Talk:Mobile User Objective System

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mobile User Objective System article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Spaceflight Start‑class

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

I don't know if you could source this if you wanted to. You have the twins issues of classified and proprietary knowledge (i.e., proprietary to Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics). That said, most of this information seems to be at an abstract enough level that it's probably okay. It's certainly accurate.

Who is Mike Maxim? We need a source for that part of the article please!--Tprox (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--

This is just a template of the MUOS that anybody can find. No new information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilankhoi (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph reads likea a slaes brochure and has no sources

The first paragraph reads like a sales brochure and has no sources.Chuck Baggett (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How Newtown Ruined The Lockheed Martin MUOS Spacecraft Program

How does one begin to document this comedy of errors on this 7.5 billion dollar space program ? Perhaps to start in the beginning when Lockheed sold some bill of goods to the US Navy ; ie SpaWar ; they could deliver 5 satellites for about half the cost of what the Air Force would pay ; by running the contract out of Commercial Space instead of Military Space. I suppose the concept would make sense on paper, but that’s not how it played out…… In Commercial Space you build satellites like Echo Stat, and JCSat which does not require the same types of traceability as do military hardware. The Navy however, required traceability and paper for all work performed on the spacecraft. Since the managers in Commercial Space had no real clue what needed to be documented, I suppose they were over whelmed with the amount a paper test procedures generated. I mean while other satellite programs were being worked in other buildings on campus with very little generated paper test procedures, MUOS was buried with binders and binders of generated paper. So much paper, during the process of building and test of the first MUOS satellite, barely half the generated test procedures were even filled out by the end of their Single Line Flow of test. Then, with launch only a couple months away, there was this huge rush to close out all the open test procedures dating back all the way to first side-by-side test in Newtown. But the program was still on Cost-Plus, so perhaps program management didn’t care. Quality cared, because Quality wanted to know why there was so many test steps never performed and stamped off, and Quality refused to buy off unused test steps.

TVAC on Flight One. What a two-bit Ringing Bothers circus side show MUOS was. I was given this 30 page test procedure, and a broken pre-calibrated RF wand, to perform RF spray and sniff on the waveguide inside the DELTA Chamber. I mean everything was all pre-layed out, and the spectrum analyzer was all pre-calibrated and measurement off-sets plugged in for the broken RF wand, and all set-up, just ready to go. Never in my 30 years of performing RF measurements was I ever not trusted to make my own test set-ups. Needless to say, I refused to fill out the tables of RF measurements, and document all the gains and losses to arrive at the final measured results. That would have taken forever, plus it took me the better part of the first shift to figure out the supplied RF probe was broken inside. After I was given a replacement RF probe, I cal’ed the new probe myself, took a few measurements, and then had the techs finish the rest….Of course the Ka waveguide they were using was going to leak. This is what happens when you use the cheaper non gasket flange waveguide. But, all of this is not about me. It is just an example of the nonsense yet to come.

UHF Diplexer Conditioning For some reason, the output of the 16 UHF Solid State Power Amplifiers are not directly mounted on the back of the UHF Diplexers. I suppose that would make too much sense. No, inside some prototype shop in Newtown, they pump the high power UHF signal into a cobbled up device they call an Omux, and then out of the Omux into each of the 16 UHF Diplexers. Lots of signal loss though the Omux, but not the real problem. Just mentioned as a side note to illustrate the complexity of the UHF payload. The real problem here, the in house ; factory fabricated ; UHF Diplexers arc internally under high power. Not all of them, but several on 4 out of 5 satellites. This we not complain about. But, according to these system engineers out of Newtown, who also fab the wave guide diplexers ; they tell the Navy if you just re-run the Diplexer Conditioning test, and if there is no internal arc event, then oh well the UHF Diplexer is “conditioned” and is “magically” fixed. What ? Magically fixed, you kidding me ? Secondly, there is a rigged test rack to detect UHF Diplexer waveguide arcing in TVAC. There is no such detection on the spacecraft. The only detection would be the telemetry point which shows UHF output power, which is only updated once every 16 seconds. ATLO refused to replace the defective UHF diplexers, and we as employees who knew better were ordered by Mr. ATLO to keep our mouths shut.

TVAC on Flight Two Ka Test Rack Fire Yes, one of the test rack inside a closed confined space actually caught fire ; you know ; real smoke and flame. We came into TVAC in the early evening and all of the crack EGSE team was there on a phone call with Newtown to figure out which test rack of the five that were powered off ; caught fire. Apparently the event happened sometime in the morning, and this was about 8 o’clock at night. Now, keep in mind, the managers in Newtown are calling the shots ; over the phone ; in Newtown Pennsylvania. Test rack is in California. So while the mafia EGSE team is on phone call with Newtown, we look over at all the test racks, and discover the Ka rack is the one smelling like something burning up inside. Well, the word from Newtown was to power on all the test racks, and see which rack begins to puff smoke. We then got on the conference call, and told Newtown we found the offending test rack, and we would turn on power. Oh, My God, did those managers in Newtown rip us up and down on the phone, threaten to fire us on the spot for insubordination, ect, ect, ect. Also, keep in mind, even though there was a real fire in the test area, No One called 911. No one called 911, no called fire department, no one called base security, no one called Mission Success. No one called Mission Success even after the fact, as the event was never documented and swept under the rug. Oh, back to the test rack. We pulled the power distribution unit from the Ka rack, and sure enough the 20 amp internal power plug had melted into a puddle of white plastic goo inside. A quick check of some of the data sheets on the test equipment mounted inside the rack and some quick math revealed the total A/C power consumed by the rack would be about 30 amps, all funneled though that 20 amp power plug. If the EGSE team had powered up that rack again, that puddle of white plastic would have ignited into a real electrical fire. Later on, we received a formal written reprimand from Mr. ATLO, for interfering with an FRB event, concerning the Ka rack fire. A week later, we were fired off the MUOS program. Final Thoughts A year later, we were transferred back to work on MUOS. Other events happened. Circuit breakers were tripped when the EGSE team decided to plug in the industrial strength laser printers into 20 amp service breakers. We wrote EGSE problem report, which was voided by the EGSE manager. A month later, the same power breaker tripped again, and we lost all command and telemetry to the space craft. On another occasion, a computer went down that commanded the solar array simulator. We called all stop to testing, and received another written reprimand into our personal record from Mr. ATLO. We filed a formal criminal charge against Lockheed with our attorney, and we were later informed by Lockheed HR the written reprimand was later dismissed. Another time, I was brought into Lockheed Martin Security for receiving external e-mail. The external e-mail was from vendors because I was tasked to work on a Teradyne replacement study. I was still ordered to delete all e-mails from legitimate company vendors, and was formally reprimanded again, being my contribution to the replacement study suffered after losing all my vendor supplied materials.

Others were not so lucky. Other members of the test team, like Dr. R. Smith, who held a PHD in electrical engineering and not a member of the EGSE team or a member of Systems Engineering, was fired for allegedly being caught playing solitaire on his office computer. But, during all 5 TVAC operations, many of the EGSE engineers were routinely streaming Monday Night Football and other events in the TVAC area, and inside their office computers. No one cared about any of that. We even found supplies of food, and coffee cups stored in the secure test rack in TVAC test area and PIM test area. We tossed all the food garbage from the secure rack in the TVAC test area. Apparently, the MUOS security officer never bothered to personally audit any of the secure test areas on MUOS. Apparently Lockheed Security was only interested in auditing security on the program by remote control ; through e-mail and such as was stated before. It was around Fight #5, and I was roughly last man standing left that could run secure, was ordered to begin perform security audits for the program. I declined.

2601:283:4303:D740:1D35:BA8E:6B9D:7C53 (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mobile User Objective System. 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/20041022055822/https://enterprise.spawar.navy.mil/UploadedFiles/CA-2004-037.pdf to http://enterprise.spawar.navy.mil/uploadedfiles/ca-2004-037.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mobile User Objective System. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]