medium-power consumption, FSO link equipments 

provide significant advantages for potential use:303 

• Between buildings 

• Launch tower & vehicle (i.e., umbilical usage) 

• Interior to Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) and Orbiter Processing Facility 

(OPF) 

• Micro-network interior to payload-processing facility 

• Temporary networks 

• Hand-held and wearable transceivers 

• Secure links (for security purposes) 

• Disaster temporary networks, e.g., hurricane, fire, terrorist event, etc. 

Depending on weather conditions, and on the data rates desired, FSO links can extend 

data networks on the edge of existing wired networks from a few hundred meters 

upwards to ten kilometers, or farther. The primary consideration that restricts their use is 

bad weather — thick fog, mainly. Several techniques can be used to overcome weather 

limitations, including fallback microwave links, which although they can only achieve a 

few hundreds of Mb/s data rates, they can help establish a limited connectivity through 

fog where otherwise no high data rate FSO communication link could be supplied. (Of 

course, during a microburst rain event, microwave systems would likewise experience 

degraded link-margin, and would thereby provide no backup to an FSO link that would 

similarly suffer under such a weather event. 

Alternatively, an FSO mesh arrangement, whereby multiple FSO links could perhaps 

route around localized areas with the most severe weather conditions could also provide 

advantage during micro-cell weather events. Because of the fundamental enabling 

characteristics of FSO, to provide very high data rates, and of the perceived importance 

of FSO on future Spaceports and Ranges, FSO is one of the three technologies selected 

for further exploration during year two of the RISM-related activities. 

In preparation of year two activities, and to accommodate learning of the various FSO 

environmental effects, the Florida Space Institute of the University of Central Florida has 

entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the subject RISM project of 

this document, to share test data over the coming year for use in the ECT Project. In 

 

303Dr. Ronald Phillips, Professor & Director, Florida Space Institute of the University of Central Florida, in 

private correspondence, suggested most of these applications. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

213

addition, as part of this activity, a sharing of an FSO test range (Figure 7-2), between 

ISTEF (Figure 7-3) and Launch Complex 46 (Figure 7-4) has further been negotiated. 

The Innovative Science and Technology Facility (ISTEF), owned by the Missile Defense 

Agency, managed by the U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Center, and operated by 

Computer Science Corporation is located at Kennedy Space Center, next to the 45th

Space Wing’s TEL-4 telemetry site. The ISTEF facility is equipped to conduct field 

research, testing and evaluation on electro-optic systems and new and innovative 

technologies. The lab is completely fitted with electro-optics equipment and instruments. 

Under the terms of the MOU, the ECT project will share use of this site with FSI over the 

coming year. 

Figure 7-2 The 

12.4 km FSO 

Transmission Path 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

214

Figure 7-3 ISTEF Electro-Optics Lab at KSC 

Figure 7-4 LCX-46 Service Tower 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

215
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

216

7.5 DATA PROTOCOLS 

The formatting of data is critical. Without proper formatting, information simply 

becomes lost because the right data cannot be found, or, alternatively, the transport of 

these data can become impossibly difficult. What determines the standards presently 

used for formatting data? Fundamentally, standards are little more than protocols, which 

are, in turn, mutually agreed upon methods, procedures, and definitions. 

The largest example of protocols, consisting of a layered series of protocols, is the 

Internet. Internet protocols are documented by what are called RFCs (Requests For 

Comments). These constitute a collection of more than two thousand documents dating 

back to the earliest days of the Internet and its predecessor, the ARPANET. Although all 

Internet protocols are documented in RFCs, not all RFCs are protocols. Some RFCs are 

simply discussion points, or informational papers. Other RFCs are nothing more than 

elaborate inside jokes, traditionally published on April Fools’ Days. They can be clearly 

distinguished by their date released in each year (i.e., April 1). 

All RFCs are static. Once issued, they are never revised. They therefore form the most 

complete historical repository of all things Internet-related and protocol-related that exist 

today governing computer protocols. The methodology followed is to publish a newer 

RFC that is said to obsolete an older RFC. All the RFCs ever published are available on 

the ftp.isi.edu website. This includes the older, replaced RFCs, which are said to be 

obsoleted. RFCs are typically archived within 24-hours on numerous mirror websites 

(e.g., http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/index.htm). 

In comparison to modern word processor documents, RFCs are primitive documents. 

They are written as purely text files with primitive graphics made from typewriter 

characters. Developed in this format during an era of purely text-based computer files, 

they have not changed. For example, the presently most widely accepted router protocol 

is IPv4 (Internet Protocol Version 4), governed by RFC1812, dated June 1995, submitted 

by F. Baker of Cisco Systems. This RFC obsoleted RFC1716, the historical router 

documentation, as well as the even older RFC1009. All of these RFCs are pure ASCII 

text documents. 

Whereas IPv4 is static, and each RFC is static, the Internet is not. There are also ongoing 

activities to create IPv6 (Internet Protocol Version 6), to extend the present 

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx addresses into even longer addresses, thereby solving the problem of 

too many Internet users and not enough IP addresses. IPv6, however, is still under 

discussion, and numerous RFCs presently exist, exploring all the intricate details of 

extending the ability of the Internet to add more computers. RFC2460 represents one 

snapshot in time of the evolving IPv6 specification. Likewise, the support of legacy IPv4 

networks is also being explored, in RFC3146, dated October 2001, whereby legacy IPv4 

hardware is able to continue to operate on the Internet. The Internet evolves. 

Although the Internet is little more than a series of nested, evolving protocols, not all 

protocols are directly related to the Internet. For non-Internet protocols, private 

organizations typically own the protocols, and charge for the distribution of copies, often 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

217

as their only way to earn money. Other standards-governing organizations include the 

IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers), NIST, the IETF, and the ISO. 

The following sections explore the primary protocols envisioned as applicable to RISM 

(Range Information System Management) related to data formatting: future seamless 

wireless connectivity protocols, Open System Interconnection (OSI), Routers, MPLS 

(Multiprotocol Label Switching), and GMPLS (Generalized Multiprotocol Label 

Switching). 

 

7.5.1 Basic Data Formatting Issues

As discussed previously, the most widespread active example of protocols, actually 

consisting of a layered series of protocols, is the Internet. At present, it is possible to buy 

a personal computer, install or attach industry-standard Ethernet cards and/or modems, 

and simply use a standard set of software applications (Browsers, e-mail, etc.,) built 

around standard protocols and data formats to access services. This assumes, of course, 

that one selects an ISP (Internet Service Provider) from whom to buy wired Internet 

connectivity. To date, the user interfaces to the Internet, as well as the Internet itself, 

have been largely based on just wired and/or fibered technologies within a framework of 

closely standardized protocols. 

The same ease of integration is not true for users wishing to take advantage of wireless 

connection availability. For example, it is still difficult to integrate services from 

wireless Internet service providers that are just beginning to supply Internet access and 

content availability in rural geographic test areas. 304 The difficulty is that these 

prototype services are still based on proprietary interface protocols. Depending on the 

‘hiptop’ or laptop wireless device one chooses and uses, whether a cell phone, two-way 

or one-way pager, a Wi-Fi equipped laptop, a PDA, or other wireless device, each 

wireless device remains limited to a particular carrier in terms of hardware requirements, 

standards, and, more importantly, data formatting. To use different wireless devices, a 

user must buy multiple, different, contracted services, typically based on proprietary 

protocols, to achieve any semblance of connectivity. This is in marked contrast to both 

existing 2G and planned 3G cellular voice networks, which have focused extraordinary 

amounts of effort to achieve a seamless wireless experience for users. Unfortunately, 

even planned 3G networks have been architecturally planned by committee members 

who are typically cell phone company representatives. These planned 3G networks have 

further been envisioned without containing the high bandwidth support or flexibility 

necessary for providing significant Internet access, wireless data access, and future 

 

304 Rural Minnesota and Iowa both have Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) that have set up 

shop. Xtratyme Technologies, Inc., for example, has built a system with over seventy towers to provide 

wireless broadband services. Minnesota and Iowa are likely five years ahead in terms of wireless 

connectivity relative to the rest of the United States. See: Shaw, Russell, More Web Users Look to WISP. 

Investor’s Business Daily, June 24, 2002, p. A6. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

218

growth. This is not caused by a lack of vision on the part of the members of the 3G 

specification committees; rather, the technologies are simply moving too fast for 

bureaucratic organizations to respond to in a timely fashion. The unfortunate result is 

that at present, there are no cross-platform protocols that enable wireless data network 

users to enjoy the same ease-of-use as wireline users currently enjoy and have enjoyed 

for several years. Clearly, this situation must change before seamless wireless 

connectivity for mobile users becomes possible at future Spaceports and Ranges. 

Fortunately, the groundwork is being built for achieving a seamless connection vision. 

To achieve seamless, widespread ease-of-access of wireless data, the major issues to be 

overcome are the: 

• Elimination of limited geographic coverage, 

• Improved connection reliability and security, 

And, most importantly, the 

• Establishment of open-standard protocols to enable data transfer. 

With hardware technologies already demonstrated, and early prototype wireless systems 

in use today in rural areas, the issue fundamentally becomes more one of establishing 

protocols rather than one of creating new hardware technologies. Individual proprietaryprotocol services have largely explored the early hardware issues and have proven the 

underlying technology both exists and works. What has been missing is an overarching 

vision which can be used to tie together all the multiple services available for a typical 

user; thus providing a seamless user experience; whether on foot, while driving or 

commuting, or while at a fixed location, to wirelessly access and interact with various 

types of data. 

Within this vision, there must also be technical performance requirements and 

specifications identified, such as for low latency. Since the transactions are typically very 

small for most wireless and mobile user applications, latency becomes a major issue 

because users perceive latency directly while waiting for responses. Raw data 

throughput is less an issue than latency.305 The vision for seamless wireless 

interconnectivity must therefore also include low latency for transporting data. 

The recognition of the need to remove the existing barriers and permit the global 

seamless application interoperability for mobile wireless users with low latency is now 

being addressed through a newly created organization known as the Open Mobile 

 

305 This is the reasoning used to keep data rates low in 3G Wireless systems as originally envisioned by the 

3G Wireless specification communities. On the other hand, as applications grow, it will become more 

important for both latency and throughput to be managed for systems serving mobile wireless users to 

avoid creating user frustration. Likewise, competing wireless systems that provide higher throughput and

low-latency will provide higher user satisfaction than 3G Wireless systems. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

219

Alliance (OMA).306 OMA was announced on June 12, 2002, and is comprised of over 

two hundred founding companies representing the world’s leading mobile operators, 

credit card companies, entertainment companies, and brokerage and financial companies, 

all of whom have a vested interest in supporting the standardization of wireless 

connectivity for their customers. Included in this alliance are such leading world 

companies as Alcatel, AOL, AT&T Wireless, BEA Systems, Charles Schwab, China 

Mobile, Cingular Wireless, Credit Suisse e-Business, Compaq Computer, Deutsche, 

Ericsson, ETRI, Glenayre Electronics, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Infineon Technologies, 

Intel, IBM, MasterCard International, Microsoft, Motorola, Nextel Communications, 

Nissan Motor Company, Nokia, Novell, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Research in 

Motion, Sony, Sun, Telekom Mobilnet, Verizon, VeriSign, Visa International, Walt 

Disney Company, and Yamaha Corporation. 

OMA was created through consolidating the multiple efforts of the: 

• Open Mobile Architecture Initiative, created in November 2002 by Nokia to 

create common standards for GSM/General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) and 

emerging 3G wireless networks, with founding membership companies comprised 

of AT&T Wireless, Cingular Wireless, MM02, NTT DoCoMo, Telefonica 

Moviles, Vodafone, Fujitsu, Matsushita, Mitsubishi Electric, Motorola, NEC, 

Nokia, Samsung, Sharp, Siemens, Sony Ericsson, Toshiba, and Symbian 

 

• Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) Forum, an open industry-established world 

standards body for the wireless industry, intended to work across differing 

wireless network standards, with numerous member companies representing a 

dominant cross-section of wireless operators, device manufacturers, software 

companies, and infrastructure companies307

• Location Interoperability Forum (LIF), an open industry-established initiative 

formed in September 2000 for the purpose of developing and promoting industry 

common solutions for Location Based Services (LBS), providing 

recommendations to the mobile community that are both network protocol and 

positioning technology independent with the goal of addressing interoperability 

issues and accelerating time to market of location-based services308

 

• SyncML Initiative, an open standards body sponsored by Ericsson, IBM, Lotus, 

Matsushita, Motorola, Nokia, Openwave, Starfish Software, and Symbian; 

 

306 Open Mobile Alliance homepage: http://www.openmobilealliance.org/

307 http://www.wapforum.org/

308 http://www.locationforum.org/
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

220

intended to enable data mobility through providing mobile data synchronization 

and connectability standards; supporting Over-the-Air (OTA) administration of 

devices and applications while simplifying configuration, updates and support309

• MMS Interoperability Group (MMS-IOP), a working group founded by CMG 

Wireless Data Solutions, Comverse, Ericsson, Logica, Motorola, Nokia, Siemens 

and Sony Ericsson in February 2002 to promote Multimedia Messaging Service 

(MMS) with the objective of ensuring a smooth introduction of MMS to the 

market through seamless end-to-end operability between MMS handsets and 

servers from different vendors310,311

• Wireless Village, a closed-standards group created by Motorola, Ericsson, and 

Nokia to promote wireless instant messaging interoperability among their 

products312 

By linking the activities of a number of organizations encompassing nearly all activities 

underway for standardizing wireless connectivity, the Open Mobile Alliance addresses 

wireless connectivity issues that fell outside the scope of any one existing organization, 

as well as streamlining work that was previously duplicated by multiple organizations. 

More importantly, OMA further includes organizations that were formerly closedstandards bodies, such as Wireless Village. The goal of OMA is to create interoperability 

over a wide range of wireless networks in order for applications to work as well on the 

wireless side as they do on the wired and/or fibered computer networking side of the 

Internet. With the planned interoperability envisioned by OMA, there comes the 

possibility of mass adoption of low-cost and high-performance wireless voice and data 

communication.313 The old engineering saying of “Better, Faster, Cheaper, pick any 

two”, with its tacit implication that all three attributes are not simultaneously possible, 

will likely be proven false once OMA-compatible products are developed and released 

into the marketplace. Such products may very well be better, faster, and cheaper than 

existing technology approaches. 

 

309 http://www.syncml.org/

310 Nokia Press Release, February 19, 2002, http://press.nokia.com/PR/200202/849087_5.html, retrieved 

26 June 2002. 

311 MMS itself is defined and approved by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) and the WAP 

Forum.

312 Briody, Dan. MEN Behaving Badly. Red Herring, July 2002, pp. 43-45. (“MEN”, in this title, refers to 

Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia). 

313 http://openmobilealliance.org/OMA-quotesheet.pdf
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

221

It obviously remains to be seen whether OMA can be successful in its lofty goals. 

Clearly, though, the weight of ‘doing the right thing’ among the ‘major player’ 

participating companies identified to date bodes well for the outcome. 

If OMA is successful, it becomes obvious that we are standing on the brink of witnessing 

a private industry initiative that will accomplish the wireless interoperability goal of 

nearly all LAN, MAN, and WAN functions that are needed worldwide at all future 

Spaceports and Ranges. The need clearly exists for transporting data between clearly 

defined nodes in a variety of areas within each Spaceport and Range. With the possible 

exception of Flight Termination System (FTS) functionality, which will likely always 

require a separate system altogether, and of long-range communications via satellite or 

long-distance fiber-optic infrastructures, a wireless universe interconnected through 

OMA-defined standard protocols at each Spaceport and Range can likely meet the 

majority of future communication needs, augmenting the existing cabled infrastructure. 

7.5.2 Open System Interconnection (OSI) Protocols

OSI (Open System Interconnection) defines seven layers of abstraction governing the 

interconnection of computers in terms of both hardware as well as data, and apply equally 

well to wirelessly connected systems as to wired systems. The seven OSI hardware 

layers are defined as: 

• Layer 1, Physical, i.e., PHY (Physical); 

• Layer 2, Data Link; 

• Layer 3, Network; 

• Layer 4, Transport; 

• Layer 5, Session; 

• Layer 6, Presentation, or Syntax; 

• Layer 7, Application. 

Layer 2 is further divided into the MAC and the Logical Link Control (LLC) layers. 

Layer 2 encodes and decodes between bits and packets. The MAC sublayer of Layer 2 

controls how a computer on the network gains access to the data and permission to 

transmit them, whereas the LLC layer controls frame synchronization, flow control and 

error checking. Layer 3 provides switching, routing, security, and packet sequencing. 

Layer 4 ensures complete data transfer.314 

Layer 1 is comprised of topics involving both optical and RF characteristics, depending 

on the type of hardware. To guarantee interconnection criteria are met, Ethernet 

hardware, intended for 10BaseT, for example, is defined in terms of both electrical and 

mechanical connector standards. Likewise, for those hardware items with an optical 

 

314 http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/OSI_Layers.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

222

interface, Layer 1 details involving operating wavelengths, DWDM (Dense Wavelength 

Division Multiplexing) frequency spacings, data rates, optical power levels, and optical 

reflections. High-speed electrical interfaces likewise must have operating frequencies, 

modulation types, voltage levels, and other items related to the physical devices defined. 

Layer 2 and Layer 3 hardware concepts often overlap, especially over time as what was 

formerly strictly implemented in Layer 2 starts to be re-implemented in Layer 3 to 

improve network or system performance. Ethernet hardware, as well as MPLS 

(Multiprotocol Label Switching) and GMPLS (Generalized Multiprotocol Label 

Switching) protocols (to be discussed later) each involve the same two layers of the OSI 

model, Layer 2 and Layer 3. Ethernet switches typically were predominately 

implemented in Layer 2, although in recent years, with the addition of items such as error 

correction, they have migrated to Layer 3. Ethernet routers, which perform a similar 

task as Ethernet switches are typically implemented only in Layer 3. Due to the need to 

keep complexity to what service providers can manage, likewise, among fielded systems, 

MPLS has to date been implemented in Layer 2, only. Newer MPLS protocols, on the 

other hand, are being developed in Layer 3, and, to accommodate greatly higher numbers 

of simultaneous users with needs of guaranteed Quality of Service (QoS), will eventually 

likely be done solely in Layer 3. 

Along with the seven layers of hardware abstraction of OSI, there are similarly seven 

layers of data abstraction. At the lowest layer, which is the Physical Layer, the 

abstraction consists of symbols for the encapsulation of data. The hardware that passes 

signals at Layer 1 performs such functions as reconditioning, as well as extending the 

networks, while operating on individual data comprised of symbols. Layer 2, in contrast, 

encapsulates data at a higher lever of abstraction, and passes data that consist of frames. 

Layer 3, the Network Link Layer, addresses transferring data on not only a single data 

link, but over multiple data links. 

The most common Layer 2 Data Link function is probably ARP (Address Resolution 

Protocol.) ARP converts an IP address into a physical network address. ARP is most 

often seen on Ethernet networks, but has been implemented on ATM and Token Ring, 

along with other networks.315 Physical network addresses within Ethernet networks are 

known as Media Access Control (MAC) addresses. MAC addresses are typically static, 

i.e., fixed, for a given device, such as a DOCSIS cable modem on a high-speed network, 

and are six bytes in length. For this reason, MAC addresses often figure prominently in 

tracing specific computer network wrongdoings, as end users cannot easily modify them, 

they therefore constitute essentially a “cyber fingerprint” for a virtual circuit 

terminating/commencing within a LAN. When an Ethernet packet arrives at a gateway 

(to be discussed in the next section, section 7.5.3), the gateway converts the destination 

IP address into a MAC address, typically through using an ARP cache. If for some 

reason no MAC address is available for a specific IP address, the gateway proceeds to 

broadcast an ARP Request on the LAN, and then listens for a response. If the IP address 

 

315 The first RFC discussing ARP for Ethernet was RFC826. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

223

is present, the host at that address will then send an ARP Reply to the gateway, the 

gateway will update its ARP cache, and packet data will commence to flow to the 

specific IP address. It should be remembered, though, that ARP is a Layer 2 Data Link 

function. 

Some refer to passing data at Layer 3 as internetworking. The most popular Layer 3 

protocol is Internet Protocol (IP), which is itself a nested series of protocols. (Reference 

Section 7.5, Data Protocols) Although the most popular, IP is not the only Layer 3 

protocol. There are other Layer 3 protocols, some of which even provide the ability to 

transport IP. For example, X.25, an early protocol that has mostly been popular only 

across Europe, contains a Layer 3 protocol capability, which is itself capable of passing 

Layer 3 IP data. 

Perhaps the most common Layer 3 Network function is IPSEC (which is short for 

Internet Protocol Security). IPSEC is a security framework that operates at the Layer 3 

Network Layer by extending the IP packet header with additional protocol numbers. It 

can provide VPN (Virtual Private Network) functionality to provide security through 

encrypting any higher layer protocol, such as Layer 4 Transport, and, at the price of 

configuration complexity, offers the greatest flexibility of all existing TCP/IP 

cryptography systems. 

Layer 1, 2, and 3 predominately involve topics involving the edges of the network. As 

one migrates into the core of the network, Layer 1, 2, and 3 are still applicable between 

adjacent nodes, but Layer 4 topics, involving Transport issues, and Layer 4 topics, 

involving Session issues, start to occupy the majority of one’s attention. It is in this layer 

that network processors and topics such as switch fabric start to be heavily discussed. 

These layers are predominately more related to software than to hardware for all except 

system hardware providers. Users of networks typically focus only on the software 

topics associated with Layer 4 and Layer 5. 

At Layer 6 and Layer 7, the topics are almost exclusively software in nature, governing 

Presentation (Syntax) and Applications. Layer 7 deals solely with Gateway functions. 

Gateway functions are, by definition, at the edges of Networks. (For more on gateways, 

see Section 7.5.3.) 

Relative to the study of networks for use on the Spaceports and Ranges of the future, the 

majority of this document is concerned only with Layers 1, 2, and 3, with Layers 4 and 

higher largely reserved for later study, as the needs of users become more evident. 

This approach, of concentrating on Layers 1, 2, and 3, supports a path that historically 

was followed with the construction of roads, waterways, railroads, and airports, of first 

defining the fundamental hardware and technology interface issues, and then defining the 

higher level switching/routing functions. Even higher level system engineering 

optimization tasks, of achieving optimal routings, or more efficient system performance, 

are best reserved until the fundamental foundations are in place. Only when the technical 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

224

foundations are in place can the construction of more elaborate system structures and 

abstractions be achieved. 

7.5.3 Repeaters, Bridges, Switches, Routers, and Gateways

As discussed previously while describing OSI Protocols, there are seven layers of 

abstraction describing the interconnection of hardware and data between computers. As 

interconnections are made at increasingly higher layers of abstraction, the hardware that 

connects computers at these seven layers varies from the very simple to the more 

complex. The reward for increasing interconnection complexity and interconnecting at 

higher layers is to improve the physical width over which a network can be extended and 

to reduce network congestion. Simpler interconnection methods limit the maximum 

physical expanse over which a network can be extended and do not permit managing 

network congestion. 

As shown in Figure 7-5, the type of hardware varies for implementing connections 

between computers, depending on the OSI Layer through which connections are made. 

By selecting the appropriate Layer for forming connections, through selecting the proper 

type of hardware, it is possible to tailor a network’s extension in different ways, 

optimizing a network for physical width, congestion, computer density, maximum data 

rate, number of Media Access Controller (MAC) address, and an assortment of other 

attributes. 

Figure 7-5 Method for Hardware Connection Depends on OSI Layer 

The hardware devices used to connect computers are known variously as repeaters, 

bridges, switches, routers, and gateways. The primary function, of interconnecting 

computers, is the same among all these devices. The nuances due to the choice of 

connection device, and the subsequent network performance limitations, depend heavily 

on which of these devices are used and vary considerably. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

225

For example, at the lowest level, Layer 1 Physical, the concern is only with symbols. 

Repeaters, sometimes also known as repeater hubs, operate at Layer 1 and simply receive 

symbols and recondition the bits before sending copies of the symbols out to interconnect 

computers. No error checking is done, and no extension of the physical width of the 

maximum network size is possible through using repeater hubs. This simple interface 

serves the sole purpose of increasing connection density, i.e., increasing the numbers of 

permissible computers within a maximum physical network width, while insuring noise 

margins are maintained. 

The reason that repeaters do not extend the maximum physical width of a network, and 

work only within a rather small radius, is due to a limitation imposed by what is called 

the Collision Domain. A Collision Domain is the maximum physical envelope that can 

be permitted to exist between the two farthest separated devices on an Ethernet sharing a 

common ‘ether’ in order to avoid collisions in transmitted packets from occurring. Each 

device on an Ethernet listens first, and only transmits if no signal is heard. If two devices 

are physically separated too far apart, they both can start to transmit at the same time, 

causing jamming of signals near halfway points between the two devices. The only way 

to avoid this unintentional jamming is to keep the maximum physical width of the 

network below an upper bound. For copper-based systems, this maximum network width 

upper bound equates to a maximum distance of only 205 meters wide at 100 Mb/s (i.e., 

100BaseT) for a network.316 If the width of a 100BaseT network is more than 205 

meters, two devices on a common Ethernet can listen, not hear traffic, and both can start 

to transmit at the same time, repeatedly, never detecting that collisions are occurring.317 

In addition to not extending the maximum physical width of a network, repeaters require 

that network speeds across repeaters remain constant; i.e., data rates on both sides of a 

repeater hub must be kept the same. If an older, slower, 10BaseT (10 Mb/s) device is to 

be connected, all devices on the Ethernet must run at 10 Mb/s. If a repeater hub is used, 

the slowest device on the Ethernet determines the maximum speed of the Ethernet. 

Fortunately, it is possible to extend the Collision Domain, and simultaneously operate 

different parts of an Ethernet at different speeds, by interconnecting computers at higher 

 

316 Optical interconnections can have a different maximum network width. Propagation time is related to 

the square root of the dielectric constant of the medium, and media with different dielectric constants 

support different speeds of propagation. The propagation speed of electromagnetic waves passing along a 

copper twisted shielded pair cable is different than through a fiber optic cable, and the Collision Domain is 

different. 

317 The same problem can also occur in wireless networks. In the early days of AX.25, otherwise known as 

packet radio, in the early 1980’s a phenomenon could occur whereby what was known as a hidden 

transmitter could continuously re-transmit data, attempting to pass data, while never being able to pass any 

data due to collisions with another transmitter that would start re-transmitting data at the same time, 

repeating over and over. Such collisions could repeat for literally hours, and occasionally days at a time, in 

what came to be known as a ‘fatal embrace’. The solution was to randomize the re-transmit time in the 

digipeaters with an improved algorithm that would not be reset to a common state among all digipeaters on 

the network if all AX.25 digipeaters (digital repeaters) lost ac power at the same time over a widespread 

area. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

226

layers of abstraction. Above Layer 1 is Layer 2, the Data Link Layer. This is the layer in 

which data and error detection bit framing is provided, as well as being the Layer in 

which ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) operates. (For more on ARP, see Section 

7.5.2.) Layer 2 handles the transmission and reception of frames sent over Layer 1. The 

hardware used to provide Layer 2 connections is known variously as a Bridge, a Switch, 

or a Switch Hub. The differences in nomenclature are primarily due to historical legacy. 

Originally, bridges were two-port devices, used only to connect two extended parts of the 

same LAN. Bridges with multiple ports, above just two ports, are also known as switch 

hubs, switching hubs or, more commonly, just as switches. 

Unlike the repeater hub, a switch hub has to receive and decode Ethernet frames and test 

for frame integrity, as well as to then reassemble the data and retransmit the same data in 

a new frame. Each port of a switch operates in what is called promiscuous mode by 

receiving all frames on each port independent of destination Media Access Control 

(MAC) address.318 The primary advantage of a switch hub over a repeater hub is that 

error correction, at the frame level, is provided; unlike a repeater hub that blindly repeats 

whatever it receives, errors and all. Additionally, and even more importantly, a switch 

hub extends the Collision Domain of an Ethernet by the fact that only error-corrected 

frames are re-transmitted. Using a switch hub therefore extends the maximum physical 

network width, because it extends the Collision Domain limit (to beyond 205 meters at 

100 Mb/s). Likewise, since a switch hub retransmits data in a new frame, it also becomes 

possible to operate one port of a switch at 10BaseT (10 Mb/s) and the remainder of the 

network at a higher speed at 100BaseT (100 Mb/s). Operating different parts of an 

Ethernet at different speeds reduces the loading on a network by clearing high-speed 

traffic through what are essentially ‘express lanes’ within a network, rather than 

imposing a ‘speed limit’ at a low data rate throughout an Ethernet. 

Layer 3 is where routers provide an interconnection function among computers. 

Depending on the IP destination address and on which port on the router an IP 

destination address is connected, a router transfers received packets only to one 

destination port. With this method of operation, routers reduce network congestion by 

not arbitrarily flooding packets to all ports to which they are connected. Each computer 

on each router port sees only the packet traffic to and from the computers that are 

likewise on the same, specific router port. With fewer computers on any given port 

(often just one or two), network congestion is greatly reduced; compared to the 

alternative situation in which large numbers of hosts sit on a common Ethernet port. 

Since Ethernet is highly dependent on keeping network-loading low to operate correctly, 

routers make the largest improvement in performance by going up the OSI layers while 

making interconnections between computers. For routers with integral switch hubs, 

computer density is improved, as well; thereby allowing such routers to provide all the 

benefits of lower-layer interconnection hardware (repeaters, repeater hubs, switches, 

 

318 A MAC address is the physical 6-byte address network address for a particular device connected on a 

LAN. It essentially represents a distinct and unique digital fingerprint of a device that is connected on an 

Ethernet. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

227

switching hubs, etc.) while additionally reducing network congestion. Cable 

Modem/DSL Routers likewise provide additional protection for LANs through providing 

a built-in NAT (Network Address Translation) function. In the typical usage, such 

devices often act as gateways to protect 24/7-connected LANs connected to the Internet 

through DOCSIS cable modems or DSL modems. 

A gateway is a generic term applied to hardware and/or software used for interconnecting 

two networks; each of which is comprised of multiple computers. This interconnection 

can be done at Layer 7, thereby providing support for complete 7-layer OSI protocols; or, 

depending on the need, at any lower level within the OSI protocol model, even down to 

Layer 1. For example, it would be possible to interconnect two networks at Layer 1, at 

the physical symbol layer. Two networks connected at Layer 1, though, could achieve 

none of the benefits available of interconnecting the two networks at a higher layer, such 

as management of Collision Domains, management of network congestion, error 

correction, support for multiple data rates, or any of the other attributes which would 

likely prove beneficial in an interconnection at a higher layer. 

By definition, a gateway exists only at the edge of a network, or, depending on the 

viewpoint, between linked networks. Because of this location, gateways often are the 

logical point to place a firewall, to keep undesired users outside of a network. However, 

a firewall behind the router still makes sense for those systems needing a gateway 

implemented, say, only up through Layer 3, consisting of a Cable/DSL Router. 

Intrusions, although rare, can and do occur through Cable/DSL Routers. Internal 

Cable/DSL Router firewalls typically employ NAT (Network Address Translation) 

techniques to protect a LAN from most attacks from outside the network. For more 

complete protection than possible through a NAT firewall, a software firewall on a 

machine on the output of a Cable/DSL Router makes sense. Likewise, software firewalls 

make sense if NAT firewalls are not used. NAT firewalls are often not used in some 

networks because NAT firewalls have an unfortunate side effect of masking the internal 

structure of a LAN, thereby blocking access to servers on the LAN to the outside world. 

For LAN systems that do not require external access to internal LAN servers, however, 

NAT firewalls are an excellent solution by which to start securing the LAN against 

attacks from outside the LAN. (See also Sections 4.1 through 4.1.4 for more information 

on NAT firewalls for wired networks, as well as Section 4.2 for more information on 

Wireless Ethernet networks, which pose a different set of firewall issues.) 

In summary, 

• Repeaters (and repeater hubs) manage only network density within a 

limited maximum physical width for a network, and provide no additional 

error correction, Collision Domain management, or congestion 

management for a network. Both sides of a repeater must operate at the 

same data rate (10 Mb/s, or 100 Mb/s). 

• Switches (and switch hubs) also manage network density, but additionally 

provide error correction and Collision Domain management. In that 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

228

Switches provide Collision Domain management, switches can extend the 

physical width of a network. Switches do not manage network 

congestion. Switches also permit different data rates on different ports, 

thereby permitting the efficient interconnecting of slow (10 Mb/s) devices 

with higher speed (100 Mb/s) devices, without slowing down an entire 

Ethernet. 

• Routers manage Collision Domains, reduce network congestion, extend 

physical network widths through managing Collision Domains, and 

simultaneously reduce network congestion. Plain routers do not manage 

network density. Routers with integral switches, in contrast, can also 

manage network density, in addition to having all the attributes of plain 

routers. Routers support different data rates on different ports. 

• Repeaters operate at Layer 1, switches operate at Layer 2, and routers 

operate at Layer 3 in the OSI Protocol. Some special purpose switches 

also operate at Layer 3 (see 7.5.4 MPLS, and 7.5.4.1 GMPLS, for an 

example of switches with Layer 3 functionality.) 

7.5.4 Multi-protocol Label Switching

7.5.4.1 Background 

 “MPLS (Multi-protocol Label Switching) is an advanced way of managing Internet 

traffic by letting carriers merge different types of data traffic over one IP backbone, 

improving their ability to offer different classes of service.”319 ‘Class of service’ refers to 

groupings of services with similar requirements for quality of service (QoS). For 

example, low-latency traffic requires express lanes through a network, in contrast to 

traffic such as e-mail or other none time-sensitive data, which can be delayed, or in some 

cases, even stored and forwarded, without any noticeable effect on end-users. 

MPLS started as a proprietary routing method from Cisco known as Multiprotocol Tag 

Switching. Today, MPLS is an international standard and is non-vendor specific. 

(MPLS is also referred to as Multiprotocol Lambda Switching in some futuristic 

writings.320) In all cases, MPLS is intended primarily to provide VPN (Virtual Private 

Network) segregation of traffic for QoS performance reasons while coping with very 

large numbers of users; at lower cost than competing technologies can provide. This 

segregation of traffic is sometimes known as ‘flow aggregation’.321 The standard claim 

 

319 Smettannikov, Max. Beware MPLS VPN Tech Challenges. Interactive Week, p. 14, August 20, 2001. 

320 http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=5487

321 http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=5487
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

229

is that MPLS provides businesses with IP (Internet Protocol) VPNs that are thirty percent 

cheaper to run than if run using ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) or frame relay 

techniques.322 With this cost saving advantage, and especially for businesses with 

significantly large numbers of subscribers, the economic incentive to use MPLS becomes 

significant for establishing on-demand VPN services with defined QoS requirements. 

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) governs the standards for MPLS.323 The 

IETF is a large, open, international community of network designers, operators, vendors, 

and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth 

operation of the Internet. The IETF is open to all interested individuals. MPLS draft 

position papers are available on the IETF website.324

MPLS achieves its success using Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) for establishing 

routing tables in large networks. This is done by adding labels to packets to prevent 

intermediate routers from needing to interrogate individual packets to determine routing. 

A Label Edge Router (LER) at the edge of the network first adds labels to all packets 

intended for a common destination, and intermediate Label Switch Routers (LSR) along 

the Label Switched Path (LSP) then route these packets more quickly by simply 

examining the labels. A second LER, on the output side of the network, then removes the 

label. The result is that packets are routed much more quickly with MPLS than from 

using older IP techniques; thereby providing improved QoS performance for MPLS 

versus older routing techniques. 

As presently implemented, most metro networks provision MPLS in Layer 2 of their 

network. For example, in August 2001, eight million residents in Hong Kong gained the 

ability to view movies on their home computers over Ethernet connections in their 

apartments based on a Layer 2 implementation of MPLS fielded by Hutchison Global 

Crossing, a joint venture company. With MPLS, it became possible to deploy virtual 

circuits to millions of users simultaneously in Hong Kong to provide movies-on-demand, 

with guaranteed quality of service.325,326 In spite of the subsequent bankruptcy of jointpartner Global Crossing, this movies-on-demand entertainment service continues in 

 

322 Smettannikov, Max. Beware MPLS VPN Tech Challenges. Interactive Week, p. 14, August 20, 2001. 

323 http://www.ietf.org/

324 http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/mpls.html

325 Smettannikov, Max. Beware MPLS VPN Tech Challenges. Interactive Week, p. 14, August 20, 2001. 

326 Hutchison Global Crossing deployed the Hong Kong MPLS system. With the subsequent demise of the 

parent, Global Crossing, which is now in Chapter 11 (as of June 2002), it is unclear whether additional 

such MPLS systems will be forthcoming in the near future. The fact that such technology already has been 

successfully fielded, however, bodes well for implementing VPNs with MPLS in the future. It is already a 

proven, although early, technology, for high QoS data paths. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

230

operation today in Hong Kong, and became solely owned by Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd. 

as of April 30, 2002 in a highly-publicized buyout.327 

Layer 2 is typically a ‘dumb’ layer of OSI (Open System Interconnection), as discussed 

earlier. The Hong Kong system, although successfully fielded, did not use Layer 3 BGP, 

or an even higher layer BGP, due to the uncontrollable complexity that that would have 

been entailed had it been attempted. Layer 3 BGP is not yet fully implemented and is 

well beyond the capability of service providers to manage for even the parts that are 

defined. An early Layer 2 approach was adequate for providing the desired QoS and did 

not outrun the managing capability of the service providers in Hong Kong. Layer 2, 

unfortunately, provides no way to provide flexible upgrade paths to provision greatly 

higher numbers of users. Ultimately, Layer 3 support for BGP will be required before 

greatly larger numbers of users can be allowed to co-exist in co-configured VPNs. Cisco 

Systems, Juniper Networks, and AT&T all participated in RFC 2547, an Internet 

Engineering Task Force informational Request for Comment, in the fall of 2001 to 

address more fully the details of providing VPNs configured at Layer 2. As of January 

2002, draft RFC2547 bis-01 replaced RFC 2547 as the present working document, and 

RFC 2547 continues as a work in progress.328 In time, Layer 3 BGP will no doubt be 

fully implemented and will have its documentation fully finalized. 

 

In the meantime, the basic algorithm for Layer 2 BGP is presently of an order of 

complexity of O (n) instead of O (n2), which indicates that it is inherently more scaleable 

than early BGP versions. Although the Hong Kong system is impressive, the installation 

of the MPLS VPN network in Hong Kong is very likely near the maximum complexity 

that existing fielded technology can handle in terms of routing virtual circuits (VCs) 

through VPN (Virtual Private Networks). 329 As the population growth of Hong Kong is 

heavily constrained by both land mass area and mainland Chinese emigration policies, 

implementing an early Layer 2 BGP system implementation is probably adequate to 

provide adequate growth potential for decades to come. 

Does this seemingly minor detail, of whether Layer 2 or Layer 3 BGP should be used for 

a MPLS network, matter for future use in Spaceports and Ranges? Arguably, one could 

make the case that it does not, in terms of sheer numbers of simultaneous users, at least 

 

327 “Hutchison Whampoa Ltd said it will buy Asia Global Crossing's stake in their Hong Kong telecoms 

joint ventures in a US$120 million deal that provides the ailing seller much-needed cash. Under terms of 

the deal, the Hong Kong conglomerate controlled by Asia's richest tycoon Li Ka-shing will buy Asia 

Global Crossing's 50 percent interest in Hutchison Global Crossing, as well as its 42.5 percent interest in 

ESD Services and its 50 percent interest in Hutchison Globalcenter. The transaction values the businesses 

at 20 percent of the $1.2 billion worth assigned when Hutchison Global Crossing was formed in late 1999, 

underscoring the plunge in global telecoms valuations -- and the seller's thirst for cash.” Reuters – 30 April 

2002. http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/special_packages/3166812.htm

328 http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ppvpn-rfc2547bis-01.txt

329 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/00jul/SLIDES/nbvpn-rfc2547/
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

231

for terrestrial Spaceports. The present population of Hong Kong, at eight million, is likely 

already larger than all the terrestrial Spaceport users for the near and even midrange 

period out past thirty years, at least. Yet, for a Spaceport in space, say, aboard an 

International Space Station, the need for implementing MPLS using BGP at Layer 3 is 

very likely to be required. After all, how many tens of millions of users might want to 

watch an event occurring on orbit, or in space? In the event of a major disaster, there 

could be considerable interest in establishing a VPN connection to receive guaranteed 

QoS video. There would likewise be considerable interest, say, for selecting the virtual 

vantage point of several camera views for viewing the first manned Mars landing, or 

manned Jupiter moon mission, through an HDTV (High Definition TV) signal passed 

through an Ethernet connection through an orbiting Spaceport. By providing multiple 

digital streaming video channels, it would be possible to provide user-selectable options 

to select which of several camera views by which to view historic events. Although more 

far-fetched, the first extraterrestrial encounter, as remote a possibility as that might be, 

would no doubt draw an even larger crowd. All of these events would clearly require 

supporting significantly higher numbers of users than presently can use the Hong Kong 

movie-on-demand system. 

The need for RFC2547, or equivalent, performance at Layer 3, for supporting tens if not 

hundreds of millions of users simultaneously through VPNs, with guaranteed QoS 

requirements, will likely be needed for communicating with Spaceports in space from 

Earth, in view of the multiple hundreds of millions of potential users desiring concurrent 

connectivity and selectable signals through digitized HDTV by the year 2028.330 MPLS 

VPN technology is clearly a technology that will need continuous monitoring, if not 

critical and timely investment, as Layer 2 BGP is improved, and as Layer 3 BGP 

becomes fully implemented, to support increasing the numbers of VPN users that can be 

simultaneously supported 

7.5.4.2 Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching 

Whereas MPLS is primarily a router technology, implemented in electronics, there is yet 

another MPLS to consider for future Spaceports and Ranges: namely, Generalized 

Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS).331 GMPLS takes the MPLS function out of 

the electronics domain and moves it into the optical networking domain. The all-optical 

 

330 Spaceports, to some, represent a terrestrial-only portal to space. Yet, will not Spaceports likewise 

represent a portal to deep space, to the Moon, and to Mars, if placed in orbit? A spoke and hub system of 

travel in space is likely to develop, simply to keep fuel needs manageable, as well as to match the 

differences between mission-specific deep-space vehicles versus vehicles intended only to launch from 

Earth into a transfer LEO or MEO. By 2028, a Spaceport in orbit around the Earth, supporting travel to 

Lunar distances and beyond, is possible, although not likely due to the funding difficulties for the deep 

space infrastructure it would imply. 

331 Some early users referred to GMPLS as Multiprotocol Lambda Switching, but obvious confusion with 

the Multiprotocol Label Switching terminology quickly forced the creation of the GMPLS acronym to 

avoid creating confusion with the MPLS acronym. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

232

network has long been a highly-prized goal, for reasons of eliminating the cost of 

expensive optical add-drop connections that, to date, have had to convert from optical to 

electrical, make the add-drop connections, and then convert the remaining electrical 

signals back to optical before feeding the next optical add-drop box. The OEO (OpticalElectrical-Optical) conversion process is both expensive and prone to reliability 

problems. GMPLS is a major step in moving from an existing OEO methodology to an 

all-optical methodology. 

GMPLS, as presently implemented, involves the incorporation of tunable laser 

technology that not only allows provisioning of dynamic assignments of wavelength 

frequencies remotely for customers on standard ITU grid wavelengths, but also reduces 

the sparing needs of lasers through generating multiple wavelengths with but a single 

tunable laser. Each customer therefore becomes attached to the network while exposed to 

all wavelengths, while being configured to receive on but specific wavelengths, each of 

which is addressable through transmitting on the properly addressed wavelength at the 

head of the system. (The exposure to all modulated wavelengths occurs through a 

common fiber-optic ‘pipe’ connected to all users simultaneously.) GMPLS techniques 

using different wavelengths specifically tailored to segregate information presently 

address the metro edge, access, and core applications markets, with fixed, yet selectable, 

wavelengths, chosen on the ITU grid of possible wavelengths. 

The standards for GMPLS are also governed by the Internet Engineering Task Force 

(IETF), the same as for MPLS. Specific draft papers dealing with present 

standardization of various aspects of GMPLS are available on the IETF website.332

Some of the fastest tuning GMPLS transmitters presently available use vertical cavity 

surface emitting laser (VCSEL) and micro electro mechanical structure (MEMS) 

technologies to tune and lock to a specific wavelength in less than 200 microseconds, 

tuning at a changing wavelength rate of 2 nm per 50 microseconds. With these fasttuning techniques, partial L-Band or C-Band optical wavelength coverage approaching 

10 nm total change in wavelength, or more, has been possible since at least early 2001, at 

least in prototype lasers. Slower tuning systems, however, are still available using 

temperature-tuned, Etalon-based, laser cavities and through using modulation of laser 

injection current.333 

Whatever the tuning method, a common wave-locker technology is typically used, based 

on using dual optical filters for each wavelength. Sensors (i.e., photodetectors) are 

 

332 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-03.txt , http://www.ietf.org/internetdrafts/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-06.txt , etc. 

333Sanders, Scott T.; Mattison, Daniel W.; Jeffries, Jay B.; Hanson, Ronald K. Rapid temperature tuning of 

a 1.4-μm diode laser with application to high-pressure H20 absorption spectroscopy, Optics Letters, vol. 

26, No. 20, October 15, 2001, pp. 1568-1570. Online: 

http://www.engr.wisc.edu/me/faculty/sanders_scott/RTtuning.pdf retrieved 11 June 2002. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

233

placed behind optical filters with high-pass and low-pass structures overlapping at the 

midpoints between ITU grid wavelengths. Analogous to the mark and space filters used 

for receiving radio teletype Frequency Shift Keying (FSK) modulation, which 

discriminate between two wavelengths (two frequencies) to generate automatic threshold 

corrections for setting automatic decision making thresholds in an electrical FSK 

frequency demodulator; the optical equivalent today provides a wavelength locking 

function to stabilize the feedback circuits and fix a tunable laser’s output wavelength. 

With the appropriate combline repetition function designed into the optical filters, the 

repetition of the filter functions at regularly spaced ITU grid wavelengths is even 

possible. The major caveat is that the proper external method, to select which of the 

repeating pass bands is to be selected, must be used. Likewise, tunable lasers must be 

blanked both on power-up and when tuning, to avoid sweeping across other users’ 

wavelengths, which would cause optical jamming within a fiber optic cable. Aging 

effects, temperature effects, injection current variations, and other drifts also must be 

accounted for, as well as blanking; typically by wrapping up to five control loops around 

typical DFB (distributed feedback) lasers used for telecom applications.334 Once the 

proper control loop adjustments are made, however, meeting Telcordia specifications, for 

providing operation up to twenty years, is possible with existing systems built around 

tunable lasers. 

Unlike DWDM (Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing), GMPLS routes multiple 

modulated optical wavelengths to each end-user, instead of only one. In DWDM, an 

AWG (Arrayed Waveguide Grating), or similar device, typically performs the optical 

drop demultiplexer function on the receiving end of the optical backbone prior to passing 

a single data stream to the end-user. In GMPLS, the end user becomes responsible for 

the optical drop functions. The primary leaders in GMPLS technology at present are 

Ciena, ONI, Nortel, Movaz, ONI Systems, and Opthos. Market consolidation over the 

next eighteen months is likely, as companies struggle to survive. Hence, it is likely that 

within two years, this list of six vendors will be reduced to perhaps only three. 

Will GMPLS achieve acceptance in the general marketplace? For the near term, the 

answer is no. There is no financial incentive driving any need for this technology, and 

relatively few fielded systems exist relative to the numbers of DWDM systems that are 

deployed. However, for the span of time extending to 2028, the likelihood is that 

 

334 Telecom refers to high performance, high-rate, longer-distance products. In contrast, Datacom refers to 

lower performance, lower-rate, shorter-distance products. There is starting to be some overlap in VCSEL 

lasers in these two markets. DFB lasers, on the other hand, are solely used for Telecom, typically for 

externally modulated applications at 10 Gb/s and higher data rates, using Mach-Zehnder external 

modulators. Mach-Zehnder modulators are, fundamentally, Michelson interferometers, with modulation 

drive signals applied through broadband interdigitated finger coupling structures. Typical drive signals, for 

10 Gb/s Mach-Zehnder external modulators are 7.5 Vdc peak, amplified with power amplifiers having flat 

passband response, flat to within 1 dB from 35 KHz through at least 13 GHz, and having group delays of 

less than +/- 10 ns. The Mach-Zehnder acts as a high-speed dimmer switch, providing NRZ modulated 

signals (AM signals, in reality) at 10 Gb/s. RZ signals provide performance advantages at 40 Gb/s, and 

Mach-Zehnder modulators to generate them became available in 2000 in prototype quantities. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

234

GMPLS will definitely serve a purpose, through providing higher QoS for specified 

classes of service in what will become once more, heavily crowded fiber optic trunks. 

Internet traffic doubled every ninety days from June 1999 through March 2001, with the 

majority of traffic arguably due to the sole application known as Napster®, used for peerto-peer sharing of copyrighted MP3 music files for portable MP3 music file players such 

as Diamond Multimedia’s Rio. [See communication timeline, in section 2.2 and 

Appendix A.] Many universities actually blocked access to Napster servers during this 

time just to prevent the complete overload of their Internet connections. With the 

government’s shutdown of Napster®, in the spring of 2001, however, Internet traffic 

immediately plummeted, and many formerly lit lines went dark, as the amount of traffic 

no longer justified leasing as many fiber optic cables. By the spring of 2001, Internet 

traffic, as well as Internet revenue, both started to drop precipitously. Short of another 

‘killer Internet application’ such as Napster® causing a rapid increase in Internet traffic, 

the need for GMPLS will likely remain weak for years (when viewed relative to the 

market conditions of 2002). 

 

7.6 HUMAN INTERFACE ENGINEERING 

A true measure of human interface engineering’s effectiveness and ubiquity in enabling 

data networks for Spaceports and Ranges of the future will be when pervasively 

connected, universal, wireless, body-worn interface appliances for controlling simple 

data network functions and accessing communication links become the norm. The use of 

such body-worn appliances, assuming their widespread acceptance, must not preclude the 

use of long-established and standardized interfaces. This is especially true for 

performing more complicated tasks where existing, proven interfaces suffice and work 

well. Novelty for the sake of novelty must not be introduced at the expense of 

effectiveness. 

Ultimately, data network users must work efficiently, and, if a hoary human-interface 

technique remains the most effective way to reduce confusion, increase efficiency, or 

improve productivity, there will ultimately be no reason for transitioning to a moremodern, confusing, human interface technique for the sake of novelty. 

The key for developing acceptable human interfaces is to use standardized command and 

control interfaces, adding new functionality and technology only where existing methods 

of conveying information do not suffice. The future must contain much of what has been 

used in the past, although often with a decidedly new and different twist. 

As an historical analogy, consider the introduction of stock tickers on Wall Street, 

originally named because of the distinct ticking sound early instruments made upon 

receiving telegraph signals containing stock prices. The first stock ticker was developed 

in 1867 by E. A. Calahan of the American Telegraph Company. This design was 

improved by Thomas Edison, who received a patent in 1871 for an improved paper 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

235

tickertape automatic repeater for stock exchange prices. Edison improved his design 

further Figure 7-6), and printing telegraphs and stock tickers alone accounted for the first 

40 of the 1,093 patents that Edison received throughout his long and productive career. 

The ultimate outcome, of the pioneering work done by Edison and other inventors, was 

that stock tickers and ticker tape served to provide a sense of the minute-by-minute trades 

occurring on the trading floor for decades. Stock tickers brought true technological 

improvement to Wall Street.335,336 Ticker tape also entered the lexicon as an adjective, 

used to denote a specific type of parade used to honor heroes passing through the 

financial district of Manhattan.337 Yet, today, mechanical ticker tape machines, and ticker 

tape, have both long been relegated to the dustbin of history. The use of streaming 

tickers, rolling silently across the bottom of TV and Internet-connected computer screens 

continues to this day, albeit without the very sound that gave rise to the name given to the 

format itself. The rolling ticker data format remains the same; long after ticker tape itself 

has ceased to exist, to permit interfacing stock market data in a familiar way to the 

legions of stock market watchers. Although ticker tape is gone, its’ underlying method of 

streaming information remains.338 

In much the same way, although specific technologies may be replaced in the future on 

Spaceports and Ranges, the lesson from the past is that newly introduced technologies 

usually must continue to interface in familiar ways, to avoid confusing the human users. 

 

335 http://www.w-pro.com/edison/

336 Over 5,000 of Edison’s Universal Stock Tickers were ultimately produced, in what became Edison’s 

first commercial success, and their widespread success established Edison as a notable inventor, and 

further provided him with Wall Street financier connections that funded additional developments at 

Edison’s Menlo Park laboratory, which became known as The Invention Factory among the financiers. 

337 Wi-Fi may very well enter common use not only as a description of a specific method of wireless 

interconnectivity, but also for a more generic method of becoming wireless-enabled within just a few years, 

as more and more use is made of the technology in the public. 

338 Increasing information bandwidth in 1871 terms would have equated to sending information faster, the 

same as today, but specifically, in 1871, it most probably would have meant simply making ticker tape 

wider! 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

236

Figure 7-6 Thomas Edison’s Universal Stock Ticker 

Achieving acceptance of new human engineering interfaces requires a keen 

understanding of numerous computer-based information topics coupled with a deep 

appreciation of historical practices. Whatever the technologies are forthcoming in the 

near term, foreseen or not in this document, an underlying need will exist for keeping 

human interactions smoothly integrated with the technologies, if success is ultimately to 

follow. It is the hope that this document has accomplished its goals of keeping humans 

innately involved in achieving routine access to space. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

237
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

238

8.0 PROPOSED RISM PHASE 2 (ECT) ACTIVITIES

During the RISM Phase I Project, the RISM team comprised of: 

• NASA and NASA-contractor engineers and managers 

 

• Aerospace leaders from Government, Academia, and Private Industry 

participating through the Space Based Range Distributed System Working Group 

(SBRDSWG) 

 

• Members of the Advanced Range Technology Working Group (ARTWG) 

subgroups 

 

• Members of the Advanced Spaceport Technology Working Group (ASTWG) 

have together envisioned a future Spaceport and Range that builds on today’s legacy 

cabled and wireless infrastructure and that additionally provides a seamless integration of 

emerging communication techniques. 

As envisioned by these aerospace leaders, the future Spaceport and Range will constitute 

a single communication and data-networking environment and additionally will: 

• Contain mobile, portable, and fixed elements 

 

• Provide an always on, 24/7, communication environment 

• Provide high bandwidths, achieved without wires or cables that will form the 

majority of new extensions to today’s infrastructure, to permit flexible 

accommodating change, and to avoid stuffing more physical cables into the cable 

trays and ducts that exist today 

• Be pervasively connected, in terms of linking wirelessly and without fibers (e.g., 

a “fiberless” extension to the existing infrastructure) nearly everything that is new 

or that is added to the Spaceport and Range environment 

• Provide seamless connections to today’s wired communications infrastructure, as 

well as to future systems 

• Provide Data Assurance, comprised of: 

o Data Integrity (i.e., protection against tampering, whether intentional or 

unintentional) 

o Data Authentication (i.e., anti-spoofing functionality) 

o Data Availability (which can range from minor latency issues (timeliness) all 

the way to data unavailability) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

239

o Data Ease-of-Use 

o Data Security (i.e., protection of data content to unauthorized personnel) 

The overarching conclusion from the RISM Phase I activities, culminating in this 

document, is that the future of Spaceport and Range communication and data networking 

will largely grow from the communications baselines that exist today. Although this is 

believed true, there are key missing technologies and areas where development must 

occur to permit the growth from today’s infrastructure. 

For the buried fiber optic cables and much of the infrastructure that is in place today, no 

recommendation is made for their removal or wholesale replacement. Rather, the growth 

that is foreseen is for the edge of the data network, involving the ‘on’ and ‘off’ ramps for 

data. 

For FY03, the RISM project will be renamed ECT (Emerging Communication 

Technology) to describe better the R&D effort that will be occurring. The project will 

continue technology research (that resulted in a broad scope distributed range subsystem 

report in year one) through "drilling down" into the three key technology areas identified 

in the report: 

• Free Space Optics (FSO) 

• Ultra Wideband (UWB 

• Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi) 

The emphasis in FY03 will be to ensure technology interoperability of future Space 

Based Range Distributed Subsystems by focusing on the areas that will likely provide the 

biggest rewards for early investment of resources, through identifying future Spaceport 

and Range technology shortcomings while there is still time to encourage inclusion of 

features in commercial products to reduce the cost of future hardware, software, and 

communication protocols. One of the key topics to be investigated is data assurance, 

comprised of data integrity, data authentication, data availability, data ease-of-use, and 

data security, overlaid over the three transport mechanisms of FSO, UWB, and Wi-Fi. 

The goal is to identify the fundamental shortcomings that must be filled in three of the 

most promising commercial communication technologies prior to integrating functions 

into an integrated future data network. 

The objectives will be as follows: 

 

• Continue bi-weekly working group telecons, to extract/provide knowledge 

from/to acknowledged aerospace leaders in academia, industry, and Government, 

thereby engendering a technology support infrastructure to support future 

commercial communication technology developments that include built-in 

features to reduce future Government hardware costs 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

240

• Establish a laboratory for evaluation of FSO, UWB, and Wi-Fi technologies 

• Conduct tests for achieving a detailed technology investigation of FSO, UWB, 

and Wi-Fi technology to support high-speed, selectable security, & data 

connectivity needs for multiple applications 

• Determine compatibility of these technologies with existing communication 

systems 

• Investigate test exemplars from major vendors 

• Determine performance thru laboratory & field tests, thereby establishing limits 

on communication range and electromagnetic compatibility of these technologies 

with existing communication systems 

• Publish a report 

o Detailing the theoretical limitations 

o Documenting the measured test results 

o Identifying technology short comings and present a recommendation 

either for or against integrating these emerging technologies into future 

Spaceports and Ranges 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

241
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

242

9.0 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTORS

9.1 RISM BIOGRAPHICAL THUMBNAIL SKETCHES 

Gary L. Bastin, Ph.D.

Dr. Gary Bastin, as RISM Technical Lead, was responsible for setting the vision of this 

project, for both the written document, as well as of the bi-weekly SBRDSWG telecons. 

He contributed heavily to the communication technology sections of this document. 

William G. Harris, P.E.

Mr. William ‘Bill’ Harris, as RISM Task Order Lead, was responsible for the overall 

project. This included creating the RISM work plan, staffing the project, interfacing with 

the NASA customer, reporting progress, and managing most of the day-to-day activities. 

He established the initial outline for the final report and contributed heavily to the Range 

and Vehicle sections. 

9.2 FIRSTWG / SBRDSWG PARTICIPANTS & AFFILIATIONS 

The Range Information System Management (RISM) project facilitated a working group, 

the Space-Based Range Distributed Subsystem Working Group (SBRDSWG) which was 

later renamed the Future Integrated Range and Spaceport Technology Working Group 

(FIRSTWG). 

The SBRDSWG helped to identify the current state of the art, and potential new 

technologies, for possible future use in communication system architectures that will 

provide data networking in support of Spaceports and Ranges. 

SBRDSWG’s efforts were in addition to, and complimentary to, efforts of the ARTWG 

Communication Architecture Subgroup, as well as the efforts of the other ARTWG 

Subgroups, and of ASTWG. 

Products from the RISM Project’s efforts (and SBRDSWG), such as candidate 

technologies and potential architectures, formally feed into the ARTWG Communication 

Architecture Subgroup for ARTWG, and into the ASTWG. These inputs will be 

evaluated in the same manner and process as the inputs coming from any other 

organizations or projects feeding information into ARTWG and ASTWG. 

Working Group forums (and likewise initiatives, such as SBRDSWG) help the ARTWG, 

ARTWG subgroups, and the ASTWG “drill down” to technical details and levels that 

would otherwise not be possible. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

243

In addition, pioneering work in determining potential technologies and architectures 

helps the ARTWG Technology Integration Steering Committee (the leadership and 

vision teams combined), as well as the ASTWG, focus their efforts toward identifying 

possible system architectures for the near term, mid term, and long term. 

 

The RISM project (and SBRDSWG), along with other efforts such as the Extended 

Range Concept Definition Study being done by Booz/Allen/Hamiliton for the California 

Space Authority, are all significant first steps helping to refine the ARTWG 

recommended architectures and technology focus areas. These efforts are helping the 

ARTWG establish national roadmaps by April ’03. 

 

Table 9-1 lists the SRBDSWG members and their affiliations. Although the 

contributions of the members listed herein are numerous in terms of their impacts on this 

document, all responsibility for any errors or other inaccuracies in this document reside 

solely with the authors, Dr. Gary Bastin and Mr. William Harris, and not with any other 

members of the working group. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

244

Table 9-1 Future Integrated Range/Spaceport Technologies Working Group 

First Last Affiliation 

Rick Augustine Boeing-SLRSC 

Rick Bailey SMC/CWP 

Dr. Gary Bastin Dynacs-KSC 

Diwan Bhathac FAA 

Patricia Berwanger NOTU 

Rick Birr Dynacs-KSC 

John Bourke Harris 

Dr. Jack Brady Harris 

D. Brown NCSU 

David Brown USAF 

Brian Budkley Interface Control 

Bob Chiodini Dynacs-KSC 

Alex Coleman NASA-WSF

Erik Denson NASA-KSC

Allan Dianic ENSCO 

Dr. Phillip DiPiazza Florida Tech 

George Eleneical L-M 

Temel Erdogan Dynacs-KSC

Scott Fagan 

CD Forbes Veridian 

Larry Freudinger NASA-DFRC 

Mark Gardner Florida Space Authority 

Richard Gassman Harris 

Larry Gooch California Space Authority
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

245

First Last Affiliation 

Chuck Grant NASA-GSFC 

Bill Harris Dynacs-KSC 

Kenneth Heffner 45SW/SYR 

Hal Herring CSR 

Thomas Hillyer L-M 

Mike Hitch Harris 

Adrian Hooke NASA-JPL 

Stewart Jackson FAA 

Chris Kerios Dynacs-KSC 

Steven Kermer NASA-GSFC 

Ray Knighton ITT-SLRSC 

Dick Krizan AF/45SW 

Dave Laster NASA-GSFC 

K. LeClaire Spacevest 

Al Levine NASA-GSFC 

Jason Lyden Harris 

Sean Madole AF/LAAFS SMC/CW 

John Madura NASA-KSC 

Dale Magnuson ITT-SLRSC 

Jose Marin Dynacs-KSC 

Carl McNutt Harris 

 mdo RTI

Dave Miller Dynacs-KSC 

Rod Morris Viasat
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

246

First Last Affiliation 

Velda Musgrove ITT-SLRSC 

Greg Nelson Dynacs-KSC 

Rich Nelson NASA-KSC 

Matt Olenick Swales-KSC 

Ron Phillips FSI/UCF 

Don Philp Dynacs-KSC 

Mike Pleskach Harris 

D Ponchak NASA-GRC 

Wayne Powell NASA-GSFC 

Kevin Pruett Harris 

Charles Puckett SLRSC 

Bill Roeder NASA-KSC 

Raymond Rumph Harris 

John Seybold Florida Tech 

Pradipta Shome FAA 

Dr. Jim Simpson NASA-KSC 

Darin Skelly NASA-KSC 

 Snyder Eglin 

Stan Starr Dynacs-KSC 

Randy Sweet Lockheed Martin 

Bill Toler NASA-KSC 

Marty Waldman Vandenberg 

Phil Weber NASA-KSC 

Chuck White Boeing-SLRSC 

Elaine Williams Dynacs-KSC 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

247
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

248

10.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Although there is always the risk of inadvertently forgetting someone, the RISM team 

nonetheless wishes to acknowledge especially the assistance and guidance provided by 

the following individuals, listed alphabetically. Without the continued support of these 

supporters who believed in the value of this project, this project could not have 

accomplished all its goals. 

Name Organization

Hugo Delgado NASA-KSC 

Eric Denson NASA-KSC 

Temel Erdogan Dynacs 

Mike Grant CSR-Tel-4 

Debra Holiday FL Space Authority 

Don Hoover CSR-Optics 

Gary Janousek CSR-XY 

Chris Kerios Dynacs 

Ray Knighton ITT-SLRSC 

Dennis McCunnion CSR-TVOC 

Jules McNeff NASA-HQ 

Rich Nelson NASA-KSC 

Don Philp Dynacs 

John Rush NASA-HQ 

Jim Shaver NASA-Hanger AE 

Steve Schaefer Dynacs 

Steve Schindler NASA-KSC 

Darin Skelly NASA-KSC 

Stan Starr Dynacs 

Dave Struba NASA-HQ 

Lisa Valencia NASA-KSC 

John Walker CSR-JDMTA 

Phil Weber NASA-KSC 

Special thanks go to the late Steve Schaefer, who passed away during this project at a 

much too early age. He was instrumental in establishing the shared-access computer 

drives to enable the RISM team to work efficiently and effectively in the course of this 

project. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

249
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

250

11.0 GLOSSARY

0 

(reserved) 

1 

10BaseT 10 Mb/s Ethernet, the first Ethernet standard 

100BaseT 100 Mb/s Ethernet, also known as fast Ethernet 

100BaseTX 100 Mb/s Ethernet over UTP or STP 

100BaseT4 100 Mb/s Ethernet over Category 3, 4, or 5 cabled UTP. Does not 

support full duplex since four pairs of wires are required to 

interconnect data paths. 

100BaseF 100 Mb/s Ethernet over fiber optic cable 

100BaseFX 100 Mb/s Ethernet over MMF fiber optic cable 

1000BaseX 1000 Mb/s Ethernet over fiber optic cable, also known as Gigabit 

Ethernet (See: 802.3z) 

1000BaseT 1000 Mb/s Ethernet over TSP cable 

1394 Firewire®; a high-speed serial digital interface; also known as ilink®, and as the IEEE 1394 -1995 standard 

1.5G First Generation and a half Wireless; analog based modulation 

services with limited digital functionality, such as 1.5 Way pagers 

that can only respond with canned ASCII messages (Yes, No, etc.) 

to SMS received messages. 

2 

24/7 Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week; indicates continuous 

service 

2G Second Generation; Second Generation Wireless; wireless services 

utilizing digital techniques, in contrast to first generation wireless 

devices that analog modulation techniques 

2.5G Second Generation and a Half Wireless; wireless services that 

provide all the characteristics of 2G systems with some of the 

characteristics planned for 3G Systems 

2nd Gen Second Generation RLV (deprecated), SLI (preferred) 

3 

3G Third Generation; Third Generation Wireless; wireless services 

that provide roaming abilities among various systems, across 

national boundaries, with automatic billing, having integrated 

voice and data functionality, although with limited data throughput 

capability (typically < 35 Mb/s) 

3GPP Third Generation Partnership Program; a 3G Wireless partnership 

program 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

251

4 

4G Fourth Generation; Fourth Generation Wireless; wireless services 

that provide all the characteristics of 3G Systems, with the 

additional ability to interact wirelessly with various other types of 

4G devices, and which provide high speed data throughput (> 50 

Mb/s) 

5 

(reserved) 

6 

(reserved) 

7 

(reserved) 

8 

802.3 Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi) standard; in formal terms, the IEEE 

802.11 WLAN Standard 

802.11a Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi) operating at speeds up to 54 Mb/s in the 

5 GHz band 

802.11b Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi) operating at speeds up to 11 Mb/s in the 

2.4 GHz ISM band 

802.11b+ A non-standard, proprietary Wireless Ethernet ‘turbo-standard’ 

describing products sold only by D-Link Systems operating at 

speeds up to 22 Mb/s in the 2.4 GHz ISM band; 802.11b+ 

equipment is incompatible with all other vendors’ Wireless 

Ethernet products when operated in ‘turbo’ mode 

802.11g Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi) operating at speeds up to 54 Mb/s in the 

2.4 GHz ISM band 

802.11i Wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi) with TKIP-based encryption 

802.15.4 An emerging IEEE standard for an ultra low-power consumption 

wireless technology known as Zigbee. 

802.1X An IEEE standard for passing EAP over a wired or wireless LAN 

that avoids having to package EAP within PPP; 802.1X 

accomplishes authentication, only, unlike full PPP, and also 

supports protocols other than TCP/IP (See: EAPOL, EAP, PPP) 

 CSMA/CD Ethernet-based LAN standard (See: CSMA/CD) 

802.3ae 10 Gb/s Ethernet-based LAN standard 

802.3z Gigabit Ethernet-based LAN standard 

9 

(reserved) 

A 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

252

AADC Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation 

AB Air Base 

ABM Anti-ballistic Missile (Treaty) 

ac Alternating Current 

ACME Command Message tester 

ACS Assembly and Command Ship 

A/D Analog to Digital 

AELS Augmented Emergency Landing Sites 

AEOS Advanced Electro Optical System 

AFB Air Force Base 

AFDTC Air Force Development Test Center (Eglin) 

AFETR Air Force Eastern Test Range; also ETR; also ESMC; 

AFFTC Air Force Flight Test Center (Edwards AFB) 

AFSCN Air Force Satellite Control Network 

AFSPACECOM Air Force Space Command 

AFSS Autonomous Flight Safety System 

AFWTR Air Force Western Test Range 

A/G Air to Ground 

AI Artificial Intelligence 

AJ Anti-Jam 

AK Alaska 

AL Alabama 

ALCOR ARPA Lincoln C-Band Observable Radar 

ALDF Advanced Lightning Direction Finders 

ALF Auxiliary Landing Field 

ALTAIR ARPA Long-Range Tracking and Instrumentation Radar 

ALTS Aided Laser Tracking System 

AMOS Air Force Maui Optical Station 

AN/FPQ-14 Missile Precision Instrumentation Radar (MIPIR) 

AN/FPQ-15 Target Tracking Radar (TTR) 

AN/FPQ-18 Ascension radar 

ANGB Air National Guard Base 

AN/MPS-39 Multiple Object Tracking Radar (MOTAR) 

AOA Abort-Once-Around 

AOR Atlantic Ocean Region 

AOV Acquisition of Visual 

APARS Advanced Phased Array Radar System 

APT Aerial Propellant Transfer (in-flight re-fueling) 

ARDC Air Research and Development Command 

ARDS Advanced Range Data System 

ARIA Advanced Range Instrumentation Aircraft 

ARPA United States Defense Advanced Research Project Agency; also 

known as DARPA 

ARPANET Advanced Research Project Agency Network; a large computer 

WAN created by the United States Defense Advanced Research 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

253

Project Agency started in 1969 between UCLA and the Stanford 

Research Institute – it was the precursor to today’s Internet 

ARC Ames Research Center 

ARSR Air Route Surveillance Radar 

ARTM-IS Advanced Range Telemetry Integration and Support 

ARTWG Advanced Range Technology Working Group 

AS Anti-Spoofing (GPS) 

ASC Airspace Surveillance Center 

ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange 

ASIC Application Specific Integrated Circuit 

AST Airborne Surveillance Test bed 

ASTE Armament Systems Test Environment 

ASTG Aerospace Test Group 

ASTWG Advanced Spaceport Technology Working Group 

ATDC Advanced Technology Development Center LC#20 

ATF Aeronautical Tracking Facility 

ATOTS Advanced Transportable Optical Tracking System 

AWG Arrayed Waveguide Grating; an optical planar lightwave 

demultiplexer, used for separating DWDM signals, i.e., for 

providing optical drop functions 

Az Azimuth 

B 

b Bit, a binary digit, a ZERO or a ONE 

b/s bits per second 

B 

BARSTUR Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range 

BER Bit Error Rate 

BGP Border Gateway Protocol; a router Ethernet protocol for 

provisioning MPLS 

BIDDS Base Integrated Data Distribution System 

Bluetooth Short range WPAN technology standard used for replacing cables 

BM Body Mounted 

BMD Ballistic Missile Defense 

bps bits per second 

BPSK Binary Phase Shift Keying; Bi-Phase Shift Keying 

BW Bandwidth 

C 

C&DH Control & Data Handling (STARS module) 

C/A-Code Coarse Acquisition Code (GPS) 

C Celsius 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

254

C Centigrade 

Cable Modem A modem intended to provide two-way computer network 

operation over an existing cable TV system, usually using the 

DOCSIS standard. 

CAD Computer Aided Design 

CANDOS Communications & Navigations Demonstrations on Shuttle 

Cat Category; as in Cat-5 Ethernet cabling 

CBD Commerce Business Daily 

CCAS Cape Canaveral Air Station 

CCF Central control Facility (Eglin) 

CCRS Central Command Remoting System 

CCSDS Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems 

CCTV Closed Circuit Television 

CD Collision Detection 

CD&SC Communication Distribution & Switching Center 

CFRSL Central Florida Remote Sensing Lab (UCF) 

CGLSS Cloud to Ground Lightning Surveillance System 

CH Channel 

CIGTF Central Inertial Guidance Test Facility 

cm Centimeter 

COMSEC Communications Security 

cps Cycles Per Second 

CSLA Commercial Space Launch Act; A 1984 Law, amended in 1988 

and again in 1998, governing the evolving role of Government 

launch providers and private launch providers within the United 

States 

CSOC Consolidated Space Operations Contract 

CSMA Carrier Sense Multiple Access (used in Ethernet) 

CSMA/CD Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Detect (Ethernet 

technique) 

CTS Command Transmitter System 

CY Calendar Year (in contrast to FY) 

CW Continuous Wave (an unmodulated RF signal, usually a sine wave) 

D 

D/A Digital to Analog 

D/L Data Link 

D/L Downlink 

DAC Digital to Analog Converter 

DARPA United States Defense Advanced Research Project Agency; also 

known as ARPA (see ARPA, ARPANET) 

Datacom Data Communications; short-range communications of data; in 

opposition or in contrast with Telecom 

dB Decibel; 10 * log (ratio of power levels), logarithm to base 10. 

dBc Decibels Referred to Carrier power 

dBm Decibels Referred to 1 MilliWatt 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

255

dBW Decibels Referred to 1 Watt 

dc Direct Current 

DCSS Digital Communication Switching System 

DDOT&E/RR Deputy Director, Operational Test and Evaluation/Resources and 

Ranges 

DE Differentially Encoded 

DEMUX Demultiplexer 

DFB Distributed Feedback (type of laser) 

DFRC Dryden Flight Research Center 

DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, Dynamic Host Control 

Protocol; a computer communications protocol; a TCP/IP protocol 

providing automatic host configuration 

DISN Defense Integrated Switching Network 

DMA Defense Mapping Agency 

DME Distance Measuring Equipment 

DMNE Digital Message Network 

DMS Decision Models and Simulation 

DNA Does Not Apply 

DOAMS Distant Object Attitude Measurement System 

DOCSIS Data over Cable Service Interface Specification; a Cable Modem 

protocol specification – DOCSIS includes networking support for 

computers, as well as HDTVs and set-top TV boxes 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOF Degrees-of-Freedom 

DOP Dilution-of-Precision 

DOT&E Director, Operational Test and Evaluation 

DRCS Digital Range Communication System 

DRS Data Relay Satellite 

DRS Data Relay Station 

DRS Digital Range Safety 

DS Data Strobe 

DS-DE Data Strobe, Differentially Encoded (digital signal format) 

DSB Defense Science Board 

DSL Direct Subscriber Line (high-speed computer interface over 

ordinary phone lines) 

DSN Deep-Space Network 

DSSS Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum. A modulation technique. Used 

on Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11b 

DWDM Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing; the transmission of data 

by which multiple wavelengths of light, each carrying a separate 

data stream, are combined onto a single optical fiber and then 

separated at the receiving end. The spacing between optical 

wavelengths is 200 GHz or 100 GHz, and is moving towards 50 

GHz spacing, for sending data through a single optical fiber. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

256

E 

EAFB Edwards Air Force Base 

EAP Extensible Authentication Protocol; an extension used by some 

vendors (Cisco, et al) to secure a WLAN in addition to WEP; EAP 

is typically embedded inside of PPP (See: 801.1X) 

EAPOL EAP encapsulation Over LANs; the protocol used within 802.1X 

ECAL East Coast Abort Landing 

ECL Emitter Coupled Logic (logic family) 

ECSS European Cooperation for Space Standardization (an ESA 

standards group) 

ECT Emerging Communication Technologies 

EDFA Erbium Doped Fiber Amplifier (fiber optic amplifier) 

EDW Edwards 

EFTS Enhanced Flight Termination System 

EIA Electronic Industries Alliance (standards group) 

EKV Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle 

El Elevation 

ELEV Elevation 

ELS Emergency Landing System 

ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle 

EM Electromagnetic 

EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility 

EMF Electromotive Force 

EMI Electromagnetic Interference (opposite of EMC) 

EMP Electromagnetic Pulse (post nuclear explosion event) 

EMTE Electromagnetic Test Environment 

EOM End of Mission 

EoS Ethernet over SONET; the mapping of Ethernet traffic streams 

over prior existing SONET infrastructure products to increase 

reuse of fielded equipment, reduce upgrade costs, and provide 

more efficient provisioning of bandwidth to end users (see VC) 

ER Eastern Range 

ERDA Erbium Doped Fiber Amplifier (fiber optic amplifier, EDFA 

preferred) 

ERDAS Eastern Range Dispersion Assessment System 

ERIS Exo-atmospheric Reentry Interceptor Subsystem 

ERP Effective Radiated Power 

ES Environment and Safety Directorate 

ESA European Space Agency 

ESD Electro-static Discharge (static electricity) 

ESMC Eastern Space and Missile Center (formerly AFETR); also ETR 

ESSM Evolved Seasparrow Missile 

ET External Tank 

Ethernet Ether Network; a network through which data originally passed 

through coaxial cables, analogous to radio transmissions through 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

257

the mythical Ether, which supposedly filled the vacuum of space 

and through which electromagnetic waves, including light and 

radio, passed in a pre-Einsteinian view of the universe. “Ether” 

thus implied multiplexed radio frequency transmission of data 

‘wirelessly’ (even though sent through a coaxial cable) in place of 

sending individual signals on individual pairs of wires. “Wireless 

Ethernet” is thus seen, in some circles, much as a technical pun, 

implying an escape to freedom of coaxially contained wireless 

multiplexed data wanting to be free, in much the same way as if 

describing a wireless-wireless network, similar to “Wireless 

Cable”. 

ETO Earth to Orbit 

ETR Eastern Test Range (ESMC preferred) 

ETROD Eastern Test Range Operations Directive 

EV Expendable Vehicle 

EW Electronic Warfare 

F 

F Fahrenheit 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FACA Federal Advisory Council Act 

FAR Federal Aviation Regulation 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FCO Flight Control Officer 

FEA Failure Effects Analysis 

FEA Fast Ethernet Alliance 

FEC Forward Error Correction; error detection and correction with 

block (e.g., Reed Solomon), convolutional (e.g. Viterbi) or other 

modern codes (Fire Codes, etc.) 

FEC Forward Equivalence Class; a method of identifying and 

classifying traffic flows according to QoS requirements within 

routers 

Firewire High-speed serial digital interface; also known as i-link, 1394, and 

IEEE 1394-5 

FIRSTWG Future Integrated Range and Spaceport Technology Working 

Group 

FL Florida 

FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis 

FPGA Field Programmable Gate Array (logic chip) 

FPS Radar designation 

fps Feet per Second; velocity 

fps2 Feet per second squared; fps2

; acceleration 

FPQ-14 Radar designation 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

258

FSCM Federal Supply Code for Manufacturers; a unique identifier for 

defense contractors and suppliers 

FSO Free Space Optical 

Ft Feet 

Ft Fort 

FTE Full Time Employee 

FTP File Transfer Protocol; an Internet protocol for transferring files 

error-free 

FTS Flight Termination System 

FTSC Flight Termination Standing Committee 

FTSS Flight Test Support System; FTSS was replaced by TGRS (See: 

TGRS) 

FY Fiscal Year

G 

G Giga (1,000,000,000) 

G Units of Gravitational Force 

G/A Ground-to-Air 

G/T Antenna Gain-to-Noise Temperature Ratio (measure of 

sensitivity); (pronounced as “G” over “T”); measured in dB 

GaAs Gallium Arsenide 

GEO Geostationary 

GEODSS Ground-based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance 

GFE Government Furnished Equipment 

GFT General Force Theory (unification of Theory of Relativity with 

other theories) 

GHz GigaHertz (1000 MegaHertz) 

GIS Geographic Information System 

Global Hawk One specific UAV 

gm gram 

GMT Greenwich Mean Time (deprecated; UTC now preferred); the time 

on the prime meridian (at zero degrees longitude) in Greenwich, 

England 

GOM Ground Operations Manager 

GPa Giga Pascals (measure of the strength of materials) 

GPS Global Positioning System (see TGRS) 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center (Greenbelt, MD) 

GSM Global System for Mobile communication; the de facto encrypted 

wireless telephone service in Europe and over 120 countries 

worldwide (also available on a non-compatible equipment basis, in 

limited parts of the United States); two frequency bands are used: 

900 MHz and 1800 MHz; encryption is provided through two 

algorithms, one of which is country dependant/definable and the 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

259

other of which is universally the same (these are the A3/A5 

encryption algorithms) 

GUT General Unified Theory (unification of Theory of Relativity; GFT 

preferred) 

GWEF Guided Weapons Evaluation Facility (Eglin) 

H 

H2 Hydrogen; specifically, molecular diatomic hydrogen in the 

normal associated state of two atoms of hydrogen bonded together 

in contrast to atomic hydrogen consisting of but one atom of 

hydrogen 

H2O2 Hydrogen Peroxide; (a non-cryogenic rocket propellant oxidizer) 

HAFB Holloman Air Force Base 

HAM Holloman Aero-Medical laboratory 

Handheld Portable Computer, such as a PDA 

HDMS Hawaii Digital Microwave System 

HDTV High Definition Television 

He Helium 

HELSTF High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility 

HHSTT Holloman High Speed Test Track 

HI Hawaii 

HOE Homing Overlay Experiment 

HPF Hypergolic Maintenance Facility 

HQ Headquarters 

HTHL Horizontal Takeoff – Horizontal Landing 

HTVL Horizontal Takeoff – Vertical Landing 

HWIL Hardware In the Loop 

Hz Hertz (Cycles Per Second) 

I 

ID Identification 

I&M Improvement and Modernization 

I/O Input/Output 

ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile 

IEEE A non-profit, technical professional association of more than 

377,000 individual members in 150 countries. The full name is the 

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc., although the 

organization is most popularly known and referred to by the letters 

I-E-E-E ((Eye-triple-E). 

IETF Internet Engineering Task Force; for more information on the 

IETF, see their website at http://ww.ietf.org/. 

IFLOT Intermediate Focal Length Optical Tracker 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

260

IIP Instantaneous Impact Point; location where a missile will land, 

computed based on present ballistic and un-powered flight profiles 

IGS Inner Glide Slope 

IGOR Intercept Ground Optical Recorder 

ILL Instantaneous Landing Location; location where a missile will land 

(See IIP) 

in Inch 

INMARSAT International Maritime Satellite 

IOP Interoperability 

IOS Indian Ocean Ship (STDN) 

IOS Indian Ocean STDN Site 

IP Internet Protocol 

IP Intellectual Property 

IP Impact Point 

IPF Integration & Processing Facility 

IPO Initial Public Offering; the selling of stock in a company in order 

to raise money through conversion of a privately held company to 

becoming a publicly held company, and to provide an ‘exit 

strategy’ for VC funds (See VC) 

IPSEC Internet Protocol Security; a VPN implementing protocol based on 

encryption either complementary to, or competing with, MPLS 

IPv4 Internet Protocol Version 4; a router protocol governed by 

RFC1812 (see RFC) 

IPv6 Internet Protocol Version 6; a router protocol governed by 

RFC3146 that extends the Internet’s IP address space, permitting 

more computers to be connected to the Internet (see RFC) 

ISA Industry Standard Architecture; an older 16-bit PC expansion slot 

interface associated with IBM AT (286) era hardware (see PCI) 

ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network; an early voice, video and data 

service providing 64 Kb/s throughput over telephone lines, 

typically in two independent 64 Kb/s streams (for 128 Kb/s, total). 

(DSL is the logical successor.) 

IRIG Inter-Range Instrumentation Group 

ISAR Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar 

ISM Industrial, Scientific, Medical, domestic (RF band reserved for 

serving these users) 

ISP Internet Service Provider 

ISS International Space Station 

ISTEF Innovative Science and TEchnology Facility 

ITU International Telecommunication Union; a European standards 

body founded in 1865, which became a United Nations agency in 

1947 

IWG Interagency Working Group 

J 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

261

J Joule (SI Unit) 

JAMI Joint Advanced Missile Instrumentation 

JDMTA Jonathan Dickinson Missile Tracking Annex 

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

JR Junior 

JSC Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (formerly MSC); Johnson Space 

Center 

JBOS Joint Base Operations and Support 

K 

k Kilo (1,000) 

KAL Korean Airlines 

kHz KiloHertz 

KLC Kodiak Launch Complex 

KSC John F. Kennedy Space Center 

KSC Kennedy Space Center 

KTF Kauai Test Facility 

KTM Kineto Tracking Mount 

KTS Kwajalein Test Site 

kW KiloWatt 

kWh KiloWatt Hours 

L 

L1 Link 1 (GPS) at 1575.42 MHz 

L2 Link 2 (GPS) at 1227.6 MHz 

L5 Link 5 (GPS) at 1176.45 MHz 

LAN Local Area Network 

LASER Light Amplification through the Stimulated Emission of Radiation 

LASS Launch Area Support Ship 

LATS Launch Area Theodolite Systems 

LBS Location Based Services; a protocol supported by the LIF 

LBTS Large Blast Thermal Simulator 

LC Launch Complex 

LCC Launch Control Center 

LDP Label Distribution Protocol; an MPLS router protocol 

LEO Low Earth Orbit 

LER Label Edge Router; an MPLS based router on the edge of the 

network that controls traffic entering and leaving the MPLS 

network; (see LSR) 

LHCP Left Hand Circularly Polarized 

LHe Liquid Helium 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

262

LH2 Liquid Hydrogen; a cryogenic propellant fuel 

LIDAR Light/Laser Radar 

LIF Location Interoperability Forum (its functionality is absorbed into 

OMA) 

L-M Lockheed Martin Company 

LMSO Lockheed Martin Space Operations 

LNA Low Noise Amplifier 

LN2 Liquid Nitrogen 

LO Local Oscillator; an oscillator used to translate the frequency of a 

signal going into an RF mixer; can be either crystal controlled or a 

synthesizer (See PSD) 

LO2 Liquid Oxygen (LOX); a cryogenic propellant oxidizer. 

LOS Line of Sight 

LOS Loss of Signal 

LOSC Launch Operations Support Contract 

LOV Loss of Visual 

LOX Liquid Oxygen (LO2); a cryogenic propellant oxidizer. 

LPI Low Probability of Intercept. A desirable feature of some DSSS 

signals 

LPLWS The Launch Pad Lightning Warning System 

LPT Low Powered Transceiver (STARS module) 

LSP Label Switched Path; a virtual path through an MPLS network 

LSR Label Switch Router; an MPLS based router located at other than 

on the edge of an MPLS network; (see LER); an intermediate 

router in an MPLS network 

LVDS Low Voltage Differential Signaling (digital signaling format) 

M 

m 

M Mega (1,000,000) 

M Meter 

mA Milli-Ampere (one thousandth of a Amp) 

MAC Military Airlift Command 

MAC Media Access Control (layer of OSI, see OSI) 

MAN Metro Area Network (contrasts with LAN (smaller) and WAN 

(bigger)) 

Manned Containing a staff of human(s) aboard a vehicle (deprecated; the 

term ‘crewed’ is now preferred) 

MARSS Meteorological and Range Safety Support 

MASER Microwave Amplification through the Stimulated Emission of 

Radiation; a LASER technology precursor/predecessor 

MATS Multimode Automatic Tracking Systems 

Mb/s Megabits per Second 

MCBR Mobile C-band Radar 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

263

MCC-DOD Mission Control Center-DOD 

MCC-H Mission Control Center-Houston 

MCC-K Mission Control Center-Kennedy 

MCC-NASA Mission Control Center-NASA 

MDI Miss Distance Indication 

MFCO Main Flight Control Officer 

MHz MegaHertz (one million cycles per second) 

MIDDS Meteorological Interactive Data Display System 

MIDI Miss Distance Measurement Instrument 

MILA Merritt Island Launch Annex 

MIRACL Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser 

MK Mark 

MLP Mobile Launch Platform 

MMF Multi-mode fiber (type of fiber optic cable) 

MMH Monomethyl hydrazine (a hypergolic rocket propellant fuel) 

MMS Multimedia Messaging Service; a wireless standard 

MMW Millimeter Wave Radar 

MOC Metric Optics Control 

MOL Manned Orbiting Laboratory 

MOTIF Maui Optical tracking and Identification Facility 

MOTR Multiple Object Tracking Radar 

MOTS Mobile Optical Tracking System 

MPIR Missile Precision Instrumentation Radar (AN/FPQ-14) 

MPLS Multi-Protocol Label Switching; MPLS is an internationally 

standardized protocol that is not vendor-specific and which is an 

advanced way to deploy VPN connections with QoS requirements 

to large numbers of users simultaneously (see BGP); MPLS is 

sometime known as Multiprotocol Tag Switching (Cisco’s original 

proprietary term for the technology) as well as Multiprotocol 

Lambda Switching (a futuristic private wavelength method of 

meeting QoS requirements); a competing but sometimes 

complementary technology to IPSEC for providing VPN 

connections 

MRTFB Major Range and Test Facility Base 

MSA Multi-Source Agreement (a fiber optic industry practice, of which 

many exist for various technologies: XAUI, XFP, XGP, to provide 

common interface modules and interfaces.) 

MSBLS Microwave Scanning Beam Landing System 

MSBLS-GS Microwave Scanning Beam Landing System – Ground Station 

MSBLS-JR Microwave Scanning Beam Landing System – Junior 

MSC Manned Spacecraft Center (changed to JSC) 

MSC Meteorology System Computers 

MSFC George C. Marshall Space Flight Center; Marshall Space Flight 

Center 

MSFN Manned Space Flight Network 

MSN Mission 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

264

MSS Meteorological Sounding System 

MSSS Maui Space Surveillance Site 

MTBF Mean Time Between Failures 

MTD Materiel Test Directorate 

MTS Mobile Telemetry System 

mV MilliVolts (one thousandth of a Volt) 

mW MilliWatt (one thousandth of a Watt) 

N 

N2 Nitrogen 

N2H4 Hydrazine 

N2HO4 Nitrogen Peroxide 

N2O4 Nitrogen Tetroxide; (a hypergolic rocket propellant oxidizer) 

NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics 

NAS National Airport System 

NAS Naval Air Station 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NAT Network Address Translation (Ethernet re-addressing) 

NAWCWD Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division 

NAWS Naval Air Weapons Station 

NBM Navy Ballistic Missile 

NBVC Naval Base Ventura County 

NCC Network Control Center 

NF Noise Figure 

NH3 Ammonia 

NH4 Hydrazine 

NIC Network Interface Card (Ethernet card, typically, at present. 

Historically NICs often referred to other protocols, too.) 

NISN NASA Integrated Services Network 

NLDN National Lightning Detection Network 

NM Nautical Miles 

nm Nanometer 

NMD National Missile Defense 

NOP North Oscura Peak 

NOTS Naval Ordnance Test Station 

NRA NASA Research Announcement 

NRO National Range Operations Directorate 

NRTF National RCS Test Facility 

NS Naval Station 

NSF Naval Supply facility 

NRZ Non-Return-to-Zero 

NRZ-L Non-Return-to-Zero Level 

NSC National Security Council 

NWAD Naval Warfare Assessment Division 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

265

NWTRC Naval Western Test Range Complex 

O 

O ( ) Big ‘Oh’ notation; a mathematical measure of complexity; a 

mathematical scale for comparing implementation difficulties 

among different mathematically intensive algorithms; the 

argument of the Big ‘Oh’ function is the measure of the 

complexity, with typical arguments being n, n2

, n3, etc., and where 

the lower the power of the exponent, the lower the implementation 

complexity; algorithms having higher orders of complexity may be 

impossible to scale upward with existing or even future 

technologies 

O2 Oxygen; specifically, molecular diatomic oxygen in the normal 

associated state of two atoms of oxygen bonded together in 

contrast to atomic oxygen consisting of but one atom of oxygen 

OADS Type of radar 

OC Optical Carrier 

OC-3 Data Rate of 155Mb/s (155.52 Mb/s = 3 x 51.84 Mb/s) 

OC-12 Data Rate of 622 Mb/s (622.08 Mb/s = 12 x 51.84 Mb/s) 

OC-48 Data Rate of 2.5 Gb/s (2488.32 Mb/s = 48 x 51.84 Mb/s) 

OC-192 Data Rate of 10 Gb/s (9953.28 Mb/s = 192 x 51.84 Mb/s) 

OC-768 Data Rate of 40 Gb/s (39813.12 Mb/s = 768 x 51.84 Mb/s) 

OC-3072 Data Rate of 160 Gb/s (159252.48 Mb/s = 3072 x 51.84 Mb/s) 

OFDM Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing; a modulation 

technique; used on Wi-Fi 802.11a. 

OGS Outer Glide Slope 

OIF Optical Internetworking Forum (fiber optic equipment standards 

group) 

OIS Operational Intercommunication System 

OLE Object Linking and Embedding; a method by which Windows 3.1 

(and later Windows versions) running on PCs were able to provide 

data sharing between applications running simultaneously on the 

same computer, thereby preventing the need for the re-typing of 

data from one software application into another 

OMA Open Mobile Alliance; an organization with the goal of removing 

existing barriers and permitting the global seamless application 

interoperability for mobile wireless users 

ONE Logical one, “1” 

OPF Orbiter Processing Facility 

OSI Open System Interconnection; a 7-layer abstraction model of 

network protocols, extending from Layer 1, or the Physical Layer, 

through Layer 7, or the Application Layer. 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy 

oz Ounce 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

266

P 

PAA Phased Array Antenna 

PACFLT Pacific Fleet 

PAFB Patrick Air Force Base 

PAM Pulse Amplitude Modulation 

PAM-A PAM, Atlas-Centaur Class Spacecraft 

PAPI Precision approach Path Indicator 

PAWS Public Aural Warning System 

PC Personal Computer, usually an IBM compatible clone, although 

technically a Macintosh® by Apple (i.e., a Mac) is also a PC as 

well, although in common usage PCs and Macs are considered 

different 

PCC Portable Computer Card; PC Card; Personal Computer Card; a 

noun used to augment meaning, as in PCC/PCMCIA used to 

indicate a Portable Computer Card supporting the PCMCIA 

standard 

PCL Passive Coherent Locator; a passive RADAR utilizing commercial 

FM and TV broadcasts as the illumination source; Silent SENTRY 

(Lockheed-Martin’s PCL system.) 

PCI Peripheral Component Interconnect; a 32-bit or 64-bit, clocksynchronous PC expansion slot interface governing plug-in cards 

that comes in two basic types (full size and half-sized or smaller) 

and numerous variations, and which supports the older ISA 

interface (see ISA). Originally a local bus, PCI is presently 

supported on nearly all current generation PCs, in both a 124-pin 

and in an expanded 188-pin configuration, independent of 

processor type. 

PCM Pulse Code Modulation 

PCMCIA Personal Computer Memory Card International Association. A PC 

interface standard for small, credit-card sized devices, which 

originally was used only for adding memory to portable computers 

(laptops), but is now used for many types of devices (Ethernet 

cards, Wi-Fi cards, etc.) Always pronounced as individual letters, 

and typically used as an adjective, as in “PCMCIA slot” or 

“PCMCIA card” 

P-Code Precise Code (GPS) 

PCS Personal Communications Services; a wireless telephone service 

technology (also known as digital cellular) that emphasizes 

personal service and user mobility to a larger degree than needed 

solely to provide service to car-mounted wireless phones through 

using larger numbers of relay stations to base stations; PCS 

operates in the 1850 MHz to 1990 MHz band in the United States; 

PCS systems operate variously with CDMA, TDMA, and GSM 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

267

techniques depending on which PCS service provider provides 

one’s service 

PDA Personal Digital Assistant (a small portable computer intended to 

be carried continuously) 

PECL Positive ECL (ECL with positive voltage swings, pronounced as 

“peckle”) 

PHY Physical; often used as a noun to denote Layer 1, the Physical 

Layer, of the OSI, as in “WAN PHY”; usually pronounced as 

‘PHI’ with an ‘I” sound, not an “E” sound 

PIGOR Patrick IGOR Optics site 

PIREP Pilot Reports 

PM Phase Modulation 

PMRF Pacific Missile Range Facility 

PN (1) Pseudo-Noise, pronounced as individual letters; (2) PseudoRandom (2^N –1 length digital sequence of ONEs and ZEROs) 

POTS Plain Old Telephone System; plain old telephone lines, based on 

copper wires; pronounced as one word ‘pots’ 

PPP Point-to-Point Protocol; an early Internet protocol originally used 

solely for dial-up access, but which continues to be used by some 

ISPs for DSL and Cable Modem user authentication through 

sending PPP over Ethernet (Ethernet, in turn, can be sent over 

SONET, ATM, and a multitude of other OSI Layer 1 and 2 

protocols); PPP has also become part of Layer 2 Tunneling 

protocol used in Microsoft’s Window 2000 and later for secure 

remote access; PPP also now commonly incorporates EAP within 

PPP; 802.1X has replaced PPP in some applications (See: EAP, 

801.1X, OSI) 

PRIMES Preflight Integration of Munitions and Electronic Systems 

PRN Pseudo-Random Noise (‘PN noise’ is more commonly seen than 

PRN) 

PSD Power Spectral Density; a source of degradation for BER when 

introduced into a system by synthesizer or oscillator phase noise 

PSK Phase Shift Keyed 

Q 

QoS Quality of Service 

QPSK Quadrature Phase Shift Keying 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

268

R 

R&D Research and Development 

Radius RADIUS; Remote Authentication Dial-in User Service; a remote 

user authentication protocol 

RADOT Recording Automation Digital Optical Tracker 

RADS Radar Acquisition Data System 

RAM Rolling Airframe Missile 

RAMS RATSCAT Advanced Measurement System 

RAMS Radar Cross Section Advanced Measurement System 

RATSCAT Radar Target Scatter 

RCC Range Commanders Council 

RCC Range Control Center 

RCS Radar Cross-Section 

RCV Receive 

RCVR Receiver 

RDT&E Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

RF Radio Frequency; often used as an adjective implying “analog” 

with a meaning in practice that is opposite to the adjective 

“digital”. RF, however, implies operation at a higher frequency 

than baseband analog, hence the term RF/Analog is sometimes 

used. 

RFA RF Authorization (Frequency) 

RFC Request for Comment; a standard nested set of protocols governing 

the Internet dating back to the ARPANET 

RFI Radio Frequency Interference 

RHVTS Ruggedized High Volume Tracking System 

RICS Remote Instrument Control System 

RISM Range Information Systems Management 

RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle 

RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands 

ROC Range Operations Center 

ROCC Range Operations Control Center 

ROTI Recording Optical Tracking Instrument 

ROTR Type of radar 

RP-1 Refined Petroleum One (a fuel) 

RSG Range Safety Group 

RSO Range Safety Officer 

R/S TV Vans Range Safety TV Vans 

RTDPS Real Time Data Processing System 

RTLS Return to Launch Site 

RTS Remote Tracking Station 

RTS Reagan Test Site (Kwajalein) 

RTSC Range Technical Support Contractor 

RX Receiver 

RZ Return-to-Zero 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

269

S 

s 

SA Selective Availability 

SAC Strategic Air Command 

SATCOM Satellite Communication 

SATMS Space & Air Traffic Management System 

SBI Space Based Initiative 

SBR Space Based Range 

SBRA Space Based Range Architecture 

SBRDS Space Based Range Distributed Subsystems 

SBRDSWG Space Based Range Distributed Subsystems Working Group 

SCAT Spacecraft Assemblies Transfer 

SCDS Space Communication and Data Systems 

SCI Santa Cruz Island 

SCPS Space Communication Protocol Standards 

SDH Synchronous Digital Hierarchy; a mostly European fiber optic 

communications ITU standard for synchronous data transmission 

over fiber optic cables; the North American equivalent is SONET 

(See SONET); SDH defines a standard data rate of 155.52 Mb/s, 

known as STS-3 at the electrical level and STM-1 at the optical 

level, which are all equivalent to SONET’s OC-3 data rate 

SDI Strategic Defense Initiative 

SDIO Strategic Defense Initiative Organization 

SE Space Elevator 

SERDES Serializer-Deserializer (a fiber optic transponder function) 

SFF Small Form Factor 

SHF Super High Frequency 

Si 

SiGe Silicon Germanium (semiconductor technology) 

Silent SENTRY Lockheed-Martin’s PCL system (See PCL) 

SLBM Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile 

SLC Space Launch Complex 

SLF Shuttle Landing Facility 

SLI Space Launch Initiative; preferred over 2nd Gen 

SLRSC SpaceLift Range System Contracts 

SLV Space Launch Vehicle 

SM Standard Missile (Navy) 

SMF Single-mode fiber (type of fiber optic cable) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

270

SMS Short Message Service; a 2G or 2.5G protocol for sending short 

ASCII messages up to 160 characters (224 characters if using 5-bit 

mode) to cell phones or pagers from an Internet-connected 

computer or other e-mail account; many SMS services limit 

message lengths for their users to slightly more than 100 

characters, depending on their exact system overhead and 

addressing details that consume some of the allowed 160 

characters; SMS systems typically operate wherever cell phone 

coverage is available; many older SMS systems are 1.5 way 

(canned responses, only) whereas newer SMS systems are 2 way 

(2-way functionality depends on user equipment capability); SMS 

is integral to GSM phone systems; SMS differs from paging in that 

SMS systems hold messages for several days until user equipment 

is turned on, and provide coverage across all of North America, for 

example, whereas pagers do not guarantee delivery of pages 

SNI San Nicolas Island 

SNORT Supersonic Naval Ordnance Research Track 

SOCC Satellite Operations Control Center 

SOHO Small Office, Home Office; an adjective that refers to small 

businesses and home-based offices/businesses as a market segment 

SONET Synchronous Optical Network (fiber optic protocol); a mostly 

North American fiber optic communications ANSI standard for 

synchronous data transmission over fiber optic cables created by 

Bellcore in the 1980’s (See: SDH) 

SOTR Single Object Tracking Radar 

SPARC Single Point Acquisition and Radar Control 

SPARS Sensor Positioning and Read back System 

SPF Single Point Failure 

SPFA Single Point Failure Analysis 

SPFP Single Point Failure Potential 

SRB Solid Rocket Booster 

SRM Solid Rocket Motor 

SRS Spaceport Range Systems 

SRSS Shuttle Range Safety System 

SSCC Space Station Control Center 

SSID Service Set Identifier; the first line of defense in securing a Wi-Fi 

access point against roaming wireless intruders 

SSL Secure Socket Layer (web browser security protocol) 

SSP Space Shuttle Program 

SSPF Space Station Processing Facility 

SSTO Single Stage To Orbit 

SSV Space Shuttle Vehicle 

STA Shuttle Training Aircraft 

STARS Space-Based Telemetry and Range Safety 

STARS An Air Force Missile 

STARS SpaceLift Operations Telemetry Acquisition and Reporting System 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

271

STDN Space Tracking and Data Network 

STDN Spaceflight Tracking and Data Network 

STGT Second TDRSS Ground Terminal 

STP Shielded Twisted Pair (cable shielding description) 

STS Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle) 

STV Space Transfer Vehicle 

SV Space Vehicle (e.g., a GPS satellite) 

SWR Standing Wave Ratio 

T 

T- Time Prior to Launch (T minus) 

T-0 Time Zero, T minus zero 

T-0 Takeoff 

T&E Test & Evaluation 

TAC Kennedy Space Center Landing Site, Florida 

TACAN Tactical Air Navigation 

TAL Transoceanic Abort Landing 

TAS Telemetry Acquisition Systems 

TAS Telemetry Antenna Subsystem 

TAS Tether Applications in Space 

TAS True Airspeed 

TAV Trans Atmospheric Vehicle 

TBD To Be Determined 

TBD To Be Defined 

TBD To Be Developed 

TCF Telemetry Collection Facility 

TCP Transmission Control Protocol 

TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol; a computer 

communication protocol for communicating over the Internet 

TDC Telemetry Data Center 

TDR Tracking and Data Relay 

TDRS Tracking and Data Relay Satellite 

TDRSS Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System; NASA’s primary 

communication system 

Telecom Telecommunications; long-range communications of data; in 

opposition or in contrast with Datacom 

TGRS Translated GPS Range System; Translated Global Position System 

Range System; TGRS replaced FTSS (See: FTSS, GPS) 

THAAD Theater High Altitude Area Defense 

THEL Tactical High Energy Laser 

TIA Telecommunications Industry Association 

TKIP Temporal Key Integrity Protocol; a 2nd generation Wi-Fi 

encryption technique, either replacing or augmenting WEP, 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

272

depending on the ultimate decisions of vendors to provide true 

Wired Equivalence Privacy for Wireless Ethernet 

TLM Telemetry (deprecated; TM is preferred for new systems) 

TM Telemetry 

TM Technical Memorandum 

TMD Theater Missile Defense 

TMS Transport Management System 

TMV Telemetry Mobile Van 

TOPS Transistorized Operations Phone System 

TPQ Radar designation 

TRADEX Tracking and Discrimination Experiment 

TRS Thermal Radiation Source 

TSPI Time Space Position Information 

TTARS Transportable Telemetry Acquisition and Relay System 

TTAS Transportable Telemetry Acquisition Systems 

TTR Target Tracking Radar 

TTY Teletype 

TU Terminal Unit; a baseband to digital interface, providing two-way 

communications capability – often uses RS-232 or RS-422 for the 

digital interface protocol 

TURFTS TDRSS User RF Test Set (See TDRSS, RF) 

TV Television 

TVOC TV Operations Center 

TW Traveling Wave 

TWG Technical Working Group 

TWT Traveling Wave Tube 

TWTA Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier 

TX Transmitter 

TXCVR Transceiver; a radio consisting of a transmitter and receiver, with, 

strictly speaking, sharing of intermediate frequency chains (filters, 

amplifiers, etc.) through the re-use of common circuits for both 

transmit and receive functions 

TX/RX Transmitter/Receiver; a radio consisting of a transmitter and 

receiver with no re-use of common circuits shared between 

transmit and receive functions 

U 

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle; Un-crewed Aerial Vehicle 

UDS Universal Documentation System 

UHF Ultra High Frequency 

UK United Kingdom 

Unmanned Containing no human crew (recently deprecated; un-crewed or 

uncrewed now often preferred) 

UPLK Uplink 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

273

UPTLM Uplink Telemetry 

UPS Uninterruptible Power Source 

us micro-second (a millionth of a second); the ‘u’ can be also written 

with the Greek letter ‘mu’, i.e., ‘μ’ 

USA United States of America 

USAF United States Air Force 

USB Universal Serial Bus (personal computer interface) 

USN United States Navy 

USNS United States Naval Ship 

USS United States Ship 

UTC Universal Time Coordinated (formerly GMT) 

UTLM Up Telemetry 

UTP Unshielded Twisted Pair (cable shielding description) 

UV Ultra-violet (electromagnetic wavelengths from 280 nm – 400 nm) 

UV-A Ultra-violet A (EM wavelengths from 320-400 nm, not absorbed 

by ozone) 

UV-B Ultra-violet B (EM wavelengths from 280-320 nm, normally 

absorbed by ozone) 

UVS Unmanned Vehicle System 

UWB Ultra Wideband (impulse modulation technique) 

V 

VA Volt Ampere 

VAB Vehicle Assembly Building 

VAFB Vandenberg Air Force Base 

VC Virtual Concatenation; an EoS technique for provisioning SONET 

pipes on an OC-1/STS-1 or OC-3/STS-3 basis, providing more 

efficient bandwidth utilization 

VC Venture Capital or Venture Capitalist; refers to a general limited 

liability partnership method for funding startups, typically 

providing funds in exchange for partial ownership and one or more 

director slots on the board of directors for a new company. VCs 

always have an ‘exit strategy’ to sell their ownership through an 

IPO. (See IPO) 

VCSEL Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser 

VERLORT Very Long Range Tracking Radar 

VHF Very High Frequency 

VLAN Virtual Local Area Network (examples: Wi-Fi roaming between 

access points without re-authentication; reconfiguring Ethernet 

LANs to provide grouping by some pre-determined methodology) 

VLF Very Low Frequency 

VLS Vandenberg Launch and Landing Site 

VNE Video Network Element 

VPN Virtual Private Network 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

274

VSWR Voltage Standing Wave Ratio 

VTA Vehicle Test Area 

VTR Versatile Tracking Mount 

VTS Vandenberg Tracking Station 

VTHL Vertical Takeoff – Horizontal Landing 

VTVL Vertical Takeoff – Vertical Landing 

VWFC Very Wide Field Camera 

VWG Verification Working Group 

W 

W Watt 

WA Wide Angle 

WAN Wide Area Network 

WAN/IU Wide Area Network Interface Unit 

WAP Wireless Application Protocol; a protocol for supporting wireless 

communication across differing wireless networking standards; 

WAP functionality has largely been absorbed into OMA (see 

OMA) 

Warchalking An underground low-tech Wireless Ethernet fad commencing in 

June 2002 in London used for marking Wireless (i.e., ‘War-less’) 

Ethernet hotspots in chalk on sidewalks for digital hobos, 

analogous to the hobo codes used in America in the 1930’s to 

indicate information regarding dogs, food handouts, and other 

items of interest to hobos. Warchalking spread across high-tech 

geek hangouts within a matter of days to various locations in 

California, New York City, and other high-tech hotbeds around the 

world. Warchalking itself is a wordplay on “War-less” Ethernet 

and ‘wardialing’, an earlier term made popular in the 1980’s in the 

movies, describing how computer users obtained surreptitious 

access to dial-up modem lines to gain Internet access through 

dialing through entire city telephone directories, in order to find 

modem lines. (See Wi-Fi, 802.11b, WISP.) 

WEA Weather 

WEAP Wireless Ethernet Access Point 

WECA Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (Wi-Fi standards group) 

WEFAX Weather Facsimile 

WEP Wired Equivalent Privacy (Microsoft’s definition); Wireless 

Encryption Protocol (sometimes deprecated); a first generation WiFi security encryption standard, perhaps to be augmented with 

TKIP or other proprietary security protocols 

WFF Wallops Flight Facility 

WG Wave Guide 

WGS World Geodetic System 

Wi-Fi Wireless Ethernet, IEEE 802.11 protocol; (see Ethernet). 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

275

WISP Wireless Internet Service Provider 

Wireless Cable The transmission of cable TV multi-point served content signals, 

over wide areas, using free-space microwave frequency 

transmitted signals, distributed using multi-point distribution 

methods. 

WLAN Wireless LAN; Wireless Local Area Network 

WNA Wireless Network Adaptor. A NIC device, typically in a PCMCIA 

card format. 

WNCC Wheeler Network Communications Control 

WPA Wireless Protocol Analyzer; a security tool used to search for 

rogue (or unauthorized) WEAP devices 

WPAFB Wright Patterson Air Force Base 

WPAN Wireless Private Area Network (e.g., Bluetooth) 

WPM Words Per Minute 

WSC White Sands Complex 

WSGS White Sands Ground Station 

WSGT White Sands Ground Terminal 

WSMC Western Space and Missile Center 

WSMR White Sands Missile Range 

WSSH White Sands Space Harbor 

WTR Western Test Range 

WX Weather 

X 

X 

XAUI 10 Gb/s Attachment Unit Interface (“zowie”, a high speed 

interface standard) 

XCVR Transceiver 

XFI 10 Gb/s Interface for Multi-Source Agreement governed XFP 

Modules 

XFP 10 Gb/s Small Form Factor (SFF) Pluggable Multi-Source 

Agreement Module 

XGP 10 Gb/s Interface for XAUI Modules 

XMT Transmit 

XMTR Transmitter 

XOR Exclusive-OR (logic function) 

XPNDR Transponder (TX/RX with clock and data recovery functions, for 

fiber optic use) 

XPNDR Transponder (repeat back transmitter connected to a receiver) 

XPNDR Transponder (telemetry transmitter) 

 

Y 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

276

Y-Code Encrypted P-Code (GPS) 

Z 

Z Impedance 

ZERO Logical zero, “0” 

Zigbee An emerging IEEE standard for an ultra-low power consumption 

wireless technology. (See 802.15.4) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

277
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

278

APPENDICES 

A. Timelines 

B. Launch Centers & Ranges 

C. Theoretical Basis Of Railgun Physics 

D. Shuttle Landing Sites 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

279
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

280

A. TIMELINES

A.1 AEROSPACE 

Table A-1 presents a timeline of key aerospace-related events that are of importance to 

future Spaceports and Ranges. 

Major milestones, which changed man’s perception of aerospace flight most drastically, 

are identified in bold. This list is by no means comprehensive. Rather, its purpose is 

merely as an in-depth and necessary prologue for understanding future trends and for 

envisioning and understanding likely Spaceport and Range needs of the future. 

 

Table A-1 Aerospace Timeline 

Date Events Range Vehicle

12/17/03 Wright Brothers - First powered 

flight

Kitty Hawk, NC Wright Flyer 

3/16/26 Robert Goddary tests worlds 

first liquid fuel rocket 

Auburn, MA 

5/20/27 Charles Lindbergh - first solo, 

nonstop transatlantic flight

Atlantic Ocean Sprit of St. Louis 

1945 United States Army Ordnance 

seized 300 carloads of V-2 

components and 115 German 

rocket specialists, led by Wernher 

von Braun. First located in Fort 

Bliss, Texas, and White Sands, 

New Mexico. 

White Sands V-2 

1946 V2 testing begins White Sands V-2 

5/29/47 Modified V-2 went the wrong way 

and landed in a cemetery south of 

Juarez, Mexico adding to the 

decision to move missile testing to 

Cape 

White Sands V-2 

10/14/47 Chuck Yeager 

First supersonic flight

Edwards Bell X-1 

9/1/48 Banana River Naval Air Station 

transferred to Air Force 

Patrick AFB 

1949 Eastern Range Established Joint Long Range Proving 

Grounds establish at Cape 

Canaveral 

 

10/28/49 Army Ballistic Missile Agency 

moved from Fort Bliss, TX to 

Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville, 

Alabama. 

White Sands 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

281

Date Events Range Vehicle

1950 Government obtains remainder of 

Cape from private owners 

Cape Canaveral 

6/20/50 First launch pad completed at Cape Cape Canaveral Bumper 7 (V-2 + Corporal)

7/19/50 First launch attempt from ETR Cape Canaveral Bumper 7 (V-2 + Corporal) 

7/24/50 First launch from ETR Cape Canaveral Bumper 8 (V-2 + Corporal) 

6/30/51 Patrick AFB became Air Force 

Missile Test Center. 

Patrick AFB 

6/30/51 Cape became Cape Canaveral 

Missile Test Annex joining the 

Navy's Point Mugu, CA and the 

Army's White Sands, N.M. 

Cape Canaveral, 

Point Mugu, White Sands 

 

7/21/51 Bahamas Long Range Proving 

Ground Agreement with Great 

Britain 

Cape Canaveral + Point 

Jupiter, Florida; Grand 

Bahamas Bank; and Grand 

Turk Island. 

 

1953 Redstone testing begins Cape Canaveral Redstone 

10/08/55 Jupiter Program begins - Joint 

Army-Navy Ballistic Missile 

Committee 

Cape Canaveral Jupiter 

 1955 Telemetry: 4 RF links & 

215 measurements 

Cape Canaveral Jupiter 

10/8/56 Navy pulls out of Jupiter program 

and continues development of 

Polaris 

 Polaris 

11/26/56 All long range missiles transferred 

from Army to Air Force 

 Jupiter 

10/4/57 Sputnik launched by Russians Russia R-7 

1/3/58 Explorer-1 First US launched 

satellite in space 

Cape Canaveral Juno-1 

3/17/58 2nd Satellite launched by US (still 

in orbit) 

Cape Canaveral Vanguard 

10/1/58 NASA formed out of NACA 

1959 Early launch success Cape Canaveral 

Launch Success: 95% 

 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

282

Date Events Range Vehicle

1960 Range Instrumentation ships 

become operational 

ETR / WTR 

1960 NASA opens Bermuda tracking 

site 

ETR 

3/15/60 Army's Development Operations 

Division (Wernher von Braun and 

group) and Saturn program are 

transferred to NASA; Huntsville 

installation is renamed Marshall 

Marshall Saturn 

4/12/61 Yuri Gagarin 

First man in space 

Russia Vostok 

5/5/61 Alan Shepard - 

1st US manned suborbital flight 

Mercury 

Cape Canaveral Redstone 

(Vehicle had 2 RF links and 

116 measurements) 

5/25/61 Kennedy's challenge to go to the 

moon 

Cape Canaveral 

7/21/61 Gus Grissom 

 2nd US manned suborbital flight 

Mercury 

Cape Canaveral Redstone 

8/24/61 NASA selects Merritt Island for 

spaceport to moon 

KSC Saturn 

1961 Saturn Program starts Cape Canaveral Saturn C-1 

 1961 Telemetry: 8 RF links & 

560 measurements 

Cape Canaveral Saturn C-1 

1961 

Saturn 1 tracking system Cameras, UDOP and UDOP 

Beat-Beat, S-band radar, Cband radar, Azusa, BeatBeat MKII Telemetry, and 

Telemetry ELSSE 

Saturn C-1 

1961 

Saturn 1 tracking system S-Band: Prime position 

data. The C-band was a 

backup 

1961 Saturn 1 tracking system Cameras: Early Tracking 

and position 

1961 Saturn 1 tracking system ELSSE: (Electronic 

Skyscreen Equipment) was 

used "to determine angular 

deviations of the missile 

9/61 First KSC property acquired KSC 

10/27/61 First Saturn launch, unmanned Cape Canaveral Saturn C-1 

2/20/62 John Glenn 

First US manned Orbital flight 

Mercury 

Cape Canaveral Atlas 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

283

6/12/62 Crawler concept selected KSC 

Date Events Range Vehicle

11/16/62 New data link Cape Canaveral, LC-34 Saturn I, SA-3 

 1962 New data link First digital data, Pulse code 

modulated data link, UHF 

link for higher data rates 

Saturn I, SA-3 

5/63 Last Mercury mission Cape Canaveral Atlas 

11/63 President Kennedy 

Assassinated

 

12/63 City and Range renamed after 

President Kennedy 

KSC 

1964 Redesignated Air Force Eastern 

Test Range (ETR) 

Patrick AFB / Cape 

Canaveral 

ELVs: Army-Redstone, Jupiter, 

Pershing 

AF: Thor, Atlas, Titan

Navy- Polaris 

1/29/64 First launch LC-37 Cape Canaveral, LC-37 Saturn I, SA-5 

 1964 Telemetry: 7 RF links & 

1183 measurements 

8 onboard cameras 

Cape Canaveral Saturn I, SA-5 

2/64 Northern tracks of KSC property 

acquired 

KSC 

1965 Saturn V Program 

Telemetry: 13 RF links & 

1180 measurements 

Cape Canaveral Saturn V 

1/23/65 Crawler Operational KSC LC-39 Saturn V 

3/23/65 Gemini III - First manned Gemini 

mission - Grissom & Young 

Cape Canaveral Titan 

6/3/65 Gemini IV - First US EVA - 

McDivitt & White 

Cape Canaveral Titan 

12/65 Gemini VI & VII launch 

First dual tracking 

Patrick AFB / Cape 

Canaveral 

Titan 

5/05 17 Ground support stations 

operational to support Apollo 

 

2/20/66 First Saturn 1B KSC LC-34 Saturn 1B 

3/66 Gemini VIII - First US docking, 

first emergency landing - 

Armstrong & Scott 

Cape Canaveral Titan 

5/66 Surveyor lands on moon Cape Canaveral Atlas-Centaur 

11/66 Gemini XII - Last Gemini mission 

- Lovell & Aldrin 

Cape Canaveral Titan 

1967 NASA builds tracking station on 

Ascension Island 

Ascension Island 

1/27/67 Apollo 1 fire 

Death of Grissom, White, & 

Chaffee 

Cape Canaveral, LC-34 Saturn 1B 

10/9/67 Apollo 4 - First Saturn V launch, 

First Pad 39 launch 

KSC-39A Saturn V 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

284

10/11/68 Apollo 7 - First manned Apollo 

launch 

Cape Canaveral, LC-34 Saturn 1B 

Date Events Range Vehicle

12/21/68 Apollo 8 - First Lunar orbit; First 

manned Apollo/Saturn V launch 

KSC-39A Saturn V 

1969 Vehicle has 22 RF links and 3500 

measurements 

KSC Saturn V 

5/18/69 Apollo 10 - First launch from Pad 

39B, Lunar descent 

KSC-39B Saturn V 

7/20/69 Apollo 11 

First Lunar Landing 

Man on the moon

KSC-39A Saturn V 

4/11/70 Apollo 13 - Major in-flight 

problem 

KSC-39A Saturn V 

8/9/72 Authority to build Space Shuttle Space Shuttle 

2/22/73 Skylab KSC-39 Saturn 1B 

6/1/75 Grand Turk Island site deactivated Cape Canaveral 

7/15/75 Apollo-Soyuz KSC-39 Saturn-1B 

1977 Redesignated Air Force Space and 

Missile Test Center 

Patrick AFB / Cape 

Canaveral 

 

1979 Redesignated Eastern Space and 

Missile Center (ESMC) 

Patrick AFB / Cape 

Canaveral 

 

4/12/81 STS-1 - first launch of RLV 

$10,000/lb 

Shuttle turnaround = 5 mo. 

Tracking: radar, optics, telemetry 

KSC-39 Space Shuttle 

1982 Grand Bahamas Island site 

deactivated 

Cape Canaveral 

1982 Tracking ship USNS Arnold 

retired 

Cape Canaveral 

1982 Tracking ship USNS Vandenberg 

retired 

Cape Canaveral 

4/5/83 TDRS - first launch KSC-39 Space Shuttle 

1985 Range Safety & Tracking 

Turnaround: 48 hrs 

Tracking: Radar, Optics, 

Telemetry & Navy FTSS 

Eastern Range Space Shuttle & ELVs 

1/28/86 STS-51L 

Challenger explosion

KSC-39B Space Shuttle 

9/29/88 STS-26 - Shuttle return to service KSC-39B Space Shuttle 

1990 NASA closes Ascension site Ascension 

1993 Last Range tracking ship, USNS 

Redstone, retired 

Cape Canaveral 

7/17/95 GPS constellation operational 

1994 Argentia site operational Eastern Range 

1995 Bermuda site closed Eastern Range 

 1998 Orbit first two pieces of ISS Russia / KSC-39 Proton / Space Shuttle / ISS 

2000 First expedition to ISS KSC-39 Space Shuttle / ISS 

2002 Range Safety & Tracking 

Turnaround: 48 hrs 

Eastern Range Space Shuttle & ELVs 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

285

Tracking: Radar, Optics, 

Telemetry & Navy TGRS 

Date Events Range Vehicle

FUTUR

E

 

2010 NASA as customer, 

10x cheaper, 100x safer 

Vehicle turnaround-1 wk, 10 

people 

Eastern Range & others 2nd Gen RLV 

Shuttle replacement 

(Privately owned) 

2025 3rd Gen 

100x cheaper, 10,000x safer 

Eastern Range & others 3rd Gen RLV 

2040 4th Gen Eastern Range & others 4th Gen RLV 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

286

A.2 COMMUNICATIONS 

The following table (Table A-2) timeline covers the introduction to obsolescence period 

of various types of communications, including wired, wireless, and optical 

communications systems. In addition, other major historical events and technical 

milestones along the path of progress, such as data rates of commercial modems, are 

included as well. 

As can be seen scanning through this timeline, the introduction of disruptive 

communications technology often causes serious turmoil relative to established 

technology. Yet, in many cases (such as for the 19th Century French optical telegraph 

based on semaphores mounted on large wooden structures), there are actually periods of 

multiple decades during which an old technology may co-exist alongside the new, for 

various reasons. 

For instance, the optical telegraph existed for sixty-one years as the primary method of 

quickly transmitting brief messages across France and Africa, and co-existed for many 

years with the more modern electric telegraph, due largely to the fact that the optical 

telegraph was more secure than the wired electric telegraph – the optical telegraph had no 

wires that could be cut between stations along the network! 

On the other hand, there are also instances in which an institution goes out of business 

within just days of the arrival of a replacing technology, such as for the demise of the 

Pony Express when the electric telegraph finally spanned the North American continent 

with the final ‘electrical golden spike’ connection at Salt Lake City, UT. A similar 

transition is true related to the purchase of Alaska, purchased largely by the insistence of 

the upper management of Western Union to construct a telegraph line between America 

and Europe by way of Alaska and Asia. The plans for this telegraph line evaporated 

almost immediately after the successful invention and installation of higher performance 

submarine cable that could survive the depths of the Atlantic. In the case of Alaska, 

though, the mineral wealth and physical beauty are remembered long after the original 

reason has been relegated to the pages of history. 

Historical timelines are valuable to broaden one’s thought process regarding linear time 

events. They illustrate that progress is never strictly linear, despite the use of timelines, 

and there are often evolutionary dead-ends along the path of progress, as well as 

disruptive technology periods, that completely change the time rate of change of 

progress. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

287

Table A-2 Communications Timeline 

Date Events 

350 BC Free Space Optics communications system of Aeneas for sending alarm signals. 

150 BC Free Space Optics communications system of Polybius. He encoded the 24 letters of the Greek 

alphabet, in the first recorded optical telegraph. 

5/1794 French engineer Claude Chappe, creates a free space optical telegraph and coins the French word 

“télégraphe” which becomes telegraph in English. His system uses a series of semaphores mounted 

on towers manned by human operators to relay messages from tower to tower. The network grew to 

556 stations spanning 3,000 miles across France, Algeria, and Morocco. A mobile network was built, 

and used during the Crimean War. Data throughput transfer rate was about 20 to 30 seconds per 

symbol. 

1795 Free space optical telegraph of the British Royal Navy. A shutter technique was used until 1822 when 

the link was upgraded to a semaphore system to speed signaling rates. Messages could be sent over a 

108 km path in about fifteen minutes. System remained in operation until about 1847, when the 

electric telegraph superseded it 

1836-1837 Samuel Finley Breese Morse invents the single-wire electric Telegraph. 

1836 Samuel F. B. Morse invents the Relay to solve problem of resistance over long telegraph lines. 

1838-1839 Samuel F. B. Morse applies for patents on the Telegraph. 

1/24/1838 Samuel F. B. Morse demonstrates his Telegraph over a 10-mile circuit at New York Univ. 

Data Rate: 10 WPM. 

6/20/1840 Morse receives US patent on the Recording Electric Telegraph and on Telegraph Symbols 

5/1/1844 First test of 35 km Telegraph line by Morse between Annapolis Junction, MD and Washington, DC. 

5/24/1844 "What hath God Wrought" sent from Supreme Court Bldg. in Washington to Baltimore by Morse over 

Telegraph. 

1846 Telegraph operators begin to "sound read" Morse Code in place of reading an inked paper strip. 

1849 First teleprinter circuit (New York to Philadelphia) with printed letters instead of Morse symbols. 

4/1/1851 Western Union is founded to interconnect different Telegraph Company lines that co-exist. 

9/22/1851 Railroad dispatching using telegraphy commences at Turner (now Harriman), NY 

1851 First telegraph line across English Channel. 

1856 Telegraph Sounder Invented (to permit sound reading of Morse Code) 

8/17/1858 First Trans-Atlantic (US - Europe) telegraph cable becomes operational between Trinity Bay, 

Newfoundland and Valentia, Ireland. It was dubbed the “Eighth Wonder of the World.” First test 

signals were sent on August 5, 1858. Queen Victoria and President Buchanan exchanged messages on

August 16, 1858. 

9/18/1858 First Trans-Atlantic telegraph cable fails completely after sending 271 messages between the United 

States and Europe. 

4/3/1860 Pony Express was inaugurated to deliver mail from St. Joseph, MO to Sacramento, CA in only 10 

days. 

10/21/1861 Western Union connects East Coast telegraph lines with West Coast lines at Salt City, UT 

10/24/1861 Disruptive technology supersedes the Pony Express. Pony Express goes bankrupt, ruining investors. 

7/26/1866 First successful America to Europe telegraph cable finished by the "Great Eastern", at the time, the 

world’s largest steam ship.. It was the first permanent trans-Atlantic telegraph cable and became 

operation on July 27, 1866. 

8/1866 Disruptive technology of new undersea cable design cancels Western Union's plan for installing a 

telegraph cable from Alaska to link America and Europe/Asia. 

3/27/1867 United States signs treaty to buy Alaska from Russia on urging from Western Union to acquire the 

land needed for a telegraph cable to Europe. “Seward’s Day” 

2/14/1876 Patents filed for Telephone by both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

288

Date Events 

3/6/1876 First One-way Telephone Call (From Bell to Watson) 

3/10/1876 First Two-way Telephone Call (Between Bell and Watson) 

1877 First Telephone Exchange Installed (Bridgeport, CT) 

10/21/1879 Thomas A. Edison invents light bulb with the thought of providing an optical telegraph without wired 

lines. 

1880 Alexander Graham Bell patents a free space optical telephone system, which he called the 

Photophone. The experimental Photophone was donated to the Smithsonian Institution, where it 

literally languished on the shelf for over half a century before light was once again used to transmit 

voice 

1883 First Networked Telephone System (Between Boston and New York) 

1888 Heinrich Hertz discovers Radio Waves. 

8/13/1889 Coin Operated Telephone Patented. 

3/11/1891 Almon Strowger of Kansas City Patents First Automatic Telephone Exchange 

5/10/1894 Guglielmo Marconi sends a radio wave for 3/4 mile, inventing Wireless communication. 

6/2/1896 Marconi receives Wireless apparatus patent from Britain. 

12/23/1900 Reginald Aubrey Fessenden invents Wireless Telephony (Radio), transmitting voice for the first time.

12/12/1901 First Trans-Atlantic Wireless communication. Marconi receives an "S" at St. John’s, Newfoundland 

sent from Poldhu, Cornwall, England using Wireless apparatus at 12:30 PM Newfoundland time. 

1/18/1903 Marconi demonstrates first Trans-Atlantic two-way Wireless communication. 

12/24/1906 Fessenden broadcasts voice and music over radio for the first time, surprising radio operators aboard 

ships at sea. 

1915 First wireless radio call across the Pacific Ocean. 

10/27/1920 KDKA in Pittsburgh, PA receives license to commence broadcasting one-hour 8:30 PM to 9:30 PM 

news broadcasts as first commercial Radio station. Later expands to music, news, and sports. 

1921 First one-way wireless voice paging receiving equipment installed in police cars. (Detroit, MI. 

Callsign: KOP) 

5/18/1923 Antoine Barnay of France files patent application for first rotary telephone 

1924 First Mobile two-way Telephone System (New York City Police Cars) 

6/19/1934 Communications Act of 1934 establishes Federal Communications Commission. (Public Law No. 

416, June 19, 1934, 73rd Congress) 

1934 Half of US homes have radio receivers. 

1946 First Commercial Mobile Telephone System (St. Louis, MO) 

1949 Western Union relinquishes all rights of ownership to telegraphy equipment installed alongside 

railroads. Most commercial “sound read” telegraphy by humans ceases. 

1958 Schawlow and Townes at Bell Telephone Laboratories file for a patent on the laser 

1960 Theodore Maiman builds the first working laser at Hughes Aircraft Company. 

1960 300 Baud commercial modem speeds first achieved. 

1960 The Schawlow and Townes patent on the laser, filed in 1958, is granted to Bell Telephone 

Laboratories. 

4/17/1964 IBM announces System/360 computer. 

11/1964 Bell Telephone Laboratories joins the MULTICS project with MIT and GE. 

10/1965 First Networked Computer Experiment at MIT Lincoln Lab – two computers talk to each other using 

packet-switching technology. 

1965 MULTICS started 

1967 First cordless phones introduced. 

12/1968 ARPANet contract given to Bolt, Beranek & Newman (BBN) in Cambridge, MA. The output will 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

289

become, in time, the Internet. 

Date Events 

4/1969 Bell Telephone Laboratories pulls out of the MULTICS project that had started as a joint venture of 

MIT, General Electric, and Bell Labs due to cost over-runs, and severe disagreements on what 

MULTICS should be. The original computer targeted was a GE-645 MULTICS machine. 

1969 UNIX (intended as a pun on MULTICS) first runs on a PDP-7 at Bell Telephone Laboratories, written 

in PDP-7 assembler. The PDP-7 provides 8K 18-bit words of memory. The ultimate goal is to rewrite UNIX in a high-level language, and make UNIX be everything MULTICS was not. 

5/1970 Honeywell buys GE Computer division, thereby taking over MULTICS. 

7/1970 Alohanet, first packet radio network, operation at University of Hawaii. Pioneering ideas contained in 

this network will form the basis of Ethernet. 

9/1970 Low-loss fiber optic cable manufacturing techniques announced by Robert Maurer, Donald Keck and 

Peter Schultz of Corning Glass Works (now Corning, Inc.). They achieve a loss-limit of 20 dB/km, or 

less for optical fiber. 

3/1972 Invention of e-mail. First e-mail programs written by Ray Tomlinson at BBN for ARPANET: 

SNDMSG and READMAIL. "@" Sign chosen for its "at" meaning in addressing, instead of the 

ampersand (which was a Latin shorthand symbol for “and”.). 

1972 Ethernet is invented by Robert M. Metcalfe, David R. Boggs, Charles P. Thacker, and Butler W. 

Lampson to interconnect the Xerox Alto, a personal workstation, with other Altos, and to servers and 

shared printers 

1971-1973 High-level programming language known as “C” is created at Bell Laboratories. UNIX (based on 

everything that MULTICS was not) is simultaneously ported to C, and support for networking is built 

into UNIX. 

4/1973 First phone call on a portable cell phone. (Call made by Dr. Martin Cooper of Motorola to his rival, 

Joel Engel, Bell Labs’ head of research.) 

1975 Robert M. Metcalfe, David R. Boggs, Charles P. Thacker, and Butler W. Lampson file patent 

application for Ethernet. 

1976 Apple Computer, founded by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, produces the Apple I in Job’s parents’ 

garage. The Apple I features a wooden frame, and appeals mostly to computer hobbyists. 

1977 Apple Computer introduces a more advanced computer known as the Apple II. This product launches 

the Personal Computer (PC) Industry. (See May 2002, MILA.) 

12/13/1977 Xerox Corporation (Robert M. Metcalfe, David R. Boggs, Charles P. Thacker, and Butler W. 

Lampson) receive patent for Ethernet. (US Patent 4,063,220). 

1977-1978 AT&T Bell Labs starts public trial testing of a Mobile Phone System based on hexagonal regions 

(cells) in Chicago, IL. 

1979 VisiCalc debuts, providing the first spreadsheet software, and becomes the killer-application that kickstarts the Apple II PC and PCs in general, providing a long-awaited business reason to buy a PC. 

1979 Bob Metcalfe founds 3COM (short for Computer, Communication, and Compatibility) 

7/1980 IBM meets with Microsoft’s Bill Gates for the first time to discuss buying an operating system for a 

hush-hush “personal” computer to be designed and built in Boca Raton, FL, on a computer 

codenamed “Acorn”, as part of a project codenamed “Project Chess”. 

8/12/1981 IBM introduces the IBM Personal Computer (PC), providing big-business creditability to the infant 

PC industry. The processor (an 8088) runs at 4.77 MHz and is equipped with 16 kilobytes of 

memory. The PC comes with one or two 160-kilobyte drives, and is priced starting at $1,565. 

8/1981 The VisiCalc software by Software Arts Incorporated is ported to the IBM PC. A killer-application 

that launched the PC software industry. (The original DOS 1.0 software of 27,520 bytes from 1981 is 

archived on the Internet at http://www.bricklin.com/history/vcexecutable.htm and still runs on modern 

PCs. This software is freely available for use for historical research purposes. Lotus now owns the 

rights. It only runs in the current directory, as sub-directories had not yet been created in DOS 1.0.) 

1983 Cell phones commence nationwide operation in the United States 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

290

Date Events 

1984 William Gibson’s novel, Neuromancer, provides the first vision of a globally interconnected network 

of computers. Gibson coins the word “cyberspace”. 

11/1985 Microsoft releases Windows 1.0, originally known as the Interface Manager, to compete with the 

Apple Macintosh. It fails miserably in the marketplace. 

1987 56 kb/s commercial modem speeds first achieved. 

11/1987 Microsoft releases Windows 2.0, to compete with the Apple Macintosh. This is the first version of 

Windows to feature icons, long a staple of the Macintosh screen. In spite of finally using icons, 

Windows 2.0 fails miserably in the marketplace. 

11/1987 Bull buys the Honeywell Computer Division, thereby taking over MULTICS. 

11/2/1988 First Internet worm created and let loose by a 23 year-old graduate student named Robert Tappan 

Morris at Cornell University. The Morris Worm was a 99-line program (not including object files) 

that completely paralyzed the entire Internet, as well as many intranets within companies that had 

connectivity to the Internet. 

1989 McAfee Associates is founded to combat computer virus attacks. Anti-virus software is made 

available free. 

5/1990 Microsoft releases Windows 3.0, in what is a serious overhaul of Windows code from Windows 2.0, 

but there are still fatal shortcomings such as lack of network support, and no easy way by which to 

share data between multiple applications running at the same time. (Three strikes, but Microsoft does 

not strike ‘out’.) 

4/1992 On its fourth attempt, Microsoft finally succeeds in a Windows software package. Microsoft releases 

Windows 3.1 (WIN3.1) and it becomes the first widely accepted graphical user interface for DOSbased (DOS: disk operating system) personal computers. Although there are serious shortcomings 

relative to the Macintosh operating system, WIN3.1 does finally provide network support, as well as 

TrueType fonts, functional yet rudimentary multi-media support, and OLE (object linking and 

embedding). With OLE, it finally becomes possible to share data between multiple applications 

running at the same time on a PC. Windows software finally starts to move off vendors’ shelves. 

Win3.1 runs only on the latest 80286 or 80385 processors with at least 1 Mb of memory, instantly 

obsolescing all of the XT and earlier PCs. 

1993 Fast Ethernet Alliance (FEA), comprised of a group of vendors, is formed to standardize the 

requirements for a faster Ethernet to achieve 100 Mb/s in place of 10 Mb/s data transfer rates. 

1993 Mosaic Web Browser (known as Mozilla) is created at the University of Illinois as part of NCSA free 

software by Marc Andreesen. Available for free distribution via ftp (file transfer protocol) over the 

Internet. 

7/1993 Microsoft releases Windows NT. Windows finally supports longer, descriptive file names, with 

names longer than 8 bytes, as supported on UNIX since the 1970’s and on the Macintosh since 

January 1984. 

4/1994 Marc Andreesen founds Netscape Communications to commercialize the Mozilla web browser, and 

immediately captures nearly 100% of the web browser market. 

12/1994 Microsoft licenses Web browser technology from Spyglass to create an Internet Explorer (i.e., a web 

browser) for the planned Windows 95. 

8/24/1995 Microsoft releases the second widely accepted graphical user interface for DOS (disk operating 

system) personal computers (PCs) in a software product known as Windows 95. Product closely 

matches the look and feel of Apple Computer’s Macintosh operating system that debuted nearly 12 

years earlier on January 24, 1984. 

1995 "Apple reports a larger-than-expected 48 percent drop in fourth-quarter profits, to $60 million, despite 

a 20 percent rise in sales to a record $3 billion." --Reuters 

9/1996 4 Mb/s Cable Modem commercial modem speeds first achieved. 

2/1997 10 Mb/s Cable Modem commercial modem speeds first achieved. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

291

6/1997 8 Mb/s ADSL commercial modem speeds first achieved. 

Date Events 

3/1998 DOCSIS cable modem specification is approved by ITU. DOCSIS defines downstream data transfer 

rates of 27 to 36 Mb/s over frequencies from 50 MHz to 750+ MHz and upstream data transfer rates 

of 320 Kb/s to 10 Mb/s from 5 to 42 MHz. Within nine months (by the end of 1998) there would be 

1.2 Million cable modems installed within homes in the United States, providing the first widespread 

broadband Internet connectivity to the home. Market forecasts predict 24.3 Million cable modems 

will be installed in US homes by 2004. 

4/24/1998 LightPointe Communications of San Diego, CA files the primary patent for Free Space Optics using 

EDFAs (Erbium Doped Fiber Amplifiers) to increase receive sensitivity. 

2/1/1999 Wireless Morse Code (CW) aboard ships is phased out, to be replaced by 

Satellite Communications. 

5/1999 Shawn Fanning, a freshman at Northeastern University, starts the Napster online music service. The 

service, providing peer-to-peer file sharing arranged through a central server, allows users easily to 

trade music encoded in the MP3 format, which compresses recordings into small and portable files 

without sacrificing much quality. 

6/16/1999 Diamond Multimedia wins its case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that its portable MP3 

player does not violate the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 that prohibits devices that make 

copies from digital music recordings. The court ruled that Diamond Multimedia's Rio player made 

copies from computer hard-drives, and did not copy digital music recordings. Portable MP3 players 

from Diamond Multimedia immediately become available in retail stores, fueling demand for MP3 

files from online service Napster. Internet traffic starts to double every ninety days, as music lovers 

start obtaining MP3 recordings for their portable MP3 players and computers. 

8/1999 The Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (WECA) is formed with just six member companies to 

certify interoperability of Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) products and to promote Wi-Fi as the global wireless 

LAN standard across all market segments. 

12/1999 Multiple companies file lawsuits to shut down Napster, to prevent peer-to-peer sharing of MP3 files. 

Internet traffic continues to double every 90 days. 

5/10/2000 FCC issues an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) to solicit comments on permitting Part 15 

Ultra Wideband (UWB) transmissions. 

7/26/2000 U.S. Judge Marilyn Hall Patel issues an injunction against Napster, prohibiting copyrighted songs 

from appearing on its online file-sharing service, while lawsuits proceed through the court system. 

Internet traffic spikes, as MP3 aficionados attempt to complete their MP3 music collections. 

7/28/2000 Napster appeals Judge Patel's injunction to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which stays Judge 

Patel’s order on July 28, allowing Napster to continue operations until the case goes to trial. Internet 

traffic drops back down to a high growth rate of still doubling every 90 days. 

10/30/2000 Last MULTICS computer is decommissioned, effectively ending a computer and computer operating 

system project that started in 1965. UNIX machines now dominate Internet-connected computer 

mainframes throughout the world. 

2/12/2001 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules Napster users are illegally copying and distributing copyrighted 

commercial songs and orders Napster to stop its users from trading and distributing copyrighted 

material. The ruling allows Napster to continue operating until Judge Patel's injunction is modified to 

comply with the appeal court's decision. Internet traffic again spikes, but starts to decline within days 

as song titles become harder to find, with attempts to eliminate copyrighted songs implemented by 

Napster to comply with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules. 

5/2/2001 Technology research firm Webnoize reports the number of songs swapped on Napster was down 36 

percent between March and April 2001. It is estimated that nearly 1.6 billion MP3 files changed hands 

in March. Average song length is approximately 4 MB. Internet traffic starts to decline 

simultaneously, precipitating an immediate increase in order cancellations for telecom equipment from 

system providers. 

5/29/2001 LightPointe Communications of San Diego, CA receives the primary patent for Free Space Optics 

using EDFAs filed on April 24, 1998. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

292

Date Events 

7/2/2001 Judge Patel orders Napster offline until it proves it is 100% free of copyrighted works. Napster goes 

completely ‘off the air.’ Internet traffic stops growing, and even starts to drop in volume. Additional 

order cancellations are placed within days by system providers for telecom gear intended for the 

Internet backbone. 

9/2001 The Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (WECA) is now comprised of over 130 member 

companies, and declares 200 certified Wi-Fi devices. 

11/30/2001 European Space Agency (ESA) Artemis satellite launched 12 July 2001 from the European launch 

base in Kourou, French Guiana aboard an Ariane 5 launch uses a laser-based Silex Communication 

system to transmit 50 Mb/s to a SPOT 4 satellite in the first-ever publicly announced satellite-tosatellite laser-communication link demonstration. 

2/14/2002 FCC adopts a First Report and Order (FCC 02-48) permitting Part 15 Ultra Wideband (UWB) 

transmissions under limited circumstances. 

5/2002 The MILA (Merritt Island Launch Annex) continues to use Apple IIe computers to provide missioncritical shuttle communications during launch and landings at Kennedy Space Center. Press coverage 

identifies that NASA cruises Ebay and other on-line Internet auction sites to obtain spare parts for 

obsolete computer systems. (The Apple II computer line was launched in 1977, and created the 

Personal Computer industry.) 

6/3/2002 Napster files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as part of an overall financial restructuring strategy of 

Bertelsmann AG to clear the books of debt. Bertelsmann AG proceeds with its takeover of Napster. 

Future is unclear whether Napster will ever recover the 50 Million users it once had, especially as 

Bertelsmann AG plans a subscription service in place of the formerly free service. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

293
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

294

B. LAUNCH CENTERS & RANGES

B.1 EASTERN RANGE 

B.1.1 Background

B.1.1.1 General 

The Eastern Range (ER), headquartered at Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB), Florida, is 

used for eastwardly launches in support of the following types of military, government 

and civilian missions: 

• Manned missions 

• Orbital 

• Suborbital 

• Inter-planetary 

• Ballistic Missiles 

The Eastern Range is operated by the 45th Space Wing (SW). Since its beginning in 

1949, the Eastern Range has been the premier U.S. missile and space support range. 

Currently, it is the only US launch facility equipped to support manned space flight. The 

Eastern Range, with its eastwardly launches; and the Western Range, with westward and 

polar launches; together support almost 100% of US space launches (Figure B.1-1). 

Figure B.1-1 Eastern & Western Ranges 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

295

The area covered by the Eastern Range spans more than 5000 miles. Range facilities 

extend southeast to Ascension Island in the south Atlantic and northeast to Argentia, 

Newfoundland. Launches are from Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) on the Atlantic 

Coast of Florida at approximately 28.5N, 80.6W. One advantage of the range is the 

proximity to the equator to launch vehicles in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO). 

Orbital launches from the ER are limited to azimuths between 37 and 112 degrees. 

Another advantage is over-water flight trajectories that make long-range missile flights 

possible over an area relatively free of shipping lanes and inhabited landmasses. 

The Eastern Range is comprised of multiple operational locations (Figure B.1-2). 

Depending on the launch vehicle and direction, any or all of these locations may be 

utilized. The Eastern Range locations and the dates they became operational are as 

follows: 

• Patrick AFB -1940 

• CCAS -1950 

• KSC - 1960 

• JDMTA - 1985 

• Antigua - 1957 

• Ascension - 1957 

• Argentia - 1993 

Figure B.1-2 Locations of Eastern Range Facilities 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

296

NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is a separate entity from the Eastern Range. KSC 

contains its own launch facilities and Launch Operations Control Center. KSC is located 

directly adjacent to the Cape Canaveral Air Station. The Eastern Range’s Telemetry 

station (TEL-4) is physically located on the KSC property. NASA utilizes the Eastern 

Range assets for its launches. KSC will be discussed briefly in this section and in more 

detail under the KSC section. 

B.1.1.2 History 

As discussed at length previously, in May 1947, a V-2 launched from White Sands went 

awry. This incident led to the decision to find a new launch location. Candidate 

locations included the following339: 

• Northern Washington State with a range along the Aleutian Islands 

• El Centro, California with a range down the coast of Baja California 

• Banana River Naval Air Station with launching sites at Cape Canaveral and a 

range over the Bahamas 

The California site was the Government’s first choice, with Cape Canaveral as second. 

The California site was later abandoned after Mexico refused to allow missile flights over 

Baja California. Cape Canaveral was then chosen since the British were willing to allow 

missile flights near the Bahamas and further agreed to lease land for the down range 

stations. 

The Eastern Range began in 1949 when the newly organized Air Force Division of the 

Joint Long Range Proving Ground assumed responsibility for the Joint Long Range 

Proving Ground Base340. This base had been called the Banana River Naval Air Station. 

The Banana River Naval Air Station was a World War II seaplane patrol and training 

base. Work began on the site in December 1939, and the station was commissioned on 

1 October 1940. The station supported seaplane patrol operations during World War II. It 

was briefly deactivated after World War II. 

The Long Range Proving Ground Base was renamed Patrick Air Force Base in honor of 

Major General Mason M. Patrick on 1 August 1950. General Patrick had been Chief of 

the American Expeditionary Forces Air Services in World War I and Chief of the Air 

Service/U.S. Army Air Corps. The Eastern Range was also renamed multiple times over 

the years. It has previously been called: 

• ESMC – Eastern Space and Missile Center 

• ETR – Eastern Test Range 

 

339 https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/45thHist/EVWing.htm 340 https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/45thHist/Preface.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

297

Air Force personnel operated tracking systems on the Eastern Range up through 

December 1953. Cost comparison studies undertaken two years earlier had shown the 

desirability of letting contractors operate the Cape and the downrange stations. On 

December 13, 1953, the first range contract was signed with Pan American World 

Services. Pan American signed a contract with RCA to make the latter responsible for 

operating and maintaining range stations and tracking systems. This team operated the 

Eastern Range for over thirty years until CSR won the Range Technical Services (RTS) 

contract in 1988. In 2000, the Engineering side of the Technical Services contract was 

separated from Operations and Maintenance. CSR won the new Range Technical Service 

Contract (RTSC) effective 1 April 2000. On 3 November 2000, the Space and Missile 

Systems Center (SMC) awarded the Space Lift Range System Contract (SLRSC) to ITT 

Industries341. 

Primarily to accommodate testing requirements for winged missiles like the SNARK and 

NAVAHO, in October 1952, plans were approved to extend the Eastern Range's length to 

5,000 miles. These were basically long-range cruise missiles. The Eastern Range 

supported its first 5,000-mile-long mission (a SNARK test flight) on October 31, 1957. 

To achieve the extended range, additional support sites were added. 

Throughout its history, the ER has included numerous supporting sites. Presently sites 

are maintained at JDMTA, Antigua, Ascension, and Argentia. By January 1960, the 

Eastern Range included 13 major stations, approximately 91 outlying sites, a fleet of 

ships and three marine support stations (Figure B.1-3). By September 1963, the Eastern 

Range extended around the tip of South Africa to the island of Mahe in the Indian Ocean. 

Major sites and their dates of operation include the following342: 

• Valkaria, Fl – [1961- ] 

• Jupiter, Fl – [1954-1985] (Near present day JDMTA) 

• Grand Bahamas Island, Bahamas – [1954-1987] 

• Carter Cay, Bahamas – [1961- ] 

• Eleuthera, Bahamas – [1955-1971] 

• San Salvador, Bahamas – [1955-1965] 

• Mayaguana – [1955-1970] 

• Grand Turk – [1955-1982] 

• Mayaguez, Puerto Rico – [1956-1961] 

• East Island – [1961-1963] 

• Dominican Republic – [1956-1962] 

• St. Lucia, Brazil – [1956-1967] 

• Fernando de Noronha (off Brazil) – [1958-1969] 

• Pretoria, South Africa – [1961 -1967] 

 

 

341 https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/45thHist/CONTRACT.htm 342 https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/45thHist/DER.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

298

Figure B.1-3 Eastern Range In Early 60’s 

In addition, range instrumentation ships were used to fill in those areas not covered by 

land bases. The range ships and their dates of operation are as follows343: 

• USNS Range Tracker (T-AGM 1) 1961-69 

• USNS Range Recoverer (T-AGM 2) 1960-72 

• USNS Longview (T-AGM 3) 1960-74 

• USNS Richfield (T-AGM 4) 1960-70 

• USNS Sunnyvale (T-AGM 5) 1960-74 

• USNS Watertown (T-AGM 6) 1961-72 

• USNS Huntsville (T-AGM 7) 1961-71 

• USNS Wheeling (T-AGM 8) 1962-79 

• USNS General H. H. Arnold (T-AGM 9) 1964-82 

• USNS Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg (T-AGM 10) 1964-83 (Used in 1997 movie 

Virus344) 

• USNS Twin Falls (T-AGM 11) 1964-68 

• USNS American Mariner (T-AGM 12) 1964-66 

• USNS Sword Knot (T-AGM 13) 1964-71 

 

343 http://www.usmm.org/msts/specialships.html 344 http://www.bigshipwrecks.com/history/universal/filming_for_universal_studios.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

299

• USNS Rose Knot (T-AGM 14) 1964-68 

• USNS Coastal Sentry (T-AGM 15) 1964-71 

• USNS Coastal Crusader (T-AGM 16) 1964-76 (Redesignated T-AGS 36 in 1969) 

• USNS Timber Hitch (T-AGM 17) 1964-68 

• USNS Sampan Hitch (T-AGM 18) 1964-68 

• USNS Vanguard (T-AGM 19) 1966-98 (Redesignated T-AG 194 in 1980) 

• USNS Redstone (T-AGM 20) 1966-93 

• USNS Mercury (T-AGM 21) 1965-76 

• USNS Range Sentinel (T-AGM 22) 1971-97 

• USNS Observation Island (T-AGM 23) 1979-Present 

Of these 23 ships, the last tracking ship for the Eastern Range was the Redstone (Figure 

B.1-4), which was decommissioned in 1993. The Range Sentinel continued to support 

Eastern Range activities until 1997, but it was primarily for Navy launches only. Today, 

only the Observation Island (Figure B.1-5) is still in operation. It usually stays in the 

Pacific and almost never supports Eastern Range activities. 

Figure B.1-4 USNS Redstone 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

300

Figure B.1-5 USNS Observation Island 

 

After 1957, ballistic missile and space programs quickly came to dominate the Eastern 

Range345. The MATADOR, BOMARC, SNARK and NAVAHO were eclipsed by the 

Army's JUPITER, the Navy's POLARIS and the Air Force's THOR, ATLAS, TITAN and 

MINUTEMAN ballistic missile programs. The Army REDSTONE and the Air Force 

ATLAS were also adapted to support NASA's MERCURY manned space program in the 

early 1960s. 

B.1.2 Facilities

The Eastern Range has major facilities at the following locations 

 Patrick AFB Headquarters, Radar, Optics, Test Beds 

 CCAS Launch Complexes (LC), Radar, Optics, Command 

 Destruct, Control, Weather 

 KSC Telemetry 

 JDMTA Radar, Telemetry, Command Destruct 

 Antigua Radar, Telemetry, Command Destruct 

 Ascension Radar, Telemetry 

 Argentia Radar, Telemetry, Command Destruct 

 

In addition, facilities at NASA’s Wallops Island and the Air Force Satellite Control 

Network’s (AFSCN) site in New Hampshire are also used for northern trajectories. 

 

345 https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/45thHist/DER.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

301

B.1.2.1 Patrick AFB 

Background

Patrick AFB (Figures B.1-6 & B.1-7) is located on the east central coast of Florida, about 

69 miles east of Orlando. The base, covering 2,108 acres, is situated between the Banana 

River and the Atlantic Ocean. Sitting nine feet above sea level, the base extends over an 

area 4.1 miles from north to south, and 1.25 miles from east to west346. 

Figure B.1-6 Patrick AFB Entrance 

 

346 http://www.computersciencesraytheon.com/home.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

302

Figure B.1-7 Patrick AFB (Satellite Image) 

PAFB is headquarters for the Eastern Range. It contains the 45 SW headquarters, range 

engineering, shop facilities, test facilities, a radar-tracking site and an optics-tracking site. 

Being an Air Force base, Patrick also includes: security, hospital, food services, 

commissary, housing, hangars, air terminal, runways, aircraft maintenance facilities, and 

recreation facilities. The Patrick terminal is used for weekly downrange flights to 

Antigua and Ascension. 

Patrick is also host facility to other organizations including: 

• Air Force Technical Application Center (AFTAC) – SALT treaty verification 

• Department of State/Air Wing (DOS/AW) – aircraft refurbishing 

• Cobra Judy Project – USNS Observation Island (Figure B.1-5) 

• Joint Stars Joint Test Force (J-STARS) – Airborne radar 

• Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI)347 - Training 

• Defense Reutilization & Marketing Office (DRMO) – Excess materials disposal

 

 

347 https://www.patrick.af.mil/tenants/index.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

303

Instrumentation

Patrick AFB includes the following Range systems: 

• Radar (0.14) 

• Optics (PIGOR) 

• Weather radar 

In addition, Patrick AFB includes the following test beds: 

 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Antenna Range 

B.1.2.2 CCAS 

Background

Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) [Figure B.1-8] is located 21 miles north of Patrick 

Air Force Base, and serves as the Eastern Range space processing and launch area. The 

45th Space Wing provides spacecraft processing, launch and tracking facilities, safety 

procedures, and test data to a wide variety of customers and also manages launch 

operations for DoD space programs. 

Cape Canaveral facilities include launch complexes, booster and payload assembly 

buildings, computer centers, Range control center, communication hubs, and other 

elements essential to the assembly, pre-launch, launch, and post-launch operations of 

space and ballistic vehicles. Cape Canaveral also includes port facilities for submarines 

and surface ships. 

Cape facilities include the following: 

Hangar AE – Hangar AE is a NASA facility used for pre-launch preparations and check 

out of unmanned payloads. The building consists of a high bay clean room complex, a 

telemetry ground station, the Mission Director's Center (MDC), and offices for payload 

management and contractor personnel. The KSC NASA Payload Management and 

Operations Directorate use this building as their "communications center"348. 

 

348http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:uGgy5TG_nhkC:www.ksc.nasa.gov/elv/eastern.htm+&hl=en&ie

=UTF-8
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

304

Figure B.1-8 Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) 

Hangar AF – Hangar AF is a NASA facility used for processing and refurbishing the 

Solid booster Rockets. 

ROCC - The Range Operations Control Center (Figure B.1-9) complex provides flight 

safety, weather, scheduling, launch control and instrumentation target designation 

support in real time for each missile and space launch. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

305

Figure B.1-9 Range Operations & Control Center (ROCC) 

Skid Strip – CCAS has a 10,000-foot landing strip, which is used for delivery and 

support of missile and payload components. It gets its name from its earlier use in 

support of winged air breathing missile tests where the vehicles were flown downrange 

and then commanded to turn around and return to the Cape for a skid recovery. 

NOTU – The Naval Ordnance Test Unit supports Navy activities at the Eastern Range. 

They have multiple facilities at the Cape. 

Poseidon Wharf – This port facility is used for berthing various ships and for loading the 

transports for downrange shipping to Antigua and Ascension (left basin in Figure B.1-10). 

Trident Basin – This larger port area supports Trident test submarines and some visiting 

surface ships. It contains submarine support and missile loading capabilities (right basin 

in Figure B.1-10). 

AF Space Museum – This facility at the site of the first Cape manned launch contains a 

collection of past launch vehicles and an early launch blockhouse (Figure B.1-11).

Light House – The Cape area contains an historic lighthouse (Figure B.1-12) that was 

rebuilt in 1868 and moved to its present location in 1894349. 

 

349 http://users.erols.com/lthouse/cclt.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

306

Figure B.1-10 Poseidon Warf & Trident Basin 

Figure B.1-11 AF Space Museum 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

307

Figure B.1-12 Cape Canaveral Light House 

Launches - Cape Canaveral, with adjacent KSC, has approximately 50 launch complexes 

(Figures B.1-13 and B.1-14) numbered LC-1 through LC-47. Currently, many of these 

are not in use. A few are listed as National Historic sites. Some of the complexes 

contain multiple pads (i.e. 39A and 39B). A brief summary of launch complexes is 

provided in Table B.1-1350. 

Figure B.1-13 Cape Launch Complexes in 1960’s 

 

350 https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/LaFacility/Launchframeset.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

308

Figure B.1-14 Cape Launch Complexes in 1990’s 

Table B.1-1 Communications Timeline 

LC Act. Vehicle Capsule Yrs in Use Comments 

1 SNARK 

MATADOR 

Aerostat 

 1953-1960 

| 

1983-1989 

2 SNARK 

MATADOR 

Aerostat 

 1953-1960 

| 

1983-1989 

3 BUMPER 

BOMARC 

JACON 

Redstone 

X-17 

Polaris 

Aerostat 

 | 

| 

| 

1950-1960 

| 

| 

1983-1989 

1st Cape launch 7/24/50 

4 BUMPER 

BOMARC 

JACON 

Redstone 

X-17 

Polaris 

Aerostat 

 | 

| 

| 

1950-1960 

| 

| 

1983-1989 

5 Jupiter 

- 

 1955-1964 

1964-present AF Space Museum 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

309

LC Act. Vehicle Capsule Yrs in Use Comments 

6 Redstone 

- 

Mercury 1955-1964 

1964-present 

1st manned flight 5/5/1961 

AF Space Museum 

7 

8 

9 Navaho 1956-1959 Demolished 1959 for LC 31 & 32 

10 Navaho 1956-1959 Demolished 1959 for LC 31 & 32 

11 Atlas 1957-1967 

12 Atlas/Agena 

Ranger 

Mariner 

 | 

1957-1967 

| 

13 Atlas 

Atlas/Agena 

 1957-1978 

| 

14 Atlas Mercury 

Gemini 

1957-1967 1st Orbital flight 2/20/1962 

15 Titan I & II 1959-1967 

16 Titan I & II 

NASA tests 

Pershing 1A & II 

 1959-1965 

1965-1967 

1972-1988 

17A 

Y 

Thor 

Delta 

NASA tests 

Delta II 

 1956-1960 

1960-1965 

1965-1988 

1988-present 

NASA 

17B 

Y 

Thor 

Delta 

NASA tests 

Delta II 

Delta III 

 1956-1960 

1960-1965 

1965-1988 

1988-1997 

1997-present 

NASA 

18A Vanguard 

Blue Scout 

 1956-1960 

1960-1967 

18B Thor 

Blue Scout I, II 

 1956-1961 

1961-1967 

19 Titan I 

Titan II Gemini 

1959-1967 

1962-1967 

20 

Y 

Titan I 

Titan III 

Commercial 

 1959-1964 

1964-1967 

1999-present 

Red Tigress 

Spaceport Fla 

21 Blue Goose 

Mace 

 1957-1958 

1959-1970 

22 Blue Goose 

Mace 

 1957-1958 

1959-1970 

23 

24 

25A Polaris 1957-1969 

25B Polaris 1957-1969 

25C Poseidon 

Trident I 

 1967-1977 

1977-1979 

25D Poseidon 1967-1979 

26 Redstone 

Jupiter 

Juno 

- 

 | 

1956-1964 

| 

1964-present AF Space Museum 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

310

LC Act. Vehicle Capsule Yrs in Use Comments 

27 

28 

29A Polaris 

Chevaline 

 1959-1968 

1977-1980 British 

29B Polaris 1959-1968 

30A Pershing 1960-1968 

30B Pershing 1960-1968 

31A Minuteman 

Pershing 1A 

 1960-1973 

1973 

Pad 

31B Minuteman 1960-1973 Silo 

Challenger burial 

32A Minuteman 1960-1964 Pad 

32B Minuteman 

Minuteman II 

Minuteman 3 

 1960-1964 

1964-1968 

1968-? 

Silo 

Challenger burial site 

33 

34 Saturn I & IB Apollo 1963-1971 Apollo 1 fire 

35 

36A 

Y 

Atlas/Centaur 

Atlas II 

 1961-1989 

1989-present 

NASA 

AF 

36B 

Y 

Atlas/Centaur 

Atlas II 

Atlas III 

 1964-1989 

1989-2000 

2000-present 

NASA 

AF 

AF 

37A 

Y 

Saturn I & IB 

Delta IV 

Apollo 1963-1971 

2002-present 

1st unmanned lunar 

EELV first flight in 2002 

37B Saturn I & IB Apollo 1963-1971 

38 

39A 

Y 

Saturn V 

Shuttle 

Apollo 1965-1981 

1981-present 

On KSC 

1st Shuttle 4/12/1981 

39B 

Y 

Saturn V 

Saturn IB 

Shuttle 

Apollo 

Apollo 

1966-1973 

1973-1981 

1981-present 

On KSC 

Skylab & Soyuz 

40 

Y 

Titan III 

Titan IV 

 1965-1994 

1994-present 

41 

Y 

Titan III 

Titan IV 

Atlas V 

 1965-1977 

1988-1999 

2002-present 

Mars Viking 1975 & 

Voyager 1977 

EELV first flight in 2002 

42 

43 Sounding 1962-1984 

44 

45 Roland 1975-1976 No launches 

46 

Y 

Trident II 

Commercial 

 1986-1995 

1997-present 

Spaceport Florida & 

Future Trident 

47 

Y 

Sounding 

Loft 

Super Loki 

 1984-present 

1984 

1992 Student rocket 

Instrumentation
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

311

CCAS has the following types of instrumentation: 

• Radar (1.39, 1.8, 1.16, SPARC, MOTR) 

• Optics (ATOTS, Cinetheodolites, MIGORS) 

• Command Destruct 

• Communication 

• Weather 

• Range Safety 

• Timing 

B.1.2.3 KSC 

Because it is a separate entity, NASA’s Kennedy Space Center is addressed later in its 

own section. The KSC area does contain the following ER assets: 

• Telemetry site (TEL-4) 

• Optics sites [Playalinda Beach DOAMS, Universal Camera Sites (UCS)] 

• Radars (19.14, 19.17) 

• Weather 

The MOTR radar, presently at CCAS, is being considered for relocation to KSC. 

B.1.2.4 JDMTA 

Background

The first Eastern Range tracking station south of Patrick AFB is the Jonathan Dickinson 

Missile Tracking Annex (JDMTA). JDMTA is located 120 miles south of Patrick AFB 

near Jupiter, Florida on 11 acres of land that is a part of a Florida state park known as 

Jonathan Dickinson State Park. The facility was constructed over1985-86 to support 

Navy trident missile testing351 and to provide a south Florida tracking site that avoids 

looking through the attenuating rocket exhaust plume. When it became operational in 

1987, it permitted the Grand Bahamas tracking station to be shut down permanently. 

Instrumentation

 

351 http://www.computersciencesraytheon.com/home.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

312

JDMTA is a state-of-the-art site (Figure B.1-15 & B.1-16) that includes the following 

systems: 

• Telemetry (4 TAA-50s) 

• Radar (28.14) 

• Command Destruct (2 redundant systems) 

• Translated GPS Ranging System (TGRS) 

• SATCOM (2) 

• Microwave relay to Cape 

• Timing 

Figure B.1-15 JDMTA (Aerial View) 

Figure B.1-16 JDMTA (Ground View) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

313

JDMTA provides in-flight monitoring of launch vehicle performance, electronics, and 

associated subsystems. During a launch, if and when it becomes necessary to protect life 

and property, the command destruct system is remotely activated from the Cape should a 

launch vehicle veer off course. The large TAA-8 telemetry antenna shown in Figures 

B.1-15 and B.1-16 was removed in the early 90’s and the SATCOM antennas added. 

Many of these systems will be discussed under the Instrumentation section. 

B.1.2.5 Antigua 

Background

Antigua Air Station is the next tracking station south of JDMTA. It is located on the 

island of Antigua, West Indies (Figure B.1-17). Antigua is one of the northeastern most 

islands in the Leeward Island chain and is approximately 1,250 nautical miles southeast 

of Patrick Air Force Base. The hilly island is approximately 16 miles across at its widest 

point east-west, 12 miles across north to south, and has a population of 65,000.352 

Figure B.1-17 Antigua, West Indies 

 

352 http://computersciencesraytheon.com/htmlFiles/Antigua%20AS.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

314

Columbus discovered Antigua in 1493. Antigua, with adjacent islands Barbuda and 

Redonda as dependencies, became an associated state of the Commonwealth in 1967 and 

achieved full independence in 1981353. As a part of a World War II Lend-Lease deal, the 

UK granted the U.S. a 99-year lease on territories in Antigua, Bermuda, Argentia, and 

other islands in exchange for 50 WW-I destroyers354. Most of the Antigua land was 

returned to the British at the end of WW-II with the option to reuse the land at a later 

date. In the early 50’s, a new arrangement was signed that granted the U.S. rights to 

build the present day Air Base and tracking station on part of the old Coolidge Base. 

This was renegotiated with Antigua after it obtained independence in 1981. The adjacent 

former Navy base was turned over to the Antiguan government in the early 90’s. 

Antigua Air Station population includes the station commander, a Civil Engineering 

quality assurance evaluator and approximately 150 contract personnel. Computer 

Sciences Raytheon (CSR), the prime contract authority, conducts spacecraft tracking 

operation, maintenance, supply, and support operations. 

Instrumentation

Antigua includes the following systems: 

• Telemetry (TAA-8, TAA-3) [Figure B.1-18] 

• Radar (91.14) 

• Command Destruct (2 redundant systems) 

• SATCOM (2) 

• Timing 

The primary mission of Antigua Air Station is to provide telemetry and radar-tracking 

data supporting space launches out of the Eastern Range. The unit also has the secondary 

mission of providing radar-tracking data for locating and cataloging space objects in 

support of U.S. Space Command's Space Surveillance Network.355 

A Consolidated Instrumentation Facility (CIF) was built in the 80’s. Telemetry systems 

were quickly relocated to this facility in the mid-90’s after a hurricane destroyed the 

adjacent old telemetry building. Command destruct equipment was relocated to the CIF 

in September 1998, enabling the closure of NASA’s Bermuda site. 

 

353 http://www.bizzz.com/caribbean/resources/frame/about.htm 354 http://www.navsource.org/Naval/deal.htm 355 https://www.patrick.af.mil/45LG/antigua.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

315

Figure B.1-18 Antigua Telemetry Antennas 

B.1.2.6 Ascension 

Background

The southernmost ER tracking station is at Ascension Island. Ascension Island is a 

British territory located in the South Atlantic more than 5,090 miles southeast of Patrick 

AFB and about 500 miles south of the equator--halfway between South America and 

Africa (Figure B.1-19). Small and volcanic, the island is roughly circular with an 

approximate diameter of six miles and area of 34 square miles (Figure B.1-20 and Figure 

B.1-21). 

Figure B.1-19 Location of Ascension Island 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

316

Figure B.1-20 Ascension Island 

Figure B.1-21 Map of Ascension Island 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

317

Ascension was discovered by the Portuguese in 1501, and "found again" two years later 

on Ascension Day by Alphonse d'Albuquerque, who gave the island its name. Being dry 

and barren it was of little use to the East Indies fleets, so it remained uninhabited until 

Emperor Napoleon I was incarcerated on St Helena in 1815. A small British naval 

garrison was stationed on Ascension to deny it to the French356. The island later became 

the main relay point of the coaxial submarine cable system laid between the United 

Kingdom, Portugal and South Africa with links to South America and West Africa. 

Less than 30 days after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. arrived on Ascension to construct (with 

British permission) an airfield (Figure B.1-22) to be used as a refueling station for planes 

being ferried to Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. More than 25,000 planes 

passed through Ascension during WW-II. Today, this airfield remains the intermediate 

stop for the twice-weekly Royal Air Force Tri-Star service between the United Kingdom 

and the Falklands. In addition, the USAF operates the weekly “Rangeliner” from Patrick 

AFB to Antigua and Ascension. 

Figure B.1-22 Ascension Airfield (Wideawake Field) 

In 1982, the island was re-garrisoned by British Forces to support operations in the 

Falkland Islands (also known as Las Islas Malvinas.) 

In 1956, the Bahamas’ agreement gave the U.S. permission to construct tracking stations 

at Antigua and Ascension. The Ascension station became operational in 1957 and today 

is the southernmost tracking station of the USAF Eastern Range. A NASA tracking 

station was built on Ascension in 1967, but has since closed down. British Cable and 

Wireless also operates an "Ariane" Earth Station on the Island on behalf of the European 

Space Agency. 

Instrumentation

 

356 http://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/ascension.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

318

Ascension instrumentation consists of the following: 

• Radar (12.15 & 12.18) 

• Telemetry (TAA-3C1, TAA-3C2) 

• Communication (SATCOM) 

• Timing 

• Weather 

A Consolidated Instrumentation Facility (CIF) was built in the 80’s and equipment is 

slowly being relocated to this site. 

B.1.2.7 Argentia 

Background

Argentia is located in Newfoundland off the coast of Canada (Figure B.1-23). The same 

Anglo-American Lend-Lease Agreement of 1940 that gave the United States a base at 

Antigua, also provided the U.S. with territory in Newfoundland. Starting in 1941, a U.S. 

Navy Base was built in Argentia, Newfoundland (Figure B.1-24)357. Activity at the base 

remained at a high level until the early 1980's. The base was returned to Canadian control 

in 1995. 

Figure B.1-23 Location of Argentia, Newfoundland 

 

357 http://agcwww.bio.ns.ca/mregion/ocean/argentia/TEXT/HISTORICAL/ 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

319

Figure B.1-24 Argentia Navy Base (1941) 

In June 1993, a new range site was completed at Argentia, Newfoundland. This site was 

needed to support northbound flights of the TITAN IV from Cape Canaveral. The new 

site was built on the existing Navy base. The Navy base was later closed, but the site 

remains. Various plans are under consideration to relocate the site within the same 

general area. 

Instrumentation

Argentia has the following instrumentation systems: 

• Radar (53.17) 

• Command Destruct 

• Timing 

Telemetry is provided by others using portable telemetry systems or by AFSCN 

telemetry equipment located at a site in New Hampshire. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

320

B.1.3 Instrumentation

The Eastern Range has the following types of Range instrumentation: 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Optics 

• Command Destruct 

• Communication 

• Weather 

• Timing 

B.1.3.1 Radar 

To enable precision tracking and range safety throughout the 5000-mile range, the 

Eastern Range has an assortment of launch head and downrange radars. The following 

radars are used on the Eastern Range: 

Site Designation Type Band Dia-ft Comments 

 PAFB 0.14 MIPIR C 29 Figure B.1-25 

 CCAS 1.16 AN/FPS-16 C 12 

 CCAS 1.39 MOTR C 12 Figure B.1-26 

 CCAS 1.8 X NA Sea surveillance 

 KSC 19.14 MIPIR C 29 

 KSC 19.17 MCBR C 12 

 JDMTA 28.14 MIPIR C 29 

 Antigua 91.14 MIPIR C 29 Figure B.1-27 

 Ascension 12.15 TTR C 40 

 Ascension 12.18 AN/FPQ-18 C 29 Figure B.1-28 

 Argentia 53.17 MCBR C 12 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

321

Figure B.1-25 PAFB 0.14 Radar – MIPIR (rear) 

Figure B.1-26 CCAS 1.39 – MOTR (Phased Array) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

322

Figure B.1-27 Antigua 91.14 – MIPIR (front) 

(Rear dish is TAA-8 Telemetry antenna) 

Figure B.1-28 Ascension 12.15 - TTR 

 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

323

Modified AN/FPQ radars and telescopes provide precision tracking data from the 

outlying sites. These radars are supported with acquisition data from either AN/FPS 

radars and the Multiple Object Tracking Radar (MOTR) located at CCAS. The Precision 

Tracking radars are located at KSC (Merritt Island), PAFB, JDMTA, and on Antigua and 

Ascension Islands. All range radars are capable of either beacon or echo tracking, and 

providing real-time data to the ROCC. Surveillance radars at PAFB and CCAS provide 

aircraft and ship tracking in support of range control of restricted airspace and 

notification of pending launch to sea-going vessels358. 

 

Ongoing modernization of the ER is intended to eliminate the need for most of these 

radars. As currently planned, the modernized ranges will use differential GPS tracking 

systems supplemented by seven radars at the ER. Three of the seven radars at the ER will 

be necessary only to support launches of the space shuttle, and three others will be 

located at downrange facilities to support ballistic missile tests and space object 

identification359. 

A cross-reference for types of radars is as follows: 

Type Radar Design

 MIPIR AN/FPQ-14 

 TTR AN/FPQ-15 

 MOTR AN/MPS-39 

In addition to these 10 radars, the Eastern Range often uses three NASA-operated C-band 

radars at Wallops Island. These are: 

 Radar Design Designation

 AN/FPQ-6 86.18 

 AN/FPS-16s 86.16I 

 AN/FPS-16s 86.16R 

The Single Point Acquisition and Radar Control (SPARC) system located in the ROCC 

provides operational control and coordination of radars. The SPARC system enables the 

controllers to monitor and control all 2400 b/s acquisition data (high density data) on the 

Range, plus some off-range systems located at Wallops.

B.1.3.2 Telemetry 

Telemetry Support consists of land based stations at Antigua, JDMTA, and Ascension 

Island. Real-time data are available at CCAS via satellite communication from Antigua 

 

358http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/roadmap/irm/internet/spacecon/init/text/antigu.rtf 359http://www.nap.edu/html/streamlining_range/ch4.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

324

and Ascension Island, and via microwave from JDMTA. Telemetry aircraft support is 

provided by ARIA EC-135s and EC-18s from Edwards AFB. 

A summary of Eastern Range Telemetry is as follows: 

 Site Telemetry Dia-Ft Comments 

 KSC TAA-3C 30 

 KSC TAA-24A 24 

 JDMTA TAA-50 50 4 systems 

 Antigua TAA-8 80 Figures B.1-29, 30 

 Antigua TAA-3C 33 Figures B.1-29, 30 

 Ascension TAA-3C-1 33 Enclosed 

 Ascension TAA-3C-2 33 Open 

 Ascension Four Foot 4 Fixed antenna 

 Ascension Shaped Beam 2.3 x 3 Fixed elliptic antenna 

The two fixed Ascension antennas are pointed toward the offshore Sonobuoy Missile 

Impact Location system, which collects Trident impact data during the final 4-6 seconds 

of the trajectory. 

The AFSCN New Hampshire site is sometimes used to cover northern trajectories. 

Figure B.1-29 TAA-8 & TAA-3 at Antigua 

(Prior to CIF being constructed) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

325

Figure B.1-30 Antigua TAA-8 & TAA-3 

 

B.1.3.3 Optics 

The Eastern Range has an assortment of fixed and mobile metric optical systems near the 

launch head. There are four fixed sites at the following locations, listed from north to 

south: 

Table B.1-2 ER Fixed Optical Sites 

Site 

Designator

Instrument Site Location Lens Focal 

Length 

(Inches)

Comments

Playalinda 

Beach DOAMS KSC 100 to 400 Canaveral 

National 

Seashore 

CB DOAM DOAMS Cocoa Beach 100 to 400 Behind Ron 

Jon’s Surf Shop

PIGOR IGOR PAFB 90 to 500 On A1A 

MB ROTI ROTI Melbourne 

Beach 100 to 500 On A1A 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

326

DOAMS - Distant Object Attitude Measurement System (Figure B.1-31) are twin 

telescope systems combined on a single mount used to track distant objects. An 

acquisition camera is also mounted with the two telescopes. Three units were obtained 

from White Sands in the 90’s. Two of the units were used to modernize the Cocoa Beach 

and Playalinda sites. The third unit was used for parts. 

PIGOR – Is the name given to the Patrick IGOR. This fixed site (Figure B.1-32) is 

located on A1A, directly across from the Tech Lab and adjacent to the 0.14 Radar. 

Figure B.1-31 DOAMS 

Figure B.1-32 PIGOR (front) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

327

ROTI - The Recording Optical Tracking Instrumentation was constructed by mounting a 

telescope on a gun mount. 

In addition to the four fixed sites, there are 24 Universal Camera Sites (UCS) that can 

take an assortment of mobile optical systems (Table B.1-3). The mobile units include 

both metric and non-metric trackers. 

Table B.1-3 ER Mobile Optical Instruments 

System Metric Lens Focal Length (inches) Comments 

ATOTS Y 180 to 500 Advanced Transportable Optical Tracking 

System 

Cinetheodolite

s 

Y 60 to 120 

MIGOR Y 90 to 500 Mobile Intercept Ground Optical Recorder 

IFLOT N Intermediate Focal Length Optical Tracker 

MOTS N Mobile Optical Tracking System 

KTM N Kineto Tracking Mount 

ATOTS – The Advanced Transportable Optical Tracking System (Figure B.1-33 and 34) 

was designed and built by the Range Contractor in the late 80’s. These NASA-funded 

units were built to replace the MIGORs; however, portions of the MIGOR systems still 

remain. Each of the two ATOTS was built on a stock Fruehauf lowboy trailer. A firm in 

Las Cruses, NM constructed the forward room. The trailers were then delivered to 

Patrick AFB, where the rear room, astrodome, instrument, sub-frame, console, racks and 

accessories were installed. During tracking, the instrument is lowered on to jacks; this 

prevents movement inside the trailer from affecting the optics. 

KTM – Kineto Tracking Mounts are trailer mounted optical trackers (Figure B.1-35). 

Besides the optics listed in the above tables, most systems include acquisition cameras 

and lens to assist in acquiring targets. 

The Eastern Range has a large assortment of standard motion picture and video cameras 

that can be mounted on the systems listed above. More than 200 motion picture 

cameras in 16-mm, 35-mm and 70-mm formats are available for general range use. 

Range assets also include more than 160 still cameras. These are often set up to be 

remotely operated near the launch site. 

All metrics optics coverage is coordinated through and monitored by the Metric Optics 

Control (MOC) console located in room 158 in the ROCC. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

328

Figure B.1-33 ATOTS 

Figure B.1-34 ATOTS Telescope 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

329

Figure B.1-35 KTM 

B.1.3.4 Command Destruct 

Command Destruct capabilities are provide at the following sites: 

• Cape Canaveral Air Station (CCAS) 

• JDMTA 

• Antigua 

• Argentia 

Wallops Island also provides support for some ER missions. Each Command site has 

redundant but totally separate systems. The redundancy originates at the power source 

and continues through the transmitters and other components all the way up to the 

antennas. Each system also includes an ACME unit and is interconnected to the Flight 

Control Officer (FCO) at the Central Command Remoting System (CCRS). 

ACME - This standalone, redundant, special test system that provides independent 

verification of the quality of transmitter secure-mode Command messages. It can 

receive, demodulate, archive and analyze transmitted messages. Out-of-tolerance 

conditions are flagged to the operator. The ACME unit can analyze functions in the 

Unmanned Secure, Manned Secure, ER Normal and Trident modes. 

CCRS – The Central Command Remoting System is the nerve center of the Command 

Destruct System (CDS). It is physically located in the ROCC. The CCRS has bidirectional data links to command transmitter sites located at CCAS, JDMTA, Antigua, 

Wallops Island and Argentia. Wallops Island is not a part of the Eastern Range but is 

often used to support ER missions. All sites switch to the remote mode during a launch 

and transfer control to the FCO at the CCRS. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

330

CCAS

The Cape Command facility at CCAS contains two completely independent command 

systems (Cape 1A and Cape 1B). Each system is located in its own building and has dual 

independent streams. The buildings are adjacent and interconnected. Both systems 

support all Digital Range Safety (DRS) and Inter-Range Instrumentation Group 

command modes. The Cape 1A system has Pilot Tone capability. The previously 

operating Cape Low Power system has been disconnected. Each Cape 1A and 1B system 

can operate in either a local or remote mode. The local mode is used during checkout 

only. Control is switched to remote and given to the Flight Control Officer (FCO) at the 

Central Command Remoting System (CCRS) at the ROCC. The ACME for Cape 

Command is physically located on the Cape 1A site, but is shared between both sites. 

The Cape 1A Command System is the newer of the two systems. Redundancy begins 

with the power connection, which consists of two UPS protected independent power 

feeds. Each stream has a 10kW transmitter and can feed either a steerable antenna or an 

omni antenna. 

The Cape 1B Command System is the older of the two systems. It has dual-redundant 

command streams starting with FPL industrial power feed to one side and an UPS diesel 

motor generator set on the other. Each stream has a 10 kW transmitter; normally 

operated in the 7 to 10 kW range. Output is via two steerable Canoga Quad helix 

antennas or a single Rozendal Omni-directional antenna. 

 

JDMTA

The JDMTA Command system was the first stage of installing new state-of-the-art 

Command systems on the ER. It is a dual stream system with complete redundancy, 

starting with independent power sources. Stream 1 is powered by motor generators and 

backed up by an UPS. Stream 2 is also powered by motor generators but without the 

UPS. Each stream uses 10 kW transmitters that feed either DATRON steerable antennas 

inside radomes or exterior broad-beam antennas. The latter are used exclusively for 

Navy support. 

Antigua 

Antigua is the southernmost site with Command Destruct capabilities. Once the missile 

is out of sight of Antigua, it is no longer possible to destroy the missile. Antigua has 

Command System #1 and Command System #2. Each system is totally redundant but 

separate. The redundancy originates at the powerhouse and continues through the 

system; all the way to the two steerable antennas. Antigua utilizes two solid-state 4kW 

transmitters. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

331

Argentia

The Argentia site is normally used only during special northern launches of the Titan IV. 

Argentia has two independent Command streams powered by a pair of diesel motorgenerator sets. One set powers both streams while the other is used as backup power. 

There is no UPS or automatic switchover functionality. Each Command stream includes 

an ACME unit that can receive, demodulate, archive, and analyze the transmitted 

messages. Out-of-tolerance conditions are flagged to the operator. Argentia utilizes two 

solid-state 1.2kW transmitters and two steerable quad helix antennas. Command 

equipment is housed in a trailer. The antennas are under radomes to protect them from 

the elements. 

B.1.3.5 Communications 

The Eastern Range has an extensive communication network consisting of the following: 

• Communication Satellites 

• Microwave links 

• High Frequency (HF) radio 

• Landlines 

• VHF/UHF 

These are used to support and connect the sites and stations of the ER to each other and 

the world. 

CCAS

CCAS is the focal point for all Range communication, Range user nets, and commercial 

carriers to other Government agencies and the world. Communication in and out of 

CCAS consists of the following: 

• SATCOM 

• Commercial Satellite / Landline 

• DSCS Satellite / Landline 

• Inmarsat 

• Microwave Link 

• Landlines 

• HF 

• UHF/VHF 

SATCOM - The SATCOM (Satellite Communication) equipment at CCAS was installed 

under RSA-1. It is used to communicate with other SATCOM stations at JDMTA, 

Antigua and Ascension. This system has two completely independent strings that 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

332

terminate at dual 16.4-meter antennas located near the ROCC. Only one string is used at 

a time; because only one satellite transponder was leased. SATCOM is relayed via a 

leased INTELSAT geo-synchronous satellite located over the Atlantic. Capacity is 1.544 

Mbps. 

Commercial Satellite / Landline – This combination link is used to communicate with 

Antigua. A MCI/WorldCom earth station on Antigua routes the signals to a similar 

station in Houston. A leased landline routes the signal into CCAS. This 1.544 Mbps 

circuit can be configured to carry voice, data and video. 

DSCS Satellite – The DSCS (Defense Satellite Communications System) military 

satellite provides one communication link to and from Ascension. The final route into 

the CCAS is via a landline from the DSCS earth station in Virginia. 

Inmarsat – An International Maritime Satellite communication system is used to 

communicate between the ROCC and the LASS during Navy Trident launches. Dual 

Inmarsat-B antennas are located on the roof of the ROCC. Data rate is 56 kbps. 

Microwave Link – The ER has a two-way Digital Speed-3 microwave link between 

JDMTA and the XY Building at CCAS. There is an extension from the XY Building to 

Tel-4. Communication interfaces are provided at Tel-4, XY building, Patrick AFB, 

Malabar, and JDMTA. Repeater-only stations are located at Stuart, Ft. Pierce, and 

Wabasso, FL. 

Landlines – Fiber and copper landlines provide access from CCAS to Patrick AFB, 

KSC, around the Cape, and to the outside world. 

HF- The High Frequency (HF) radio wave system consists of transmitters, receivers and 

antenna arrays located at Malabar, CCAS Communication Receiver building and 

Ascension. The ER has approximately 65 transmit frequencies allocated between 2 and 

30 MHz. The transmit site for CCAS is located 40 miles south at Malabar, Florida. The 

receive site is on CCAS. HF is used for communication with Ascension, ships and 

aircraft. Links may handle data, teletype and voice. 

UHF/VHF – Very High Frequency and Ultra High Frequency are used on the Range as 

follows: 

• CCAS 

o VHF – Non-military aircraft control 

o UHF – Military aircraft, ships 

• Ascension 

o VHF – Non-military aircraft control, ships, fire & security 

o UHF – Military aircraft, ships 

• All 

o VHF/UHF – Land Mobile Radio (LMR) used by NOTU, RTSC, Army, 45 

SW, JBOS 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

333

o UHF – Timing data 

Unique Com systems and facilities at CCAS include the following: 

• XY Building 

• DCSS 

• R/S TV Vans 

• TVOC 

• DMNE 

• TMS 

• VNE 

• BIDDS 

• CCTV 

• DRCS 

• Green Phone System 

• ITL CCTV 

• PAWS 

• TOPS 

XY Building – Almost all communication links at CCAS terminate in the XY Building. 

The facility contains the manual and automatic switching required to interconnect the 

Range and support missions. 

DCSS - The Digital Communication Switching System is the switching network that 

controls the Range audio countdown nets, voice direct lines, monitor facilities, and 

recording functions for the ER. 

R/S TV Vans – Range Safety uses the Range Safety TV Vans to view the flight 

characteristics of the vehicle from various angles during the first few seconds of launch. 

Each van is self contained for receiving images from a rooftop tracking camera, 

recording the images, and transmitting the images to TVOC via an 7-GHz microwave 

video link. 

TVOC – The TV Operations Center is the hub for video operations on the ER. It has 

facilities to input, edit, record, archive, time-tag, process, and redistribute video from or 

to virtually anywhere on CCAS. 

DMNE – The Digital Message Network is an automatic electronic message switching 

system that can receive, process, store, and route digital messages. It is located in the 

ROCC. 

TMS – The Transport Management System is used for point-to-point multiplexing of ER 

circuits. It is located at the ROCC. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

334

VNE – The Video Network Element is a video distribution service that allows video 

feeds to be dispersed among the various ROCC user positions. 

BIDDS – The Base Integrated Data Distribution System provides 11,000-voice/data line 

capabilities to support communications at CCAS. The main system is located in the XY 

building with remote systems at the VIB, Southwest Terminal Building, E&L Building 

and the ROCC. 

CCTV – The Closed Circuit Television is a video system that uses optics technology to 

capture real-time images and video recordings and transmission technology to process 

and distribute the images. The system includes the fixed-site cameras, mobile cameras, 

XY building video patch and the TVOC. 

DRCS – The Digital Range Communication System provides voice communications for 

Range Operations. It provides users with switching capabilities and digital conference 

networks to support launch operations. This system is replacing TOPS. 

Green Phone System – This 1950’s-era analog phone system still provides point-topoint communication for all operation locations. Approximately 2000 green phones are 

still in service on the ER as of 2002. Because of their simplicity and reliability, no plans 

exist for their removal in the near future. 

ITL CCTV – The Integrated, Transfer, and Launch complex Closed Circuit Television is 

used to control 74 real-time cameras supporting the Titan vehicle. 

PAWS – The Public Aural Warning System is located in the XY Building and controls 

nine zones and over 200 outputs at CCAS. 

TOPS – The Transistorized Operations Phone System provides operational voice 

communication throughout the Range. The ER has approximately 7500 TOPS units. 

The system is being replaced with the DRCS. 

JDMTA

Communication in and out of JDMTA consists of the following: 

• SATCOM 

• Microwave links 

• Landlines 

SATCOM - JDMTA has a SATCOM link back to CCAS installed under RSA-1. This 

system has two completely independent strings terminating at dual 13-meter antennas 

located at JDMTA. One antenna was installed on top of the old TAA-8 pedestal; the 

other is located nearby. Only one string is used at a time since there is only one 

transponder under lease. SATCOM is relayed via a leased INTELSAT geo-synchronous 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

335

satellite located over the Atlantic. The receiving station at CCAS is located at the 

ROCC. Capacity is 1.544 Mbps. 

Microwave Link – JDMTA has a microwave link back to CCAS. 

Landlines – T1 and T2 landlines connect JDMTA to Tel-4. 

Antigua

Antigua is the nodal point for all Caribbean area Com traffic. Communication in and out 

of Antigua consists of the following: 

• Commercial Satellite / Landline 

• SATCOM 

The commercial satellite system is a MCI/WorldCom earth station on Antigua to a 

similar station in Houston with a leased landline back to CCAS. This 1.544 Mbps circuit 

can be configured to carry voice, data and video. 

Antigua also has a SATCOM link back to CCAS installed under RSA-1. This system has 

two completely independent strings, which terminate at dual 13-meter antennas located at 

the Antigua CIF. Only one string is used at a time. SATCOM is relayed via a leased 

INTELSAT geo-synchronous satellite located over the Atlantic. The receiving station at 

CCAS is located at the ROCC. Capacity is 1.544 Mbps. 

Ascension

Ascension is the net control station for ship and aircraft operations in Africa, Atlantic 

Ocean and the Indian Ocean. Communication in and out of Ascension consists of the 

following: 

• DSCS Satellite 

• SATCOM 

• HF 

• VHF/UHF 

DSCS Satellite - The DSCS satellite is a part of a military global satellite network. One 

earth station is located on Ascension with a 38-meter dish. The other earth station is 

located in Virginia. A landline is used to get data back to CCAS. A DSCS III satellite 

is utilized. Data rates available to ER are 568 kbps. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

336

SATCOM - Ascension also has a SATCOM link back to CCAS installed under RSA-1. 

This system has two completely independent strings terminating at dual 13-meter 

antennas located at the CIF. Only one string is used at a time since only one transponder 

was leased. SATCOM is relayed via a leased INTELSAT geo-synchronous satellite 

located over the Atlantic. The receiving station at CCAS is located at the ROCC. 

Capacity is 1.544 Mbps. 

HF – Ascension is the U.S. HF communication node for the South Atlantic. It is used for 

communication with CCAS, ships and aircraft. This includes Navy P3 SMILS, ARIA, 

and LASS. 

VHF/UHF – These frequencies are used to communicate with ships, planes, and for 

mobile communication on the island. 

B.1.3.6 Weather 

Eastern Range Weather systems are at the following locations: 

• CCAS 

• Ascension 

The Antigua weather station has been closed for some years. Hurricane hunter planes 

were based in Antigua at one time. Patrick AFB has a Weather Radar, which supports 

CCAS. 

CCAS

The CCAS Weather Station has a pair of Data General Meteorology System Computers 

(MSC) that receive, process, and store raw data from the ER upper air collection systems 

(Jimsphere and Meteorological Sounding System [MSS] ). The MSCs then transmit 

processed meteorological profiles to Range Users and other Range systems. 

Weather data is obtained and analyzed at CCAS using the following: 

• MSS rawinsondes 

• Jimsphere 

• CGLSS 

• WINDS 

• ERDAS 

• LPLWS 

• MIDDS 

• NLDN 

• Weather Reconnaissance Aircraft 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

337

• Weather Surveillance Radar 

• Doppler Weather Surveillance Radar 

• Weather Rockets 

MSS rawinsondes – The Meteorological Sounding System (MSS) uses a balloon-borne 

package in conjunction with complementary ground systems to generate atmospheric 

profiles for Range and Range User requirements. The MSS uses a 2.4-meter parabolic 

reflector inside radomes to track and communicate with the weather balloon and its data 

package. 

Jimsphere – Jimsphere is a NASA-developed, constant volume balloon with 398 conical 

extensions that create drag and stabilize the balloon (Figure B.1-36360). The balloon and 

extensions are fabricated from Mylar. They are tracked using radar. 

Figure B.1-36 Jimsphere Weather Balloon 

CGLSS – The Cloud to Ground Lightning Surveillance System is a lightning detection 

system to record cloud-to-ground lightning strikes in the vicinity of KSC and CCAS. 

The system includes six Advanced Lightning Direction Finders (ALDF) (Figure B.1-37), 

each with its own GPS. 

 

360 http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1996/48.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

338

Figure B.1-37 ALDF 

WINDS – The Weather Information Network Display System Surface is an array of 

instrumented meteorological towers (Figure B.1-38) at CCAS, KSC and surrounding 

areas. These provide near surface measurements of temperature, dew point, wind 

direction and wind speed. The towers cover the area in and around Kennedy Space 

Center and Cape Canaveral Air Station and are spaced an average of 2.5 to 4 miles apart. 

Figure B.1-38 Weather Tower 

ERDAS – The Eastern Range Dispersion Assessment System is an extension and 

enhancement of the Meteorological and Range Safety Support (MARSS) system. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

339

LPLWS – The Launch Pad Lightning Warning System consists of 31 electric field mill 

sensors (Figure B.1-39) located throughout KSC and CCAS. These are connected to a 

computer and display. This data helps forecasters determine when electric charge aloft 

may be sufficient to create triggered lightning during launch, and to determine when to 

issue and cancel lightning advisories and warnings. 

Figure B.1-39 Typical Field Mill 

MIDDS – The Meteorological Interactive Data Display System is the primary data 

collection, management and display tool used by the 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) to 

provide weather analysis, forecast and warning support to the ER.

NLDN – The National Lightning Detection Network is a commercial data service. 

Weather Reconnaissance Aircraft – These aircraft are deployed during all expendable 

land-based launches to make in-situ observations of local weather. A Learjet 35 is 

presently used.

Weather Surveillance Radar – This commercial-off-the-shelf radar is located on the 

Headquarters building at Patrick AFB. Processing and display are located at the ROCC. 

Doppler Weather Surveillance Radar – A Doppler weather radar is located adjacent to 

the Melbourne Airport; about 40 miles south of CCAS. This radar is owned and operated 

by the National Weather Service. The ER uses this as a backup to its weather radar. 

CCAS has a feed from the Melbourne site. 

Sounding Rockets - Sounding rockets are sometimes launched from LC-43. In years 

past, induced lightning tests were performed at the Cape. These have been moved to an 

inland site in North Florida. 

Ascension 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

340

The Ascension Weather station has a Meteorological Sounding System (MSS) that uses 

balloon-borne packages and complementary ground systems to generate atmospheric 

profiles for Range and Range User requirements. The MSS uses a 2.4-meter parabolic 

reflector to track the weather balloons and to send and receive data. 

B.1.3.7 Timing 

The ER Timing and Sequencing system has major equipment at the following locations: 

• CCAS 

• KSC 

• JDMTA 

• Antigua 

• Ascension 

• Argentia 

ER central timing is located in the ROCC at CCAS. It is the reference source for all 

timing signals transmitters on the ER. An extensive system of satellite, HF radio, L-Band 

radio, and landlines link the ER sites to one another. KSC is discussed under a separate 

section. 

CCAS 

The CCAS Station Clock provides all IRIG time signals, decade pulse repetition rates, 

and precision frequencies to all users in the ROCC. It is also used to synchronize all time 

signals and frequencies to all CCAS Site Clocks. The CCAS Station Clock is 

synchronized to the DOD Master Clock and monitored by the Range Master Clock. 

Historically, the CCAS Station Clock and the Range Master Clock have been regarded as 

the same system. The Station Clock is located in the ROCC. 

JDMTA

The JDMTA Station Clock provides all IRIG time signals, decade pulse repetition rates, 

and precision frequencies to all users in the JDMTA Operations Building. It is also used 

to synchronize all time signals and frequencies to all JDMTA Site Clocks. The JDMTA 

Station Clock is synchronized to the DOD Master Clock and monitored by the Range 

Master Clock. The Station Clock is located in the JDMTA Operations Building. 

Antigua 

The Antigua Station Clock provides all IRIG time signals, decade pulse repetition rates, 

and precision frequencies to all users in the Antigua CIF. It is also used to synchronize 

all time signals and frequencies to all Antigua Site Clocks. The Antigua Station Clock is 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

341

synchronized to the DOD Master Clock and monitored by the Range Master Clock. The 

Station Clock is located in the CIF. 

Ascension

The Ascension Station Clock provides all IRIG time signals, decade pulse repetition 

rates, and precision frequencies to all users in the Ascension CIF. It is also used to 

synchronize all time signals and frequencies to all Ascension Site Clocks. The Ascension 

Station Clock is synchronized to the DOD Master Clock and monitored by the Range 

Master Clock. The Station Clock is located in the CIF. 

Argentia

The Argentia Station Clock provides all IRIG time signals, decade pulse repetition rates, 

and precision frequencies to all users at Argentia. The Argentia Station Clock is 

synchronized to the DOD Master Clock and monitored by the Range Master Clock. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

342

B.2 KENNEDY SPACE CENTER 

B.2.1 Background

B.2.1.1 General 

NASA’s John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) (Figure B.2-1) is the premier spaceport of 

the U.S. and, in many ways, of the world. It holds the following distinctions: 

• Only U.S. manned Spaceport 

• One of only 2 manned Spaceports in the world 

• Only spaceport in the world to launch men to the moon 

Although KSC is located directly adjacent to the Cape Canaveral Air Station on Merritt 

Island, KSC is a separate entity from the Cape Canaveral Air Station (Figure B.2-2) and 

the Eastern Range. KSC contains its own launch facilities and Launch Operations 

Control Center. NASA’s KSC and the Air Force’s Eastern Range share some facilities 

and property. The Eastern Range’s Telemetry station (TEL-4) is physically located on 

KSC property along with some Universal Camera Sites (UCS) and one fixed camera site 

(Playalinda). NASA likewise uses some facilities on the Air Force side. NASA also 

utilizes the Eastern Range assets for its launches 

KSC is located on the east coast of Florida approximately midway between Jacksonville 

and Miami, about 50 miles east of Orlando361 (Figure B.2-3). KSC shares its property 

with the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and the Canaveral National Seashore. 

KSC covers more than 140,000 acres; about one-fifth the size of Rhode Island. Only 

about 6,000 acres are currently used for Space Center operations, the remaining acres are 

a wildlife sanctuary362. 

KSC is one of 10 NASA Centers (Figure B.2-4). Most Centers support various 

development efforts associated with the Shuttle. All shuttle launches occur at KSC. 

Shuttle recovery occurs primarily at KSC, with Edwards AFB in California as a backup. 

A second backup site is located at White Sands, NM. The White Sands site has been 

used once for STS-3 in 1982. 

Transoceanic Landing Sites (TAL) are available at Ben Guerir AB, Morocco; Moron AB, 

Spain; and Zaragoza AB, Spain. Additional information about Shuttle landing sites is 

provided in Appendix D. 

 

361 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/carpass/orlmap.htm 362 http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/html/ksc_map.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

343

Figure B.2-1 KSC & Cape Canaveral Air Station (map) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

344

Figure B.2-2 KSC & Cape Canaveral Air Station (photo) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

345

Figure B.2-3 Location of KSC 

Figure B.2-4 NASA Centers 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

346

KSC’s primary mission is processing and launching the Space Shuttle (Figure B.2-5). 

Figure B.2-5 Space Shuttle Launch 

B.2.1.2 History 

NASA’s history began on October 1, 1958, when NASA was formally organized out of 

the old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). KSC’s history began 

three years later when the first land purchases on Merritt Island were made. The histories 

of KSC and NASA became closely tied during the race to land a man on the moon. 

On Sept. 12, 1959, the Russian Luna 2 impacted on the Moon, a month later Luna 3 took 

the first pictures of the dark side of the Moon, and on April 12, 1961, Russian cosmonaut 

Yuri Gagarin became the first person to travel in space. The lunar space race had started. 

On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced that the United States would fly 

men to the Moon and back within the decade. His visionary challenge elicited 

congressional support for a program with rockets more powerful than any then available. 

The lunar landing program was named Apollo, and the vehicle that would launch the 

Apollo spacecraft and its three-man crew to the Moon was the Saturn V. In addition, a 

new site had to be found to support and launch the lunar mission. 

 

The race to the moon required simultaneous development in three critical areas: 

 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

347

• Manned Space Flight 

• Space Vehicles 

• Facilities and Procedures 

Manned Space Flight

Six days after NASA was formed, the agency initiated Project Mercury, the first 

American human space flight program. On May 5, 1961, using a Mercury-Redstone, 

Alan Shepard became the first American to make a suborbital flight. Gus Grissom 

followed on July 21, 1961. On February 20, 1962, aboard a Mercury-Atlas, John Glenn 

made the first American orbital flight. In May 1963, the last Mercury mission was 

flown. 

A little less than two years later, on March 23, 1965, the first manned Gemini-Titan II 

vehicle was launched. A year and half later, on November 11, 1965, the last of the ten 

Gemini vehicles was launched. 

The Apollo program followed the Gemini program. The Apollo program got off to a bad 

start on January 27, 1967 with the Apollo 1 fire (B.2-6). The death of astronauts 

Grissom, White, and Chaffee caused a delay in the program while the Apollo module was 

redesigned. A summary of the Apollo program is given in Table B.2-1. 

Figure B.2-6 Apollo 1 Fire 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

348

Table B.2-1 Summary of Apollo Program 

Apollo Launch 

 Date 

Vehicle LC Comments 

1 1/27/67 Saturn IB 34 Apollo pad fire caused death of Gus Grissom, Edward 

White, and Roger Chaffee363

(Figure B.2-6) 

2 Mission name not used364

3 Mission name not used 

4 11/9/67 Saturn V 39A Unmanned 

First Saturn V launch 

First KSC & LC-39 launch365

5 1/22/68 Saturn IB 37 Unmanned 

First tests of Lunar Module ascent and descent stages 

6 4/4/68 Saturn V 39 Unmanned 

Second Saturn V launch 

Experienced “pogo” effect 

Second stage lost 2 engines 

7 10/11/68 Saturn IB 34 First manned Apollo flight 

8 12/21/68 Saturn V 39A Third Saturn V launch 

First manned Apollo/Saturn V flight 

First manned orbit of the moon 

Christmas eve broadcast from lunar orbit 

9 3/3/69 Saturn V 39A First flight of lunar module & test of the lunar module in 

earth orbit 

10 5/8/69 Saturn V 39B First lunar flight without landing; 

Lunar module closed to within 16 kilometers of the surface 

before re-docking with the orbiting command module. 

Only Pad B & Firing Room 3 use during Apollo366

11 7/16/69 Saturn V 39A First lunar landing on 7/20/1969 

Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, Jr. walked on the moon 

while Michael Collins waited for them in the command 

module367

12 11/14/69 Saturn V 39 Moon landing at Ocean of Storms and within 180 meters of 

Surveyor 3; vehicle struck by lightning twice on liftoff 

13 4/11/70 Saturn V 39 First major in-flight emergency 

14 1/31/71 Saturn V 39 Lunar landing; return to space for Alan Shepard 

15 7/26/71 Saturn V 39 Extend lunar exploration368; 

 First use of Lunar Rover369

16 3/16/72 Saturn V 39 Extend lunar exploration 

17 12/7/72 Saturn V 39 Extend lunar exploration 

First night Apollo launch 

Last Mission to the Moon370

 

363 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch18-5.html 364 http://www.nasm.si.edu/apollo/AS01/a01sum.htm 365 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch19-6.html 366 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch21-6.html 367 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch21-7.html 368 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch23-1.html 369 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch23-3.html 370 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch23-7.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

349

Skylab (Figure B.2-7), the first US space station, followed the Apollo lunar program. 

Skylab was launched into orbit on May 14, 1973 as a continuation of the Apollo program. 

This 91 metric ton structure was 36 meters (four stories) high, 6.7 meters in diameter and 

flew at an altitude of 435 km (270 miles). Three different Apollo crews manned Skylab

during its 9-month mission371. 

Figure B.2-7 Skylab (1973) 

On July 15, 1975, Skylab was followed by the Apollo-Soyuz (Figure B.2-8) mission. 

When splash down came on July 24, 1975, the Apollo hardware had completed its job 

and would never fly again372. 

Figure B.2-8 Apollo / Soyuz (1975) 

 

371 http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/skylab.htm 372 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4209/ch11-9.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

350

The next manned space flight, the Space Shuttle, is discussed in the following section.

Space Vehicles 

Back in the late 1950s, the von Braun team had started the development of a super 

booster for the Army. The team had clustered eight rocket engines to see if a single stage 

could produce 1,000,000 pounds of thrust, far more than any rocket then known. In 

August 1959, the Defense Department decided it had no need for a rocket of this size and 

suggested that it might serve as a booster in NASA's space program. A month later, the 

program was transferred to NASA373. Later that year, the von Braun team of 5,000 civil 

servants, along with the Missile Firing Laboratory, was transferred from the Army to 

NASA. 

The Saturn rocket program evolved from the Redstone and Jupiter rocket program in 

1958 at White Sands. One of the first modern Saturn vehicles was the Saturn I. Eleven 

Saturn 1 launches were followed by several of the lighter and more powerful Saturn I 

B’s. Early tests with the S-IB vehicle included the S-IVB as a second stage. The S-IVB 

was the third stage of the Saturn V lunar vehicle. 

This three-stage Saturn V rocket generated about five times the thrust of the Saturn I. On 

November 9, 1967, the first Saturn V was launched from KSC’s LC-39A. This 363-foot 

tall vehicle (Figure B.2-9) is still the largest vehicle ever flown. All launches prior to this 

Saturn V had occurred from the Cape Canaveral side of the Eastern Range; this was the 

first KSC launch. 

During its latter missions, the assembled Saturn V lunar vehicle had the following major 

components: 

• S-IC first stage (Figure B.2-10) 

• S-II second stage (Figure B.2-11) 

• S-IVB third stage (Figure B.2-12) 

• Instrument Unit (ring above third stage) 

• Lunar Lander (Figure B.2-13) 

o Ascent stage 

o Descent stage 

o Lunar Rover (Figure B.2-14) 

• Service Module (Figure B.2-15) 

• Command Module (Figure B.2-16) 

• Apollo Capsule (Figure B.2-17) 

• Launch escape system and adapter (Figure B.2-18) 

 

373 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/kscstory/ch1/ch1.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

351

Figure B.2-9 Assembled Saturn V Vehicle 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

352

Figure B.2-10 Saturn V – First Stage (S-IC) 

Figure B.2-11 Saturn V – Second Stage 

Figure B.2-12 Saturn V – Third Stage 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

353

Figure B.2-13 Lunar Lander 

Figure B.2-14 Lunar Rover 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

354

Figure B.2-15 Service Module 

Figure B.2-16 Command Module 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

355

Figure B.2-17 Apollo Capsule 

Figure B.2-18 Apollo Capsule & Escape Rocket 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

356

On July 16, 1969, Apollo 11 lifted off for the moon (Figure B.2-19). Four days later on 

July 20,1969 the “Eagle” landed on the moon. At 10:56 PM, Neil Armstrong became the 

first person to set foot on the moon’s surface. 

Figure B.2-19 Apollo 11 Lifts Off for the Moon on 7/16/69 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

357

As the Apollo-Saturn program came to an end, NASA began development of a reusable 

space vehicle called the Space Shuttle. Authority to build the Shuttle was given on 

August 9, 1972. The first shuttle to achieve flight was the Enterprise (Figure 3.2-20)374, 

when it separated from the Boeing 747 mother ship and glided back to Edwards AFB on 

August 12, 1977. On April 10, 1979, the Enterprise was ferried to KSC for trial fits. 

Later it was displayed in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. On September 20, 1985, the 

Enterprise was ferried to Dulles and turned over to the Smithsonian Institution. The first 

orbiter actually to fly into space was Columbia on April 12, 1981. STS-51L, the 

Challenger disaster (Figure B.2-21), occurred on January 28,1986375. The newest orbiter 

is the Endeavour, which rolled out in 1991 and had its first flight (STS-49) on May 7, 

1992376. The Space Shuttles and their rollout dates are summarized below377: 

Name Designation Delivered

 Enterprise OV-101 1975 

 Columbia OV-102 1979 

 Challenger OV-99 1982 

 Discovery OV-103 1983 

 Atlantis OV-104 1985 

 Endeavour OV-105 1991 

 

Figure B.2-20 Enterprise on Test Flight (1977) 

 

374 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/enterprise.html 375 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/iams/html/pao/STS51L.htm 376 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/endeavour.html 377 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_overview.html#sts_program 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

358

Figure B.2-21 Challenger Accident (1986) 

Facilities and Procedures

While the Saturn V was taking shape on the drawing boards, a suitable location had to be 

found to assemble, service, and launch the vehicles. Although the Cape Canaveral's 

17,000 acres had proven adequate for previous space missions, larger facilities would be 

needed for the mammoth Moon rocket. 

Dr. Debus, representing NASA, and Lt. Gen. Leighton I. Davis, representing the 

Department of Defense, organized a joint study to find a new launch site. They 

considered Hawaii, Padre Island off Texas, the California coast, Cumberland Island off 

the coast of Georgia, Mayaguana Islands in the Bahamas, Merritt Island (adjacent to the 

Cape), and others as possible sites378. 

The study concluded that Merritt Island offered compelling advantages. Locating on 

Merritt Island also would allow NASA to share facilities of the Atlantic Missile Range, 

avoiding costly duplication. Dr. Debus and General Davis recommended the acquisition 

of the northern part of Merritt Island. The choice was endorsed by NASA and the 

Defense Department. Congress authorized NASA to acquire the property. 

 

378 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-350/ch-6-1.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

359

KSC officially began in 1962 when land acquisition started. NASA took title to 83,894 

acres by outright purchase. It negotiated with the state of Florida for use of an additional 

55,805 acres of state-owned submerged land, most of which lies within the Mosquito 

Lagoon. The investment in property reached approximately $71,872,000. 

In July 1962, the Launch Operations Directorate at the Cape was separated from the 

Marshall Space Flight Center by executive order. It became the Launch Operations 

Center, an independent NASA installation, with Debus as its first director. It was 

renamed the John F. Kennedy Space Center in December 1963, in honor of America's 

slain president. In December 1964, launch elements of Houston's Manned Spacecraft 

Center (now the Johnson Space Center) were transferred to the Kennedy Space Center. 

The following October, Goddard Space Flight Center's Field Projects Branch on the Cape 

was incorporated into the Kennedy Space Center. 

The challenge to put a man on the moon within the decade had been issued by the late 

President Kennedy and accepted by the American government and scientific and 

technical community. Next came the task of meeting that challenge through the design, 

construction and operation of a complete spaceport. 

Construction at KSC began immediately after land acquisition. Design of the VAB 

actually started in 1961. The design changed as the vehicle design evolved. By 1965, 

the VAB was well into the construction phase (Figure B.2-22)379. Construction of the 

launch pads also began in 1961 and was completed in 1966 (Figure B.2-23). 

Figure B.2-22 VAB Under Construction (1965) 

 

379 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-350/ch-6-1.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

360

Figure B.2-23 LC-39A in Mid 60’s 

A key factor to building the VAB and LCC was the method to transport the vertically 

assembled Apollo/Saturn V the three miles to the launch sites. Both rail and barge 

mounted methods were considered before selecting the crawler concept in June 1962. 

Marion Power Shovel Co. of Ohio was the low bidder. After running into various 

problems, they successfully had a crawler operational in January 1965. The crawler 

concept includes a crawler-transport, mobile launcher, mobile service structure, and 

service arms (Figure B.2-24)380. 

 

380 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch13-1.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

361

Figure B.2-24 Saturn V & Mobile Launch Platform on Crawler-Transporter 

In order to track and communicate with the Apollo vehicles, NASA built a network of 

remote facilities around the world. By the launch of Apollo 9, the new system was 

operational at stations in Texas, Mexico, Ascension Island, the Canary Islands, Bermuda, 

Spain, Hawaii, Australia, Wales, and California. In addition, range instrumentation ships 

were used to fill in those areas not covered by land bases. The Range Ships381 were 

discussed and listed under the Eastern Range section of this document. The early Range 

Instrumentation Ships started operation around 1960. The Bermuda station was also 

opened in 1960 and the Ascension site was activated in 1967. 

 

381 http://www.usmm.org/msts/specialships.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

362

On April 5, 1983, NASA launched the first Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) 

(Figure B.2-25)382. These satellites are still used to communicate with the Space Shuttle 

while it is on orbit. This space-based communication system enabled NASA to start 

closing remote sites. Ascension was closed in the late 1980’s and Bermuda was closed in 

1995. The full TDRS constellation with seven on-orbit satellites enables coverage of a 

significant portion of the earth (Figure B.2-26). TDRS data is received back on earth 

through two operationally identical ground stations near Las Cruses, NM (Figures B.2-27 

& -28). The TDRS system (Figure B.2-29) supports the Space Shuttle, Hubble 

Telescope, and over 15 other programs383. 

Figure B.2-25 Artist Concept of TDRS 

Figure B.2-26 TDRS Constellation 

 

382 http://nmsp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/scraft.html 383 http://nmsp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/oview.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

363

Figure B.2-27 TDRS White Sands Ground Terminal (WSGT) 

Figure B.2-28 Secondary TDRS Ground Terminal (STGT) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

364

Figure B.2-29 TDRS Operation Concept 

B.2.2 Facilities

As a major NASA center, KSC contains facilities for: 

• Laboratories 

• Testing 

• Offices 

• Warehouses 

• Medical 

• Security 

• Crew training 

• Meals 

• Other organizations 

To complete its primary missions of recovery, preparation and launching the Shuttle, 

KSC has the following special facilities: 

• AE Hangar 

• AF Hangar 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

365

• CD&SC 

• CIF – Central Instrumentation Facilities 

• Crawler-Transporter 

• Cryogenics Laboratory 

• HPF - Hypergolic Processing Facilities 

• HQ – Headquarters Building 

• LCC – Launch Control Center 

• MILA – Merritt Island Launch Annex 

• MLP – Mobile Launch Platform 

• OPF – Orbiter Processing Facilities 

• Recovery Ships 

• SLF – Shuttle Landing Facility 

• SSPF – Space Station Processing Facility 

• VAB – Vehicle Assembly Building 

• Visitors Center 

• Launch Facilities – (LC-39A & 39B) 

AE Hangar –Hangar AE (Figure B.2-30) is a NASA facility physically located on the 

Cape Canaveral Air Station. It is a multipurpose facility whose primary function is 

monitoring telemetry data from expendable rockets. It receives a telemetry feed from 

Tel-4 and audio/visual feeds from X-Y and TVOC. These are directed to consoles and 

screens in various control rooms. Hangar AE usually accommodates payload and vehicle 

personnel who monitor their respective flights. It also handles overflow from the ROCC. 

Figure B.2-30 NASA’s Hangar AE on Cape Canaveral Air Station 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

366

Hangar AE is also used for pre-launch preparations and check out of unmanned payloads. 

The building contains a high bay clean room (Figure B.2-31)384 complex in addition to 

the telemetry ground station, the Mission Director's Center (MDC), and offices for 

payload management and contractor personnel. The KSC NASA Payload Management 

and Operations Directorate use this building as its "communications center"385. 

Figure B.2-31 Clean Room at Hangar AE 

AF Hangar – Hangar AF, the Solid Rocket Booster Disassembly Facility, is another 

NASA facility on the Cape side of the Banana River. It was first used during Project 

Mercury. Today it is used to refurbish Solid Booster Rockets after they are retrieved and 

returned to land. The two recovery ships use the adjacent dock as their base of operation. 

Once at Hangar AF, the SRBs are unloaded onto a hoisting slip and mobile gantry cranes 

lift them (Figure B.2-32) onto tracked dollies where they are ‘safed’ and undergo their 

first washing386. 

 

384 http://acs.pha.jhu.edu/instrument/calibration/facilities/ksc/ 385http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:uGgy5TG_nhkC:www.ksc.nasa.gov/elv/eastern.htm+&hl=en&ie

=UTF-8

386 http://www.floridatoday.com/space/weekly/w122897.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

367

Figure B.2-32 Recovered SRB Being Placed on Dollies at Hangar AF 

CD&SC – The Communication Distribution and Switching Center is the communication 

hub for most of KSC. Most fiber and copper landlines are switched at this location. It 

also contains a satellite earth station for receiving NASA TV and other communications. 

CIF – The Central Instrumentation Facility is the hub of instrumentation and data 

processing operations. It is three stories tall and contains 12,669 square meters (136,378 

sq ft) of floor space and is located to the west of the Headquarters Building. The building 

houses offices, laboratories and test stations. Systems receive, monitor, process, display 

and record information received from space vehicles during test, launch, flight and 

landing. It also houses KSC calibration labs and the KSC administration computers387. 

Crawler-Transporter - The Crawler-Transporters previously used to move the 

assembled Apollo/Saturn from the VAB to the launch pad are now used for transporting 

Shuttle vehicles (Figure B.2-33). KSC has 2 crawler-transporters. Each vehicle consists 

of four double-tracked crawlers, each 3 meters (10 ft) high and 12 meters (41 ft) long. 

Each of the 8 tracks on a vehicle contains 57 shoes per track and each tread shoe weighs 

about .9 metric tons (one ton). The Crawler/Transporter uses 16 traction motors powered 

by four 1,000 kW generators, driven by two 2,750 hp diesel engines. Two 750 kW 

generators, driven by two 1,065 hp diesel engines are used for jacking, steering, lighting, 

and ventilating. The KSC crawlers are the largest tracked vehicles in the world388. 

 

387 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/facilities/cif.htm 388 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/crawler.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

368

Figure B.2-33 Crawler-Transporter with MLP & Shuttle Approaching LC-39 

Cryogenics Test Facility389 - KSC’s Cryogenics Test Facility (Figure B.2-34)390 is a 

relatively new facility that opened in April of 2000. The goal of the facility is to 

establish the Cryogenics Testbed at Kennedy Space Center as a main resource for 

cryogenics and cryogenic engineering. NASA and Dynacs Engineering Co. jointly 

manage the facility. 

 

389http://spacelink.nasa.gov/NASA.News/NASA.News.Releases/Previous.News.Releases/00.News.Release

s/00-04.News.Releases/00-04-11.New.Cryogenics.Testbed.Facility 390 http://www.cryogenicstestbed.com/dynacs_inc_.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

369

 

Figure B.2-34 KSC Cryogenics Test Facility 

KSC's Cryogenics Testbed facilities include the Cryogenics Test Laboratory, Liquid 

Nitrogen Flow Test Area, Hazardous Test Area and the Launch Equipment Test Facility. 

Four technology focus areas, or core lines of work, are linked to key targets of the longrange strategic initiatives of NASA. These focus areas are: thermal insulation systems, 

cryogenic components, propellant process systems, and low temperature applications391. 

HPF – The Hypergolic Maintenance and Checkout Facility consists of three buildings in 

an isolated section of the KSC industrial area, approximately eight miles southeast of the 

Vehicle Assembly Building. This area provides all facilities required to process and store 

the hypergolic-fueled modules that make up the orbiter's reaction control system, orbital 

maneuvering system (Figure B.2-35) 392 and auxiliary power units393. 

 

391 http://www.spacer.com/news/cryogenics-00a.html 392 http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/STS27/10063051.htm 393 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/hmf.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

370

Figure B.2-35 Right Orbital Maneuvering System Being Placed in HPF Cell 

HQ - The Kennedy Space Center Headquarters building (Figure B.2-36) is the 

administrative center for all spaceport activities. This facility houses the offices of the 

Center Director, management staff, personnel, procurement and several hundred 

contractor and support personnel. The Headquarters building also houses the KSC 

Library, Travel office, Film and Photo archive, photo processing shops, print shop and 

KSC security offices. The building is 439,446 square ft (40,824 square meters), is three 

stories high (except for a 4th story center section) and is made of reinforced concrete394. 

Figure B.2-36 KSC Headquarters Building 

LCC – The Launch Control Center (Figure B.2-37) is the brain of Shuttle launch 

activities. The LCC is a four-story structure located on the southeast side of the VAB and 

connected to it by an enclosed bridge for utilities. Office space and a utilities systems 

control room are located on the first floor. The control data subsystem occupies the core 

of the second floor. Four firing rooms (Figure B.2-38) occupy most of the third floor. The 

fourth floor is used for office areas. All four firing rooms can support software 

 

394 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/facilities/hq.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

371

development or hardware checkout. Three firing rooms have the capability of supplying 

pre-launch checkouts at the OPF, VAB, and launch pads. 

Figure B.2-37 Launch Control Complex (LCC) 

Figure B.2-38 LCC Firing Room During a Shuttle Launch 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

372

MILA – The Merritt Island Launch Annex (Figure B.2-39) is a NASA Goddard Space 

Flight Center (GSFC) Tracking Station located on Kennedy Space Center395. The 

station was established in 1966 by NASA's GSFC as one of the 17-member ground 

stations to support the Apollo program. 

Figure B.2-39 Merritt Island Launch Annex (MILA) 

In order to provide S-band communications around the Space Shuttle solid rocket booster 

plume (which contains aluminum perchlorate, and strongly attenuates high frequency Sband signals), a "wing site" tracking station was constructed some 40 miles north of 

MILA at New Smyrna Beach's Ponce De Leon Inlet (PDL). The PDL wing site 

communicates with the MILA base station via a fiber optic link. 

In 1980, the MILA Relay System (MRS) was constructed to enable KSC area users to 

communicate via the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) in stationary orbit above 

the Atlantic Ocean. The MRS relays S-band and Ku-band signals for pre-launch 

verification of the user's compatibility with the space-based TDRS network. This "Bent 

Pipe" radio frequency MRS is unique in design, and is the only one in existence. (The 

first TDRS was launched April 4, 1983 on STS-6.) 

 

In 1992, an Ultra High Frequency (UHF) voice system with cross dipole antenna was 

added to PDL to be used as a backup to the S-Band Forward Link during the time MILA 

is blocked by the Solid Rocket Motor plume. 

 

 

395 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/mila/milstor.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

373

In 1996, an Ultra High Frequency (UHF) voice system with a Quad-Helix Antenna was 

added to MILA to backup the UHF Teltrac Antenna in case of a Return To Landing Site 

Abort. This system displaced the Two In Flow S-Band Antenna. 

 

MLP – The Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP) is the large block-like platform that 

supports the Shuttle. The steel MLPs are 25 ft. high, 160 ft. long and 135 ft. wide. They 

weigh 8,230,000 pounds. At the launch pad, with a fueled Shuttle on their 6-inch-thick 

decks, they weigh 12,700,000 lb. The MLPs are stored outside and adjacent to the VAB. 

To prepare for a launch, an MLP is picked up and carried into the VAB by the crawlertransport; where it is positioned on six steel pedestals 22 ft high. Inside the VAB, the 

two Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), External Tank (ET), and Orbiter are assembled as one 

system. The MLP and its Shuttle Transport System (STS) are then picked-up by the 

crawler-transporter and slowly moved (Figure B.2-32) to either of the two launch 

complexes (LC-39A or LC-39B). At the launch complex, the MLP and payload are 

again lowered onto six steel pedestals where it rests until launch (Figure B.2-40). 

Figure B.2-40 MLP with Shuttle at Launch Pad 

(Crawler is backing away to a safe distance) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

374

The three Mobile Launchers used in the Apollo/Saturn operations were modified for use 

in Shuttle operations. With cranes, umbilical towers, and swing arms removed, the 

Mobile Launchers were redesignated Mobile Launcher Platforms (MLP). In place of one 

large opening in the platform, three smaller openings accommodate flames and hot 

exhaust gases from the solid rocket boosters and the orbiter engines. Segments of the 

dismantled umbilical towers are part of the permanent installation at the launch pad, 

where they serve as sections of the Fixed Service Structure (FSS). A third Apollo 

umbilical tower, removed from MLP-3, has been cut into 20 ft sections and placed in a 

field in the KSC industrial area (Figure B.2-41). Someday it may be reconstructed as part 

of the KSC tour route396. 

Figure B.2-41 Apollo Unbilical Towers In Storage At KSC 

OPF – The Orbiter Processing Facilities are the hangars used to process and house the 

orbiters after landing and prior to stacking for the next mission. Immediately after 

landing, the orbiter is towed to the OPF. Upon entering the OPF (Figure B.2-42), the 

orbiter undergoes safing procedures. This includes removing residual fuels and explosive 

ordnance items. Then the orbiter's previous mission payloads are removed and the 

vehicle is fully inspected, tested, and refurbished for its next mission. These functions 

require approximately two-thirds of the time between missions. The remainder is devoted 

to the installation and checkout of the payload for the next mission. Power-up testing of 

orbiter vehicles in the OPF is actually controlled from consoles in the LCC. When the 

OPF processing is complete, the orbiter is trucked (Figure B.2-43) to the VAB center 

aisle where it is lifted and stacked with the External Tank and two SRBs. 

 

396 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/mlp.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

375

Figure B.2-42 Shuttle Being Towed Into the OPF 

Figure B.2-43 Shuttle Leaving OPF-2 For Short Trip To The VAB 

There are three OPFs at KSC. OPF-1 and OPF-2 are directly west of the VAB. OPF-3 is 

located northwest of the VAB. OPF-1 and OPF-2 consist of two 2,700 sq meter (29,000 

sq ft) high bays and are separated by a 2,130 sq meter (23,600 sq ft) low bay. OPF-3 is 

located across the street and is a 4,645 sq meters (50,000 sq ft) facility. It consists of a 

high bay 29 meters high (95 ft) high and a two-story low bay area. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

376

Recovery Ships – After launch, the Shuttle rolls 90 degrees about a vertical axis and 

begins to head east or northeast. One hundred seconds into flight, the whole stack weighs 

less than half of what it did at launch. Approximately two minutes into ascent, the orbiter 

is 24 miles high and traveling at Mach 4 when the SRBs have depleted their propellant. 

The SRBs are then jettisoned and at the proper altitude, a small drogue chute is deployed 

to slow their descent (Figure B.2-44). Then, three main chutes are deployed to ensure a 

safe splashdown about 140 miles out into the Atlantic. Once down, two NASA recovery 

ships are waiting to recover the boosters (Figure B.2-45)397. 

Figure B.2-44 SRB With Drogue Chute During Descent 

The two steel hull ships have sophisticated electronic communication and navigation 

equipment, including GPS, search radars, collision-avoidance sonars, loran C, VHF and 

single-side-band high-frequency radio systems, direction finders, fathometers and gyro 

compasses. Each vessel has a displacement of 1,052 tons. Propulsion is provided by twin 

 

397 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/visit/kscovrlaurec.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

377

diesel engines with a combined power output of 2,900 horsepower. Maneuvering is 

provided by a diesel-driven, 425-horsepower bow thruster. 

The ships leave their Cape Canaveral Air Station berths at Hangar AF about 24 hours 

before launch and proceed to the predicted impact site. Traveling at a cruising speed of 

10 to 12 knots, they reach the area in about 10 hours. Prior to lift-off, the ships conduct 

visual and electronic sweeps of the predicted impact area to ensure it is clear. Each ship 

recovers one SRB casing, three main parachutes, and a frustum-drogue combination. 

Under optimum sea conditions, booster retrieval operations are completed about five 

hours and 30 minutes after the launch. The ships then proceed back to Cape Canaveral 

and up the Banana River to Hangar AF at the Cape Canaveral Air Station398. 

Figure B.2-45 SRB Recovery Ship 

SLF – The Shuttle Landing Facility (Figure B.2-46) at KSC has one of the longest 

runways in the world. The runway is 4,572 meters (15,000 feet) long, 91.4 meters (300 

feet) wide and 40.6cm (15 inches) thick at the center. It includes a 305 meters (1,000-

foot) paved safety overrun at each end. A paved runway at Edwards Air Force Base in 

California matches the SLF runway in length and width and has an overrun of 5 miles 

that extends into a dry lakebed. The SLF was dredged out of the Merritt Island swamps 

 

398 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-lcc.html#sts-lcc 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

378

and is located 3.2 km (2 miles) northwest of the VAB. It has a northwest/southeast 

alignment (330 degrees northwest/150 degrees southeast)399. 

The facility also includes a 150 x 168 meter (490 x 550 ft) parking apron, an aircraft 

hangar facility, and a 3.2 km (2 mile) tow-way connecting it with the Orbiter Processing 

Facility. Other facilities include the Landing Aids Control Building (LACB) and the 

Mate/Demate Device (MDD) used to raise and lower the orbiter from its 747 carrier 

aircraft during ferry operations. 

Figure B.2-46 Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) 

The Shuttle Landing Facility is equipped with a number of navigation and landing aids to 

assist Shuttle pilots in landing. There are four sophisticated Microwave Scanning Beam 

Landing System (MSBLS) ground stations - two located at each end of the runway - that 

provide elevation and directional/distance measurement for landing approaches from the 

northwest (runway 15) or southeast (runway 33). Equipment onboard the orbiter receives 

the data from the MSBLS stations and automatically makes any needed adjustments to 

the glide slope. 

 

399 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/slf.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

379

SSPF – The Space Station Processing Facility (Figure B.2-47) is a relatively new facility 

built to support the construction of the International Space Station (Figure B.2-48). The 

SSPF is located just east of the Operations and Checkout Building at Kennedy Space 

Center's industrial area. The SSPF was built for processing ISS flight hardware. A threestory building has two processing bays, an airlock, operational control rooms, 

laboratories, logistics areas, office space, and a cafeteria. The processing areas, airlock, 

and laboratories were designed to support non-hazardous Station and Shuttle payloads in 

100,000 class clean work areas. 

Figure B.2-47 Space Station Process Facility (SSPF) 

Figure B.2-48 International Space Station (ISS) in June 2002 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

380

VAB - The Vehicle Assembly Building (Figure B.2-49) is one of the largest buildings in 

the world. It was originally built for assembly of Apollo/Saturn vehicles and was later 

modified to support Space Shuttle operations. Today, High Bays 1 and 3 are used for 

integration and stacking of the complete Space Shuttle vehicle. High Bay 2 is used for 

external tank (ET) checkout and storage and as a contingency storage area for orbiters. 

High Bay 4 is also used for ET checkout and storage, as well as for payload canister 

operations and solid rocket booster (SRB) contingency handling400. The VAB covers 8 

acres. It is 525 ft tall, 218 716 ft long and 518 ft wide. It encloses 129,428,000 cubic feet 

of space. The Low Bay area contains Space Shuttle main engine maintenance and 

overhaul shops, and serves as a holding area for SRB forward assemblies and aft skirts. 

Figure B.2-49 VAB With LCC Off To Right 

Visitors Complex – A Visitors Complex401 (Figure B.2-50) is located on KSC. It 

includes the following: 

 

400 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/vab.htm 401 http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/html/ksc_vc.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

381

• Displays & Exhibits 

• Saturn 5 building with displays (Figure B.2.51) 

• Rocket Garden (Figure B.2-52) featuring many examples of past rockets402. 

• IMAX movies theaters 

• Gift shop (Figure B.2-53) 

• Tours of NASA’s facilities 

Figure B.2-50 KSC Visitor Center 

 

402 http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/html/coming_attractions.html#rg 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

382

Figure B.2-51 Saturn V Building & Exhibits 

Figure B.2-52 Rocket Garden 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

383

Figure B.2-53 Gift Shop 

Launch Facilities – KSC has two launch facilities on the center. These are LC-39A 

(Figure B.2-40) and LC-39B. All U.S. manned launches (Figure B.2-54) since December 

1968 have occurred from these two facilities. Unmanned NASA launches using 

expendable vehicles are made from launch complexes (Figures B.2-55) on the Cape 

Canaveral Air Station. Cape activities were described in the Eastern Range Section of 

this document. The Cape side plus the KSC side combine to provide over 50 launch 

complexes. The complexes are numbered 1 through 47 and some of the complexes 

contain multiple launch pads (i.e. 39A and 39B). 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

384

Figure B.2-54 Shuttle Launch From LC-39 A or B 

Figure B.2-55 Cape Launch Complexes 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

385

Pads 39-A and 39-B are virtually identical and roughly octagonal in shape. The distance 

between pads is 2,657 meters (8,715 ft). The pad base contains 52,000 cubic meters 

(68,000 cubic yards) of concrete. The ramp leading up to the pad is inclined at a 5% 

grade. The flame trench is 13 meters (42 ft) deep, 137 meters (450 ft) long and 18 meters 

(58 ft) wide. The orbiter flame deflector is 11.6 meters (38 ft) high, 22 meters (72 ft) long 

and 17.5 meters (57.6 ft) wide. It weights 590,000 kg (1.3 million lbs). The SRB 

deflector is 12.95 meters (42.5 ft) high, 12.8 meters (42 ft) long and 17.4 meters (57 ft) 

wide. It weights 499,000 kg (1.1 million lbs). The Sound Suppression Water System is 

used to protect the launch structure from the intense sound pressure of liftoff. Its water 

tank is 88.9 meters (290ft) high and has a capacity of 1,135,000 liters (300,000 gallons). 

Six permanent and four extensible pedestals are used to support the MLP at the pad. 

Dynamic loads at rebound are 3,175,200 kg (7,000,000 lbs) to 4,762,800 kg (10,500,000 

lb) at liftoff. The pad is lit with five clusters of Xenon high-intensity searchlights (total 

searchlights: 40) around the pad perimeter. 

 

B.2.3 Instrumentation

KSC has the following types of Range instrumentation: 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Optics 

• Command Destruct 

• Communication 

• Weather 

• Timing 

B.2.3.1 Radar 

The Eastern Range has an assortment of launch head and downrange radars to enable 

precision tracking and range safety throughout the 5000-mile range. Two of these are 

located at KSC. There are plans to move a third, the Multiple Object Tracking Radar 

(MOTR) to the KSC property. These are summarized below: 

Site Designation Type Band Dia.-ft Comments 

 

 CCAS 1.39 MOTR C 12 Figure B.2-56 

 KSC 19.14 MIPIR C 29 

 KSC 19.17 MCBR C 12 

 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

386

Figure B.2-56 Multiple Object Tracking Radar (MOTR) 

B.2.3.2 Telemetry 

Tel-4 is the Eastern Range’s primary Telemetry site. It is located in the southern part of 

KSC. Tel-4 has links to all Eastern Range sites, plus communicates with Goddard’s 

Merritt Island Launch Annex (MILA) located at KSC behind the Visitors Complex. A 

summary of Telemetry dishes on KSC is as follows: 

 Site Telemetry Dia-Ft Comments 

 KSC TAA-3C 30 Tel-4 

 KSC TAA-24A 24 Tel-4 

 

B.2.3.3 Optics 

The Eastern Range has one fixed optic site at KSC. In addition, there are various 

Universal Camera Sites at KSC that accept mobile optic trackers, such as the ATOTS. 

The fixed site is summarized in Table B.2-2 below: 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

387

Table B.2-2 DOAMS Specification 

Site 

Designator 

Instrument Site Location Lens Focal 

Length 

(inches) 

Comments 

Playalinda 

Beach DOAMS KSC 100 to 400 Canaveral Nat. Seashore 

DOAMS - Distant Object Attitude Measurement System (Figure B.2-57) are twin 

telescope systems combined on a single mount. These are used to track distant objects. 

An acquisition camera is also mounted with the two telescopes. Three units were 

obtained from White Sands in the 90’s. Two of the units were used to modernize the 

Cocoa Beach and Playalinda sites. The third unit was used for parts. 

Figure B.2-57 DOAMS 

B.2.3.4 Command Destruct 

Command Destruct for the Shuttle is provided by Cape Command and other Range sites. 

The Shuttle carries explosive ordnances on the solid booster rockets. These are used to 

terminate their powered flight should a problem arise. The orbiter and external tank do 

not carry ordnances. 

B.2.3.5 Communications 

KSC has a communication network consisting of the following: 

• Communication Satellites 

• Microwave links 

• Landlines 

• VHF/UHF 

• Wireless 

• MILA 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

388

These are used to support and connect KSC to the Cape, the other Range sites and to the 

outside World. 

Communication Satellites – KSC has a satellite receiver at the Communication 

Distribution & Switching Center (CD&SC). This link is used for NASA TV and some 

communications. MILA also contains satellite earth stations for NASA’s TDRSS. These 

are used for communication with the Shuttle and any experiments using TDRSS. 

Microwave Link – The Eastern Range has a two-way Digital Speed-3 microwave link 

between JDMTA and the XY Building at CCAS with an extension from the XY Building 

to Tel-4. Communication interfaces are provided at Tel-4, XY building, Patrick AFB, 

Malabar, and JDMTA. Repeater only stations are located at Stuart, Ft. Pierce, and 

Wabasso. A second microwave link between MILA and the PDL tracking station 40 

miles north at New Smyrna Beach was replaced with a fiber optic link around 2000403. 

Landlines – Fiber and copper landlines provide access from CCAS to KSC, within KSC, 

and to the outside world. 

UHF/VHF – Very High Frequency and Ultra High Frequency are used at KSC as 

follows: 

• VHF – Non-military aircraft control 

• UHF – Military aircraft, ships, Timing data, PDL voice to Shuttle 

• VHF/UHF – Land Mobile Radio (LMR) used by JBOS 

Wireless – KSC uses a Telenexus TNEX-2000 in the KSC Operational 

Intercommunications System (OIC). This is a digital modulation spread spectrum 

system. It uses a base station, 4 radio/antenna modules and up to 16 remote units with 

headsets404. 

MILA – The Merritt Island Launch Annex, operated by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight 

Center, contains its own unique communication systems. These are as follows405: 

 

• Spacecraft Communicating Antennas 

o Two 9-meter (30-foot) diameter S-Band dish antennas used to track 

moving space vehicles. 

 

403 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/mila/milstor.html 404 http://technology.nasa.gov/scripts/nls_ax.dll/w3SuccItem(954) 405 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/mila/milstor.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

389

o Two 3-meter (10-foot) diameter dish antennas used primarily to relay data 

between KSC projects and the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS). 

One antenna, on top of the 140-foot "TDRS Relay" Tower, points to a 

TDRS user and is connected to the other antenna, which points to the 

TDRS in stationary orbit. 

o Two UHF tracking antennas, a Teltrac and a Quad Helix, used for voice 

communication with the Astronauts in the Space Shuttle Orbiter. These 

antennas are slaved to one of the S-band tracking antennas to point at the 

Space Shuttle Orbiter during Ascent, Orbit or Landing. 

o Two 1.2-meter (4-foot) diameter dish antennas used by MIL-71 to 

communicate with Deep Space Network payloads during KSC processing. 

One antenna is for S-band, the other for X-Band, and they are mounted 

near the top of the 140-foot "TDRS Relay" tower. 

o A 4.3-meter (15 foot) diameter dish S-band antenna connected whenever a 

9-meter antenna is removed from service for refurbishment. 

 

• Support Antennas 

o Two 1.2-meter (4-foot) S-band and a smaller Ku-band antenna on top of 

the 140 feet high Collimation Tower located about 3/4 mile north of the 

station. These antennas are used to calibrate/test the steerable antennas. 

o Two stationary Discone UHF Antennas used to monitor the moveable 

UHF tracking antennas. 

o One Short-Wave Antenna for monitoring the U.S. Bureau of Standards 

calibrated timing station (WWV from Boulder, Colorado). 

B.2.3.6 Weather 

KSC weather utilizes resources at KSC and at the CCAS Weather Station. The CCAS 

Weather Station has a pair of Data General Meteorology System Computers (MSC) that 

receive, process and store raw data from the ER upper air collection systems (Jimsphere 

and Meteorological Sounding System (MSS)). The MSCs then transmit processed 

meteorological profiles to KSC. 

KSC weather data is obtained and analyzed using the following406: 

• Rawinsonde 

• Jimsphere 

• CGLSS 

• Lightning Detection System 

• LDAR 

• NLDN 

• WINDS 

• LPLWS 

 

406 http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/2000/103-00.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

390

• MIDDS 

• Weather Surveillance Radar 

• Doppler Weather Surveillance Radar 

• Doppler Radar Wind Profiler 

• Weather Reconnaissance Aircraft 

• Rocketsonde 

• Satellite Images and Data 

• Buoys 

• Ships 

Rawinsonde - A balloon with a tethered instrument package that radios its altitude to the 

ground together with temperature, dew point and humidity, wind speed and direction, and 

pressure data. Rawinsondes reach altitudes exceeding 100,000 feet. 

Jimsphere – Jimsphere is a NASA developed, constant volume balloon with 398 conical 

extensions that create drag and stabilize the balloon (Figure B.2-58407). The balloon and 

extensions are fabricated from Mylar. They are tracked using radar, which provides 

highly accurate information on wind speed and wind direction up to 60,000 feet. 

CGLSS – The Cloud to Ground Lightning Surveillance System is a lightning detection 

system to record cloud-to-ground lightning strikes in the vicinity of KSC and CCAS. 

The system includes six Advanced Lightning Direction Finders (ALDF) (Figure B.2-59), 

each with its own GPS. 

Figure B.2-58 Jimsphere Weather Baloon 

 

407 http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1996/48.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

391

Figure B.2-59 ALDF 

Lightning Detection System - Detects and plots cloud to ground lightning strikes within 

125 nautical miles of the Kennedy Space Center. Location accuracy is optimum within 

30 nautical miles. Locations of strikes are color coded according to time of occurrence. 

LDAR – The Lightning Detection and Ranging was developed by NASA at the Kennedy 

Space Center. LDAR plots intra-cloud, cloud to cloud and cloud to ground lightning in 

three dimensions within 100 nautical miles of the Kennedy Space Center. Location 

accuracy is very high within 25 nautical miles. LDAR data is important in determining 

the beginning and end of lightning conditions. 

NLDN – The National Lightning Detection Network is a commercial data service that 

plots cloud to ground lightning nationwide. It is used to help ensure safe transit of the 

Space Shuttle orbiter atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft between Edwards Air Force Base 

in California and the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. It is also used to assess lightning 

beyond the 125-mile range of the Lightning Detection System. 

WINDS (Towers) – The Weather Information Network Display System is an array of 44-

instrumented meteorological towers (Figure B.2-60) at CCAS, KSC and surrounding 

areas. These provide near surface measurements of temperature, dew point, wind 

direction and wind speed. The towers cover the area in and around Kennedy Space 

Center and Cape Canaveral Air Station, and are spaced an average of 2.5 - 4 mi. apart. 

There are two each at LC-39A and LC-39B and three at the Shuttle Landing Facility. The 

60-foot towers at the launch pads and the 33-foot towers at the Shuttle Landing Facility 

are closely monitored for launch and landing criteria. In addition, on the mainland, there 

is a network of wind towers which extend outward an additional twenty miles. Tower 

data is an important short-term forecasting tool and also helps determine the direction 

and distance of toxic corridors in the event of a mishap. 

LPLWS (Field Mill) – The Launch Pad Lightning Warning System consists of 31 

advanced electric field mill sensors (Figure B.2-61) located throughout KSC and CCAS. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

392

These provide data on lightning activity and surface electric fields induced by charge 

aloft. They are connected to a computer and display. This data helps forecasters 

determine when electric charge aloft may be sufficient to create triggered lightning 

during launch, and to determine when to issue and cancel lightning advisories and 

warnings. 

MIDDS – The Meteorological Interactive Data Display System is the primary data 

collection, management and display tool used by the 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) to 

provide weather analysis, forecast and warning support to the ER and KSC. It integrates 

diverse weather data on a single display terminal-- satellite images, radar, computer 

generated graphics of surface and upper air map features, numerical weather models, 

current weather observations, data from meteorological towers, lightning strikes and field 

mill information. 

Figure B.2-60 Weather Tower 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

393

Figure B.2-61 Typical Field Mill 

Weather Surveillance Radar – This commercial-off-the-shelf radar is located on 

Headquarters building at Patrick AFB with the processing and display located at the 

ROCC. Launch forecasters located at Cape Canaveral Air Station and landing 

forecasters located in Houston can access displays from two different radars. One is 

located at Patrick Air Force Base south of Cocoa Beach. The other is located in 

Melbourne at the National Weather Service and is a NEXRAD Doppler radar. Each radar 

provides rain intensity and cloud top information out to a distance as far as 200 nautical 

miles. 

Doppler Weather Surveillance Radar – A NEXRAD Doppler weather radar is located 

adjacent to the Melbourne Airport about 40 miles south of CCAS. This radar is owned 

and operated by the National Weather Service. The NEXRAD radar can provide 

estimates of total rainfall and radial wind velocities. The ER uses this as a backup to its 

weather radar at Patrick AFB. CCAS has a feed from the Melbourne site. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

394

Doppler Radar Wind Profiler: Measures upper level wind speed and direction over 

Kennedy Space Center from approximately 10,000 feet to 60,000 feet. The data, received 

every 5 minutes, is used to ensure the upper winds used to calculate wind loads on the 

shuttle vehicle have not significantly changed between balloon soundings. If data from 

the Doppler Radar Wind Profiler indicates a possible significant change, another 

Jimsphere balloon is released 

Weather Reconnaissance Aircraft – Aircraft are deployed during all Shuttle and 

expendable launches to make in-situ observations of local weather. Aircraft include a T38, Shuttle Training Aircraft, and a Learjet 35. 

Rocketsonde - A 12-foot-tall instrumented rocket is launched on Shuttle L-1 day that 

senses and transmits data on temperature, wind speed and direction, wind shear, pressure, 

and air density at altitudes between 65,000 feet and 370,000 feet. A four-inch in diameter 

solid rocket motor separates at an altitude of about 5,000 feet, after which an 

"instrumented dart" coasts to apogee. 

Satellite Images and Data - Provided directly to the satellite terminal at USAF Range 

Weather Operations and NOAA National Weather Service Space Flight Meteorology 

Group in Houston by the geostationary GOES weather satellites. In addition high 

resolution images are received from spacecraft in low earth orbit including both the 

NOAA and the Defense Meteorological Support Program (DMSP) polar orbiting 

satellites. 

Buoys - Meteorological buoys are anchored 20, 110 and 160 nautical miles east-northeast 

of Cape Canaveral. These buoys relay hourly measurements via satellite of temperature, 

wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, precipitation, sea water temperature, and 

wave height and period. Buoy data is used for launch, landing, booster retrieval, and 

daily ground processing forecasts for the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air 

Station. 

Solid Rocket Booster Retrieval Ships - These vessels radio observed weather 

conditions and sea state from the booster impact area located up to 150 nautical miles 

downrange. 

B.2.3.7 Timing 

KSC Timing is controlled by the Central GPS timing. Timing is received by multiple 

inputs, including: 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

395

LCC: UHF Range Timing from CCAS 

 Loran 2000C 

 Loran 2100 

VAB Dual GPS receivers 

The multiple sources are constantly compared for errors. ER central timing located in the 

ROCC at CCAS is the reference source for all timing signals transmitter on the ER. 

The Shuttle uses a master timing unit, which is a stable crystal-controlled timing source 

for the orbiter. It sends serial time reference signals to the onboard computers, payloads 

and various time display panels. It also provides synchronization for instrumentation 

payloads and other systems408.

 

408 http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-inst.html#sts-inst 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

396

B.3 WESTERN RANGE 

B.3.1 Background

B.3.1.1 General 

Located on the Pacific Coast about 150 miles north of Los Angles, Vandenberg AFB is 

headquarters for the Western Range (Figure B.3-1)409. It primarily launches unmanned 

government and commercial satellites into polar orbits. Vandenberg also tests 

intercontinental ballistic missiles by launching them into the Pacific Ocean, with 

splashdown usually occurring at the Kwajalein Atoll within the Marshall Islands. 

The Western Range has land-based facilities at the following locations410: 

 

• Anderson Peak (Monterey County, Ca) 

• Pillar Point AFS (San Mateo County, Ca) 

• Santa Ynez Peak (Santa Barbara County), 

• Vandenberg AFB 

The Western Range often uses resources from other ranges to carryout its missions. 

These include: 

 

• The Pacific Missile Range Facility411 (PMRF) in Hawaii 

• Reagan Test Site - Kwajalein, Marshall Island412 (Army) 

• Point Mugu (Navy) 

• Laguna Peak (Navy) 

• San Nicholas Island (Navy) 

• White Sands Missile Range (Army) 

• China Lake (Navy) 

In addition, mobile assets are sometimes utilized. These include the following: 

• Navy NP3D based at Pt. Mugu 

• Air Force ARIA (Advanced Range Instrumentation Aircraft) at Edwards 

 

409 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/history/tanks_to_missiles/lineage/history_and_lineage.html 410 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/mrtfb/commercial/sw30/wspace.html 411 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/pubfac/pmrf.html 412 http://www.smdc.army.mil/kmr.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

397

The Vandenberg area is ideally oriented for missile launches. The northern portion has a 

coastline facing west and the southern portion has significant coastline facing south. This 

unique geography permits launch azimuths ranging from 154 to 280 degrees, enabling 

over-ocean ballistic and polar space launches. Vandenberg is the only location in the 

continental United States permitting polar orbit spacecraft launches without over-flying 

any land mass. 

Figure B.3-1 Western Range 

The Air Force Space Command's 30th Space Wing operates the Western Range. The 30th

Space Wing is comprised of four main groups413. These are 

• 30th Operations Group 

• 30th Logistics Group 

• 30th Medical Group 

• 30th Support Group 

The 30th Operations Group operates the Western Range and conducts space and missile 

launch operations. The Western Range is a vast tracking, telemetry and command 

 

413 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/Templates/fact_sheet/index.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

398

complex that begins along Vandenberg's California coastline and extends westward 

across the Pacific Ocean. The range consists of electronic and optical tracking systems 

located along the Pacific Coast that collect and process launch-related data. The 2nd 

Space Launch Squadron is responsible for all space lift operations. 

The 30th Support Group provides support services to Vandenberg AFB. 

The 30th Medical Group provides medical, dental, bio-environmental, and public health 

services for people assigned to Vandenberg Air Force Base, their families, and retirees in 

the local area. 

The 30th Logistics Group provides supply, contracting, communication and 

transportation support for 30th Space Wing launch missions. 

Major units at Vandenberg include: 14th Air Force, 576th Flight Test Squadron, 381st 

Training Group, and Detachment 9 of the Space and Missile Systems Center 

B.3.1.2 History 

In 1941, 86,000 acres of open cattle grazing land was transferred to the United States 

Army and transformed almost overnight into Camp Cooke; a training center for armored 

and infantry troops. It later added a POW camp and a military prison. After WW-II, 

there was a short period of inactivity before it was called up again for the Korean War. 

Following the Korean War, most of the area again reverted to cattle and sheep grazing.414 

The prison facilities remained active and were the installation caretakers. 

The present day Vandenberg facility is made up of three tracts of land acquired over a 

decade. 

North Tract - In November of 1956, 64,000 acres of North Camp Cooke (Figure B.3-2) 

were transferred to the Air Force, per the directions of Secretary of Defense, Charles E. 

Wilson, for use as a missile launch and training base. Its coastal setting and remote 

location made the site ideal for launching intermediate range ballistic missiles to targets 

in the Pacific Ocean. Its geographic features also enabled polar orbit satellite launches 

without over flight of populated landmasses. The remaining 19,800 acres of Camp 

Cooke were transferred to the Navy as part of their Pacific Missile Range at Point Mugu. 

This Navy section of Camp Cooke became known as the Naval Missile Facility at Point 

Arguello. 

 

414 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/history/index.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

399

Middle Tract – On November 16, 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara 

ordered a restructuring that including transferring the Navy’s Point Anguello section to 

the Air Force. This increased Vandenberg’s area to 84,000 acres415. 

Southern Tract – On March 1, 1966, the Air Force started land acquisition for the 

15,000 acres south of the Point Anquello. This land was owned by the Sudden Ranch 

and eventually was annexed through eminent domain with the courts establishing the sale 

price ($9M). This last parcel of land was acquired to accommodate SLC-6 and the 

proposed Manned Orbiting Laboratory program. 

Figure B.3-2 Camp Cooke Divided Between Air Force & Navy 

 

415 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/history/ tanks_to_missiles/land_acq/land_acquisitions.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

400

The Air Force’s 6591st Support Squadron was established at Cooke in January 1957. 

Construction began in April of that year. The official ground breaking ceremonies for 

the future missile base were held on May 8, 1957. The prison facilities were transferred 

to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons in August 1959. Today, the prison is known as the U.S. 

Penitentiary at Lompoc. 

In October 1957, Russia launched its Sputnik satellite and sent shockwaves throughout 

the non-Communist world. The Air Force responded by accelerating its missile program 

development. Management for Cooke AFB was transferred from Air Research and 

Development Command (ARDC) to the Strategic Air Command (SAC) on January 1, 

1958. On October 4, 1958, Cooke AFB was renamed Vandenberg AFB in honor of 

General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, the Air Force's second Chief of Staff. 416 The first launch 

from Vandenberg AFB occurred on December 16, 1958. The following year, February 

28, 1959, the world’s first polar orbiting satellite was successfully launched. This 

Corona satellite was the US’s first photo reconnaissance satellite. 

The following is a summary of some of the missile programs at Vandenberg: 

 Thor 12/16/58 

 Atlas 9/9/59 

 Titan I 1961 

 Titan II unknown 

 Minuteman unknown 

 Peacekeeper ICBM 6/83 

 Titan IV 3/91 

 Pegasus 4/95 

 Delta II 2/96 

 Atlas II AS 12/99 

In 1965, the Air Force Western Test Range (AFWTR) was given full responsibility for 

ICBM and space support functions previously assigned to the Navy’s Pacific Missile 

Range at Point Mugu. This involved the transfer of fixed and mobile sites at Point 

Arguello, Ca.; Pill Point, Ca.; Kokee Park, Hawaii; Canton, Midway; Wake Island, 

Eniwetok and Bikini Atolls in the Marshall Islands; and six each range instrumentation 

ships. By 1968, range instrumentation ships had peaked at eleven. In January 1975, the 

last AFWTR ship (USNS Sunnyvale) was decommissioned. 

 

In the 60’s, Vandenberg was selected by the Air Force for the Manned Orbiting 

Laboratory (MOL). The MOL was designed to be launched by a Titan III booster 

carrying a modified Gemini B capsule attached to a space laboratory. Construction on 

Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6) began in March 1966. It was canceled by President 

Richard Nixon in June 1969 due to the Vietnam War, cost overruns, and other issues. 

 

416 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/history/tanks_to_missiles/af_takes_charge/ 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

401

On October 1, 1990, the Western Space and Missile Center (WSMC) was transferred 

from Air Force Systems Command to Air Force Space Command. On November 19 

1991, WSMC was redesignated the 30th Space Wing. On January 15, 2002, host base 

responsibilities for Vandenberg were transferred from the Strategic Air Command to Air 

Force Space Command. 

Today, the mission of the 30th Space Wing is to: 

• Manage and support space lift operations 

• Support flight tests of the nation's intercontinental ballistic missile force 

• Operate the Western Range network, consisting of instrumentation sites along the 

California coast and downrange in the Hawaiian Islands, used by the U.S. 

Government and commercial launch firms operating space, missile, and 

aeronautical vehicles from Vandenberg. 

• Provide host base support services for the Vandenberg AFB community. As of 

December 2000, the wing consisted of approximately 2,463 (1,620 military and 

843 civilians).417

B.3.2 Facilities

B.3.2.1 General 

Vandenberg is a large base with the normal assortment of base facilities. 

Major services include: 

• Weather Squadron providing 

o Forecasting 

o Surface and upper-air observing 

o Resource protection from severe weather and toxic hazards 

• 76th Helicopter Flight operations with five UH-1N helicopters providing 

o Safety and security operations for range operations 

o Aerial photography 

o Wildfire fighting, search and rescue, medical evacuation 

o Flight hardware recovery 

o Security, search, and rescue support for NASA Space Shuttle operations at 

Edwards AFB 

• 30th Operations Support Squadron 

o Manages 30th Space Wing SpaceLift operations training programs 

o Manages air-field operations 

o Provides intelligence services for the wing and tenant units 

 

417 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/history/tanks_to_missiles/lineage/history_and_lineage.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

402

o Operates the Training Device Design and Engineering Center 

o Prepares and executes all host base support for AFSPC's annual Guardian 

Challenge competition, Guardian Tiger and Guardian Sword readiness 

programs 

• Air Field – Vandenberg AFB has the longest runway in the country418

B.3.2.2 Launch 

Vandenberg provides the buildings, facilities and equipment essential for missile and 

spacecraft operations. Facilities include launch vehicle and payload assembly buildings; 

launch complexes, and post-launch operation facilities. 

SLC-2W – Space Launch Complex #2 West is used for Boeing Delta-II (Figure B.3-3)419

launches. Two-stage Delta II rockets typically fly LEO missions, while three-stage 

vehicles typically deliver payloads to GTO, or are used for deep space explorations. 

SLC-3E – SLC-3E is used for Atlas-II AS launches (Figure B.3-4) 

SLC-4W – SLC-4W is used for Titan II (Figure B.3-5) launches. The Titan II launchers 

are refurbished deactivated Titan II intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) converted 

by Lockheed Martin for use as space launch vehicles. The company was contracted in 

1986 to refurbish, integrate, and launch 14 Titan II ICBMs for government space launch 

requirements. Conversion involves modifying the forward structure of the second stage to 

accommodate a payload; manufacturing a new 10-ft diameter payload fairing with 

variable lengths plus payload adapters; refurbishing the Titan's liquid rocket engines; 

upgrading the inertial guidance system; developing command, destruct, and telemetry 

systems; and performing payload integration420. 

 

418 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/organizations/30og/30oss/airfield_ops/index.html 419 http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/delta2/delta2.htm 420 http://www.ast.lmco.com/launch_titanIIfacts.shtml 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

403

Figure B.3-3 Delta Launch 

Figure B.3-4 Atlas Ready For Launch 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

404

Figure B.3-5 Titan II Being Prepared For Launch 

SLC-4E – SLC-4E is used for Titan IV (Figure B.3-6) launches. This heavy lift vehicle 

is capable of placing 47,800 pounds into low-Earth orbit or more than 12,700 pounds into 

geosynchronous orbit– (22,300 miles). 

Figure B.3-6 Titan IV Launch From Vandenberg 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

405

SLC-6 – SLC-6 (Figure B.3-7) is the most famous launch complex at Vandenberg AFB. 

It was initially built for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL. After the MOL program 

was cancelled in 1969, SLC-6 was basically abandoned for nearly a decade. In 1979, 

SLC-6 was reactivated and underwent an estimated $4 billion modification program in 

preparation for use by the Space Shuttle program. Following the Challenger accident in 

1986 and after a joint decision by the Air Force and NASA, SLC-6 was again abandoned. 

Today, SLC-6 has been modified for use with the Delta IV.421 

Figure B.3-7 SLC-6 in 1986 

Peacekeeper – Special launch facilities are used for testing the silo-staged Peacekeeper 

missiles. 

 

421 http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/30sw/history/tanks_to_missiles/launch%20programs/index.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

406

Minuteman III – Special launch facilities are used for testing the silo-staged Minuteman 

III (Figure B.3-8). 

Airborne – Western Range facilities are sometimes used for air launches of Orbital 

Sciences’ Pegasus missile from their converted L-1011. 

Figure B.3-8 Minuteman III Launch 

. 

B.3.3 Instrumentation

B.3.3.1 Locations 

Western Range key instrumentation is located at the following sites: 

• Anderson Peak (Monterey County, CA) 

• Pillar Point AFS (San Mateo County, CA) 

• Santa Ynez Peak (Santa Barbara County, CA) 

• Vandenberg AFB 

Additional instrumentation capability is provided by the Navy at Point Mugu, the Pacific 

Missile Range Facility, and by the Army at Reagan Test Site (Kwajalein) to support 

missions. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

407

Anderson Peak

Anderson Peak, located 150 miles north of Vandenberg, contains long-range optic 

equipment. 

Pillar Point

Pillar Point (Figure B.3-9)422 is located on the Pacific Coast just south of San Francisco. 

It contains metric radar, telemetry, and command instrumentation. The 80-ft TAA-8 

telemetry antenna shown in the figure below was later removed. 

Figure B.3-9 Pillar Point Instrumentation Site 

Santa Ynez Peak 

Santa Ynez Peak is located 30 miles southeast of Vandenberg. It contains radar, 

telemetry, and optic instrumentation. 

Vandenberg

Vandenberg AFB contains radar, telemetry, and command. 

 

422 http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/GeoImages/SemansAir/AirPhotos/PILPOINT.JPG
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

408

B.3.3.2 Equipment 

Range instrumentation includes the following: 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Command 

• Optic 

Radar

AN/FPQ, TPQ, and FPS radars at Vandenberg and Pillar Point provide precision 

tracking. Supporting radars at Kaena Point (Hawaii), Point Mugu (California), and 

Reagan Test Site (Kwajalein) often provide supplemental trajectory data for range safety, 

flight analysis, and aircraft operations. 

Telemetry

Receiving and recording stations at Vandenberg AFB and Pillar Point, with their 

associated antennas; acquire, record, and transmit telemetry data to the Vandenberg AFB 

data processing equipment through fiber optics and microwave data transmission 

systems. The display areas are capable of providing real-time computation, quick-look 

displays, and post-data listings423. 

Command

Command destruct transmitters, used to destroy errant missiles or space boosters, are located at five sites -- 

 three at Vandenberg AFB, one at Pillar Point, and one at a Navy site at Laguna Peak, near Point Mugu. 

Optics

Three large-aperture long range telescopes are situated on coastal mountains; one on 

Vandenberg AFB, one 150 miles north on Anderson Peak, and one 30 miles southeast by 

Santa Ynez Peak. 

Midcourse Operations Support

The metric radar at Kaena Point, Hi provides midcourse data on ballistic missile flights 

and supports Space Transportation System (shuttle) and other on-orbit operations. 

Additional support is available from the Maui long-range optical site; Navy operated 

telemetry and radar systems, and the AFSPACECOM424 Hawaiian Tracking Station. 

 

423 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/mrtfb/commercial/sw30/wspace.html 424 http://www.spacecom.af.mil/hqafspc/ 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

409

B.4 WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY 

B.4.1 Background

B.4.1.1 General 

Wallops Flight Facility is NASA’s primary facility for sub-orbital programs.425 It also 

supports orbital launches. To date, Wallops Flight Facility has launched over 14,000 

rockets as part of its research programs. Wallops Flight Facility has been heavily 

involved in the manned space program and supports northbound launches on the Eastern 

Range. 

B.4.1.2 History 

The Wallops Flight Facility was established in 1945 under NASA`s predecessor, the 

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). It was built to utilize rockets for 

aeronautical research. Its first rocket launch was on July 4, 1945. 

From 1945 to 1957, the Wallops Flight Facility was called the Pilotless Aircraft Research 

Station and specialized in aerodynamic and heat transfer research. 

In 1958, it was renamed Wallops Station and supported the manned space program with 

research in re-entry and life-support systems (Figure B.4-1). Wallops Flight Facility has 

supported Project Mercury, Project Apollo, Project Gemini and Space Shuttle missions. 

Figure B.4-1 Capsule Escape Rocket Testing 

 

425 http://www.wff.nasa.gov/pages/wallops_history.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

410

In 1975, Wallops Flight Facility went through yet another name change to become 

Wallops Flight Center. Research continued with suborbital rockets and was expanded to 

include aircraft noise reduction studies. 

In 1982, the facility at Wallops was renamed to today’s Wallops Flight Facility, and was 

consolidated with Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Its customer base became more 

diversified with more commercial users for the research airport, tracking facilities and 

launch range. Wallops Flight Facility continues to support academic and government 

research programs using sounding rockets, balloons and scientific aircraft. 

B.4.1.3 Present Mission 

Today, Wallops Flight Facility’s typical workload is426: 

• 30 sounding rockets per year 

• 35 scientific balloon launches per year 

• 500 aircraft flight hours on scientific payloads 

Wallops Flight Facility’s mission consists of: 

• Management of NASA`s Sounding Rocket Program (Figure B.4-2) 

• Management of NASA`s Balloon Program (Figure B.4-3), including development 

of an Ultra Long Duration Balloon Project 

 

• Operations, maintenance and sustaining engineering efforts for the Orbital 

Tracking Program 

• Management, maintenance and operation of scientific aircraft 

 

• Continued responsibility for theoretical and experimental research related to the 

broad study of Earth science and global change 

 

• Responsibility for NASA`s Small Shuttle Payload Projects including SPARTAN, 

SPARTAN Lite, the Hitchhiker series (Hitchhiker, Hitchhiker, Jr., Get-Away 

Specials and Space Experiment Module) and the University Class Explorer 

Program 

 

• Maintenance and operation of Wallops launch range, aeronautical research airport 

and associated tracking, data acquisition and control instrumentation systems. 

 

426 http://www.wff.nasa.gov/mission2000/pages/suborbital.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

411

Figure B.4-2 Wallops Scientific Rocket 

Figure B.4-3 Wallops Scientific Balloon 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

412

B.4.2 Facilities

Wallops Flight Facility is located on the Atlantic coast of northeastern Virginia. It is 

accessible from Virginia only through Newport News. It is also accessible from 

Maryland. The Wallops Flight Facility is spread out over three land areas, as shown in 

Figure B.4-4. 

These are 

• Main Base (Figure B.4-5) 

• Island (Figure B.4-6) 

• Mainland 

Today, Wallops Flight Facility includes the following primary facilities: 

• 6 launch pads 

• Assembly facilities 

• Range Control Center 

• Tracking and Data Acquisition 

• Blockhouses 

• Hazardous Storage 

• Research Airport 

• Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority 

Figure B.4-4 Wallops Three Main Sites 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

413

Figure B.4-5 Wallops Main Base 

Figure B.4-6 Wallops Launch Facilities 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

414

B.4.3 Instrumentation

Wallops Flight Facility instrumentation includes the following427: 

• Telemetry 

• Radar (Figure B.4-7) 

• UHF transmitters & Range Safety systems 

• Film/video tracking 

• Communications 

• Weather 

Wallops Flight Facility radars often provide support for the Eastern Range during 

launches with northern trajectories. The following radars are available at Wallops Flight 

Facility: 

 Radar Design Designation

 AN/FPQ-6 86.18 

 AN/FPS-16s 86.16I 

 AN/FPS-16s 86.16R 

Figure B.4-7 Wallops FPQ-6 Radar 

In addition, Wallops Flight Facility has mobile launch facilities that are offered as a 

service to other ranges. Wallops Flight Facility has provided support at Argentia for the 

Eastern Range and at Cordova, AK for the Kodiak launch facility. 

 

427 http://www.wff.nasa.gov/vtour/pages/wff_vt_p23x.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

415

B.5 REAGAN TEST SITE (KWAJALEIN) 

B.5.1 Background

B.5.1.1 General 

The Reagan Test Site (RTS) is centered at the Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands (RMI). Kwajalein is approximately 4,800 miles southwest of 

California and 2,500 miles southwest of Hawaii. It contains the world’s largest lagoon. 

While RMI has over 750,000 square miles of territory, it contains only 69.8 square miles 

of landmass, equivalent to an area about the size of Washington D. C. Figures B.5-1 and 

B.5-2 show the location of the Kwajalein Atoll and its main island.428

Figure B.5-1 Kwajalein Atoll 

Kwajalein is an independent range, operated by the U.S. Army. It contains its own 

launch site. RTS possesses the only treaty-approved launch site from which the United 

States can test, due to extended flight distances, "operational" Strategic ABM interceptor 

missiles. The Meck Island site is used multiple times each year for interceptor testing. In 

the 1950’s, Nike-Zeus missiles were launched as ICBM interceptors. In March of 1968, 

the Spartan missile was successfully launched and later the Sprint missiles were 

launched. In later years, testing associated with the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) 

was conducted at Kwajalein. Kwajalein was renamed the Ronald Reagan Test Site (RTS) 

in 2001. It is often used in conjunction with the Western Range for scoring ICBM 

performance. Today, a new generation of anti-ballistic missile testing continues. 

 

428 http://www.smdc.army.mil/kwaj/KMR_LOCN.HTM 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

416

Figure B.5-2 Kwajalein Island 

Kwajalein is also used for monitoring Russian ICBM tests in the Pacific, monitoring new 

foreign launches, and scoring ICBM launches from the Western Range. 

B.5.1.2 History 

Prior to WW-II, Kwajalein was visited or occupied by the Spanish, British, Russians and 

Germans. In 1914, it was claimed by Japan. In February 1942, Kwajalein was the target 

of the first aircraft carrier offensive launched by the US against Japan, in what became 

the first victories for the US after the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. After 

WW-II, the US continued to maintain its presence on the island. In 1946, Kwajalein 

supported US atomic testing, codenamed Operation Crossroads, at nearby Bikini. 

Kwajalein continued to figure prominently in atomic testing during Operations 

Sandstone, Greenhouse, and Ivy at nearby Enewetak from 1948 through 1952. Around 

1958, the US selected Kwajalein as the site of a test facility for an ICBM intercept 

program. Roi-Namur, on the north end of the Kwajalein Atoll, was equipped to watch 

Russian ICBM flights over North Pacific Ocean areas. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

417

Prior to 1963, Kwajalein was under the command of the Navy. The Army and Air Force 

also had activities on the islands. In 1963, the Army was selected as the new 

commanding agency. In July 1964, the U.S. Navy formally transferred command of 

Kwajalein Pacific Missile Range Facility, which later became known as Kwajalein Test 

Site (KTS), to the Army. The project office was located at Redstone Arsenal, AL.429 

Long-term plans currently show funding at Kwajalein to decrease during the next 

fourteen years with the facility either being closed or becoming commercial around 2016. 

B.5.2 Facilities

B.5.2.1 General 

Due to its remote location, RTS combines all the assets of a Range with the facilities of a 

small city. Facilities include the following: 

• Command & Control 

• Air Field & Terminal 

• Marina 

• School 

• Housing 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Optics 

• Powerhouse 

• Water Treatment 

B.5.2.2 Launch 

RTS launch facilities include a launch site on Meck Island, two 20K sounding rocket 

launchers at Roi-Namur Island (Figure B.5-3), and a 5K sounding rocket launcher at 

Kwajalein Island. 

The Meck Island site has the larger launch facilities. It has supported the Homing 

Overlay Experiment (HOE), the Exo-atmospheric Reentry Interceptor Subsystem 

(ERIS)(Figure B.5-4), and the current Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) tests 

providing critical development tests for the National Missile Defense (NMD) program430. 

 

429 http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/kwa/ 430 http://www.smdc.army.mil/kwaj/KMR_INTC.HTM 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

418

Figure B.5-3 Sounding Rocket Launch from Roi-Namur 

Figure B.5-4 ERIS Launch From Kwajalein 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

419

RTS also is involved in interceptor testing using alternative launch sites at Wake Island 

(Figure B.5-5) and other islands. These are shown in Figure B.5-6. 

In addition to the RTS-supported facilities, RTS provides support for visiting tactical 

interceptor systems such as the PATRIOT system and the Theater High Altitude Area 

Defense (THAAD) system. 

Figure B.5-5 Wake Island Launch 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

420

Figure B.5-6 RTS Alternative Launch Facilities 

B.5.3 Instrumentation

Kwajalein has a large assortment of Telemetry, Radar, and Optic instrumentation. These 

are summarized in Figure B.5-7. 

Telemetry

RTS telemetry sites are located at Ennylabegan, Roi-Namur, and Gagan Islands (Figure 

B.5-8). These include nine auto-tracking and three fixed antennas configured with 

multiple receivers and recorders. RTS supports the full Inter-Range Instrumentation 

Group (IRIG) standard frequency range of 1700-2400 MHz for telemetry streams at up to 

10 Mb/s. Real-time processing and retransmission of telemetry data is used for RTS 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

421

Range Safety support functions, in-flight vehicle monitoring, and interceptor targeting. 

A summary of the Telemetry antennas is given in Table B.5-1431. 

Figure B.5-7 RTS Instrumentation 

 Figure B.5-8 RTS Telemetry Sites 

 

431 http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/KMR_TM.HTM 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

422

Table B.5-1 RTS Telemetry Antennas 

Antenna 

Diameter 

Gain*(dB) 

@ 2.25 GHz 

Ts 

(K°) 

G/T 

(M') 

3 dB 

Beam width 

Frequency 

(GHz) 

Ennylabegan 

Nos. 1-4 (3 m) 34.6 400 9.0 3.0° 1.7-2.4 

Ennylabegan No. 

5 (7 m) 42.3 350 16.5 1.3° 1.7-2.4 

Ennylabegan No. 

6 (9 m) 43.6 350 18.0 1.2° 1.7-2.4 

Roi-Namur 

3-meter 34.6 400 9.0 3.0° 1.7-2.4 

Roi-Namur 

5.5-meter 39.8 350 15.0 1.76° 1.7-2.4 

Gagan 

 3-meter 34.6 400 9.0 3.0° 1.7-2.4 

Gagan 

1.2-meter 19.5 500 -7.5 15.0° 2.2-2.3 

Radar

RTS has a large assortment of radars. These include the following: 

• ARPA Lincoln C-Band Observable Radar (ALCOR)432 – Figure B.5-9 

• ARPA Long-Range Tracking and Instrumentation Radar (ALTAIR) 

• Tracking and Discrimination Experiment (TRADEX) – Figure B.5-10

• Millimeter Wave Radar (MMW) – Figure B.5-11

• MPS-36 C-band Multipurpose – Figure 3.5-12

 

432 http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/ALC_SPEC.HTM 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

423

Figure B.5-9 ALCOR Radar 

 

Figure B.5-10 TRADEX Radar 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

424

Figure B.5-11 Millimeter Radar 

Figure B.5-12 MPS-36 Radar 

Optics

RTS optic sensors include the following: 

• Recording Automation Digital Optical Tracker (RADOT) – Figure B.5-13 

• Super RADOT 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

425

Figure B.5-13 RTS Optical Tracking Camera 

Other Sensors

RTS frequently hosts a variety of mobile sensors. These include the following433: 

• Airborne Surveillance Test bed (AST) – Figure B.5-14 

• Cobra Eye434 – Figure B.5-15 

• Cobra Judy435 – Figure B.5-16 

• Halo436 - Figure B.5-17 

Figure B.5-14 Airborne Surveillance Test Bed 

 

433 http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/KMR_MBLS.HTM 434 http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/cobraeye.html 435 http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/cobrajud.html 436 http://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/halo.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

426

Figure B.5-15 Cobra Eye 

Figure B.5-16 USNS Observation Island (Cobra Judy) 

Figure B.5-17 Halo 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

427

B.6 KODIAK 

B.6.1 Background

The Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC) is located about 250 miles south of Anchorage, AK 

on Kodiak Island (Figure B.6-1). It was built in 1998 by the Alaska Aerospace 

Development Corporation (AADC). The AADC is a public corporation created in 1991 

to develop aerospace-related economic, technical, and educational opportunities for the 

State of Alaska. KLC was designed by BRPH Architects-Engineers, Inc. of Melbourne, 

FL. The Kodiak Launch Complex is the only commercial launch range in the United 

States not co-located with a federal facility. Kodiak's greatest advantage is its wide-open 

launch corridor and unobstructed down-range flight path.437 

Figure B.6-1 Kodiak Launch Complex 

B.6.2 Facilities

B.6.2.1 General 

Primary facilities at KLC include the following: 

• Launch Control & Management Center (Figure B.6-2) 

• Payload Processing Facility (Figure B.6-3) 

• Integration & Processing Facility (Figure B.6-4) 

• Space Craft Assembly Transfer (Figure B.6-4) 

• Launch Pad (Figures B.6-5, B.6-6) 

 

437 http://www.akaerospace.com/frames1.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

428

Figure B.6-2 Launch Control & Management Center 

Figure B.6-3 Payload Processing Facility 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

429

Figure B.6-4 Spacecraft Assemblies Transfer 

Figure B.6-5 Launch Pad 1 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

430

Figure B.6-6 Launch Pad 1 With Enclosure 

B.6.2.2 Launch 

Kodiak was designed to support both solid and liquid fueled rockets. The first launch 

was an interceptor rocket on October 5, 1998 as a part of the USAF Atmospheric 

Interceptor Technology. Launch number two was about a year later, on September 15, 

1999 for a similar mission. On September 30, 2001, a Kodiak Star launch vehicle, 

Athena I rocket (Figure B.6-7), was launched with three Amateur Radio payloads438. 

 

438 http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/10/01/2/?nc=1 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

431

Figure B.6-7 Kodiak Star Launch Vehicle (Athena I) 

B.6.3 Instrumentation

The KLC does not presently contain a significant amount of tracking and monitoring 

sensors. Portable telemetry equipment is usually provided by Wallops439. Equipment is 

set up on Kodiak Island and on the mainland at Cordova, AK. A radar is also located at 

Cordova. Remote area safety aircraft are used to monitor the missile flight440. 

 

439 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/kodiak-01a.html 440 http://www.huntsville.edaw.com/files/northpacific/nptp_ground_flight_safety_board.pdf 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

432

B.7 WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE 

B.7.1 Background

B.7.1.1 Location 

White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) is located in south-central New Mexico, near the 

town of Las Cruces (Figure B.7-1 and Figure B.7-2441) and just North of El Paso, Texas. 

It gets it name from the world's largest gypsum dune field442. For thousands of years, the 

prevailing westerly winds have deposited gypsum powder, eroded from the nearby San 

Andres Mountains, washed down by rainwater, and deposited in the seasonal Lake 

Lucero; creating a huge area of white dunes covering 275 square miles. About half of the 

sands are within the boundaries of the White Sands National Monument, which is located 

in the southern portion of WSMR. 

Figure B.7-1 White Sands Missile Range 

 

441 http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/visit/Tour/index.html 442 http://www.nps.gov/whsa/ 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

433

Figure B.7-2 White Sands Missile Range Sites 

1 NRTF 10 Large Blast Thermal Simulator 

2 Toby Town Target Area 11 Stallion Range Center 

3 Rhodes Canyon 12 N. Oscura Peak 

4 RAMS 13 Permanent High Explosive Test Site 

5 Rhodes & Denver Impact Area 14 Trinity Site 

6 PUP Warhead 15 McDonald House (base for Manhattan 

project) 

7 Salinas Peak 16 Red Rio Impact Site 

8 Zumwalt Track 17 Oscura Impact Range 

9 Stallion (PII) 

The Trinity Site, where the first atomic bomb was detonated in July 1945, is located on 

the northern portion of WSMR. This is shown as item #14 in Figure B.7-2. Tourists may 

visit the site only on 2 days each year, on the first Saturdays of April and October, when 

guided tours are provided. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

434

Just to the east of White Sands National Monument is Holloman Air Force Base; a few 

miles north is the space shuttle landing sites; to the south is Ft. Bliss443. 

White Sands Missile Range is the largest overland test range in America. It is a part of 

the US Army’s Development Test Command. It includes support facilities for the Army, 

Navy, Air Force and NASA. 

B.7.1.2 History 

White Sands is the oldest missile range in the U.S. On February 8, 1945, the War 

Department directed that land be obtained to establish a land range where missiles could 

be test fired and recovered for analysis. The Tularosa Basin of southern New Mexico 

was selected. Some of the area was ranch land, but a large portion was already owned by 

the War Department and was comprised of Fort Bliss Anti-aircraft Firing Range, Dona 

Ana Target Range, Castner Target Range and Alamogordo Army Air Field’s Bombing 

range. This area eventually became White Sands Proving Grounds and, in April of 1958, 

it became White Sands Missile Range. 

The first launch from White Sands was a Tiny Tim Booster on September 26,1945. 

Launch complex 33, the site of this first launch, is now a National Historical Landmark 

(Figure B.7-3). It was later used for V-2 launches, along with the Nike Ajax, Nike 

Hercules, Viking, Corporal, Redstone, Lance, Multiple Launch Rocket System, and 

Army TACMS. The complex is still used today for initial test firings of new missiles 

under development444. 

Prior to the establishment of White Sands Missile Range, Dr. Robert Goddard performed 

some of his pioneering rocket development near Roswell, New Mexico in the 1930s. 

In 1945, after the US Army seized V-2 components and 115 German rocket specialists, 

the men and equipment, led by Wernher von Braun, were relocated to Ft. Bliss, Texas 

and then to White Sands, New Mexico. Starting in April of 1946, and continuing to 

1952, sixty-seven V-2 rockets were test fired from White Sands. 

The V-2 (Figure B.7-4) could deliver a 2,000-pound warhead at supersonic speeds to 

target areas 150 miles away. The Germans fired about 3,600 V-2s at targets in England 

and on the continent during WWII. The architect of the rocket was Dr. Wernher von 

Braun, who based much of his design on the pioneering work done by Dr. Robert 

Goddard. 

 

443 http://www.americansouthwest.net/new_mexico/white_sands/national_monument.html 444 http://www.wsmr-history.org/History.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

435

Figure B.7-3 Launch Complex 33 

Figure B.7-4 V-2 Rocket 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

436

Early V-2 testing gave the United States valuable experience in assembling, pre-flight 

testing, handling, fueling, launching, and tracking large missiles. The scientific 

experiments conducted aboard the V-2 provided new information about the upper 

atmosphere, our first photographic look back at the earth from space, the first experience 

with a large two-stage rocket, and carried the first biological experiments into space445. 

The V-2 led to the Redstone and Jupiter missiles, which led to the Saturn series which 

culminated in the capability to send men to the moon. 

On 5/29/1947, a V-2 went the wrong way and landed in a cemetery south of Juarez, 

Mexico. No one was injured, but this event led to the decision to find another launch 

location for large rockets. Candidate locations included California, Alaska, and Florida. 

The California site was a prime candidate until Mexico refused to allow missile overflights. This led to the eventual selection of Cape Canaveral, FL. 

B.7.2 Facilities

B.7.2.1 General 

Some major facilities at WSMR are identified in the following paragraphs: 

 White Sands Test Center 

The White Sands Test Center is responsible for planning and conducting tests at WSMR. 

It is made up of the following six major directorates. 

National Range Operations Directorate - The NRO manages range 

instrumentation, range operations, data collection and reduction, and flight safety 

of all missiles, rockets, munitions, lasers, etc. The Flight Safety Officer is a part 

of this directorate. 

Materiel Test Directorate - The MTD tests military hardware systems including 

air defense systems, main battle tank and artillery ordnance. 

Directorate for Applied Technology, Test & Simulation - This directorate is a 

recognized center of expertise for nuclear effects testing and evaluation. It also 

evaluates electronic warfare, electro-optical, electromagnetic, and lightning 

effects. 

Technology Development Directorate - This directorate is responsible for the 

development and acquisition of technology, range instrumentation, equipment and 

facilities for White Sands. Some of the equipment they have acquired is listed in 

the other paragraphs in this section. 

 

445 http://www.wsmr-history.org/V-2.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

437

Information Operations Directorate - This directorate provides real-time test 

support in engineering, planning, modifications, installation, operations and 

maintenance for telecommunication and automation at White Sands. 

Environment and Safety Directorate - The Environment and Safety Directorate 

(ES) provides support and services to range customers through its operating 

divisions. 

Tenant Organizations446

Desert Navy – The Navy has been part of the test community at White Sands 

since June 14, 1946, when Naval activity was established to participate in 

research and testing of captured German V-2 rockets. Today, the mission of the 

Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division-White Sands includes land-based 

test of Naval weapon systems (missiles and gun munitions) and launch operations 

for sub orbital space systems and research rockets. The Navy facilities include 

the U.S.S. Desert Ship. The Desert Ship serves as a primary live fire test bed for 

surface-to-air weapons including Standard Missile and Evolved Sea Sparrow 

Missile. 

U.S. Air Force – The Air Force Development Test Center at Eglin AFB operates 

a fleet of high performance aircraft in support of weapons testing. 

White Sands Test Facility (NASA) – NASA started using WSMR in 1962 to test 

engines in the Apollo command Service Module and the Lunar Module. Recent 

activities include continued space shuttle support and testing of the Delta Clipper 

(Figure B.7-5). NASA facilities also include the following: 

• WSSH - White Sands Space Harbor 

• TDRS - Tracking and Data Relay Satellite 

WSSH – The White Sands Space Harbor is the primary training area for 

space shuttle pilots flying practice approaches and landings in the shuttletraining aircraft, a modified Gulfstream II. The north-south runway 

(Figure B.7-6) is configured to simulate the runway at Kennedy Space 

Center, while the east-west runway simulates the lakebed runway at 

Edwards Air Force Base. A third, shorter runway simulates the 

transatlantic abort-landing site at Ben Guerir, Morocco, and is used to 

simulate training at Moron, Spain and Banjul, The Gambia. WSSH is an 

alternate landing site for the shuttle. STS-3 landed here in 1982 (Figure 

B.7-7). Its long, forgiving, hard surface is ideal for emergency landings. 

 

446 http://www.wsmr.army.mil/paopage/pages/orgind.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

438

Figure B.7-5 Delta Clipper (1993) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

439

Figure B.7-6 Runway 17 

Figure B.7-7 Shuttle Columbia Landing 1982 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

440

Figure B.7-8 TDRS Ground Station 

TDRS - The NASA Tracking and Data Relay Satellite system ground 

station (Figure B.7-8) is adjacent to the NASA test facilities. The TDRSS 

complex contains three 60-foot diameter high-gain microwave antennas to 

send and receive commands and data to and from the geosynchronousorbiting array of TDR Satellites. The satellites receive and relay data 

from a multitude of low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites, the Space Shuttle, 

and the International Space Station. TDRSS replaced an entire network of 

expensive, aging tracking stations and ships located throughout the world. 

U.S. Army TRADOC Analysis Center - Conducts operations research on Army 

organizations and systems. 

Army Research Laboratory - The Army’s primary source of fundamental and 

applied research 

Center for Countermeasures – This is DOD’s focal point for guided weapons 

countermeasures/counter-countermeasures analysis and testing. 

High Energy Laser System - Operates the nation’s most powerful laser in 

support of DOD laser research, development, test and evaluation. 

Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance - This site supports 

Cheyenne Mountain through its tracking of deep space objects. 

Range Commanders’ Council Secretariat – Provides administrative services to 

the Range Commanders’ Council. 

U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground, Ft. Huachuca - Provides time, space, 

position information (TSPI) and target signals and provides large-scale antenna 

test facilities. 

 

B.7.2.2 Launch 

White Sands Test Center operates over fifty unique launch facilities supporting surfaceto-air and surface-to-ground weapon testing.447 The major launch facilities are described 

in the following paragraphs: 

LC-33 - Launch Complex 33 was the first launch site constructed on the Range. This is 

the site of the V-2 rocket testing which began in 1945. It is designated as a National 

 

447 http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/capabilities/lab_fac/Launchfacilities.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

441

Historical Landmark. The complex is still used today for initial firings of many new 

missiles under development. 

LC-34 - Launch Complex 34 was established as the land based test site for the Navy's 

Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) program. This is a semi-hardened site used to flight test 

RAM against subscale and subsonic targets. The site is used to test various configurations 

of RAM missiles, weapon systems, support systems, and launchers. 

LC-35 - Launch Complex 35 West - Launch Complex 35 West (LC-35W), known as the 

Desert Ship LLS-1, is primarily used for live fire testing the Navy's STANDARD Missile 

(SM). The Navy is currently testing the Standard Missile and Evolved Seasparrow 

Missile (ESSM) at this site. The Desert Ship functionally duplicates the fire control 

requirements of a surface ship with dedicated telemetry, target monitoring, and data 

extraction and reduction systems. A MK-39 5-inch/54 Gun Mount is also located here. 

LC-35 East - Launch Complex 35 East is a Research Rocket facility that includes a 

blockhouse, launch control equipment and a payload assembly building. NASA currently 

uses this facility for payload buildup and uplink control of rocket payloads. 

LC-36 - Launch Complex 36 launches sub-orbital rockets. It includes a blockhouse, 

launch control equipment, & launchers, some with environmental shelters. Launchers 

are: 

• 37-foot rail with 8,000 lb capacity 

• 48-foot rail with 25,000 lb capacity 

• 160-foot rail (tower) with 8,000 lb capacity 

• 48-inch diameter stool with 50,000 lb capacity 

• 30-foot rail with 15,000 lb capacity. This mobile launcher can support off-range 

operations 

LC-37 - Launch Complex 37 is the Advanced Gun Munitions Test Site and includes a 

concrete structure housing various advanced gun systems, a permanent bunker and a 

concrete pad. LC-37 had been designated as the facility to test the new Theater Missile 

Defense interceptors. 

LC-38 - Launch Complex 38 has been used for all Patriot air defense missiles testing, 

beginning in the early 1970s, when it was known as SAM-D. 

Sulf Site Launch Facility - This complex is located at the northwest end of the Range 

and is equipped with a blockhouse and ordnance assembly building, three active 

launchers, and a 65-foot environmental shelter. This complex is used to launch targets to 

support missile intercept testing and to launch technology demonstrations or unique 

science and engineering payloads into sub-orbital trajectories. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

442

WC-50 - West Center 50 is located in the central portion of the Range near Rhodes 

Canyon. This facility includes a hardened blockhouse and accommodates testing of shortrange systems without a Flight Termination System. 

B.7.2.3 Major Test 

White Sands contains many other major test facilities: 

300K Dynamic Test Facility – This facility is used for static firing/dynamic burst testing 

of rocket motors 40" in diameter. 

Aerial Cable Range – The Aerial Cable Range (Figure B.7-9) is located in the north 

central area of the range. The three-mile long cable is suspended between two mountain 

peaks and is the longest unsupported cable span in the world. The cable, which can 

support up to 20,000 lbs, serves as a path for captive vehicles. The Aerial Cable Facility 

can be used to provide cost-effective testing on bombs, sensors, missiles, sub-munitions, 

prototype aircraft electronics, target and clutter characterizations, and electronic 

countermeasures and warning devices. Vehicles can be accelerated by gravity or rocket 

at controlled speeds up to 150 knots for gravity accelerated items and up to 250 knots for 

rocket assisted items. Altitudes can be varied from 100 to 1000 ft. above ground level.448

 

448 http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/capabilities/lab_fac/aerialcabledrange.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

443

Figure B.7-9 Aerial Cable Range 

NASA Test Facilities 

• Six test stands provide vacuum test capability (Figure B.7-10) 

• Three test stands provide ambient testing (Figure (B.7-11) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

444

Figure B.7-10 Typical Altitude Test Stand 

Figure B.7-11 Ambient Test Stand 

NRTF – National RCS Test Facility is used for radar target signatures (Figure B.7-12) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

445

Figure B.7-12 National RCS Test Facility (NRTF) 

LB/TS - The Large Blast Thermal Simulator (Figure B.7-13) is designed to simulate the 

thermal pulse and air blast wave from a nuclear detonation. Customers with nuclear 

survivability requirements can test full-scale vehicles and systems year-round, inside or 

outside the tunnel (Figure 3.7-14). The tunnel is a 170-meter long, 20-meter diameter 

concrete shock-tube, which uses heated dry nitrogen to produce a blast wave and a 

Thermal Radiation Source (TRS) to produce a simulated thermal pulse. 

Figure B.7-13 Large Blast Thermal Simulator 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

446

Figure B.7-14 LB/TS Tunnel 

RAMS – The Radar Cross Section Advanced Measurement System (Figure B.7-15) is 

used to measure monostatic radar cross section of objects up to 70 feet in diameter. 

Figure B.7-15 RCS Advanced Measurement System 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

447

NOP – The North Oscura Peak site (Figure B.7-16) overlooks the valley 3000 feet 

below. It is used by the Air Force for Airborne Laser and other programs. 

Figure B.7-16 North Oscura Peak 

HELSTF449 – The High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (Figure B.7-17) was started 

in White Sands in 1970 to support development of lasers as weapon systems. The Test 

Facility represents an approximately $800 million investment in High Energy Laser 

research. It includes the following lasers: 

• MIRACL – Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser

• THEL - Tactical High Energy Laser 

 

449 http://helstf-www.wsmr.army.mil/index.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

448

Figure B.7-17 HELSTF 

MIRACL450 – The Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (Figure B.7-18) is 

the most powerful chemical laser in the Western Hemisphere. MIRACL has 

proved that chemical laser technology can be scaled to multi-megawatt power 

levels. 

THEL – The Tactical High Energy Laser (Figure B.7-19) is the world's first laser 

weapon system developed for deployment. Testing began in 1999. 

 

450 http://helstf-www.wsmr.army.mil/miracl.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

449

Figure B.7-18 MIRACL 

Figure B.7-19 THEL Beam Director 

High Speed Sled451 – A 10-mile long High Speed Test Track is located at adjacent 

Holloman AFB on the border with WSMR. It offers precise effective low, medium, and 

high dynamic operating environment for testing, evaluating, and validating GPS-based 

guidance and control systems, inertial navigation systems, and truth reference systems. 

The High Speed Test Track is a rocket test and aerospace test facility which provides an 

efficient and safe means of testing customer test items, while minimizing risks and 

reducing cost for a wide variety of test hardware in a near operational environment. 

Speeds approaching 10,000 feet per second (Mach 9) are possible. This facility is 

discussed more in Section B.14. 

B.7.2.4 Communications 

The WSMR Communication Network provides digital electronics transport of voice, 

data, telemetry, video, and other information within WSMR. It also interfaces with 

commercial carriers for off-range and inter-range services. The network is comprised 

primarily of single mode fiber (high data rate fiber optics cable.) It has terminal 

electronic equipment that provides multiple layers of redundancy in the event of 

equipment failure. Two digital microwave systems at Salinas Peak are integrated with the 

fiber optics system. The network is transitioning to full Synchronous Optical Network 

 

451 http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/capabilities/testbed/higspesletra.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

450

(SONET) capability. Interface to the electronics equipment is done by the North 

American hierarchy formats (DS-0, DS-1, and DS-3). Conventional encryption and other 

driver devices with standard data rates can be inserted at any interface point. Centralized 

remote monitoring, diagnostics, and network control permit operation and maintenance 

with minimum personnel and physical plant resources. This reduces overhead costs to 

Range customers. A real-time data system transmits data from instrumentation to the 

Real-Time Operations Control System in the Range Control Center. The standard 

channel capability is 9,600 bits/sec using data modulator/demodulator units on standard 

voice frequency cable pairs, and fiber optics or microwave channels. Higher rate and 

non-standard information, such as telemetry data, are transmitted via wide-band fiber 

optics or microwave systems. 

Real-Time Telecommunications Support - WSMR provides real-time direct test 

support and telecommunications services including command and control flight 

termination of unmanned test vehicles, range voice and data transmission systems, UHF 

and VHF radios, local and wide area networks, single and multi-channel intercoms, 

telephones, frequency and spectrum management, and portable technical control facilities 

using microwaves. Specially configured circuitry and extensive state-of-the-art copper 

and fiber optic cable and digital microwave transport systems are used as the primary 

transport and distribution systems to meet the needs of complex test support entities 

throughout the Range. 

Frequency Surveillance - WSMR performs frequency surveillance, evaluation and 

radiation analysis, and controls the use of all radio frequencies. Frequency scheduling is 

performed on a daily basis. All frequencies used in connection with Range missions are 

monitored. Transmitter, receiver, and antenna frequency spectrum usage and 

electromagnetic propagation are analyzed to develop interference tolerances, interference 

reduction and prevention programs, and to identify radiation hazard distances from 

emitters. Frequency surveillance (both fixed and mobile) is provided within a 150-mile 

radius of WSMR Headquarters and in portions of Colorado and Utah. 

Mobile Radio Systems - Mobile radio systems are used extensively at WSMR for 

coordinating the efforts of field personnel, optimizing the use of vehicles and mobile 

instrumentation, and for Range customer communications. There are mobile units, base 

stations, repeaters, and portable radios. Many radio nets are repeater operated; with one 

or two repeaters, several base stations, and many mobile units (vehicle mounted and hand 

held). To cover a large area, the repeaters are usually located on mountain peaks. Some 

of the radio nets can operate in either the clear mode or the secure (encrypted) mode. 

Telecommunications - WSMR provides Transmission Engineering and Universal 

Documentation System (UDS) requirements support to Range customers. The 

Transmission Engineering Support Office augments the existing communications 

network, as required, to ensure adequate facilities exist to provide the services identified 

to the Requirements Office. This includes copper and fiber optic cabling, Lightwave 

transmission systems (i.e., SONET, etc.), Microwave systems, Carrier systems, telephone 

systems, special one-of-a-kind circuits, etc. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

451

VHF and UHF Communications - VHF and UHF ground-to-air communication radios 

are located at Salinas Peak, Clark Site, King-I, C-Station, Stallion, and North Oscura 

Peak. This radio system uses the air traffic control standard aircraft radios. This 

capability provides WSMR with voice communications to all aircraft involved in range 

activities 

Transportable Systems - Transportable communications systems are used to support 

off-range, interim, and emergency requirements. The systems consist of various 23 GHz 

transportable microwave radios providing remote-location digital communication links 

for telephone, data, and voice circuits. These systems are assembled on a program 

requirement case-by-case basis and consist of transportable, 1000-watt radio command 

guidance and control units capable of transmitting the 20 standard Inter-Range 

Instrumentation Group (IRIG) tones. 

B.7.3 Instrumentation

Significant Range instrumentation includes the following: 

 Radar 

 Telemetry 

 Optics 

 Timing 

 GPS 

 Weather 

 Portable Range 

Radar

Instrumentation radar systems consists of the following452: 

• (11) AN/FPS-16 C-Band SOTR (Single Object Tracking Radar) 

• (1) AN/MPS-25 C-Band SOTR 

• (4) AN/MPS-36 C-Band SOTR 

• (2) AN/MPS-39 MOTR (Multiple Object Tracking Radar) 

• (1) MIDI (Miss Distance Measurement Instrument) 

• (1) Weibel Monopulse Doppler Radar 

• (3) ASR-9 Airport Surveillance Radars 

• (1) GPN-20 Air Surveillance Radar 

• (1) APARS Advanced Phased Array Radar System 

• (1) RHVTS 

 

452 http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/capabilities/range_inst/radar/instrum.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

452

Except for four of the AN/FPS-16’s, all radars are transportable. The instrumentation 

radars provide Time Space Position Information (TSPI) on objects under test, as well as 

target motion analysis and target signature information. 

The highly accurate instrumentation radars provide both cooperative (transponder) and 

non-cooperative (echo) target tracking and are located at optimum sites for Range 

customer support. The radars are connected by the Range communications system to the 

Real Time Data Processing System (RTDPS) at the Range Control Center. Track data 

from the radars flows into the RTDPS; while processed cueing data from the radars and 

other tracking sources is transmitted from the RTDPS to the radars. The radars also 

provide acquisition data directly to each other, optics instruments, and telemetry trackers 

through the Radar Acquisition Data System (RADS). 

AN/MPS-36 - These C-Band Single Object Tracking radars are being modernized 

through replacement of the antenna, antenna feed system, and replacement of the twochannel receiver with a three-channel unit. 

MOTR – A Multiple Object Tracking Radar can track up to 10 objects at one time. The 

two WSMR MOTRs (Figure B.7-20 & B.7-21) have been converted to track four times 

as many objects. They are the workhorse instrumentation radars at White Sands. Each 

can track up to forty objects simultaneously over a 60-degree field of view without loss 

of tracking accuracy. The phased array antenna is located on a standard elevation over 

azimuth servo-controlled mount, so full hemispheric coverage is possible. The MOTR 

has a variety of waveforms, ranging from .25 microseconds to 50 microseconds; making 

it an extremely sensitive instrumentation radar. Targets as small as six inches in diameter 

can be accurately tracked at distances exceeding 200,000 yards. The MOTR is a fully 

coherent radar (e.g., the phase relationship of the transmitted pulse is maintained). This 

allows accurate Doppler and Target Motion Resolution measurements using post-test 

processing techniques. Semi-permanent MOTR sites have been established at the south 

end of the range at Wise Site, and in the mid-range area at Rita Site. 

MIDI - The X-Band Miss Distance Measurement Instrument (Figure B.7-22) provides 

near real-time vector miss distance data, including both distance and direction to the 

point of nearest approach of missiles and projectiles fired at an aerial target. Auxiliary 

equipment includes a microprocessor-interfaced XY plotter with a floppy disc, a gunfire 

interface, muzzle velocity radar, and a Radar Acquisition Data System console for data 

interface. The gunfire interface detects firing pulses and counts rounds. The muzzle 

velocity radar measures the muzzle velocity of rounds. The raw data is processed on-site 

to derive scoring results. Quick look data is available in about six minutes. The system is 

transportable. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

453

Figure B.7-20 MOTR (trailer mounted) 

Figure B.7-21 MOTR (fixed site) 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

454

Figure B.7-22 Miss Distance Indicating Radar 

Weibel Radar - The Weibel monopulse Doppler radar (Figure B.7-23) is a 240-Watt, 

active, real-time Continuous Wave (CW) tracking system that measures radial velocity and 

azimuth and elevation to the target. The angle measurement is based on monopulse angle 

discrimination techniques. High-speed digital-signal processing calculates the direction 

to the target. Since the radar is normally located close to the launcher, track acquisition is 

very quick. Post-test processing provides time, range (integrated velocity), azimuth, 

elevation, signal strength, position, velocity, acceleration, and other parameters for 

targets within the beam. The Weibel radar can be used to track a variety of objects 

including small caliber ammunition, rockets, and missiles. 

Figure B.7-23 Transportable Weibel Antenna System 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

455

ASR-9453 – The Airspace Surveillance Radar system consists of three ASR-9 radars. 

Range control and range safety officers use the ASR-9s to ensure aircraft safety and to 

detect unauthorized flights into the WSMR restricted airspace. The airspace restriction 

over the main range extends from the surface to an unlimited altitude. The ASR-9 radar 

collects range and azimuth data from an IFF source on the aircraft through a secondary 

radar. Data is transmitted through the Range Communications System to the Airspace 

Display and Control Center located in the Range Control Center. The system is active 24 

hours/day, 7 days/week and is manned for all scheduled hot operations. 

GPN-20 – A single GPN-20 radar is used for air surveillance. 

APARS – An Advanced Phased Array Radar System is being developed454. This new 

transportable instrumentation radar system will have the capability to track 120 targets in 

a 60-degree field of view. The system will be a wide band, active element Phased Array 

Radar System with three antenna configurations. The three antenna sizes will be 8, 12, 

and 18 feet. This radar system will look like two 8-foot systems, two 12-foot systems, 

and one 18-foot system. 

RHVTS455 – The Ruggedized High Volume Tracking System (RHVTS) project will 

develop a compact ruggedized system for the collection of Time, Space, and Position 

Information (TSPI) from large numbers of live participants engaged in military test. The 

system is to provide a cost effective Geographic Information System (GIS) -based 

solution for the collection of TSPI data from a variety of platforms including ground 

vehicles, manpacks, and low dynamic aircraft. The system design will support the 

concurrent tracking of 200 participants and be upgradeable to at least 1000. The GIS will 

provide the capability to graphically represent range status and resources required to 

conduct test operations, support the resourcing of personnel and equipment, 

environmental conditions, and the general range status. Primary source of input is 

expected to be RHVTS participants, but data from other sources such as radar, telemetry, 

RAJPO GPS etc., can also be input. 

Telemetry

The WSMR Telemetry instrumentation complex consists of fixed and mobile systems 

dispersed throughout the 40 mi. X 100 mi. missile range (Figure B.7-24) and in certain 

off-range locations (extensions) selected for optimum mission support. All Telemetry 

data from the field is transmitted to the Telemetry Data Center in the Cox Range Control 

Center via telemetry microwave relays, fiber optics, and by commercial means from offrange areas. 

 

453 http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/capabilities/range_supp/comm/comm-vhf.html 454 http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/technology/range_instrument/radar.html 455 http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/technology/range_instrument/radar/RuggHigh.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

456

Fixed telemetry sites are fully equipped stations to provide data acquisition, receiving 

and recording, and relaying. The telemetry system can receive, record, demultiplex, and 

format to IRIG 106 Telemetry standards456. 

Figure B.7-24 Major Telemetry Sites 

Major Telemetry assets include the following: 

• TAS – Telemetry Acquisition Systems 

• TTAS – Transportable Telemetry Acquisition Systems 

• TTARS – Transportable Telemetry Acquisition and Relay System 

• TMV – Telemetry Mobile Van 

• MTS – Mobile Telemetry System 

• TDC – Telemetry Data Center 

• Telemetry Data Relay System 

TAS – Telemetry Acquisition Systems are located at the following fixed sites: 

• J-10 Salinas Peak (Figure B.7-25) 

• J-67 Alamo Peak (Figure B.7-26) 

• J-56 Dry Site (Figure B.7-27) 

J-10 and J-67 are TAS-I sites with 24-ft tracking antennas. J-56 is a TAS-II site with a 

15-ft tracking antenna. All sites support L-Band and S-Band. 

 

456 http://www.wsmr.army.mil/telemtry/publish/Index.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

457

Figure B.7-25 J-10 - Salinas Peak Telemetry 

Figure B.7-26 J-67 – Alamo Peak Telemetry 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

458

Figure B.7-27 J-56 – Dry Site Telemetry 

TTAS – The Transportable Telemetry Acquisition Systems (Figure B.7-28) are used to 

supplement the fixed sites. The systems have 8-ft tracking antennas and support the LBand and S-Bands. 

Figure B.7-28 Transportable Telemetry Acquisition System (TTAS) 

TTARS – A Transportable Telemetry Acquisition and Relay System (Figure B.7-29) is 

used for data relaying. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

459

TMV – The Telemetry Mobile Van (Figure B.7-30) is used to for receiving and 

recording telemetry data. 

Figure B.7-29 Transportable Telemetry Acquisition & Relay System 

Figure B.7-30 Telemetry Mobile Van 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

460

MTS – The Mobile Telemetry System is a new state-of-the-art Mobile Telemetry 

System (Figure B.7-31) was recently added to the telemetry inventory. The MTS 

combines three separate functions (track, relay and record) that were previously 

performed by three separate mobile systems (TTAS, TTARS and TMV). 

Figure B.7-31 Mobile Telemetry System 

TDC – The Telemetry Data Center provides White Sands Missile Range with one of the 

premier telemetry data processing and display facilities within the Department of Defense. 

The TDC is capable of performing data distribution, demultiplexing, decommutation, 

tagging, merging, processing, data archival, and display of telemetry data in either 

preflight, real time or post flight mode. The TDC has implemented the necessary software 

to extract real-time telemetry data and present it in real time via PC based graphical 

displays and/or strip chart recorders. This visualization provides customers, such as Missile 

Flight Safety, with an intuitive grasp of the missile's spatial situation. All telemetry data is 

recorded for any required detailed data reduction. The data products of the TDC consists of 

the following: 1-inch 14-track analog tapes, serial or multiplexed Metrum helical scan 

tapes, Sony 8mm tapes, Digital Linear Tape, Compact Disks, Jazz Drive (1Gb/2Gb), Zip 

Disk (100Mb/250 Mb), Floppy Disk, and strip charts457. 

Telemetry Data Relay - Digital microwave radio and fiber optic links are used to relay 

the telemetry data to the TDC. The Telemetry Acquisition and Relay System (TARS) 

consists of two Transportable Telemetry Acquisition and Relay Systems (TTARS) and 

four fixed relay and recording stations located at J-10, J-67, J-1 and J-56. Microwave 

links from J-10 and J-67 provide telemetry data to an Air Force telemetry ground station 

at Holloman Air Force Base. The TARS uses wide band digital microwave radio links to 

transport the telemetry carrier. The Digital Telemetry Acquisition and Relay System 

(DTARS) can carry high rate digital data from J-10 to J-56, from J-67 to the TDC, and 

from two mobile DTARS links to J-67. Each TTARS is equipped with digital radio. Each 

DTARS link can carry DS-3 (32 megabits/sec with multiplex) data rates. 

 

457 http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/capabilities/range_inst/telemsys/datacen.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

461

Optics

WSMR optic instrumentation includes the following: 

• Cinetheodolites 

• MATS - Multimode Automatic Tracking Systems 

• LATS - Launch Area Theodolite Systems 

• VTR - Versatile Tracking Mount 

• DOAMS – Distant Object Attitude Measurement System 

• Fixed Camera System 

• CCTV - Closed Circuit Television 

• Mobile Television Vans 

• ALTS - Aided Laser Tracking System 

• Video Relay Facility 

Cinetheodolites – The cinetheodolite is an optical tracking instrument that provides 

precise angular measurements. The tracked object’s image, azimuth and elevation angles 

are recorded on 35mm file or video. 

MATS – The Multimode Automatic Tracking System (Figure B.7-32) is a mobile optical 

tracking system based on a version of the Contraves Kineto Tracking Mount (KTM). 

LATS – The Launch Area Theodolite System (Figure B.7-33) is a mobile optical 

tracking telescope system similar to the MATS. The LATS are capable of tracking high 

dynamic targets at very close range to the target's trajectory. The LATS are ideally suited 

for tracking missile launches and high velocity impacts on ground-based targets. LATS 

are remotely controlled by the Remote Instrument Control System (RICS). 

Figure B.7-32 Multimode Automatic Tracking 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

462

Figure B.7-33 Launch Area Theodolite System 

VTR – The Versatile Tracking Mount is a mobile telescope used to obtain altitude, event, 

and missed distance data in situations where the slant range is large and large images are 

required. 

DOAMS – The Distant Object Attitude Measurement System (Figure B.7-34) is a high 

performance, dual focal length (100 inch and 200 inch), large aperture, tracking telescope 

that simultaneously provides film recordings at both focal lengths. The DOAMS is used 

to obtain attitude, event, and miss distance data. The DOAMS is used for long ranges 

where high magnification and light gathering power are needed458. 

Figure B.7-34 Distance Object Attitude Measurement System (DOAMS) 

 

458 http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/capabilities/range_inst/optics/distant.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

463

Fixed Camera System – The fixed camera system is comprised of a pre-oriented array 

of prism and pin-registered, high-speed cameras that photograph the object as it passes 

through their field of view. They are used at launch complexes, impact zones and the 

high-speed test track. 

CCTV – The Closed Circuit Television is used for remote surveillance and 

instrumentation readouts under hazardous conditions. 

Mobile Television Vans – These are used for temporary operations at remote locations. 

They are equipped with camera systems, microwave transmitters and receivers, and 

communications and switching equipment. 

ALTS – The Aided Laser Tracking System is a laser tracking system used to provide 

Time, Space, and Position Information (TSPI) on missiles and aircraft. 

Video Relay Facility – This facility is located in the Main Post area. It can receive and 

transmit video signals to the south range launch areas and to Alamo Peak for relay to 

Holloman AFB and Stallion Range Center 

Timing459

The WSMR timing system generates and distributes IRIG standard time formats 

throughout the range. The master station is located in the south range. Its time standard 

is referenced to the Universal Time Standard maintained by the US Naval Observatory. 

GPS

Global Positioning System instrumentation equipments are range assets that provide a 

variety of TSPI tracking methods for WSMR Flight Safety or customers. 

Weather

WSMR provides a range of meteorological support including forecasts, observations, 

climatology studies, specialized products and consultation. 

Portable Range

TRACS – Transportable Range Augmentation and Control System is under development. It will be a selfcontained mobile system to support test mission planning/execution, real-time data collection and 

processing, mission control/flight safety and post mission data analysis. 

 

459 WSMR Capabilities Handbook, 2001 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

464

B.8 POINT MUGU 

B.8.1 Background

B.8.1.1 General 

The Naval Air Weapons Station, Point Mugu, is a Navy test range located 65 miles 

northwest of Los Angeles (Figure B.8-1 and Figure B.8-2). It is part of the Naval Air 

Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD), the Navy's full-spectrum research, 

development, test evaluation, and in-service engineering center for weapons systems 

associated with air warfare (except for anti-submarine warfare systems), missiles and 

missile subsystems, aircraft weapons integration and assigned airborne electronic warfare 

systems. NAWCWPNS also maintains and operates the air, land, and sea Naval Western 

Test Range Complex (NWTRC). As a result of realignment actions taken in 2000, the 

base is now part of Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC), a consolidated organization 

that includes the former Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme and Naval Air 

Station, Point Mugu. 

Figure B.8-1 Location of Pt. Mugu & Other Navy Test Facilities460 

 

460 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/s1/HeloMap.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

465

Figure B.8-2 Point Mugu 

Point Mugu’s operations are frequently tied to joint operations at surrounding ranges461: 

• West: Vandenberg Air Force Base 

• South: Navy's Southern California Offshore Range (SCORE) 

o These ranges frequently overlap and form one arena that can be expanded 

from Baja California north to Big Sur 

• West coast activity links: 

o NAWCWD, China Lake, California 

o NAWCWD Navy Ship Weapons Test Complex at White Sands Missile Range 

o AFFTC, Air Force Flight Test Center 

o New Mexico and the Surface Warfare Engineering Facility 

o Port Hueneme Naval Surface Warfare Center 

An FAA-approved low-level route between the Sea Range and the Land Range at China 

Lake is used for Cruise Missile testing. 

 

461 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/r1/Sea.htm#RANGES 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

466

B.8.1.2 History 

Mugu beach is believed to be the site where Juan Cabrillo landed on October 10, 1542. 

"Muwu" was the capital village of the Chumash Indians located along the shores of 

Mugu Lagoon. Most of its early history centers on ranching, farming, and a famous 

Mugu fish camp. 

During World War II, the Navy began to develop sites where both missiles and pilotless 

aircraft could be tested. In 1947, Congress appropriated funding to establish a permanent 

Navy presence at Point Mugu for this purpose. Since the mid-1940's, Point Mugu has had 

several "Center Names", each having the mission to develop, test, and evaluate missiles 

and related systems, and for drones to use in naval test programs. Names have included: 

• Oct 1, 1946 - U.S. Naval Air Missile Test Center 

• Aug 1, 1949 - Naval Air Station 

• Jun 16, 1958 - Pacific Missile Range 

• Jan 7, 1959 - Naval Missile Center 

• Apr 26, 1975 - Pacific Missile Test Center 

• Jan 21, 1992 - Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division and Naval Air 

Weapons Station. 

In January 1992, the Pacific Missile Test Center was disestablished and the Naval Air 

Warfare Center Weapons Division was formed, which aligned technical functions with 

those of the former Naval Air Weapons Center China Lake, California. At the same time 

the Naval Air Station Point Mugu was disestablished and the Naval Air Weapons Station 

was commissioned. Today, with a combined military/civilian/contractor team effort, the 

Point Mugu Naval complex continues to provide development and testing of weapons. 

B.8.2 Facilities

B.8.2.1 Major 

Major facilities are located at the following: 

• Main Base Complex 

• San Nicolas Island 

• Laguna Peak 

• Port Hueneme 

• Santa Cruz Island 

Main Base Complex - Landside facilities are located in the southeastern corner of the 

Oxnard Plain in Ventura County, where the plain, the sea, and the Santa Monica 

Mountains meet. Additional facilities are located on adjacent islands. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

467

The main base complex includes the Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) (Figure B.8-3) 

and Laguna Peak (Figure 3.8-4). Three runways are maintained by NAWS Point Mugu to 

support Range User operations. The primary runway at the main base is 11,000 feet by 

200 feet. The secondary runway is 5,500 feet by 200 feet. A third runway, at SNI, is 

10,000 feet by 200 feet. Capabilities also include threat simulation, test and evaluation 

laboratories, and advanced modeling and simulation. 

Figure B.8-3 Point Mugu Main Base 

Figure B.8-4 Laguna Peak 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

468

San Nicolas Island462 – San Nicolas Island [a.k.a. San Nic and SNI], is the most 

northwesterly of the four southern Channel Islands. Like its eastern neighbor San 

Clemente Island, San Nicolas is owned and operated by the US Navy. Located 65 NM 

southwest of the Point Mugu complex, San Nicolas Island (Figures B.8-5 and B.8-6) is 

the cornerstone of the Sea Range capabilities. It is used as a launch site and as an 

instrumentation site. It includes deep surrounding waters, a 10,000-foot runway, air 

terminal, housing, power plant, fuel farm, and instrumentation. Also supported are 

frequency monitoring, meteorological measurements, and ordnance and launching 

facilities. 

 Figure B.8-5 San Nicolas Island 

 

462 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/san-nicolas-island.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

469

Figure B.8-6 San Nicolas Island Facilities 

Laguna Peak – A 1,500 ft. mountain overlooking the main base, Laguna Peak hosts 

instrumentation for extended line-of-sight. 

Port Hueneme – A deepwater port (35-foot draft) adjacent to Sea Range, it supports 

range surface craft used for target recovery, security support, surface targets, assists with 

commercial shipping activities, and supports offshore islands (Figure B.8-7). 

Figure B.8-7 Port Hueneme 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

470

Santa Cruz463 - Santa Cruz Island (SCI) is located approximately 25 NM west of Point 

Mugu. The largest of California’s Channel Islands, it is about 20 miles west of Ventura. 

Most of the island is owned by the Nature Conservancy, a private organization that has 

purchased land in California for preservation in its natural state. The remainder is owned 

by the National Park Service. The Navy leases a mountaintop near the eastern end of the 

island for an instrumentation complex. The complex is housed on a ten-acre parcel and 

includes barracks, a power plant, fire station and a heliport. Instrumentation consists of 

meteorological data collection, secure VHF/UHF radio communications and data 

transmission, microwave relay to/from VAFB, Laguna Peak and SNI, and surface 

surveillance radar coverage of the Sea Range. 

B.8.2.2 Launch 

Launch464 facilities are available on the main land at Point Mugu and on San Nicolas 

Island. 

Point Mugu - The surface launching and ordnance facilities at Point Mugu support 

operations on the Sea Range. A combination of launch pads, blockhouses, ordnance 

assembly buildings and magazines exist at Point Mugu on the west side of the complex. 

The surface-launching complex at Point Mugu consists of the following launch 

complexes: 

• Main 

• BRAVO 

• CHARLIE 

Main – The Main launch complex is the primary launching complex at Point Mugu. It 

includes eight launch pads and a blockhouse. Each launch pad includes a special railtype launcher. 

BRAVO - The BRAVO launch complex includes two launch pads and a blockhouse. 

This facility is unoccupied and available for installation of Range User-owned launch 

equipment. The launch pads are identical, reinforced, 100' x 100' concrete pads. In the 

past, the launch complex has been used to launch the TOMAHAWK, HARPOON and 

Japanese Defense Force SSM-1 missiles. 

CHARLIE – The CHARLIE complex consists of a blockhouse with a GOW-5 Launch Sequencer and 

three pads. One pad is a 100' x 127' asphalt/concrete apron and the other two are 51' x 58' concrete pads. A 

universal rail-type launcher, with a capacity of 4000 pounds, is located on the largest pad. This launcher 

was formerly used to launch meteorological rockets and the surface launched version of the AMRAAM 

missile. The other pads are currently unoccupied. 

 

463 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/santa-cruz-island.htm 464 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/point-mugu.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

471

 

San Nicolas - The San Nicolas Island launch complex (Figures B.8-8 and B.8-9) is 

capable of supporting missile (Tomahawk & RAM) and missile target (Vandal) launches. 

Launch complexes, ordnance handling, and a remote/secure environment provide an ideal 

location for weapons Test and Evaluation (T&E). Many of the targets routinely used on 

the Sea Range (the BQM-34 and BQM-74 series and the MQM-8G) are launched from 

either the Point Mugu Surface Launch Complex at Building 55 or from additional 

specialized launch facilities on San Nicolas Island. 

Figure B.8-8 San Nicolas Launcher 

Figure B.8-9 San Nicolas Launch 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

472

B.8.3 Instrumentation

B.8.3.1 Locations 

Point Mugu’s collection facilities include instrumentation at the following: 

• Point Mugu 

• San Nicolas Island 

• Laguna Peak 

• Santa Cruz Island 

• Pillar Point 

 Instrumentation includes the following: 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Optics 

• Command 

• Timing 

• Communication 

Ground-based coverage may be augmented by airborne instrumentation, NP-3D Orion 

aircraft. 

Point Mugu - Best telemetry source selection is performed at Point Mugu. The Point 

Mugu telemetry system uses four GKR-11 and two GKR-13 antennas for primary 

operational support. The GKR-11 antennas are located near the Telemetry Collection 

Facility (TCF) (Figure B.8-10). The GKR-13 antennas are located on Laguna Peak and 

remotely controlled from the TCF at Point Mugu. The antennas operate in multiple 

modes, and a computer bus system, (Sensor Positioning and Read back System 

{SPARS}, generates look angles for automatic acquisition and re-acquisition using 

sensor inputs from other telemetry and radar systems. The Range Communications 

Control Center (Figure B.8-11) is located at the main base at Point Mugu. Point Mugu 

has two FPS-16 tracking radars, two surface search radars; a FPS-114 and a SPS-10, and 

one ASR-7A air search radar. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

473

Figure B.8-10 Point Mugu Telemetry Site 

Figure B.8-11 Point Mugu ROCC 

San Nicolas Island - San Nicolas Island includes the following instrumentation: 

• Metric tracking and surveillance radars (Figure B.8-12) 

• Global Positioning Systems (GPS) receivers 

• Optics 

• Telemetry (Figure B.8-13) 

• Communications to support long range and over-the-horizon weapons testing 

 

San Nicolas Island has numerous radars including three FPS-16 and two RIR-716 

tracking radars, and one FPS-114 surface and one ARSR-3 air route surveillance radars. 

San Nicolas Island has extensive telemetry collection facilities including three 30 ft, two 

20 ft, one 8-ft, and one 7-ft diameter antennas. Signals can be recorded and routed to the 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

474

Point Mugu operations complex for best source selection. The SNI Telemetry Collection 

Facility also provides real-time reception, recording and relay of telemetry data. SNI 

supplies this telemetry data to Point Mugu for processing and display. Telemetry signals 

are received through land-based antennas located at SNI and sent in real-time by a fiber 

optic cable and/or microwave to Point Mugu. The best source signals are then sent by 

fiber optic cable to the TDC, located in the Range Operations Center (ROC) for real-time 

processing and display. The SNI telemetry facilities are ideally located to support 

operations throughout the Sea Range as well as strategic and space launches from the 

Western Range (WR), Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). The capability to record and 

display Miss Distance Indication (MDI) and video Doppler data is also available. Nearly 

all major users of the Sea Range rely on telemetry support from SNI. 

Figure B.8-12 San Nicolas Radar 

Figure B.8-13 San Nicolas Telemetry 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

475

Laguna Peak465 - The Laguna Peak Complex (Figure B.8-14) is located on a 1,500-foothigh mountain peak and is one-half mile east of the main base complex. Laguna Peak 

provides an elevated line-of-sight location for overlapping coverage of the Sea Range. 

Laguna Peak provides optics, telemetry, airborne and surface target control, radio 

communication and data transmission, surveillance radar, and Command Transmitter 

System (CTS) for Command Destruct. Laguna Peak is a primary site for range safety 

CTS for all ballistic missile launches from VAFB. 

Figure B.8-14 Laguna Peak Complex 

Santa Cruz Island - Santa Cruz Island (SCI) is located within the Sea Range 

approximately 25 NM west of Point Mugu. The Navy leases a mountaintop near the 

eastern end of the island for an instrumentation complex. The complex is housed on a 

ten-acre parcel and includes barracks, a power plant, fire station and a heliport. 

Instrumentation consists of meteorological data collection, secure VHF/UHF radio 

communications and data transmission, microwave relay to/from VAFB, Laguna Peak 

and SNI, and surface surveillance radar coverage of the Sea Range. 

B.8.3.2 Types 

Communications - During a test or training event, voice and data transmissions from 

the test control rooms are routed to the Range Communications Control Center at the 

main base at Point Mugu. From there, they are sent via fiber optic cable to Laguna Peak 

for retransmission to the event participants. Seven high-capacity transmitters and 

 

465 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/laguna-peak.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

476

transceivers on Laguna Peak handle most of this communication traffic. Another 48 radio 

transceivers located at Laguna Peak carry most of the routine daily main-base traffic such 

as vehicle dispatching, maintenance scheduling and operational support. As many as 36 

more tactical radios, all operating through Laguna Peak, may be deployed among 

participants in a range exercise. On the Peak, an impressive array of 90 antennas, most 

housed in white, weather-resistant domes, support signal transmission and reception. 

Juggling all these communications is the job of the Technical Control Facility at Point 

Mugu. The facility's frequency-management specialists ensure that all parties are 

operating on the correct assigned frequencies. Large, complex test scenarios often 

require long-range communications with elements outside the Sea Range. When China 

Lake or Edwards Air Force Base participates in an operation, a microwave station on 

Laguna Peak links the Sea Range with those sites, transmitting voice and data at 155 

megabytes per second. Laguna Peak, from its vantage point more than a quarter mile 

above the Pacific, has line-of-sight to Burnt Peak in Los Angeles County. A repeater on 

Burnt Peak relays the microwave signals to Edwards and thence, via the Laurel Peak 

repeater, to China Lake. 

 

Telemetry466 - During range operations, telemetry is the primary method of collecting 

technical data from ships, aircraft, test items and targets. Laguna Peak's commanding 

view of the Sea Range makes it an ideal location for telemetry reception. Two 20-footdiameter dish antennas gather the telemetry signals from the range and transmit them 

over the fiber-optic cables to Point Mugu's Telemetry Data Center. There they are 

decrypted (if necessary), processed, recorded, and sent to the Operations Control Room 

for display. An in-house engineering project completed last year now allows all telemetry 

functions on the Peak to be operated entirely by remote control from the main base. 

 

Target control - Laguna Peak also has a role in controlling the targets in test and 

training events. Two 8-foot-diameter dishes at the peak relay signals from the target 

controllers at the main base to air and surface targets maneuvering on the range. Because 

some targets are launched directly off the beach at Point Mugu, the antennas, located on 

the northwest side of the Laguna Peak complex, can look down directly at the launch site. 

Working in conjunction with four similar tracking antennas on San Nicolas Island, the 

antennas allow total and continuous control of up to six targets at one time. 

 

Command/Destruct - Laguna Peak also performs command destruct. Should a rocket, 

missile or target stray off course and pose a potential hazard, the item cannot escape the 

destruct signal emanating from Laguna Peak. The signal activates an explosive charge or 

other on-board flight-termination mechanism, the test is ended, and the engineers go back 

to the drawing board. The Peak also hosts a massive 10-kilowatt command/destruct 

transmitter installed specifically to support Vandenberg Air Force Base. This transmitter 

 

466 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/s1/news/2001/Laguna.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

477

is used during test of missiles that may travel several thousand miles across the Pacific. It 

will also be used for Trident tests when that system comes to the Sea Range in 2005. 

Naval Satellite Operations Center - The most visually impressive feature on the Peak 

is a 60-foot-diameter antenna that points straight up. Owned and operated by the Naval 

Satellite Operations Center, the antenna is part of the Navy's Geodetic Follow-On 

Satellite System that provides round-the-clock secure oceanographic data to ships at sea. 

Laguna Peak's equipment also includes an AN/FPS-114 Sea Surveillance Radar used 

primarily for range clearance prior to live firings, and a GPS station that assists in 

precision tracking of objects on the Sea Range. The site also has two large concrete pads 

used as test platforms for developmental seekers and radars. 

Radar Reflectivity Lab - The Radar Reflectivity Laboratory at Point Mugu remains in 

the forefront of radar cross-section (RCS) measurements and radar signature control 

technology. The facility provides monostatic and bistatic radar signature characterization 

and diagnostics of test objects. The application of wide-band RCS data to Inverse 

Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR) imaging of complex objects was pioneered at the 

laboratory in the 1970s, and is used to conduct signature diagnostics for a variety of 

applications. The two large anechoic chambers are equipped with compact-range 

collimating reflectors, which provide far-field measurement conditions. The Bistatic 

Anechoic Chamber is the only facility of its kind in the world to provide full 180-degree 

horizontal and 90-degree vertical bistatic RCS measurements. All chambers can 

accommodate a wide variety of test items including tactical airborne missiles. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

478

B.9 SEA LAUNCH 

B.9.1 Background

B.9.1.1 General 

Sea Launch is the world’s only ocean-based launch service467. Conceptually, it involves 

just two ships. One ship is the launch platform and the other contains the control room 

and personnel quarters. The launch platform and command ship are transported to an 

equatorial launch site (Figure B.9-1) where the missile is readied. Prior to launch, the 

command ship is backed off a few miles to a safe location and the launch sequence is 

initiated (Figure B.9-2). 

Figure B.9-1 Sea Launch Ground Track 

 

467 http://www.sea-launch.com/
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

479

Figure B.9-2 Sea Launch Lift Off 

The Sea Launch operation is based out of Long Beach, CA. Its launch site is normally in 

the Pacific Ocean at the equator, 154 degrees West Longitude. Even though the launch 

site lies in international waters, per international treaty, the host country (determined by 

the home port) is responsible for licensing the launch. For Sea Launch, the FAA is 

responsible for granting the licenses necessary to launch. 

The international partnerships for Sea Launch include: 

• Boeing - (40%) Payload fairing, spacecraft integration, mission operations 

• RSC Energia (Russia) - Block DM upper stage, launch vehicle integration and 

mission operations 

• SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash (Ukraine) - First two Zenit-3SL stages, launch 

vehicle integration support and mission operations 

• Anglo-Norwegian Kvaerner Group (Norway) - Design and construction of the 

Odyssey Launch Platform and the Sea Launch Commander 

Using an equatorial launch site provides commercial satellite customers with the most 

direct and cost-effective route to geosynchronous transfer orbit. From an equatorial 

launch site, a rocket can lift a heavier spacecraft mass or place a payload into a higher 

perigee, helping satellite operators to attain a longer satellite service capability. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

480

Once a payload has been thoroughly checked out by customer technicians, the 

encapsulated payload is rolled out to the Assembly and Command Ship (ACS) and 

integrated with the launch vehicle. Vehicle and spacecraft segments are mated with the 

launch vehicle in a horizontal orientation. The fully integrated launch vehicle is then 

transferred by an onboard crane system from the ACS to the Launch Platform. 

B.9.1.2 History 

Sea Launch was authorized in April 1995 after two years of studies and discussions. 

Ship construction began in December 1995. The Assembly and Command ship (Sea 

Launch Commander) was completed in Govan Shipyard in Glasgow, Scotland in 

November 1996. The launch platform (Odyssey) was refurbished at the Rosenberg 

Shipyard in Stavanger, Norway in May 1997. Both ships received additional 

modifications in Russia in 1998. The first demonstration launch occurred in March 1999 

and the first commercial launch occurred in October 1999. 

B.9.2 Facilities

Major facilities include the following: 

• Home Port 

• Assembly and Command Ship (ACS) 

• Launch Platform (LP) 

Home Port – The homeport (Figures B.9-3 and B.9-4) is Long Beach, California. The 

homeport is used to transfer the horizontally integrated rocket to the Launch Platform 

Figure B.9-3 Sea Launch Base Facilities 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

481

Figure B.9-4 Home Port 

ACS – The custom-built Assembly and Command Ship (Sea Launch Commander, Figure 

B.9-5) is an all-new, specially-designed vessel that serves as a floating rocket assembly 

factory while in port; and when at sea, provides crew and customer accommodations. It 

also houses mission control facilities for launches at sea. The ACS is 660 feet long, 106 

feet wide, with a displacement of 34,000 tons and has a range of 18,000 nautical miles. 

The ACS provides accommodations for up to 240 crewmembers, customers and VIPs —

including medical facilities, dining room, recreation and entertainment facilities. 

The Launch Control Center (Figure B.9-6) is located on the ACS with special units of 

operations for English-speaking and Russian-speaking launch teams. Operations are 

managed in two-way translation services. All countdown, launch, telemetry and tracking 

data are observed and directed from this center. 

LP – The Launch Platform (Odyssey) (Figure B.9-7) is a refurbished former North Sea 

oil drilling platform, The vessel is one of the largest semi-submersible, self-propelled 

vessels in the world at 436 feet long, 220 feet wide, with an empty draft displacement of 

30,000 tons, and a submerged draft displacement of 50,600 tons. It provides 

accommodations for 68 crew and launch system personnel – including living, dining, 

medical and recreation facilities. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

482

 Figure B.9-5 Sea Launch Commander 

Figure B.9-6 Launch Control Center 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

483

It is equipped with a large, environmentally controlled hangar for storage of the Sea 

Launch rocket during transit, and with mobile transporter/erector equipment that is used 

to roll out and erect the rocket in launch position prior to fueling and launch. Special 

facilities onboard enable the storage of rocket fuels (kerosene and liquid oxygen) 

sufficient for each mission. 

Figure B.9-7 Launch Platform 

B.9.3 Instrumentation

 Instrumentation468 is used throughout the countdown, special monitoring systems 

measure actual loading conditions on the spacecraft and on the rocket itself to insure that 

changes in the wind and sea do not cause excessive loads on critical systems. Trending 

information allows time for the launch team to take corrective actions if large swells or 

wind gusts develop. 

Sea Launch uses line-of-sight radio frequency telemetry links at lift-off, and then 

depends on a combination of the NASA Telemetry and Data Relay Support Systems 

(TDRSS), and INTELSAT. These communication satellites are linked to ground stations 

in the Western United States, Europe, Russia and the Ukraine to provide sensor 

information about the launch vehicle and payload unit back to the Commander to track 

the progress of the mission. 

 

468 http://www.sea-launch.com/special/sea-launch/services.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

484

B.10 POKER FLATS 

B.10.1 Background

Poker Flat Research Range is a university-owned range located approximately 30 miles 

north of Fairbanks, Alaska (Figure B.10-1). It is operated by the University of Alaska's 

Geophysical Institute under contract to NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. Poker Flat is 

used for launching sounding rockets. In addition, Poker Flat also houses many scientific 

instruments designed to study the arctic atmosphere, aurora borealis and ionosphere.469 

Figure B.10-1 Poker Flat Research Range 

B.10.2 Facilities

Poker Flat is divided into a Lower, Middle and Upper range. 

 

469 http://www.pfrr.alaska.edu/ 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

485

Lower Range

The Lower range contains the administrative facilities and launch facilities. There are 

five sounding rocket launchers (Figure B.10-2), a test rocket launcher, and a launchermountable tube for sending up meteorological rockets. 

Figure B.10-2 Sounding Rocket Launcher 

Most of the rocket launchers rotate so that the rocket may be loaded in the horizontal 

position and then rotated upwards for launch. Two of the launch sites have weather 

enclosures (Figure B.10-3). Poker Flat can handle rockets up to 60 ft long. 

Figure B.10-3 Poker Flat Launcher Enclosure 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

486

Middle Range

The Middle range contains scientific, telemetry, and tracking facilities on a ridge 

overlooking the lower range. It includes the Lindar Observatory and the Transportable 

Orbital Tracking Systems (TOTS) (Figure B.10-4). 

Figure B.10-4 Poker Flat Telemetry Systems 

Upper Range

The upper range contains more scientific and support facilities on a hilltop above the 

lower and middle ranges. Facilities include: 

• Communications and Surveillance Radar facilities 

• Climate Change Monitoring station 

• T. Neil Davis Science Operations Center 

B.10.3 Instrumentation

Instrumentation includes the following: 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Optics 

• Communication 

• Weather 

Radar – Surveillance radar is located in the upper range area. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

487

Telemetry – Telemetry systems are located in the middle range area. 

Optics – Optic sites are located in the middle range area 

Communication – Communication systems are located in the upper range area. 

Weather – Weather systems are located in the upper range area. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

488

B.11 PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITIY 

B.11.1 Background

B.11.1.1 General 

The Navy’s Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) is located on the island of Kauai in 

Hawaii (Figure B.11-1). Kauai is the northernmost of the inhabited islands of Hawaii. It 

is located 95 miles northwest of Oahu. It is roughly circular in shape, with a diameter of 

32 miles and an area of 55 square miles. PMRF is the world’s largest multi-environment 

range, capable of supporting tests and operations in the following environments:470

• Surface 

• Subsurface 

• Air 

• Space 

The headquarters and primary operations are located on 1800 acres on the western shore 

of Kauai at Barking Sands (Figure B.11-2). The nearest town, Kekaha, is eight miles 

southeast. Supporting instrumentation sites are at: 

• Makaha Ridge 

• Kokee Park 

 These sites overlook the vast ocean range areas to the west and north of Kauai. PMRF 

contains thousands of square miles of underwater range and over 42,000 square miles of 

controlled airspace (Figure B.11-3). 

PMRF provides a full spectrum of instrument range support, including: 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Communications 

• Command & Control 

• Underwater instrumentation 

• Electronic warfare 

• Launching facilities 

• Data processing & display 

• Target/weapon launching and recovery facilities471

 

470 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/pubfac/pmrf.html 471 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pmrf.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

489

Figure B.11-1 Map of Kauai 

Figure B.11-2 PMRF Main Base 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

490

Figure B.11-3 PMRF Range 

PMRF’s mission is to provide range services to facilitate training, tactics development, 

and evaluation for air, surface, and subsurface weapon systems for PACFLT, other DoD 

agencies, and foreign military forces; and to maintain and operate facilities and provide 

services and materials to support operation of aviation activities and units of the 

operating force of the Navy, and other activities and units designated by the Chief of 

Naval Operations. 

PMRF often operates with other Agencies, Laboratories, Ranges and Bases. These 

include the following: 

• Western Test Range 

• Sandia National Laboratory Kauai Test Facility (KTF) 

• University of Hawaii research facilities in Oahu 

• Wheeler Army Base, Oahu 

• Hickham AFB, Oahu 

• Pearl Harbor Navy Base, Oahu 

• Sandia Maui Haleakala Facility 

• Air Force Maui Optical Station (AMOS) 

• Maui Optical Tracking and Identification Facility (MOTIF) 

• Ground-based Electro-optical Deep Space Surveillance System (GEODSS) 

• Maui Space Surveillance Site (MSSS) 

• Hawaii Tracking Station, Kaena Point, Oahu 

KTF is collocated with PMRF. 

B.11.1.2 History 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

491

Kauai is believed to be the oldest of the inhabited Hawaiian Islands, being the first of a 

chain of volcanic mountains to erupt from the sea and the first to become extinct. It was 

probably inhabited over 1,000 years before Captain Cook's landed at Waimea on January 

19, 1778. 

In 1921, Barking Sands was acquired by the Kekaha Sugar Company from the Knudsen 

family. On occasion, private planes would land and take off from the grassy field used for 

pasture. In 1932, an Australian named Kingsford Smith made a historic flight from 

Barking Sands to Australia in a Ford Trimotor. 

The U.S. Army acquired 549 acres in 1940, including the grass landing field. The Army 

paved the landing strip and the installation became known as "Mana Airport," In June 

1941, additional acreage was obtained, bringing the total up to 2,058 acres. Hawaiian 

Airlines and Pan American Airlines landed at the field. Lihue Airport was completed in 

1949. During World War II, Barking Sands experienced heavy use by military traffic. 

The site went through numerous name changes: Mana Airport, Mana Airfield Military 

Reservation, Barking Sands Military Reservation, Kekaha Military Reservation, Barking 

Sands Airfield, Bonham Airfield, Bonham Air Force Base, Bonham Air Base, and 

Auxiliary Landing Field (ALF) Bonham. 

In 1948, Barking Sands Military Reservation was declared as excess; however, the Air 

Force disapproved the recommendation and obtained additional acreage. In 1954, the 

name of the base was officially changed to Bonham Air Force Base. 

In 1956, the Navy came to Barking Sands (Bonham AFB), through a joint utilization 

license. In November 1958, the Pacific Missile Range Facility was formally established. 

In 1964, 1,885 acres of Barking Sands were transferred to the Navy and in 1966, Barking 

Sands was transferred within the Navy to the Commanding Officer, Pacific Missile 

Range, and renamed, "Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands." By this time, PMR 

had established a chain of stations throughout the Pacific. Besides Barking Sands and 

Kokee, several downrange stations under PMR included South Point, Hawaii; Midway 

Island; Wake Island, Eniwetok Atoll; Tern Island; Christmas Island; Canton Island; and 

the recovery ships, USNS Longview and USNS Sunnyvale. 

In 1967, the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range (BARSTUR) and the Makaha 

Ridge Instrumentation Site were completed. In 1968, the Command Headquarters, Pacific 

Missile Range Facility, Hawaiian Area was established at Barking Sands. 

Facility improvements and expansions continued through 1974. With changing 

requirements, most of the "downrange" facilities were later closed or transferred.472, 473 

 

472 http://www.pmrf.navy.mil/ 473 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pmrf.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

492

B.11.2 Facilities

PMRF and other facilities are described below: 

Barking Sands - Barking Sands contains the following functions: 

• Main PMRF operations area 

• Range Control 

• Operation Control Center 

• Tracking and Surveillance radars 

• Data Processing 

• Communication hub 

• Launch Area 

• Air Field 

Rocket launch services are provided by Sandia’s Kauai Test Facility. The PMRF/KTF is 

recognized in the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty as an authorized site for STARS 

missile launches. 

Makaha Ridge – This 1800-foot site eight miles north of Barking Sands provides the 

following: 

• Tracking & surveillance radars 

• Telemetry receivers & recorders 

• Frequency monitoring 

• Electronic warfare 

• Communications 

Kokee Park – This site is 12 miles northeast of Barking Sands and has an altitude of 

3400 feet. It contains the following: 

• Tracking radars 

• Telemetry 

• Communication 

• Command and Control 

Niihau – This privately owned island has the following: 

• Remotely operated surveillance radar 

• Test vehicle recovery site 

• Electronic warfare (EW) 

• EW portable simulators 

• Helicopter terrain flight training course 

Sandia Maui Haleakala Facility – Provides the following: 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

493

• Telemetry receiving/recording 

• Flight following 

• Command control and flight termination 

Maui Space Surveillance Site – The MSSS (Figure B.11-4 & B.11-5) atop 10,000-foot 

Mount Haleakala, contains multiple optic sites. Its relatively stable climate of clear, dry 

air, with low levels of particulates and minimal light pollution provides a unique vantage 

point for observing sub-orbital vehicles.474 Included at this site are the following: 

• Air Force Maui Optical Station (AMOS) 

• Maui Optical Tracking and Identification Facility (MOTIF) 

• Ground-based Electro-optical Deep Space Surveillance System (GEODSS) 

 

MSSS is the only site of its kind in the world, combining operational satellite tracking 

facilities (MOTIF and GEODSS) with a research and development facility (AMOS)475. 

Figure B.11-4 Maui Space Surveillance Site 

 

474 http://ulua.mhpcc.af.mil/AMOS/Photos/msss_o2.jpg 475 http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/msss.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

494

Figure B.11-5 Maui Space Surveillance Site (close up) 

Hawaii Tracking Station – This site at Kaena Point, Oahu, provide real-time telemetry 

and metric and signature tracking data to PMRF via the Hawaii Digital Microwave 

System (HDMS). 

B.11.3 Instrumentation

Range instrumentation sites (Figure B.11-6) are located at: 

• Makaha Ridge 

• Kokee Park 

Additional instrumentation is provided by other agencies on adjacent islands. 

Figure B.11-6 PMRS Instrumentation Site 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

495

B.11.3.1 Radar 

PMRF provides space, air, and surface tracking using precision-tracking radar sites at 

elevations of 75 ft., 1700 ft., and 3800 ft. Radars are provided at the following locations: 

• Barking Sands, Kauai 

• Makaha Ridge, Kauai 

• Kokee Park, Kauai 

• Niihau Island 

• Kaena Point, Oahu 

 

Barking Sands – Tracking and surveillance radars 

Makaha Ridge – Tracking and surveillance radars 

Kokee Park – Tracking radars 

Niihau Island – Remotely operated surveillance radar 

Kaena Point - This site on the northwest end of Oahu contains an FPQ-14 radar operated 

by the 30th Range Squadron. It provides metric and signature tracking data to PMRF via 

the HDMS. The Kaena Point C-band radar supports the test and evaluation of U.S. 

ICBM and space launches. As an ancillary mission, this radar spends approximately 128 

hours a week supporting the space surveillance mission.476

B.11.3.2 Telemetry 

Telemetry support is provided at: 

 

• Makaha Ridge, Kauai 

• Kokee Park, Kauai 

• Niihau Island 

• Kaena Point, Oahu 

• Haleakala facilities on Maui 

Makaha Ridge – This location contains the primary telemetry receivers and recorders. 

Kokee Park – Contains a telemetry receiver. 

Kaena Point - The Hawaii Tracking Station, located at Kaena Point, Oahu, provides 

real-time telemetry data to PMRF via the HDMS. 

B.11.3.3 Optics 

 

476 http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/nssrm/initiatives/x_kaena.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

496

Optic sites are located at the Maui Space Surveillance Site (MSSS) atop 10,000-foot high 

Mount Haleakala. This site contains the following: 

• Air Force Optical Station (AMOS) 

• Maui Optical Tracking and Identification Facility (MOTIF) 

• Ground-based Electro-optical Deep Space Surveillance System (GEODSS) 

AMOS – The Maui Space Surveillance System, also known as AMOS by the scientific 

community, is an asset of the US Air Force Materiel Command's Phillips Laboratory.477 

The mission of AMOS is to conduct research and development of new and evolving 

electro-optical sensors, as well as to provide support for operational missions defined by 

US and AF Space Command. In addition, AMOS provides experiment support to a wide 

variety of military and civilian organizations in diverse fields. This support has included 

the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and many 

universities. AMOS has hosted and supported a wide variety of visiting experiments. 

This is a state-of-the-art electro-optical facility combining operational satellite tracking 

facilities with a research and development facility. It houses DoD’s largest telescope, the 

3.67-meter Advanced Electro Optical System (AEOS) [Figure 3.11-7], as well as several 

other telescopes ranging from 0.4 to 1.6 meters478. 

Typical AMOS visiting experiments include: 

• Support for tactical and strategic missile launches out of both Vandenberg and 

Kauai 

• Detection and tracking of orbital debris 

• Observations of shuttle and satellite special operations 

• Laser illumination of satellites 

• Atmospheric physics 

• Space sciences and astronomy 

MOTIF – The Maui Optical Tracking and Identification Facility is used for tracking and 

identifying objects.

GEODSS - The Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) site 

at Maui, Hawaii (Figure 3.11-8) is one of three operational sites performing ground-

 

477 http://ulua.mhpcc.af.mil/AMOS/mission.html 478 http://ulua.mhpcc.af.mil/amos.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

497

based optical tracking of space objects. The Socorro (New Mexico, USA), Choe Jong 

San (South Korea) and Maui (Hawaii, USA) sites were all operational by 1983. A fourth 

site, Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean), was completed in 1987, and a fifth site was planned 

for Portugal, but later cancelled. The South Korean site was closed in 1993 because of 

weather and cost concerns479. The GEODSS system can track space objects as small as 

a basketball between 5,500-37,000 km. 

Figure B.11-7 AEOS Telescope 

 

479 http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/nssrm/initiatives/maui.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

498

Figure B.11-8 Maui GEODSS Site 

B.11.3.4 Command 

Operations control is located at Barking Sands. Command Control and flight termination 

are provided at Kokee Park and on Maui at the Sandia’s Haleakala facility. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

499

B.11.3.5 Communications 

Communication facilities are located at Barking Sands and Mokaha Ridge. 

Communication infrastructure includes a local area network utilizing fiber optic lines. 

Connectivity is provided to CONUS ranges, labs and other facilities to enable data 

sharing. The Hawaii Air National Guard provides O&M of the Hawaii Digital 

Microwave System (HDMS). Wheeler Network Communications Control (WNCC) is a 

major communications hub for PMRF. Voice and data signals are relayed through the 

HDMS to the WNCC from Mount Kaala, and are further distributed to other military and 

commercial communications networks. Hawaiian Telephone Company provides a 

dedicated T1 data link on the FTS2000 network from Barking Sands to AT&T on Oahu, 

which provides CONUS interconnectivity to the Naval Warfare Assessment Division 

(NWAD), Corona, California. This link provides the capability for data reduction at 

NWAD and for nationwide video teleconferencing. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

500

B.12 EGLIN 

B.12.1 Background

B.12.1.1 General 

Eglin AFB is the largest military base in Florida and one of the US Air Forces’ largest. It 

is located in the Florida panhandle, close to Ft. Walton Beach and Destin (Figure B.12-

1). Eglin is a test center for Air Force precision guided munitions including air-to-air, 

air-to-ground, and cruise missiles. Eglin has served the U.S. for a period spanning five 

wars. Currently the Air Armament Center tests and evaluates non-nuclear munitions, 

electronic combat systems and navigation/guidance systems. 

Eglin’s mission is to provide responsive and comprehensive test and evaluation to 

support development of non-nuclear armaments for the Air Force, to provide support for 

operational training of armament and other electronic warfare systems, and to provide 

test and evaluation of aerospace navigation and guidance systems480. 

Figure B.12-1 Location of Eglin 

Eglin hosts some 50 associate units representing virtually every major command 

including the Air Force Special Operations Command (at Hurlburt Field), the U.S. Army 

Ranger Camp, the U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal School and a unit of the 

Federal Prison System. Eglin includes more than 724 square miles of land ranges and 

facilities and more than 86,500 square miles of water ranges in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Eglin Main hosts the main testing, administrative and living facilities along with the 

major airfield. The Eglin land reservation consists of 27 ranges and 10 auxiliary fields, 

 

480 http://www.acq.osd.mil/sts/te/pubfac/eglin.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

501

most being built during the 1930s and 1940s. Today, three airfields remain active: Eglin 

Main, Duke Field and Hurlburt Field. The original fields are shown in Figure B.12-2. 

Figure B.12-2 Eglin AFB With 10 Auxiliary Fields 

On July 11,1990, the Munitions Systems Division was redesignated the Air Force 

Development Test Center (AFDTC). The Center provides test and evaluation support for 

the development of conventional non-nuclear munitions, electronic combat systems and 

navigation/guidance systems. In addition to owning and managing the major test complex 

of land and water ranges at Eglin, the Center manages major range and test facilities at 

Holloman AFB, NM. 

B.12.1.2 History 

Early History

Eglin’s military history starts around 1931 when the Army Air Corps Tactical School at 

Maxwell Field, AL, began looking for a new bombing and gunnery range. They saw the 

potential of the sparsely populated forested areas surrounding Valparaiso, FL, and the 

vast expanse of adjacent water. A local businessman and airplane buff, James E. Plew, 

leased 137 acres to the city of Valpariso on which an airport was established in 1933. In 

1934, he offered to donate 1,460 acres to the United States for the bombing and gunnery 

base. This leasehold became the headquarters for the Valparaiso Bombing and Gunnery 

Base. 

On August 4, 1937, the base was redesignated Eglin Field in honor of 

Lt. Col. Frederick I. Eglin, U.S. Air Corps, who had been killed in an aircraft crash. On 

June 27, 1940, the U.S. Forestry Service ceded the Choctawhatchee National Forest to 

the War Department consisting of some 800 square miles of forest and shore. In 1941, the 

Air Corps Proving Ground was activated, and Eglin became the site for gunnery training 

for the Army Air Forces fighter pilots as well as a major testing center for aircraft, 

equipment, and tactics. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

502

In addition to the testing of all new aircraft and their serial modifications, the Proving 

Ground Command was especially well suited for special tasks because of the isolation 

and immensity of the Eglin ranges. 

Special Tests

In 1942, Lt. Col. James H. (Jimmy) Doolittle used Eglin to prepare his B-25 crews for an aircraft carrier 

launched bomber raid against Tokyo. Removing non-essential items from their planes, and practicing until 

they could safely launch within the physical runway confines that would exist aboard a carrier at sea, the 

crews practiced at Eglin until they could repeatedly and safely take off. 

In 1944, the tactics and techniques for the destruction of German rocket installations were developed at 

Eglin. 

Late in WW-II, Eglin was the site of tests to develop procedures for bombing fire raids against Japan. A 

"Little Tokyo" was constructed at Eglin for the purpose of verifying the effectiveness of incendiaries 

against Japanese wooden houses. 

In 1970, Eglin served as the training site for the Son Tay Raiders, the group who made the daring attempt 

to rescue American POWs from a North Vietnamese prison camp. 

In 1991, during the Iraq/Kuwait war, Eglin served in the development of the GBU-28 "bunker buster" 

bomb. On Feb. 27, 1991, the GBU-28 was dropped over Iraq. The cessation of hostilities was announced 

the next day. 

Refugees

With its large territory, Eglin has often been assigned the job of processing and housing refugees. In 1975, 

a "Tent City" was established at Field Two to house and process more than 10,000 Vietnamese refugees 

who had fled to the United States at the end of the Viet Nam war. 

In 1980, Eglin again became a refugee-processing center for the resettlement of more than 10,000 Cuban 

refugees. 

Missiles

The Eglin facility served as a pioneer in missile development. During 1944 and 1945, American JB-2 

missile testing was conducted at Eglin. Parts of some of the old command bunkers, launch ramp, and 

wrecks still remain481. This area is now a National Historic Site. The JB-2 missiles were copies of the 

German V-1 missiles (Figure B.12-3), which terrorized London during WW- II. The JB-2 was developed 

by duplicating V-1 parts recovered from crash sites in Europe and England. This site reflects early U.S. 

efforts to develop and test the predecessors of today's cruise missiles. 

 

481 http://www.eglin.af.mil/em/virtualtours/jb2/index.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

503

Figure B.12-3 German V-1 Rocket (WWII) 

Eglin activated the First Experimental Guided Missiles Group in early 1946, developed 

the techniques for missile launching and handling, established training programs, and 

monitored the development of a drone (or pilotless aircraft) capability to support the 

Atomic Energy Commission tests, in Operation CROSSROADS. 

In 1949, the 1st Guided Missiles Squadron was assigned air-to-surface missiles and 

guided bombs (e.g., TARZON) and the 2nd Guided Missiles Squadron worked with 

surface-to-surface missiles and aircraft drones. During the first ten months of its 

existence, the 550th Guided Missiles Wing also continued its predecessor's earlier 

preparations to support Project GREENHOUSE with drone aircraft482. 

In 1950, missile units were reassigned from the Air Proving Ground to the Long Range 

Proving Ground Division (Cape Canaveral). The 1st Guided Missiles Squadron and 

other missile units did not wind up at Cape Canaveral just because they needed a longer 

range to test their missiles. If that had been the only concern, missile units could have 

continued as tenants at Patrick and merely reported to a higher headquarters at Eglin. The 

longer test range was an important consideration, but missile units were assigned to the 

Long Range Proving Ground Division because it was a new intermediate headquarters 

specifically designed to support guided missile test programs that were emerging as 

weapon systems in their own right. As ARDC refocused the Air Force's R&D effort, it 

 

482 http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/6555th/6555c1en/htm#EN17
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

504

made Cape Canaveral the principal launch site for surface-to-surface and surface-to-air 

missiles. For the most part, "armaments" remained at Eglin or Holloman. 

On December 1, 1957, the Air Proving Ground and the Air Force Armament Center 

combined to form the Air Proving Ground Center. The Center built the highly 

instrumented Eglin Gulf Test Range, and for the next few years was a major missile test 

center. 

The BOMARC test program was initially started at Cape Canaveral’s Air Force Missile 

Test Center (AFMTC). The AFMTC's safety agencies ensured that safety requirements 

for the 15,000-pound 47-foot-long missile were enforced. Seventy BOMARCs were 

launched from the Cape between September 10, 1951 and April 15, 1960. The program 

was then transferred to the Eglin (Air Proving Ground Center's) test site at Santa Rosa 

Island, near Fort Walton Beach, FL.483

On March 15, 1989, the Armament Division was redesignated the Munitions Systems 

Division. MSD placed into production the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, 

developed jointly by the U.S. Navy and the Air Force. Other developments include 

precision-guided munitions, anti-armor weapon systems, and improved hard target 

weapons. 

In recent years, the Cape San Blas facility has been used to launch Patriot missiles and 

has served as a launch site for the Florida Spaceport Authority. 

B.12.2 Facilities

Being an Air Force Base, Eglin has the standard base facilities for headquarters, housing, 

meals, recreation, security, etc. Since Eglin is host to over 50 other agencies, it has 

additional offices, laboratories and other facilities to meet these agencies’ needs. In 

addition, Eglin has the following unique facilities: 

• Auxiliary Air Fields (10) 

• McKinley Climatic Laboratory 

• CCF, ASTE, EMTE 

• Gulf Test Range 

• PRIMES, GWEF 

• Test Aircraft 

• Kinetic Kill Vehicle HWIL simulation Facility 

• Electromagnetic Munition Experimentation Facility 

 

483 https://www.patrick.af.mil/heritage/45thHist/MIL.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

505

Auxiliary Air Field – There are 10 auxiliary airfields at Eglin. Most were built during 

the 1930’s and 1940’s. Only three are still actively used for aircraft. Others have been 

utilized for refugee sites and tenant organizations. 

McKinley Climatic Lab – This facility was conceived during WW II and completed in 

1947. This site provides facilities for all weather testing of weapons and ancillary 

equipment to ensure their function regardless of climatic conditions. The large hangar 

laboratory can recreate nearly every weather condition that exists on Earth with 

temperatures ranging from minus 70 to plus 180 degrees Fahrenheit. The hangar was 

originally designed to hold two B-29s.484 It can test aircraft in any operational condition, 

except flying. Every aircraft in the current DoD inventory has undergone testing in the 

McKinley Climatic Lab (Figure 3.12-4). 485 Tests are performed not only on aircraft 

systems, but also on refrigeration, insulation, instrumentation, surveillance, and control 

systems. Past tests have included space shuttle tiles, oceanic buoys, de-icing fluids for 

aircraft wings, electrical contacts under icing conditions, and arctic personnel survival. 

Ten chambers built in addition to the main hangar include a temperature and humidity 

room, salt-test room, and rooms for wind, rain, dust, desert, tropic, and jungle climates. 

This facility is now a National Historic Site. 

Figure B.12-4 F-22 Under Test in the McKinley Climatic Lab 

 

484 http://www.asme.org/history/roster/H116.html 485 http://www.eglin.af.mil/em/virtualtours/mckinley/index.htm
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

506

CCF – The Central Control Facility contains a full range of state-of-the-art computing 

capabilities. It is used to support in-depth analysis and provides the capability for realtime control during simultaneous test missions.486 

ASTE – The Armament Systems Test Environment consists of 724 square miles of 

varied multi-environmental land area with 45 test areas, 34 test systems/facilities, and 26 

multipurpose systems/facilities for testing and evaluation of munitions and weapons 

systems. The major test areas are Air-to-Ground Ranges, Gun Test Facilities, Electrooptical/Millimeter Wave (MMW) Evaluation, Fuse Test Facility, Static Warhead Test 

Arenas, Kinetic Energy munitions Test Facility, and Security Systems Test Facility. 

EMTE – The Electromagnetic Test Environment is an extensive open-air test range 

providing over-land and over-water weapon effectiveness testing for munitions and 

electronic combat systems. Specialized testing includes characterization and 

effectiveness testing, foreign material exploitation, signature measurement, and air-to-air 

and air-to-ground munitions in an Electronic Combat (EC) environment. The EMTE 

open-air test capability can be electronically linked with the simulation facilities, e.g., the 

PRIMES, REDCAP, and AFEWES for realistic multi-threat testing. 

Gulf Test Range – This range encompasses 98,000 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico. 

This area is used for long-range, all altitude, air-to-air or surface-to-air/drone target 

engagements and long-range or anti-ship air-to-surface weapons evaluations. The Gulf 

Test Range is also used as a maneuvering area for electronic combat missions on the 

EMTE. 

PRIMES – The Preflight Integration of Munitions and Electronic Systems consists of a 

fighter-sized anechoic chamber and six shielded laboratories providing secure, realistic 

testing in a controlled RF environment to support one-on-one and many-on-one tests in 

static or dynamic flight simulation conditions. 

 

486 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/pubfac/eglin.html#Location 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

507

Figure B.12-5 PRIMES Anechoic Chamber 

GWEF – The Guided Weapons Evaluation Facility provides multi-spectral laboratory 

simulation support for developing and testing precision-guided weapon technology. 

GWEF is the only facility of its kind among the United States or its Allies able to test the 

complete spectrum of weapon seekers under one roof. The GWEF and PRIMES facilities 

are linked with fiber optic cable; allowing an aircraft to "fly and launch a weapon" from 

the PRIMES facility while the weapon engages a target in a GWEF simulated combat 

environment. 

Gun Testing - Ground Testing of Gun Systems is conducted at three test areas within the 

Eglin complex. The type of ammunition and/or the type of target determines which test 

area will be used. Each test area has the capability to collect the following types of data: 

muzzle velocity, projectile yaw, chamber pressure, relative action time, dispersion, barrel 

temperature, and meteorological conditions.487

Test Aircraft - Eglin provides a representative cross section of the operational Air Force 

fighter inventory (F-15, F-16). These aircraft have a standard programmable digital 

instrumentation system and can be modified for unique project requirements.488

 

487 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/mrtfb/commercial/afdtc/gun.html 488 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/mrtfb/commercial/afdtc/index.html#TCnF 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

508

Kinetic Kill Vehicle HWIL Simulation Facility – This facility (Figure B.12-6) 

provides a national resource for nondestructive Hardware-In-the-Loop (HWIL) 

performance evaluation of conventional tactical guided weaponry and endo/exoatmospheric interceptor systems and subsystems. Digital and HWIL simulators 

realistically simulate launch-to-impact scenarios for guided weapons.489 

Figure B.12-6 Kinetic Kill Vehicle KWIL Simulation Facility 

Electromagnetic Munition Experimentation Facility – This facility (Figure B.12-7) 

explores advanced munitions concepts, which exploit the unique qualities of 

electromagnetics, develop advanced oxidation techniques to destroy hazardous 

compounds generated by munitions development/disposal, and study the gas dynamic 

principles governing shock-induced combustion/detonation.490 The facility has two pulse 

power supplies in two separate bays. One bay contains a 4.8 million joule capacitor bank 

that operates at 11,000 volts and can deliver in excess of 2.5 million amperes of current 

for up to 0.1 seconds. The second bay houses a multi-shot pulse power supply comprised 

of a capacitor bank charged by a rack of batteries. The multi-shot pulse power supply 

provides the only true multi-shot electromagnetic launcher test bed available in the 

world. 

 

489 http://www.wrs.afrl.af.mil/infores/facilities/fac_36.htm 490 http://www.wrs.afrl.af.mil/infores/facilities/fac_30.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

509

Figure B.12-7 Electromagnetic Munitions Experimentation Facility Site 

B.12.3 Instrumentation

Eglin has the following types of instrumentation that is used in support of tests: 

• Radar 

• Telemetry 

• Optics 

• Electro-Optical Time-space-Position 

• Communication 

Land-based radar and electro-optical time-space-position- information systems are used 

to monitor the water test areas and to transfer test data to the Central Control Facility on 

Eglin Main. These instrumentation systems are located at 

• Tyndall AFB 

• Santa Rosa Island 

• Cape San Blas 

They provide coverage for test and evaluation activities in the Gulf of Mexico. The landbased systems are supplemented by airborne systems that provide relay links with ground 

stations. The 46th Test Wing and Aeronautical Systems Center's GPS Range Systems 

Support Division are currently working on instrumentation pods, which will allow data 

gathering on test missions anywhere. Also the Test Wing is developing an over-the-water 

scoring system for bomb, air-to-surface missiles, and aircraft guns491. 

 

491 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/eglin-range.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

510

Cape San Blas492 - The Cape San Blas (Figure B.12-8)493 lighthouse (Figure B.12-9)494

area is ideally suited to support Eglin's test mission, particularly as a site for surveillance 

radar. Projecting into the Gulf, the site provides optimal coverage of missiles, aircraft and 

aerial targets operating over the Gulf. 

Figure B.12-8 Cape San Blas & Lighthouse 

Air Force facilities and instrumentation located on Cape San Blas provide a wide variety 

of mission-support functions. These include flight termination, frequency control and 

analysis, communications and telemetry, time-space-position information, microwave 

relay systems, and general mission support. 

The Cape is also ideally located for missile and sounding rocket launches. In recent 

years, Patriot missiles have been tested against aerial targets in the Gulf of Mexico at the 

site. The site is being considered as a critical component for Theater Missile Defense 

(TMD) missile system testing as proposed in an Environmental Impact Statement 

currently being processed by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. 

The Air Force has also supported rocket launches by the Florida Spaceport Authority at 

Site D3. 

 

492 http://www.starfl.com/article.cfm?ID=3415 493 http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/maritime/lighthouses/light.cfm?name=Cape_San_Blas 494 http://www.ipl.org/div/light/GULF/CapeSanBlas.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

511

Figure B.12-9 Cape San Blas Lighthouse 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

512

B.13 CHINA LAKE 

B.13.1 Background

B.13.1.1 General 

The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) land ranges are located at 

China Lake, which is situated in the upper Mojave Desert of southern California (Figure 

B.13-1). The ranges are about 150 miles north of Los Angeles and encompass over 1.1 

million acres. China Lake provides an extensive array of land and air ranges, test 

facilities, and laboratories. The Test and Evaluation (T&E) facilities are located within 

working proximity of China Lake's Research and Development (R&D) laboratory 

complexes, allowing military and civilian scientists and engineers to work on total 

system RDT&E.495 

Figure B.13-1 Locations of China Lake & Point Mugu Test Facilities 

The land496 is used exclusively for test and evaluation or as a buffer between sensitive or 

hazardous tests and the surrounding public lands (Figure B.13-2). Most of the heavily 

instrumented test facilities are concentrated near the vast dry bed of a pre-historic 

Pleistocene lake, which covers the southwestern quarter of the China Lake area. 

 

495 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/r1/Land2.htm 496 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/s1/HeloMap.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

513

The terrain includes: 

• Dry flat lakebeds 

• Large dry washes 

• Alluvial fans 

• Open desert 

• Pine covered mountains 

 Figure B.13-2 China Lake Facilities 

The weather at China Lake is perfectly suited for testing. There is practically unlimited 

visibility with very little annual precipitation. Typically, there are 353 flying days per 

year with unlimited visibility. 

The sea range portion of NAWCWD is located at Point Mugu (Figure B.13-3), 65 miles 

northwest of Los Angeles. An FAA approved low-level route for Cruise Missile testing 

(IR-200) exists between the Sea Range at Point Mugu and the Land Range at China Lake 

(Figure B.13-4). Point Mugu is discussed in a separate section. 

Figure B.13-3 Point Mugu Navy Test Facilities 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

514

Figure B.13-4 Integrated Activities Between China Lake & Point Mugu 

B.13.1.2 History 

China Lake was established in 1943 as a facility for test and evaluation of rockets being 

developed for the Navy by the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) and as a 

new proving ground for all aviation ordnance.497 The original name was Naval Ordnance 

Test Station (NOTS). This first year, Harvey Field was commissioned at the auxiliary 

landing field at Inyokern. By mid-1945, NOTS’ aviation assets were transferred to the 

new Armitage Field at the China Lake site. 

Primary testing and developments at China Lake were with air-launched rockets, solid 

propellants, fire-control systems, and guided missiles. In the late 1940s, NOTS began 

research on fire-control systems that evolved into the concept of the Sidewinder air-to-air 

guided missile. During World War II, the Station played a role in the Manhattan Project 

as the site of "Project Camel," which developed non-nuclear explosive bomb components 

-- a role that continued into the 1950s. Holy Moses, Tiny Tim, and a family of spinstabilized barrage rockets were also fielded-tested around this time. After the War, the 

Pasadena Annex was added to NOTS, bringing with it the torpedo-development program 

and other underwater-ordnance RDT&E efforts. 

During the Korean conflict, NOTS continued development of rockets, missiles, 

torpedoes, guns, bombs, and fuses. Rockets included the Ram, Weapon A, Mighty 

Mouse, BOAR, and Sidewinder. By the late 1950s, research at China Lake had 

expanded into such diverse fields as weather modification and satellite-delivery systems. 

 

497 http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/clmf/hist.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

515

The Station also played a significant part in developing and testing the Polaris missile 

system, including performing studies and analyses that shaped the Polaris concept. 

During the 1970s, the Center continued to develop missiles like the Sidewinder, Walleye, 

Shrike, HARM, FAE, Sparrow, Phoenix, Harpoon, and Maverick. China Lake research 

extended the technology base in optical and laser systems, advanced propulsion 

technologies, and anti-radiation guidance. 

 

In the 1980s, China Lake assisted in development of the Space Shuttle escape system and 

the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. 

B.13.2 Facilities

B.13.2.1 General 

China Lake498 contains ranges for testing the following: 

• Guided Missiles (George) 

• Aircraft Weapon Systems (Baker & Charlie) 

• Training & Tactics (Coso) 

• Training & Special Operations (Superior valley) 

• Mobile Land Targets (Airport Lake) 

• Point Defense (G-6) 

• Small Missile Range (Redeye Site) 

• Randsburg Fuse Range

In addition, China Lake contains the following major facilities: 

Range Control Center - The RCC is a centralized range-control facility (Figure B.13-5) 

that provides test operations control, communication, and coordination. 

Airspace Surveillance Center – The ASC is located at the Range Control Center. It 

provides radar surveillance for China Lake airspace. 

High Speed Test Track – China Lake contains two supersonic, dual-rail, heavy-duty 

research tracks: one four miles long and the other 3,000 feet long. Data may be collected 

at subsonic or supersonic speeds. The Supersonic Naval Ordnance Research Track 

(SNORT) is a 4-mile, dual-rail, heavy duty test track capable of handling test vehicles up 

to 135,000 lbs. and speeds up to 4500 ft/sec (Figures B.13-6 and B.13-7). 

 

498 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/r1/Land4.htm#FACILITIES
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

516

Figure B.13-5 Range Control Center 

Figure B.13-6 High Speed Test Track 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

517

Figure B.13-7 Ejection Seat Testing 

Radar Cross Section (RCS) Range - provides precision RCS measurements of static 

low observable targets in an isolated outdoor environment. 

Explosive Test Ranges - provide capability for static testing of conventional (nonnuclear) warheads and explosive devices. 

Bombing Ranges – China Lake contains multiple bombing ranges (Figure B.13-8). 

Targets include: 

• Bridges (Figure B.13-9) 

• Radar 

• Tunnels 

• Truck convoys 

• Tanks (Figure B.13-10) 

• Surface-to-air missile site 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

518

Figure B.13-8 Bombing Targets 

Figure B.13-9 Bridge Target 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

519

Figure B.13-10 Tank Target 

Aerodynamic Heating Facilities - are used to produce aerodynamic heating effects on 

materials and devices and for low-volume ramjet engine testing 

Propulsion Test Ranges - provide the capability for static testing solid- and liquidpropellant rocket motors up to 94 ft. in diameter, 25 ft. in length, and up to 1.5 million 

lbs. of thrust in variable test attitudes.499 This includes: 

• Strategic Systems Propulsion Test Facilities (Skytop) - Navy's largest and bestinstrumented static-firing rocket motor test installation. It is used for testing 

improved designs for the Trident strategic missile 

Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) - provides aircraft and airfield facilities as well as 

air support for RDT&E operations. Facilities include three major runways (one 10,000 

ft), 10 types of aircraft, aircraft hangars, maintenance facilities, ordnance handling and 

storage facilities, and a bore sight range.

Randsburg Fuse Range500 - includes two 360-foot-tall wooden towers and a variety of 

naval guns and surface-launch facilities (Figure B.13-11). Towers can suspend full-scale 

aircraft targets and shapes 250 feet above the ground, providing fuse test environments 

that closely simulate tactical conditions. 

 

499 http://www.acq.osd.mil/sts/te/pubfac/china.html 500 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/r1/Land3.htm#RANGES 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

520

Figure B.13-11 Randsburg Fuse Range 

Echo Range501 - provides highly realistic threat simulation for airborne electronic 

warfare (EW) equipment/tactics RDT&E and training (Figure B.13-12). 

 

 

501 http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/clmf/echo.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

521

Figure B.13-12 Echo Range 

B.13.2.2 Launch 

Missiles are launched at the Guided Missile (George) and Small Missile Range (Redeye) 

Sites.502

George503 (Guided Missiles) – This site is used for test and evaluation of air-to-air, airto-surface and surface-to-air guided missiles. It covers approximately 250 square miles 

and contains both desert and mountainous terrain. This range is also used as a target area 

for the cruise missiles launched 150 miles to the southwest. 

Small Missile Range (Redeye Site) - Typically supports tests of short-range, surface-tosurface and surface-to-air guided missiles against surface or aerial targets and field 

evaluations of small tactical air-defense systems. This site shares airspace, downrange 

area, fixed instrumentation, drone launchers and support facilities with the George 

Range. 

Test activities include potential hazards from developmental ordnance of unproven 

reliability. 

 

502 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/r1/Land3.htm 503 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/r1/Land3.htm#GEORGE 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

522

B.13.3 Instrumentation

China Lake contains the following types of instrumentation:504

• Radar 

• Global Positioning System (GPS) 

• Lidar (light detection and ranging; i.e., light/laser radar) 

• Video tracking systems 

• Telemetry receiving 

• Meteorological data gathering systems 

• Fixed and tracking optical cameras 

• Real-time data-processing 

• Display 

• Operations Control 

China Lake’s most heavily instrumented range is George (Guided Missiles). This range 

include the following types of instrumentation: 

• Video and film-based tracking sites 

• Radar 

• Portable instrumentation 

 

Radar - Five tracking radars are available: 

• 3 X-Bands (3 Nike based OADS) 

• 2 C-Bands (1 Nike based OADS, 1 ROTR) 

The Nikes are computer calibrated and provide 20-Hz real time and 100-Hz post-test. 

The ROTR provides 20-Hz real time and 60/120-Hz post-test. Each radar is augmented 

with video or IR-video (for night operation) cameras. 

Telemetry - The Telemetry Receiving Center (T-Pad) receives and records data in real 

time. 

• Receive P, L, and S-band sources up to 20 MHz. 

• FM/PCM, PAM, and FM/FM modulation 

• Four 6-foot L/S Band antennas at T-Pad 

• One P-Band helix antenna system at T-Pad 

• One 16-foot and one 6-foot L/S Band antenna system at Laurel Mountain 

• One P-Band helix antenna system at Laurel Mountain 

• One mobile 8-foot L/S-Band antenna system 

 

504 http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~pacrange/r1/Land5.htm#INSTRUMENT 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

523

• One mobile 6-foot L/S-Band antenna system 

• Two mobile P-Band antenna systems 

• One 6-foot L/S-Band antenna at Airfield 

• 5 IRIG standard Analog Recorders at T-Pad 

• Two Mobile 14-track IRIG standard Analog Recorders 

• Two Metrum ARMOR/64 digital recorders at T-Pad (20 Mbps/channel, 64 Mbps 

Aggregate) 

• One serial BVLDS digital recorder (32 Mbps) 

• One mobile serial BVLDS digital recorder (32 Mbps) 

• Enerdyne Video decompression 

• Hot mike voice from Telemetry 

Optics – There are 20 Kineto Tracking Mount (KTM) instruments (Figure 3.13-13). 

KTM TSPI data are provided via CCD television cameras. Target tracking is generally 

human-in-the-loop, but instruments may be remotely slaved to track an externally 

presented target trajectory/position. 

There are also various types of fixed cameras: 

• Metric video: used to determine the impact point of conventional, guided, and 

unguided ordnance 

• Bowen cameras: used in arrays of two or more; obtain highly accurate TSPI in a 

fixed, small "box" 

• Ribbon frame cameras

Figure B.13-13 KTM Optical Tracker 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

524

GPS - Advanced Range Data System (ARDS) is a GPS-based TSPI system that requires 

the test participant to carry ARDS software. In the baseline configuration, the hardware is 

packaged within an airborne pod that aerodynamically simulates the AIM-9 (Sidewinder) 

missile. The ARDS system provides precision 6-degree-of-freedom TSPI, including 

position information, pitch, roll, heading, altitude rate, velocity, and acceleration. 

 

Communication - Provides secure and non-secure transmission facilities for all video, 

voice, and data requirements. It incorporates communications security (COMSEC) and is 

designed around standard telecommunications hardware, allowing for easy compatibility. 

It includes fiber-optic distribution facilities, microwave systems, ultra-high frequency 

(UHF) ground-to-air, VHF ground-to-ground radio systems, digital multiplexing, digital 

switching, and video. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

525

B.14 HOLLOMAN 

B.14.1 Background

B.14.1.1 General 

Holloman AFB is located in New Mexico's Tularosa Basin between the Sacramento and 

San Andreas mountain ranges (Figure B.14-1). The 59,639-acre base (Figure B.14-2) is 

about 10 miles west of Alamogordo, New Mexico, on route 70/82. It is 90 miles north of 

El Paso, Texas, 70 miles east of Las Cruces, New Mexico, adjacent to the White Sands 

Missile Range. The base supports about 23,000 Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, retirees, 

DoD civilians and their family members.505 It is home to the 49th Fighter Wing and their 

F-117 stealth fighters. It is also an overseas training site for the German Air Force. 

Figure B.14-1 Holloman AFB & White Sands Missile Range 

 

505 http://www.holloman.af.mil/hafb/basedata.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

526

Figure B.14-2 Holloman AFB 

B.14.1.2 History 

On June 19, 1942506, Alamogordo Army Air Field was established at a site six miles west 

of Alamogordo, New Mexico. Initially the base was to serve as a British Overseas 

Training site; however, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, 

everything changed. The British dropped their plans for overseas training and the U.S. 

Army took over the site. Construction began on February 6, 1942 and forces began to 

move in on May 14, 1942. From 1942-1945, Alamogordo Army Air Field served as the 

training grounds for over 20 different groups, flying primarily B-17s, B-24s, and B-29s. 

After World War II, the future of the base was uncertain. In 1947, the Air Materiel 

Command announced the airfield would be its primary site for the testing and 

development of pilotless aircraft, guided missiles, and other research programs. For the 

next 25 years the site, which became known as the Holloman Air Development Center, 

and later the Air Force Missile Development Center, launched many missiles including 

Tiny Tim (the first Army rocket), Rascal, V-2, XQ-2 Drone, Falcon, MACE, Matador, 

and Shrike. 

 

506 http://www.holloman.af.mil/hafb/basehistory.html
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

527

On January 13, 1948 the Alamogordo installation was renamed Holloman Air Force 

Base, in honor of the late Col. George V. Holloman, a pioneer in guided missile research. 

In the 1950s and 1960s Holloman Air Force Base was the site of many aerospace “firsts”. 

On December 10, 1954, Lt. Col. (Dr.) John P. Stapp received the nickname "The Fastest 

Man Alive" when he rode a rocket-propelled test sled, Sonic Wind No. 1, to a speed of 

632 miles per hour. Additionally, Captain Joseph W. Kittinger, Jr. stepped out of an open 

balloon gondola at 102,800 feet on August 16, 1960, in a successful attempt to evaluate 

techniques of high altitude bailout. Capt. Kittinger’s jump lasted 13 minutes and reached 

a velocity of 614 miles per hour. That jump broke four world records: highest open 

gondola manned balloon flight, highest balloon flight of any kind, highest bailout, and 

longest free fall. A final noteworthy event occurred on November 29, 1961, when ENOS, 

a chimpanzee trained at Holloman’s HAM facility (Holloman Aero-Medical laboratory), 

was the first U.S. specimen launched into orbit. ENOS was launched in a Mercury-Atlas 

capsule that completed two orbits around the earth and was safely recovered three hours, 

21 minutes later. 

Aircraft flown at Holloman include: B-17, B-24, B-29, B-57, P-47, AT-38B, F-4D, F-15, 

F-84, F-100, HH-60G, QF-106, T-38 Talon, F-117 Nighthawk, F-4F Phantom II, QF-4 

drone, German Air Force Tornado. 

B.14.2 Facilities

Holloman High Speed Test Track - Holloman is home to the world's longest and fastest 

test track. The Holloman High Speed Test Track (HHSTT) (Figure B.14-3) holds the land 

speed record at 8,978 feet per second (6,121 miles per hour, Mach 9) (Figure B.14-4). 

507,508 Holloman’s existing dual rail track extends 50,788 feet in a nearly North-South 

orientation. Currently, test track personnel have a goal of Mach 10 for spring of 2002.509 

The test track occupies 11 square miles in the northwest area of Holloman AFB and is 

adjacent to the 4000-square-mile White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). During 

operations, HHSTT restricts 1000 feet of airspace above the track for safety. Access to 

the track is limited during preparation and operations. The air space over the area is 

closed to all civilian air traffic and can be closed to all air traffic when requested. 

 

507 http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/maglev/maglevfacts.html 508 http://www.46tg.af.mil/tests1.htm 509 http://www.holloman.af.mil/hafb/basedata.html 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

528

Figure B.14-3 Holloman High Speed Test Track 

Figure B.14-4 World Land Speed Record Holder (6121 MPH) 

HHSTT is a one-of-a-kind aerospace ground facility. Test capabilities include the 

following510: 

• Aircraft: crew escape, air blast, bird strike, aero-propulsion, munitions launch, 

and infrared countermeasures 

• Missile: guidance systems, aerodynamics, aero-elastics, seekers, components, and 

dispensers (Figure B.14-5) 

• Life support systems: crew modules, decelerators, parachutes, canopies, 

catapults, and ballutes/paraloons 

 

510 http://www.acq.osd.mil/te/pubfac/holloman.html#Location 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

529

• Erosion: rain, dust/particle, hail, transpiration cooling, material ablation, heat 

shields, radomes, electro-optical windows, and re-entry phenomena 

• Impact: warhead, fuse sensitivity, kinetic energy penetrators, hit-to-kill vehicles, 

hit sensors, survivability/vulnerability, and lethality. 

Figure B.14-5 Dispenser Test 

Experimental missiles have been launched from the Air Launch Sled while on the track 

under dynamic conditions (Figure B.14-6). Other experimental missile tests have 

included propulsion, guidance, and homing systems. Similar tests have also included 

crosswind firings. 

Figure B.14-6 SNARK Missile Launch from HHSTT 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

530

HHSTT is receiving a magnetic levitation upgrade by General Atomics/ Bechtel/FosterMiller.511 The upgrade is a multi-phased effort to provide a Hypersonic Ground Test 

Facility for the Air Force and the nation. The MagLev (Figure B.14-7) system will not 

only provide important test capability for our national defense, but will also establish 

many of the design parameters needed to understand this technology's potential for 

launch assist. The purpose of the upgrades is to meet Theater Missile Defense (TMD) 

lethality testing requirements512.

Figure B.14-7 Hypersonic Upgrade Test Sled 

Key events/dates for the HHSTT are as follows513: 

• 1949: Construction Began. Original track length - 3,550 

• Jun 1950: First sled test 

• 1953: First simulated rain field test 

• 1954: First track extension to 5,050 

• 1954: Dr. John Paul Stapp's sled rides (Mach 0.9 velocity, 40 g deceleration) 

• Jan 1955: First inertial guidance test 

• 1956: 35,000 foot track extension 

• Dec 1957: First impact test off north end of the track 

• Mar 1958: First liquid-engine sled test 

• Mar 1958: First ICBM test (Minuteman) 

• Nov 1962: First escape systems test 

• 1964: First hypersonic test 

• 1973: Track extended to current length of 50,788 feet 

• Oct 1980: First non-nuclear warhead impact test 

• Dec 1992: First PAC-3 lethality impact test 

• Feb 1994: First Magnetic Levitation Checkout Test 

• Jul 1995: First SM-2 Warhead sled test 

• Nov 1995: First ejection seat test from the MASE sled 

• Apr 1998: First SM-3 Direct Hit sled test 

• Aug 1999: First SM-2 Direct Hit Interceptor sled test 

• Jul 2000: Test Track 50th Anniversary Celebration 

 

511 http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/maglev/index.html#1 512 http://www.46tg.af.mil/tests1.htm 513 http://www.46tg.af.mil/history.htm 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

531

• 2002: First 10,000 ft/sec sled test planned 

RADAR TARGET SCATTER – The RATSCAT (Figures B.14-8 and B.14-9) is a oneof-a-kind facility combining the best in monostatic and bistatic radar cross-section 

measurements. It provides precision signature measurements of low observable weapon 

systems. RATSCAT consists of two separate but complementary test sites. The main site 

is located on the alkali flats region of White Sands Missile Range. RATSCAT Advanced 

Measurement System (RAMS) is located 35 miles northwest of the main site at the base 

of the San Andres Mountains. 

Figure B.14-8 Radar Target Scatter Facilities 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

532

Figure B.14-9 Radar Target Scatter Range 

CENTRAL INERTIAL GUIDANCE TEST FACILITY - The CIGTF complex consists 

of 10 buildings covering approximately 227,000 square feet. The laboratory operates 

three centrifuge test beds (Figure B.14-10), with and without counter-rotating platforms, 

which can subject test items to sustained acceleration environments up to 30g, 50g, and 

100g. CIGTF uses a variety of reference systems to provide accurate Time-SpacePosition Information in conducting its laboratory, van, sled, and aircraft tests. CIGTF 

Support Resources include a simulation laboratory, GPS satellite reference station, data 

analysis stations, and three state-of-the-art Portable Field Jamming Systems. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

533

Figure B.14-10 Centrifuge 

B.14.3 Instrumentation

Instrumentation information from Holloman was not readily available in the literature. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

534
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

535

C. Theoretical Basis of Railgun Physics

Following and expanding on the method of Paul and Nasar for analyzing the forces on charges due to 

effects of electric and magnetic fields, the following analysis derives the force equation for railguns based 

on practical simplifications to the interaction between the magnetic field and the current through the 

launched-item conductor.514

Current is the flow of charge versus time. Consider first the force on a test charge Q in the launched item 

conductor. This force may be computed using the Lorentz force equation. This equation states that the 

total force exerted on a test charge Q is the sum of the forces due to the electric and magnetic fields, and 

is given by: 

F F F Q(E u B) e m

r r r r r r = + = + × N (Eqn. 1) 

Now, consider a group of charges traveling in an infinitesimally small volume dv in the conductor such 

that the force density f is uniform within this small volume, and additionally such that there exists a 

uniform charge density, ρ . The total force is simple the force density times the differential volume. That 

is, 

F = f dv 

The charge density ρ is simply: 

dv

Q ρ = 

 

Substituting these into Equation 1, the differential force can be computed as: 

f dv ( E u B) dv r r r = ρ + ρ ×

which means that the differential force is given by: 

f (E u B)

r r r = ρ + × N/m3

 (Eqn.2) 

But, the charge density, ρ , traveling at a velocity u

r

is simply the current density J

r

 such that: 

u J

r r ρ =

 

514 Paul, Clayton R. and Nasar, Syed A., Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields, 2nd

Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, 1982, pp. 187-189. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

536

Equation 2 then becomes: 

f E J B r r r = ρ + × N/m3 (Eqn. 3) 

Now, for a perfect, resistance-free conductor, the voltage potential across the rail at the location of the 

launch item is zero. The Electric Field E

r

 is therefore zero here, as well. This means that there is no force 

due to an Electric Field, and all the force is due purely to the current density and the Magnetic Field. For 

the case of the resistance-free conductor across the rails of the railgun, the differential force becomes 

f J B r r = × N/m3 (Eqn. 4) 

The current density J

r

through the launched conductor is the ratio of the total current I

r

divided by the area 

through which the current flows: 

A

I J

r r

= (Eqn. 5) 

 Substituting Equation 5 into Equation 4, 

A

I B f

r r × = N/m3

 (Eqn. 6) 

Assuming a uniform current, uniform magnetic field, and uniform force through the conductor, and further 

neglecting any skin effects of high frequency current pulses on the rails, the total force on the launched 

item becomes: 

F f dv f dv fV fAl total = = = = ∫ ∫ r

Substituting this into the previous equation: 

Al I B l

A

I B Ftotal ( ) r r r r r = ×

× = N (Eqn. 7) 

Or, if only the magnitude of the launching force in Newtons is desired: 

F = Bli N 

where B is the assumed constant magnetic flux existing orthogonal to the rails, l is the length of the 

conducting bar in meters (i.e., the distance between the two rails), and i is the current in amps passing 

uniformly through both the rails and the conducting bar between the two rails. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

537

D. Shuttle Landing Sites

D.1 TYPES OF LANDING SITES 

The Space Shuttle program is supported by three types of landing sites515. These are: 

• End of Mission (EOM) Sites 

o KSC 

o Edwards 

o White Sands 

• Augmented Landing Sites (ALS) 

o Return to Launch Site (RTLS) 

o Abort-Once Around (AOA) 

o Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) 

 Zaragoza Air Base, Spain 

 Moron Air Base, Spain 

 Ben Guerir, Morocco 

• Augmented Emergency Landing Sites (AELS) 

All orbiter landing sites are shown in Figure D.1-1 and summarized in Table D.1-1. 

Various types of landing aids are required for EOM sites and ALS. These are 

summarized in Table D.1-2. ELS require only TACAN/DME. 

D.1.1 EOM Sites

EOM sites include KSC, Edwards and White Sands. Prime site is the Shuttle Landing 

Facility (SLF) at KSC. This was shown in Figure B.2-46. Backup is usually Edwards 

AFB, California. White Sands, New Mexico has been used once as an EOM with STS-3 

in 1982. 

D.1.2 Augumented Landing Sites (ALS)

There are three scenarios that fall into the ALS. These are 

• ALS Return to Launch Site (RTLS) – The RTLS is the Shuttle Landing Facility 

(SLF) at KSC. 

 

515 http://sspweb.jsc.nasa.gov/webdata/pdcweb/sspdocs/vol10bk3.pdf 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

538

• Abort-Once Around (AOA) – The AOA site is also the SLF at KSC 

• Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) – TAL sites are available in Spain and Africa. 

They are 

o Ben Guerir AF, Morocco 

o Moron AB, Spain 

o Zaragoza AB, Spain 

Figure D.1-1 Space Shuttle Landing Sites 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

539

Table D.1-1 Space Shuttle Approved Landing Sites 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

540

Table D.1-1 (Continued) 

Space Shuttle Approved Landing Sites 

D.1.3 Emergency Landing Sites

ELS are located all over the world and throughout the U. S. These were previously listed 

in Figure D.1-1 and Table D.1-1 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

541

Table D.1-2 Landing Site Support Requirements 

D.2 LANDING SITE EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 

The following equipment and services augment EOF and TAL sites: 

• Navigation Aids 

o TACAN 

o MSBLS 

• Visual Aids 

o Ball-Bar Lights 

o Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI ) lights 

o Distance-to-Go Markers 

o Xenon Lights (Night operations) 

o Runway Lighting 

o Approach Lighting 

o Threshold Lights 

• Communications 

o Commercial. 

o Air-to-Ground 

o FM Portable Radios 

o INMARSAT 

• Transportation 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

542

• Security 

• Fire, Crash & Rescue 

• Meteorology 

• Medical 

D.3 EQUIPMENT / SERVICES DESCRIPTIONS 

Equipment and services identified above and in Table D.1-1 are described below in the 

following sections. 

D.3.1 TACAN

This is military omnibearing and distance measuring equipment (DME) system. 

Standard requirements for the military TACAN are 1.0 degrees and <.5 nm accuracy. 

NASA controlled TACANs are <1.0 degree and <.1 nm accuracy. 

D.3.2 Microwave Scanning Beam Landing System (MSBLS)

There are two styles of microwave scanning beam landing systems 

D.3.2.1 Microwave Scan. Beam Lndg Sys – Gnd Stat (MSBLS-GS) 

The MSBLS-GS provides Azimuth (Az), elevation (El), and distance (DME) information 

to the Orbiter as it approaches the landing site. The equipment is housed in two shelters 

with one used for Az and DME and the other used for El. Redundant equipment is 

provided for each. MSBLS are located 300 to 500 feet left or right of the runway 

centerline. 

D.3.2.2 Microwave Scanning Beam Landing Sys – Jr (MSBLS-JR) 

The MSBLS-JR is a derivative of the MSBLS-GS system without the redundancy and 

with all equipment combined in one shelter. The JR was intended as an approach aid for 

use at the TAL and AELS. 

D.3.3 Aim Point
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

543

The visual aim point is a triangle (110 feet x 240 feet) located at the high wind aim point. 

D.3.4 PAPI Lights – OGS

Precision Approach Path Indicator lights are used to assist the crew on the Outer Glide 

Slope (OGS). The system contains a set of four lights that convey to the pilot if his 

approach angle is correct (20 degrees). Two of the lights are white and two are red. 

When the Orbiter is on the correct approach angle, the pilot sees two reds and two whites. 

When high of the ideal glide path, the pilot sees 3 whites and 1 red or 4 whites. When 

low of the ideal glide slope, the pilot sees 1 white and 3 reds or 4 reds. 

D.3.5 Ball-Bar Lights – IGS

The ball-bar light system provides the Orbiter pilot a visual means of attaining and 

maintaining the proper Inner Glide Slope (IGS) angle during Shuttle landing operations. 

The geometry of the height and spacing of the ball-bar is such that when the white ball 

lights are superimposed on the red bar lights, they will exhibit a 1-1/2 degree IGS as 

viewed by the flight crew during their approach. If the energy managed glide slope is 

maintained, the ball lights will appear to move from the inner bar light to the left, 

superimposing the white ball lights on each set of red bar lights consecutively as the 

Orbiter nears touchdown. 

D.3.6 Runway Lights

Three types of runway lighting are specified. 

D.3.6.1 Edge Lights 

Existing runway edge lighting are used. Special edge marking reflectors are used on the 

MSBLS equipped lakebed runways. 

D.3.6.2 Approach Lights 

Existing FAA, military or International Civil Aviation Organization approach lighting is 

acceptable for night landings. 

D.3.6.3 Threshold Lights 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

544

This lighting system is to identify the runway threshold. These are used for both day and 

night operations. 

D.3.7 Xenon Lights

Xenon lights are used to illuminate the touchdown and rollout areas for night landings. 

D.3.8 Runway Distance Remaining Markers

These markers are used to provide runway distance remaining information to flight crews 

during landing operations. The marker inscriptions consist of a number denoting the 

distance, in thousand of feet, of the runway remaining to the end of the Shuttle runway. 

D.3.9 Communications

There are four communication systems required to landing sites. 

D.3.9.1 Commercial 

Commercial lines are used as a backup to the international Maritime Satellite 

(INMARSAT) to maintain contact between KSC and TAL sites from one hour prior to 

launch until a successful orbit is announced. 

D.3.9.2 Air-to-Ground 

Air-to-ground systems are used to communicate with weather aircraft and Orbiter. 

D.3.9.3 FM Portable Radios 

FM portable radios are used to support ground operations during pre-launch and launch 

activities. 

D.3.9.4 INMARSAT 

Primary TAL sites have these terminals available for use, prior to and after launch, with 

KSC and JSC used to maintain contact with the TAL sites from L-1 hour through main 

engine cut-off.

D.3.10 Transportation

Pre-arranged requirements and transportation are made with all approved landing sites. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

545

D.3.11 Security

Prearranged security is available at all approved landing sites and the launch site 

D.3.12 Fire, Crash & Rescue

Trained crews are available where noted to control emergency situations in fire, crash 

and rescue.

D.3.13 Meteorology

Weather systems provide a constant update of meteorological conditions at specific 

landing sites.

D.3.14 Medical

Trained specialists provide medical assistance to Orbiter crews during emergency 

situations. 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

546
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average I hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 

data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate 

or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for 

Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 

Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 

 

2. REPORT DATE 

September 2002 

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

Technical Memorandum – 2002 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Range Information Systems Management (RISM) Phase 1 

Report 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Gary L. Bastin, William G. Harris, Richard A. Nelson 

5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Dynacs, ASRC-10, John F. Kennedy Space Center, FL 32815 

NASA, YA-D7, John F. Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

NASA TM-2004-211523 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

NASA TM-2004-211523 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Unclassified – Unlimited Distribution: 

Standard 

Subject Category: 

Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390 

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

 

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

RISM investigated alternative approaches, technologies, and communication network architectures to 

facilitate building the Spaceports and Ranges of the future. RISM started by document most existing US 

ranges and their capabilities. In parallel, RISM obtained inputs from the following: 

• NASA and NASA-contractor engineers and managers, and 

• Aerospace leaders from Government, Academia, and Industry, participating through the Space 

Based Range Distributed System Working Group (SBRDSWG), many of whom are also 

• Members of the Advanced Range Technology Working Group (ARTWG) subgroups, and 

• Members of the Advanced Spaceport Technology Working Group (ASTWG) 

These diverse inputs helped to envision advanced technologies for implementing future Ranges and 

Range systems that builds on today’s cabled and wireless legacy infrastructures while seamlessly 

integrating both today’s emerging and tomorrow’s building-block communication techniques. The 

fundamental key is to envision a transition to a Space Based Range Distributed Subsystem. The enabling 

concept is to identify the specific needs of Range users that can be solved through applying emerging 

communication tech. 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

562 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 

Range Information Systems, Range Capabilities, Range History, 

Emerging Communication Technologies, Advanced Communication 16. PRICE CODE 

 

17. SECURITY 

CLASSIFICATION OF 

REPORT 

Unclassified 

18. SECURITY 

CLASSIFICATION OF 

THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

19. SECURITY 

CLASSIFICATION OF 

ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

20. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z-39-18 
 RISM – Phase 1 

 

 

298-10