Major reduction in VORs
01-15-2012 | 07:13 AM
#21
Nothing to write
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: PA28 Flight Engineer
Certain nations now have the ability to shoot satellites out of the sky. Imagine your TomTom or Magellan going off the air. Now you'll never be able to find that new Walmart that they just built.
01-15-2012 | 12:36 PM
#22
Ref +8
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
From: North by Midwest
I'm a Garmin man through and through, they got me with the Christmas commercials years ago. Kidding aside, true some nations have that capability, but realistically how much of a threat is that? Additionally, there is more than one Sat. anyway. I just don't see how going to an all GPS system is much or anymore dangerous than maintaining a the VOR system. The cost-benefit especially the financial side of it is just not there to keep the VORs.
01-15-2012 | 01:28 PM
#23
Moderate Moderator
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
False Economy? "Cheaper" to Discontinue VORs?
(I acknowledge the following is approximate for numbers, but the principle is verifiable).
I wish I could remember the source (may have been annual Air Force Instrument Refresher Class; I learned this in the last 12 months), but the GPS Constellation requires about 24 Satellites to give 3-D coverage (ie, 4-5 satellites viewable) at every spot on/above earth.
A total of about 30, maybe 32 had been placed in orbit. I think 26 or 27 were still operational. Two or three "spares" above minimum.
Some of those in operation are first-gen satellites. They had an expected service life of 8-12 years. Some of them are over 16 years old.
Most of the satellites in orbit are of a 2nd and 3rd gen variety. They have a longer service life, maybe 16 years. None have been exceeded, although one or two of the new satellites are dead.
Here is the kicker:
Based on expected attrition, there will be fewer satellites in the constellation than the required minimum around 2017.
Currently, there are no plans [due to no money] to launch any replacements.
The FAA views this as "We can shut down OMs, LOMs, NDBs, and VORs because the GPS system is superior, which will save the FAA money. The FAA doesn't have to worry about GPS funding---that's the military's job."
(But the military doesn't have the money to launch new satellites).
How expensive is a new satellite, and how much does it cost to maintain an existing VOR? I don't know, but I'd guess you could maintain 100-200 VORs for the price of one satellite.
I wish I could remember the source (may have been annual Air Force Instrument Refresher Class; I learned this in the last 12 months), but the GPS Constellation requires about 24 Satellites to give 3-D coverage (ie, 4-5 satellites viewable) at every spot on/above earth.
A total of about 30, maybe 32 had been placed in orbit. I think 26 or 27 were still operational. Two or three "spares" above minimum.
Some of those in operation are first-gen satellites. They had an expected service life of 8-12 years. Some of them are over 16 years old.
Most of the satellites in orbit are of a 2nd and 3rd gen variety. They have a longer service life, maybe 16 years. None have been exceeded, although one or two of the new satellites are dead.
Here is the kicker:
Based on expected attrition, there will be fewer satellites in the constellation than the required minimum around 2017.
Currently, there are no plans [due to no money] to launch any replacements.
The FAA views this as "We can shut down OMs, LOMs, NDBs, and VORs because the GPS system is superior, which will save the FAA money. The FAA doesn't have to worry about GPS funding---that's the military's job."
(But the military doesn't have the money to launch new satellites).
How expensive is a new satellite, and how much does it cost to maintain an existing VOR? I don't know, but I'd guess you could maintain 100-200 VORs for the price of one satellite.
01-16-2012 | 04:16 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 963
Likes: 0
From: What day is it?
(I acknowledge the following is approximate for numbers, but the principle is verifiable).
I wish I could remember the source (may have been annual Air Force Instrument Refresher Class; I learned this in the last 12 months), but the GPS Constellation requires about 24 Satellites to give 3-D coverage (ie, 4-5 satellites viewable) at every spot on/above earth.
A total of about 30, maybe 32 had been placed in orbit. I think 26 or 27 were still operational. Two or three "spares" above minimum.
Some of those in operation are first-gen satellites. They had an expected service life of 8-12 years. Some of them are over 16 years old.
Most of the satellites in orbit are of a 2nd and 3rd gen variety. They have a longer service life, maybe 16 years. None have been exceeded, although one or two of the new satellites are dead.
Here is the kicker:
Based on expected attrition, there will be fewer satellites in the constellation than the required minimum around 2017.
Currently, there are no plans [due to no money] to launch any replacements.
The FAA views this as "We can shut down OMs, LOMs, NDBs, and VORs because the GPS system is superior, which will save the FAA money. The FAA doesn't have to worry about GPS funding---that's the military's job."
(But the military doesn't have the money to launch new satellites).
How expensive is a new satellite, and how much does it cost to maintain an existing VOR? I don't know, but I'd guess you could maintain 100-200 VORs for the price of one satellite.
I wish I could remember the source (may have been annual Air Force Instrument Refresher Class; I learned this in the last 12 months), but the GPS Constellation requires about 24 Satellites to give 3-D coverage (ie, 4-5 satellites viewable) at every spot on/above earth.
A total of about 30, maybe 32 had been placed in orbit. I think 26 or 27 were still operational. Two or three "spares" above minimum.
Some of those in operation are first-gen satellites. They had an expected service life of 8-12 years. Some of them are over 16 years old.
Most of the satellites in orbit are of a 2nd and 3rd gen variety. They have a longer service life, maybe 16 years. None have been exceeded, although one or two of the new satellites are dead.
Here is the kicker:
Based on expected attrition, there will be fewer satellites in the constellation than the required minimum around 2017.
Currently, there are no plans [due to no money] to launch any replacements.
The FAA views this as "We can shut down OMs, LOMs, NDBs, and VORs because the GPS system is superior, which will save the FAA money. The FAA doesn't have to worry about GPS funding---that's the military's job."
(But the military doesn't have the money to launch new satellites).
How expensive is a new satellite, and how much does it cost to maintain an existing VOR? I don't know, but I'd guess you could maintain 100-200 VORs for the price of one satellite.
Based on known inabilities to adequately secure the system, it now looks like the FAA will not be going full bore on GPS for at least another 5 years, which is what the experts are saying they will need to fully secure the GPS system.
