RCC324-11_GPS_Inertial_Msmts_Safety_Tracking_Sys.pdf

DOCUMENT 324-11

RANGE SAFETY GROUP

GLOBAL POSITIONING AND INERTIAL MEASUREMENTS RANGE

SAFETY TRACKING SYSTEMS COMMONALITY STANDARD

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE

REAGAN TEST SITE

YUMA PROVING GROUND

DUGWAY PROVING GROUND

ABERDEEN TEST CENTER

ELECTRONIC PROVING GROUND

HIGH ENERGY LASER SYSTEMS TEST FACILITY

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION, PT. MUGU

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION, CHINA LAKE

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION, PATUXENT RIVER

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER DIVISION, NEWPORT

PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER DIVISION, KEYPORT

30TH SPACE WING

45TH SPACE WING

AIR FORCE FLIGHT TEST CENTER

AIR ARMAMENT CENTER

ARNOLD ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT CENTER

BARRY M. GOLDWATER RANGE

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

DISTRIBUTION A: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE,

DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED

This page intentionally left blank.

DOCUMENT 324-11

GLOBAL POSITIONING AND INERTIAL MEASUREMENTS RANGE

SAFETY TRACKING SYSTEMS COMMONALITY STANDARD

FEBRUARY 2011

Prepared by

RANGE SAFETY GROUP (RSG)

Published by

Secretariat Range Commanders Council

U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico 88002-5110

Global Positioning and Inertial Measurements Range Safety Tracking Systems Commonality Standard, RCC Standard 324-11, February, 2011 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................v

PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................... vii

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Basis of Authority .......................................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Range Safety Policy ....................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Scope .............................................................................................................. 1-3

1.4 Range Safety Performance Requirements ..................................................... 1-5

1.5 Acceptability at any Major Range and Test Facility Base ............................. 1-6

1.6 Multiple Range Safety Offices....................................................................... 1-6

1.7 Operational Constraints ................................................................................. 1-7

1.8 Range Tracking System Operational Checkout ............................................. 1-7

1.9 Range Tracking System Flight Approval Process ......................................... 1-7

1.10 Tailoring of Requirements ........................................................................... 1-10

1.11 Waiver Submittals ........................................................................................ 1-12

CHAPTER 2: CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ............................. 2-1

2.1 Range Tracking System General Performance Requirements

(R) (I) (A) (S) (L) (Q) (M) ............................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Range Tracking System Airborne Environmental Performance

Requirements (R) (I) (M) (A) (S) (L) (Q) ...................................................... 2-3

2.3 RTS Component Requirements (R) (I) (M) (A) (S) (L) (Q) .......................... 2-3

2.4 RTS Ground Support and Monitoring Equipment Requirements .................. 2-9

CHAPTER 3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS VERIFICATION-TEST .......... 3-1

3.1 Certification Process. (R) (I) (M) (A) (S) (L) (Q) ......................................... 3-1

3.2 Component Performance Verification Tests

(R) (I) (M) (A) (S) (L) (Q) ............................................................................ 3-3

CHAPTER 4: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS VERIFICATION-ANALYSIS . 4-1

4.1 Range Tracking System General Analysis Requirements

(R) (Q) (A) (S) (L) ........................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Range Tracking System Failure Analysis (R) (Q) (A) (S) (L) ...................... 4-1

4.3 Range Tracking System Similarity Analyses (R) (Q) (A) (S) (L) ................. 4-1

4.4 Range Tracking System Reliability Analysis (R) .......................................... 4-1

4.5 Range Tracking System Energy/Power Analysis (R) .................................... 4-1

4.6 Range Tracking System Radio Frequency Link Analysis (R) ....................... 4-2

4.7 Re-Use............................................................................................................ 4-2

4.8 Prior Flight History ........................................................................................ 4-2 iv

4.9 Range Tracking System Radio Frequency Environment Analysis (R) ......... 4-2

4.10 Breakup Analysis (R) (A) .............................................................................. 4-2

4.11 Dynamic Simulation Analysis ....................................................................... 4-2

4.12 Independence Analysis .................................................................................. 4-2

4.13 Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis

(R) (I) (M) (A) (S) (L) (Q) ............................................................................ 4-2

CHAPTER 5: PEFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS VERIFICATION

DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Range Tracking System Component Test History (R) (Q) ............................ 5-1

5.2 Reporting In-Flight Anomalies (R) (Q) (A) (S) (L)....................................... 5-1

5.3 Range Tracking System Radio Frequency Link Analysis (R) (Q) ................ 5-1

5.4 Radio Frequency Downlink Measurement List (M) (Q) ............................... 5-1

5.5 Range Tracking System Compliance Checklist ............................................. 5-1

5.6 Other Documentation ..................................................................................... 5-1

APPENDIX A: SUGGESTED APPROACHES FOR MEETING PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................B-1

APPENDIX C: TEST METHODS FOR GPS DYNAMIC SIMULATION TESTING .. C-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Example of Document Layout .................................................................... 1-2 Figure 1-2. Range Safety Approval Process .................................................................. 1-8 Figure 3-1. Performance Verification Qualification Process Flow ............................... 3-2 Figure A3-1. Narrow-Band Vibration Peak Clipping Procedures ................................. A-10 Figure A3-2. Co-location Test Setup ............................................................................. A-29 Figure A3-3. Acceleration Test Profile for Dynamic Simulation Testing .................... A-32 Figure A3-4. C/No Profile for Dynamic Simulation Testing ......................................... A-33 Figure A3-5. Jerk Profile for Dynamic Simulation Testing .......................................... A-34 Figure B3.0-1 Example of Vibration Test Margin and Tolerances ..................................B-24 Figure B3.0-2 Effect of Bandwidth Sampling on Vibration Data ....................................B-24 v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Radio Frequency Acceptance Test Matrix .................................................. 3-4 Table 3-2. Radio Frequency System Qualification Test Matrix .................................. 3-5 Table 3-3. Radio Tracking System and Downlink Component Acceptance

Test Matrix .................................................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-4. Radio Tracking System and Downlink Component Qualification

Test Matrix .................................................................................................. 3-6 Table A3-0. Test Tolerances ........................................................................................ A-24 Table A3-2. Recommended Dynamic Simulation/Analysis Test Approach ................ A-32 Table A3.2.5.2. Minimum Power Spectral Density for Qualification Random

Vibration .................................................................................................. A-41 Table A3.2.6.1. Minimum Power Spectral Density for Acceptance Workmanship

Random Vibration .................................................................................... A-45 Table A3-1. RF System Acceptance Test Matrix ........................................................ A-49 Table A3-2. RF System Qualification Test Matrix ...................................................... A-50 Table A3-3a. RF System Qualification Test Matrix ...................................................... A-54 Table A3-4a. GPS Receiver Test Requirements Qualification Test .............................. A-55 Table A3-3b. GPS Translator Test Requirements Acceptance Test .............................. A-59 Table A3-4b. GPS Translator Test Requirements Acceptance Test ............................. A-60 Table A3-3c. RF Downlink Transmitter Acceptance Test Matrix................................. A-62 Table A3-4c. RF Downlink Transmitter Qualification Test Matrix .............................. A-63 Table A3-3d. Miscellaneous Component Acceptance Test Matrix

(Includes Encoders, Multiplexers and Signal Conditioners) ................... A-64 Table A3-4d. Miscellaneous Component Acceptance Test Matrix

(Includes Encoders, Multiplexers and Signal Conditioners) ................... A-65 Table A3-3e. Inertial Measurement Unit Test Requirements Acceptance Test. ........... A-66 Table A3-4e. Inertial Measurement Unit Test Requirements Qualification Test .......... A-67 Table A3-3f. Integrated/Coupled GPS/IMU Component Requirements

Acceptance Test ....................................................................................... A-69 Table A3-4f. Integrated/Coupled GPS/IMU Component Requirements

Qualification Test..................................................................................... A-70 Table A3-3g-1. Accelerometer Test Requirements Acceptance Test ............................. A-72 Table A3-4g-1. Accelerometer Test Requirements Qualification Test ............................. A-74 Table A3-3g-2. Ring Laser/Fiber Optic Gyro Test Requirements Acceptance Test......... A-76 Table A3-4g-2. Ring Laser/Fiber Optic Gyro Test Requirements Qualification Test ...... A-77 Table A3-3h. GPS Ground Translator Processor Acceptance Test .............................. A-87 Table A3-4h. GPS Ground Translator Processor Qualification Test ............................ A-87 vi vii

PREFACE

This document presents the work performed by the Range Safety Group (RSG) of the Range Commanders Council (RCC). This document replaces the RCC Document 324-02, Global Positioning and Inertial Measurements Range Safety Tracking Systems Commonality Standard. Although this new edition contains minor editing to the document’s main body, the main change is the addition of Appendix C as explained below.

This document contains requirements for airborne Global Positioning System (GPS) and Inertial Measurements tracking sources used for range safety purposes. The document structure makes it easier for range users to develop detailed requirements representing design and test solutions that will meet performance requirements of the specific Range Safety Office (also referred to herein as Range Safety). To address concerns associated with the ambiguity and contractual misinterpretation often resulting from performance requirements, the main body of text contains only performance-based requirements, while three appendices are included to assist the range user and Range Safety in developing detailed requirement’s document. Appendix A offers “lessons learned” and standard industry practices as recommended solutions. Appendix B describes the rationale and safety concerns associated with the performance requirements and recommended solutions. Appendix C provides methodology for testing GPS metric tracking receivers/translators to the current performance standards contained in this document.

The RCC would like to thank the following individual for his efforts on development of this 2011 edition of RCC Document 324.

Task Lead: Mr. Martin Diaz

30th Space Wing (30 SW)/SEAE 806 13th ST, Suite 3 Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) 93437-5230

DSN 276-5778/COM (805) 606-5778

Phone: (805) 606-5778 DSN 276-5778 Fax: (805) 605-2589 DSN 275-2589 Email: martin.diaz@vandenberg.af.mil

Please address any questions to:

Secretariat, Range Commanders Council

ATTN: TEDT-WS-RCC

100 Headquarters Avenue White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico 88002-5110 Phone: (575) 678-1107 DSN 258-1107 Fax: (575) 678-9517 DSN 258-9517 Email: wsmrrcc@conus.army.mil mailto:martin.diaz@vandenberg.af.mil mailto:wsmrrcc@conus.army.mil viii ix

ACRONYMS

2D Two-dimensional 3D Three-dimensional AC Alternating Current AFB Air Force Base ANSI American National Standards Institute ATP Acceptance Test Procedure BER Bit Error Rate BIT Built-in Test

C/A Coarse/Acquisition C/N0 Carrier-to Noise Density (ratio) CE Conducted Emissions CEP Circular Error Probable cm Centimeters COTS Commercial-off-the-Shelf CS Conducted Susceptibility CW Continuous Wave

DAGR Defense Advanced GPS Receiver dB Decibels dBw Decibels relative to 1 milliwatt DC Direct Current DGPS Differential Global Positioning System DGT Digital GPS Translator DOP Dilution of Precision DPR delta pseudorange Eb/N0 Bit Energy to Noise power spectral density EMC Electro-Magnetic Compatibility EMI Electro-Magnetic Interference ESS Environmental Stress Screening

FMECA Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis FTS Flight Termination System FY Fiscal Year g Gravity G/T Gain Noise Temperature Ratio GHz Giga-Hertz (1 billion Hertz) GMT Greenwich Mean Time GPS Global Positioning System GTP Ground Translator Processor

Hz Hertz x

IA Input Axis IAW In Accordance With ID Identification IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers IIP Instantaneous Impact Prediction IMU Inertial Measurement Unit INS Inertial Navigation System IRIG Inter-range Instrumentation Group IV&V Independent Verification and Validation

Kohms Kilo ohms

L1 Link 1 (1575.42 MHz) GPS satellite transmission L2 Link 2 (1227.60 MHz) GPS satellite transmission L3 Link 3 (1381.05 MHz) GPS satellite transmission LNA Low Noise Amplifier

M Meters M/s Meters per second MAGR Miniature Air-Borne GPS Receiver MHz Megahertz (1 million Hertz) MIL-HNDBK Military Handbook MIL-STD Military Standard MPE Maximum Predicted Environment MRTFB Major Range and Test Facility Base ms Milliseconds MTE Minimum Time to Endanger

NFT Navigational Functional Test

PDR Preliminary Design Review PI ND Particle Impact Noise Detection POC Point of Contact PP Present Position PSD Power Spectral Density

RAIM Receiver Autonomous Integrity Methodology RF Radio Frequency RFP Request For Proposal RMS Root Mean Square RPER Radial Position Error Growth Rate RR Reference Receiver RSO Range Safety Officer RTS Range Tracking System RTSR Range Tracking System Report xi

SNR Signal to Noise Ratio sps Samples per second

TIMs Technical Interchange Meetings TM Telemetry/Any Band

TMIG

TSPI Time, Space and Position Information

UAV Unmanned Air Vehicle USAEPG U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground (Ft. Huachuca, AZ) UTC Universal Coordinated Time

VAC Volts Alternate Current VDC Volts Direct Current VSWR Voltage Standing Wave Ratio

WGS World Geodetic System xii

1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This document has been prepared in an effort to establish a set of common performance and verification requirements for airborne Range Tracking Systems (RTS) including Inertial Measurements Units (IMU) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS). These performance and verification requirements assist Range Safety, RTS vendors/manufacturers, and vehicle integrators in identifying specific RTS Range Safety requirements. This document may be applied to a wide variety of vehicles, from spacelift to air-to-air missiles, to Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs). Proper tailoring of this document may also allow programs to be tested at multiple ranges. For purposes of this document, an RTS includes all systems, subsystems, and components necessary to provide adequate vehicle state-vectors and other data required for Range Safety decision-making. This document contains three sections (see Figure 1-1):

The main section contains five chapters. These chapters include the critical performance and verification requirements necessary for Range Safety personnel to evaluate a candidate RTS based tracking source.

Appendix A references corresponding paragraphs (see Figure 1-1) in the main section of the document. Appendix A provides detailed technical solutions to support the following objectives:

• Aid range users in developing an RTS that may be used on multiple Ranges for most vehicle configurations.

• Help Range Safety personnel and range users in evaluating a potential RTS against expected values. Values that are not consistent with expected results can be flagged and evaluated to ensure that there is no safety concern generated.

• Aid range safety and range users in implementing lessons learned.

• Provide an appropriate level of detail necessary for contractual efforts. The recommended solutions in this appendix act as “place holders” where experience has shown that misunderstandings often occur if a detailed requirement is not levied.

Appendix B references corresponding paragraphs in Appendix A and the main section of the document (see Figure 1-1). Appendix B describes the philosophy and explains the rationale for safety performance requirements. Appendix B must be evaluated in conjunction with Appendix A. Note: Not all performance and Appendix A requirements have corresponding Appendix B descriptions.

Appendix C provides methodologies for performing dynamic simulation tests identified in Appendix A, paragraph A3.1.7, TEST 2.

1-2

Figure 1-1. Example of Document Layout

1.1 Basis of Authority

Department of Defense Directive 3200.11, 17 Jun 83, (26 January 1998) establishes the Major Range and Test Facility Base’s (MRTFB’s) responsibilities for test and evaluation activities. The directive assigns the Range Safety responsibility to the specific activity or range Commander. No provisions are made for transferring this responsibility to the range user or to another range. Consequently, while establishing common agreements and practices among all ranges, Range Safety personnel at each affected range are entrusted with the responsibility to establish and enforce the safety policies of their respective ranges.

1.2 Range Safety Policy

The Range Safety policy is defined in the test management process and policies as a function of the specific range, vehicle under test, mission scenario, and other safety constraints.

The process, though fundamentally the same at most ranges, often varies among ranges due to geographical or other limitations of that specific Range. However, the primary safety requirement at all Ranges is the same: protection of life and property. A secondary objective is the assurance of mission success. RTS mission assurance protection requirements are described within this document to aid range users in understanding how the RTS could impact their mission reliability. Without these explanations, a range user may be unaware of the risk to their mission from a particular RTS configuration. With a full understanding of the risks and options, the range user can opt to accept the mission risk posed by a particular RTS or select an RTS configuration that minimizes mission risk. The fundamental safety test management process is predicated on taking all prudent and reasonable steps to minimize the level of risk to the public, to mission essential personnel supporting the test operation, and to the vehicle under test.

In most cases, real-time Range Safety test management requires monitoring of vehicle performance in-flight by the Range Safety Officer (RSO). The RSO is a generic term used in this document to designate the individual or individuals responsible for making range safety decisions, particularly flight termination decisions. During real-time, the RSO is delegated the authority to execute the range Commander’s range safety policies and has sole responsibility for making range safety decisions. In those instances where a vehicle failure occurs in-flight, the RSO maintains an acceptable level of risk to life and property by terminating or constraining flight before an unsafe condition can occur. The RSO can also terminate or constrain flight if

Performance Requirements

2.1.4 Reliability

Appendix A Recommended Solutions

A2.1.4 Reliability

Appendix B Rationale and Conditions

B2.1.4 Reliability

1-3 positive assurance is not provided that the flight is proceeding in a safe manner. Displays derived from metric data are critical to the RSOs decision-making process. In many cases, failure of the tracking source, or failure to properly process and display the information, may lead to a flight termination action in order to assure public safety.

For most applications, a minimum of two independent tracking sources is required to assure public safety. However, additional tracking sources may provide flexibility and increase the probability of mission success. Depending on the specific mission scenario, if the two tracking sources disagree, information from the worst-case data source may be used to determine whether an action should be taken to terminate or constrain flight. Also, a failure that results in only one remaining RTS source of tracking creates a safety concern where the remaining source must be relied upon and assumed to be valid. If the one remaining source produces undetectable false position data, this could result in an errant vehicle violating Range Safety public risk criteria.

Range safety will typically establish mission rules to account for a tracking source being lost during flight. Therefore, the probability of failure modes for these tracking sources is of special concern, especially when only a single source is remaining. It is the intent of this document to permit a nominal vehicle to continue flight should an RTS (Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) or Global Positioning System (GPS)), compliant with this document, be the only remaining source due to a failure of another RTS source. However, the applicable range must agree upon mission rules for each specific mission.

1.3 Scope

This document is intended as a tool to aid range users in developing detailed tracking solutions that will meet range safety performance requirements for use on multiple ranges in a wide variety of vehicles applications. Since this document only levies safety performance requirements, it is the responsibility of the range user to develop detailed solutions that satisfy these performance requirements. When the requirements definition process is complete, it is expected that the final requirements document to be used for contractual purposes will be similar in detail to Appendix A. This document provides the framework to develop these detailed technical solutions as described below:

1.3.1 The candidate performance requirements are intended as a “checklist” of potential concerns and are not meant to be implemented indiscriminately. Solutions are included in the appendices of this document. The numbering scheme used in the appendices matches the requirements in the main document. For example, a performance requirement in Section 2.3 may have a recommended solution in Appendix A2.3.

1.3.2 In addition to recommended solutions for performance requirements, Appendix B is provided to explain the philosophy, policy and rationale for a particular requirement. This appendix is intended to help range users understand the intent of a particular requirement and guide them to develop alternative solutions.

1.3.3 The RTS shall be effective throughout all segments of flight for which Range Safety has responsibility for ensuring public safety. The RTS reliability, state vector accuracy, sample rate or latency requirements may be relaxed depending on vehicle configuration, launch profile, 1-4 and phases of flight. For example, it may be necessary to have more stringent state vector requirements for the early phases of vehicle flight than in the latter stages.

1.3.4 Requirements in this document assume the airborne GPS or IMU as a primary means of tracking. When additional qualified and approved range support tracking is provided (e.g.

transponder radar track or optics), the level of compliance with this document may be decreased significantly or even eliminated. Determination of the applicability of these requirements should be determined by the responsible Range Safety organization during the candidate requirement selection or “tailoring” process.

1.3.5 Each candidate requirement that follows has a top-level reference performance requirement in parenthesis at the beginning of the paragraph. The symbols for these references are described in Section 1.4. The purpose of this interaction is to assist a range user in understanding the overall top-level safety performance requirement relating to a candidate performance requirement or configuration. This association also helps reduce the level of effort necessary to assess a proposed RTS by allowing identification of the requirements of interest.

For example, if there are sufficient tracking sources, candidate requirements that reflect reliability (R) could be significantly reduced or even eliminated since a loss of GPS tracking data would not be critical due to the availability of alternate tracking sources.

1.3.6 The launch vehicle system determines the specific RTS performance and performance verification requirements for that program; therefore, RTS systems approved for one program should not be automatically accepted for another program. If an existing RTS used for one program is to be utilized on another program, there should be a new tailoring effort to identify potential concerns such as changes in flight environments, antenna patterns and dynamic tracking capability. Decisions on tailoring or implementation of this document should be made by a mutual agreement between the range user and all Range Safety Offices involved.

1.3.7 Corrected P (Y) code Time, Space and Position Information (TSPI) data may introduce specific security issues that are not addressed in this document. Unique requirements for classified P (Y) and unclassified (Y) code GPS hardware will be addressed on a case-by-case basis as part of the tailoring effort.

1.3.8 Since performance requirements can often be subject to varying contractual interpretations, it must be understood that a particular Range Safety Office has final interpretation authority and responsibility to determine whether a proposed range user’s detailed solution meets a safety performance requirement.

1.3.9 A primary benefit of this document is to allow RTS vendors/manufacturers and vehicle integrators to design and test components that can be utilized on a wide variety of ranges and airborne vehicle systems. It is the intent of this document to recommend configurations and test criteria in the appendices, which will maximize a potential vendor’s market. If a narrower market is desired (e.g. tactical missiles or UAVs), then some of the candidate requirements and recommended solutions can be deleted or tailored. Compliance to this document and the recommended solutions in the appendices does not guarantee blanket approval at all ranges for

1-5 all vehicle applications. However, it should maximize common hardware usage for multiple vehicle classes at most ranges.

1.3.10 Though this document is intended for airborne GPS and IMU tracking, many of the performance requirements in the main section can be used as a checklist to develop ground system requirements. Note: This document was unable to address range ground architecture due to the diverse capabilities and missions between ranges. Any tailoring for ground systems will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis for each specific application.

1.3.11 This format should provide the following benefits:

• Safety performance requirements dictate why a particular recommended solution is critical to safety. With this understanding, range users can develop innovative processes that meet safety requirements more easily.

• Appendix A maintains the “lessons learned”, industry practices and history accumulated throughout the years as recommended solutions that would be addressed during the range user proposal review.

• Detailed recommended solutions in Appendix A provide a checklist for Range Safety representatives to evaluate a range users proposal and to ensure that critical items are not inadvertently omitted.

• It is sometimes more cost and time effective to have a detailed solution rather than conducting a “science experiment” for each requirement. By including the accepted practices as appendices, range users can meet a recommended solution instead of “reinventing the wheel”.

• Safety performance requirements call for the range user to demonstrate that their system is safe to the public and not just compliant with detailed solutions.

• Since the requirements are performance oriented, it is up to the range user to describe how each requirement will be met. The recommended solutions in the appendices offer a template of the level of detail required to demonstrate compliance. Range Safety is not generating or requiring any particular detailed solution; the range user must develop the detailed solutions. Range Safety is responsible for reviewing range user-generated detailed solutions to determine if the proposed solutions satisfy safety performance requirements.

• The detailed solutions generated by the range user should be negotiated (tailored) to develop a requirements document for the program. Tailoring is simplified since only performance requirements need to be dispositioned.

1.4 Range Safety Performance Requirements

The ability to ensure that an adequate level of public safety is maintained is determined by the following top-level performance requirements. All candidate requirements have been derived from these core requirements. Each candidate requirement in Chapter 2 through Chapter 5, Appendix A and Appendix B references the seven top-level performance requirements, where applicable. These references are conveyed through the appropriate performance requirement symbol in parenthesis described at the beginning of each paragraph.

Not all top-level requirements are applicable to all vehicles at all ranges. Each range will assess

1-6 the applicability of these requirements based on vehicle under test, the proposed RTS application, and the specific mission scenario. The seven top-level performance parameters and definitions are as follows:

• Reliability (R) – The basic requirement at each range is for a reliable tracking source that will ensure the RSO has the necessary information to make critical real-time safety decisions. A second requirement involves the probability of an RTS to produce undetectable out-of-specification state vector data.

• Independence (I) - Reliable tracking data is acquired at most ranges through the use of independent tracking sources. The intent of independence is to ensure that a failure of one tracking system will not degrade the performance of another tracking system and to minimize the likelihood of unidentified common cause failure mode.

• Measurement Set (M) – The measurement set includes time, space, position, and any other information necessary to monitor the vehicle’s in-flight performance. Examples include vehicle position, velocity, and attitude.

• Accuracy (A) – Accuracy is defined as the statistical difference between a measured and true value. The true value represents the best estimate of trajectory for the analyzed mission.

• Sample Rate (S) – Sample Rate is defined as the rate at which the required state vector or other data is supplied for Range Safety personnel processing and display.

• Latency (L) – The latency is the delay between when a measurement is taken and when that measurement is available for decision making at the Range Safety displays.

• Quality/Confidence Indicators (Q) – These indicators are health and other status monitors that provide quality indication of the tracking data and provide the RSO with some level of confidence in the data.

1.5 Acceptability at any Major Range and Test Facility Base

Airborne tracking systems, meeting the requirements of this document, will be acceptable for use for a specific flight vehicle and range. With the exception of specific launch vehicle operating and non-operating environments, RTS hardware developed with the recommended design and test solutions in this document should maximize common hardware usage for many types of vehicles at most ranges.

1.6 Multiple Range Safety Offices

For systems that launch from multiple ranges, the range user is responsible for keeping each Range Safety Office informed on the program. No range has the authority to accept/reject a design, request, etc. for another activity Commander. When waivers are required, it is the range user's responsibility to resolve these issues directly with each Range Safety Office involved.

1-7

1.7 Operational Constraints

Range users are cautioned that ground and flight operational constraints may vary from range to range; consequently, what is acceptable at one range may not be permitted on another.

Adherence to the performance requirements and recommended solutions described in this document will produce RTS hardware that can be used at most MRTFBs without modification or retest. If a modification is made to the qualified flight vehicle or RTS configuration, a review by the Range Safety Office of each subsequent launching range is often necessary to determine whether additional testing or design modification is required or new mission rules should be implemented.

1.8 Range Tracking System Operational Checkout

The operational checkout of the RTS falls under the purview of each affected range.

Range Safety Office and other range representatives should monitor and evaluate the acceptability of tracking data during the launch countdown or preflight process. To perform this function, the range user may be required to provide a RF downlink console.

1.9 Range Tracking System Flight Approval Process

1.9.1 Flight Approval Process

As discussed earlier, the implementation of Range Safety requirements varies from range to range. Similarly, the approval process at individual ranges may also vary depending on organizational structure, operational test support capabilities, and other factors. The approval process defined in this document (Figure 1-2) is designed to ensure proper coordination between the affected range and the range user from the early vehicle design and development stages through the range pre-flight tests. All ranges may not follow this process, but it is strongly recommended. By reviewing the candidate requirements in this document and tailoring the requirements to the specific application, the range and range user can jointly develop the most appropriate mission specific subset of requirements. The need for dynamic simulations should also be assessed during the tailoring process. The tailoring process is detailed in Section 1.10.

The tests are briefly discussed below and are also detailed in later chapters of this document.

1-8

Figure 1-2. Range Safety Approval Process

• Design Development Tests validate hardware design concepts and assist in the evolution of designs from the conceptual phase to the operational phase. The objective of these tests is to identify hardware problems early in their design evolution, so any required corrective actions can be taken prior to beginning formal Qualification testing and production hardware fabrication.

• Qualification Tests are range user/vendor functional tests of flight representative hardware system or component designs to ensure suitability of the design to reliably operate and provide expected results during and after exposure to certain physical environments. Functional performance and dynamic simulation tests would be conducted during component qualification testing in a laboratory type environment designed to validate specific range safety-related performance parameters.

• Acceptance Tests are conducted at the range user/vendor facilities to demonstrate that each production end item meets the requirements of the specification and to reveal production inadequacies.

• Certification Tests are conducted on RTS components prior to installation in a higher assembly or vehicle to certify them for flight. These tests are usually required if a significant amount of time has elapsed since the last detailed performance functional test.

• Range Pre-Flight Tests involve subsystem level and system level tests and are typically conducted at the range.

• Launch Countdown Verification involves a final checkout of the entire system (end-to-end) just prior to launch.

TAILORING

PROCESS

1.10

RCC GPS/IMU

REQUIREMENTS

PROGRAM

REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC USER

VEHICLE/MISSION

DATA

COMPONENT

CERTIFICATION

TESTS

SYSTEM

PRE - FLIGHT

TESTS

ACCEPTANCE

TESTS

Design Approval/Verification

Flight Units

CERTIFIED RTS

READY FOR

FLIGHT

RANGE

PREFLIGHT

VERIFICATION

DEVELOPMENT

TESTS

QUALIFICATION TESTS

DESIGN

3.X 3.1/A3.1.4 3.1/A3.1.5.1 3.1/A3.1.5.2

3.X

A3.1.1

2.X

RCC Pa ragraph Reference

RCC Paragraph Reference

PARALLEL FLIGHT

OR DYNAMIC

SIMULATION

A3.1.8

1-9

1.9.2 Dynamic Simulations

Dynamic simulation testing is a means of further assessing the ability of a GPS based tracking system to meet specific range safety performance requirements and may be used as an alternative or supplement to the parallel certification flight-testing concept. The dynamic simulation concept includes testing of the GPS system with simulated flight trajectories, antenna patterns, lever arms, and simulated GPS signals in an effort to assess how the proposed GPS will perform under flight conditions. The dynamic simulations shall be performed not only for nominal flight conditions, but also for non-nominal vehicle failures conditions and worst-case degraded conditions. Data generated during these dynamic simulations allow evaluation of specific performance parameters of special interest (e.g. degraded accuracy or reacquisition during high dynamic operation).

1.9.3 Parallel Certification Flight Tests

Parallel Certification Flight Tests may be required. These tests would entail flight-testing, a proposed RTS in addition to traditional certified tracking source (e.g., radar and TMIG) as a means of “certifying” the new RTS. This may only be required for new RTS design/technologies. It may be possible to use dynamic simulation tests in lieu of parallel flight tests if it can be shown that the dynamic simulation is an accurate representation of the flight environment. The requirement for parallel certification flight tests shall be discussed as part of the tailoring process between the range and range user.

1.9.4 Early Coordination

Range users are strongly urged to coordinate with the Range Safety Offices involved as early as practical to ensure proper recognition and interpretation of safety performance requirements and recommended solutions. This is particularly important when the vehicle is to be flown at more than one range.

1.9.5 Design Reviews/Technical Interchange Meetings

Concept design reviews, preliminary design reviews, and critical design reviews (which involve the RTS), should include participation by Range Safety. Meeting dates should be coordinated with Range Safety to ensure proper participation. Supporting data should be provided within an agreed time frame, typically 14 calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting.

1.9.6 Final Range Tracking System Approval

Final range approval of the RTS should be requested at least 60 days prior to the start of flight test operations. This final review assesses the performance parameters of the tailored requirements document against the RTS configuration. After final review and approval by Range Safety personnel, continued coordination shall be maintained to ensure that any modifications to the RTS do not invalidate the previously agreed to mission rules.

1-10

1.10 Tailoring of Requirements

1.10.1 Introduction

The test requirements in this document should be tailored to fit the specific RTS hardware design and application at a specific range(s). These tests are not intended to be inflexible compliance requirements and should instead be viewed as a checklist to address potential concerns. Suggested configurations in the appendices are used as a benchmark to compare proposed hardware with expected values experienced on similar technology. These approaches also allow vendors insight into the criteria, which Range Safety will use to assess the expected performance of proposed hardware. Configurations included in the appendices are for reference only and it is understood that different vendors may have contrasting specifications that require technical evaluation. Detailed values are also used to identify out-of-family measurements or degradation in performance, which could indicate that a flight article may contain deficiencies not screened during acceptance testing. These deficiencies may not result in a system failure (i.e.

inability to obtain tracking data) during ground processing, but could lead to in-flight failures when subjected to flight environments. New technology and/or unique applications of existing technology may require adding tests not contained in this document.

1.10.2 Tailoring Process

1.10.2.1 Candidate requirements should be tailored by agreement between the range user and all Range Safety Offices involved. It is the range user's responsibility to ensure that the tailoring involves all of the participating ranges. The tailoring is a continuing process throughout all phases of system acquisition, design and test: Request For Proposal (RFP), pre-bid conferences with bidders, concept Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs), Preliminary Design Reviews (PDRs), etc. Tailoring agreements and the design/test/inspection concepts upon which the tailoring is based should be formally documented including approval signatures. Compliance to the tailoring is necessary to ensure that mission rules are valid.

1.10.2.2 A tailored edition of this document should be developed by the affected Range Safety Offices to fit the peculiar requirements of a specific program. The ranges should develop this tailored document with range user participation in the tailoring process. The purpose of tailoring this document is to generate a detailed requirement representing solutions to range safety performance requirements. In this document, critical range safety performance requirements and related requirements are written as “shall’s” in the main body of the document, which again need to be tailored for each individual application. Candidate requirements contained in the appendices of this document are written as recommendations. If this document is to be utilized as a contractual mechanism, then the level of detail reflected in the candidate requirements in Appendix A must be rewritten as “shall’s” during the tailoring process.

• Tailoring should begin at the earliest opportunity (preferably at the conceptual stage). The tailored version of this document should be placed on contract. Therefore, tailoring should be performed prior to contract award.

1-11

• An initial TIM is strongly recommended. Material should be provided that describes, in detail, the vehicle configuration and proposed RTS component and system design. This TIM is necessary to identify the baseline, for which tailoring can be performed and to identify ground rules.

• The performance requirements in the main section and their corresponding recommended solutions should be tailored concurrently. Tailoring should only be performed on the performance requirements in the main document and the solutions in Appendix A. Appendix B is for information only and does not need to be tailored. Note: Most of the tailoring effort will be performed on Appendix A where agreements will be made on the detailed implementation of the performance requirements in the main document. For contractual efforts, Appendix A will become the driving document for hardware vendors. However, the performance requirements in the main section must remain on contract in the event the tailored Appendix A solutions are inadequate or need to be changed.

• Documenting the rationale for not meeting a particular requirement or recommended solution may be crucial if the system is significantly modified or used at another range. By understanding how each requirement and recommended solution has been addressed, a complete reassessment may not be necessary if the RTS is used at a different range.

• Performance requirements are not specific and are open to various technical and contractual interpretations. Therefore, it is necessary that as much detail as possible is put into the agreed upon implementation of solution for each performance requirement to minimize misunderstandings. In the event of varying interpretations, Range Safety has sole interpretation authority and responsibility in making a final determination on whether a range user proposed solution meets a corresponding performance requirement.

• The intent of this document is to aid the range user and Range Safety in generating a detailed requirement’s document that has a similar amount of detail as in Appendix A.

1.10.3 Disposition of tailored requirements

Range users should identify potential discrepancies associated with the requirements in this document. Each requirement should be dispositioned and documented as follows:

1.10.3.1 Compliant - The proposed design or test concept meets the requirement or recommended solution as written.

1.10.3.2 Deletion of a Requirement - When a requirement is not applicable to a range user program, the requirement should be dispositioned as "non-applicable" and deleted in the final requirements document.

1.10.3.3 Meets Intent Certification/Requirement – This is used when range users do not meet the exact requirements, but do meet the intent of the requirements. Changing a requirement is acceptable if the new requirement provides an equivalent level of capability.

1-12

1.10.3.4 Waivers - Waivers are required where a noncompliance could pose a significant public safety risk. Non-conformances to requirements will be assessed for acceptance by each range Safety Office and changes of mission flight rules may be necessary to ensure public safety.

Waivers typically have a limited time or vehicle-number effectively and require long-term corrective action. Waivers will be granted only under unique and compelling circumstances.

Range Safety and the range user should jointly endeavor to ensure that requirements of this document are addressed as early in the design process as possible to limit the use of waivers to a minimum. Individually, each range Commander has the authority to change, or waive any requirement in this document for a specific program or mission operating at a respective range. Each range Commander has the authority to accept additional risks for a specific mission based on national or mission need.

1.10.4 Addition of a Requirement

An addition of a requirement is allowed when there are no existing requirements addressing new technology, when unforeseen hazards are discovered, when federal or industry standards change, and for similar reasons. An addition should be included with new paragraph numbers in the section for which it is appropriate or in a new section if no other section applies.

1.11 Waiver Submittals

The range user shall submit adequate justification for waivers from tailored requirements.

Each applicable range involved shall approve all waivers. Ranges, which were not involved in the original process, have the right to restore the requirements of this document for any program wishing to conduct operations at their ranges. Supporting data for the waiver or deviation request should include:

• A statement of the technical or other requirement, which makes the waiver necessary

(i.e. creates a public safety concern).

• A discussion of the effect on RTS performance functions if the waiver is granted and the effect on public health and safety.

• A discussion of the effect on the program if the waiver or deviation is not granted.

• A detailed description of the proposed flight tests or operations.

2-1

CHAPTER 2

CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

The following candidate performance requirements are intended to be used as a “checklist” of potential requirements that can be deleted or modified during the tailoring process. The letters in parentheses identify the top-level performance requirement described in Chapter 1 for which these candidate requirements are derived.

2.1 Range Tracking System General Performance Requirements

(R) (I) (A) (S) (L) (Q) (M)

RTS performance shall ensure that a flight vehicle’s state vector can be positively ascertained in order to protect the public throughout the period of Range Safety responsibility.

The RTS shall meet the requirements of this section for planned and unplanned flight conditions during the period of Range Safety responsibility. After a baseline has been established and approved, any changes to the requirements of this section shall be coordinated with Range Safety.