Talk:GPS Block III

message: * the case for modernization
* Direct M acquisition <- maybe better in gps signals
Thoughts for the article. - Davandron | Talk 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to review and import content from 

message: Although I originally wrote this article to discuss the technical info on the new signals, I realized that a separate GPS signals article was more appropriate for that discussion and could also discuss the current signals (better than the main gps article).
However, this article can still exist and cover all the changes (new satellites, ground control) and offload the signals' technical details to the signals page. I'll get around to making those edits eventually, but wanted to leave a note as to where this is heading for others. - Davandron | Talk 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redo to support [[GPS signals]] 

message: Just reading through the article -very interesting- but when I came to the section "Block III satellite improvements" near the end I noticed what seems to be an error. The quoted powers for the signals are between -130 and -160 dBW, however as is even the largest of these are way below the Plank limit for energy. As a quick calculation a single free electron at zero velocity has -13 dBW. So either the values are wrong or something is missing from the units - like the area per unit of signal. Lucien86 (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in signal powers ?? 

message: I'm not very convinced by the reasoning for moving "GPS modernization" to this article; the Block IIIA satellites will certainly include the new signals, but GPS Block IIF also broadcast the new L5 signals and could thus just as well be called part of the modernization initiative.  I can understand that the vagueness of the original term might be troublesome, but the redirect seems equally so. siafu (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen the GPS signals article? That is the most appropriate place for information about L5 signals. Having an article on "modernization" for a system that has been continously evolving for almost 40 years seems clumsy at best. Ng.j (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPS Modernization redirect 

message: Between May 6 and May 17 2014, I added referenced content that addresses schedule delays and cost increases to various aspects of this program.  I expect the USAF or its minions to eventually delete all of that to maintain the story of "on time, on budget" despite the overwhelming and credible evidence to the contrary.  Please ensure that the content is added back until the USAF gives up defacing this content.
To the USAF, should you choose to do what I fear to this page: have more confidence in the value of your work!  Despite the schedule and budget issues, the GPS III program is vital, extremely likely to succeed and is a great investment for U.S. taxpayers and the military.  No need to feel the great work is diminished by budget and schedule challenges identified to date.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenced Schedule and Budget Comments Recently Added, but Probably Not for Long Without Help 

message: In December of 2016, the Director of the USAF Global Positioning System Directorate stated the launch date for GPS IIIA-1 has moved out to spring 2018. The RFP for GPS IIIA-3 launch services states a projected launch date of 2019. I have not been able to find any updated data about the projected launch date for GPS IIIA-2 yet.
Noted that in September of 2016, the USAF exercised the contract option for Block IIIA SV's 09 and 10, so the list of satellites on order has been updated from SV's 1-4 to SV's 1-10.
While Lockheed had originally been expected to build all the GPS III space vehicles, in May of 2016 a Production Readiness Feasibility Assessment Contract was issued to Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing to see which of the three companies was most prepared to produce up to 22 SV's, starting with SV 11. 
Lastly, with the confusing (at least to me!) developments with regards to OCX, including the Nunn-McCurdy critical breach, OCX Block 1 schedule falling further behind, and the introduction of the GPS III Contingency Operations contract, I did a pretty major scrub of the  Control Segment section, including a "Deployment Schedule" section to explain how the various Control Segment deliveries between now and 2022+ impact how SV's are controlled, and what SV's are transmitting the various PNT signals.
I'm brand new to Wikipedia editing, so I'd love any and all constructive criticism from the Wikipedia editor community.  Thanks in advance! TerryOtt (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Launch Schedule, Additional Block IIIA satellites Ordered, SV 11+ Competition, Overhaul of Control Segment Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on GPS Block IIIA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304072004/http://searchandrescue.gsfc.nasa.gov/dass/index.html to http://searchandrescue.gsfc.nasa.gov/dass/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503181621/http://www.losangeles.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=18676 to http://www.losangeles.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=18676
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on GPS Block IIIA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news%2Fasd%2F2010%2F03%2F01%2F12.xml&headline=Raytheon%20Wins%20Next-Gen%20GPS%20Award
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709170255/http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/gps-modernization/the-modernized-l2-civil-signal-730 to http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/gps-modernization/the-modernized-l2-civil-signal-730
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709170325/http://www.gpsworld.com/defense/precision-guidance/getting-m-955 to http://www.gpsworld.com/defense/precision-guidance/getting-m-955
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614015919/http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/cgsicMeetings/46/15%20CGSIC%20GPS%20Prog%2046.pdf to http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/cgsicMeetings/46/15%20CGSIC%20GPS%20Prog%2046.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614020046/http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/cgsicMeetings/38/clarke.ppt to http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/cgsicMeetings/38/clarke.ppt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091031043858/http://www.space.commerce.gov/gps/modernization.shtml to http://www.space.commerce.gov/gps/modernization.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I find few refs to GPSIIIA-01 style naming and lots using GPSIII-SV01 through GPSIII-SV10 naming. Should we follow this naming structure? eg.  crandles (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: russianhalo117 reply #1912 says "To Clear things up. No because Block lettering was removed by order because Block's B and C were cancelled. GPS-IIIF equals GPS-III Follow-On and is a new competition and will fly with technology planned previously for B and C in addition to technology that baselined for future GPS-III blocks D, E et cetera. Depending upon the final requirements GPS-III Follow-On may be redesignated GPS-IV." sounds like the A has been officially removed; and presumably we should follow this? crandles (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Bump. Can we get this moved to GPS Block III? crandles (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one objected, try being bold, so done. crandles (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming GPSIIIA-01 or GPSIII-SV01 

message: Which clocks are used? Rubidium, Cesium, H-Maser? How many per satellite? Lupe (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  clocks 

message: 2022 is evidently the past tense/future tense division in the article.  What has happened with the OCX program? 2600:100B:B134:22FA:0:3:E248:BA01 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Currency? OCX progress?