GPS World

Tag: DLR

  • First transmission of L1C/B by QZS-1R

    First transmission of L1C/B by QZS-1R

    QZS-R1 is prepped for testing. At left is the Earth-oriented surface that hosts the L-band antenna. (Photo: JAXA)
    QZS-R1 is prepped for testing. At left is the Earth-oriented surface that hosts the L-band antenna. (Photo: JAXA)

    By Peter Steigenberger, Steffen Thoelert, Sergei Yudanov and Markus Ramatschi

    The Japanese QZS-1R satellite was launched on Oct. 26, 2021, from the Tanegashima Space Center in Japan. It serves as a replenishment for QZS-1, the first spacecraft of the Japanese Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) in orbit since September 2010.

    QZS-1R joins the current QZSS constellation of three satellites in inclined geosynchronous orbit (IGSO) and one geostationary satellite. These four Block I satellites transmit the L1C/A signal at 1575.42 MHz.

    QZS-1R, as well as future QZSS satellites, are able to transmit the new L1C/B signal. L1C/B is based on the same family of gold codes as L1C/A, but uses a binary offset carrier (BOC) modulation instead of the binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) and a different PRN range (203–206).

    Compared to BPSK, the BOC modulation adds a square wave subcarrier with a frequency of fsc = 1.023 MHz that equals the chipping rate of the ranging code. This subcarrier shifts the peak spectral energy from the center frequency fL1 to fL1 ± fsc to reduce interference with the GPS L1C/A signals.

    During in-orbit testing (IOT) from late November until early December 2021, QZS-1R transmitted L1C/A and L1C/B signals intermittently. FIGURE 1 shows a spectrum of the L1-band transmissions of QZS-1R recorded on Nov. 25 with the 30-meter dish antenna of the German Space Operations Center in Weilheim, Germany, as well as a spectrum of QZS-2 recorded in July 2017.

    Figure 1. L1 spectra of QZS-1R (red) transmitting L1C/B and L1C, as well as QZS-2 (blue) transmitting L1C/A and L1C. The spectra were measured with DLR’s 30-meter high-gain antenna on Nov. 25, 2021, and July 20, 2017, respectively. (Credit: DLR)
    Figure 1. L1 spectra of QZS-1R (red) transmitting L1C/B and L1C, as well as QZS-2 (blue) transmitting L1C/A and L1C. The spectra were measured with DLR’s 30-meter high-gain antenna on Nov. 25, 2021, and July 20, 2017, respectively. (Credit: DLR)

    During IOT, QZS-1R had an extremely low maximum elevation of 0.8° in Weilheim. Due to technical restrictions for such low elevations, QZS-1R had to be observed with a sidelobe of the 30-meter antenna. As a result, the respective observations are much more noisy than the QZS-2 reference data.

    Nevertheless, the different spectral characteristics of L1C/B and L1C/A can be clearly seen in FIGURE 1: L1C/B has two maxima at 1574.4 and 1576.5 MHz due to the BOC modulation, whereas the BPSK L1C/A signal has one maximum at the center frequency of 1575.42 MHz.

    GNSS receivers of the International GNSS Service (IGS) started to track L1C/A, L1C, L2C and L5 signals of QZS-1R on Nov. 17. Aside from the regular PRN code J04, test signals using the non-standard code PRN J06 were intermittently transmitted by QZS-1R during the IOT and tracked by these receivers.

    Based on the public specification of the new L1C/B signal, Javad GNSS developed a prototype firmware that enabled tracking of this signal during the early transmissions. This firmware was installed on a Javad TRE-3 receiver operated by GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences at its IGS station WUH200CHN in Wuhan, China.

    FIGURE 2 illustrates the noise and multipath characteristics of different QZS-1R pseudorange measurements. It is based on the so-called multipath linear combination of L1 pseudorange and L1/L2 carrier-phase observations covering a six-hour data arc. RMS values were computed for 5-degree elevation bins for each pseudorange signal. While the individual signals were tracked on different days of the IOT and the associated results have to be interpreted with care, the data indicate a very similar ranging performance of the legacy C/A signal and the new C/B signal. Best results are obtained with the L1C signal, which uses both a higher signal power and an advanced modulation with superior multipath suppression.

    Figure 2. Noise and multipath characteristics of QZS-1R signals on the L1 frequency tracked by the IGS station WUH200CHN in Wuhan, China. (Credit: DLR)
    Figure 2. Noise and multipath characteristics of QZS-1R signals on the L1 frequency tracked by the IGS station WUH200CHN in Wuhan, China. (Credit: DLR)

    QZS-1R will resume continuous transmission of L1C/A as soon as declared healthy. The transition from L1C/A to L1C/B is planned for 2023-2024, when an operational QZSS constellation of seven satellites is reached. The launches of the IGSO satellite QZS-5, the geostationary QZS-6, and the quasi-geostationary QZS-7 are all planned for 2023.

    Also see Directions 2022: Now 3 years old, QZSS hits its stride.

    Manufacturers

    GNSS data used in this article were collected with a Javad GNSS TRE-3 receiver. The spectral overviews were captured with a Rohde & Schwarz FSQ26 signal analyzer.

    Peter Steigenberger is a senior scientist at the German Space Operations Center of the German Aerospace Center (DLR), where he conducts research in the field of new satellite navigation systems.

    Steffen Thoelert is an electrical engineer at DLR’s Institute of Communications and Navigation. His research activities focus on signal-quality monitoring and satellite payload characterization.

    Sergei Yudanov is a senior firmware developer at Javad GNSS, Moscow. His main field of activity is GNSS signal processing.

    Markus Ramatschi is a senior scientist at the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, GFZ German Research Centre for Geoscience. He is operating a global GNSS reference station network.

    Further Reading

    Cabinet Office, Quasi-Zenith Satellite System Interface Specification: Satellite Positioning, Navigation and Timing Service, IS-QZSS-PNT-004, Jan. 25, 2021.

    Ramatschi M., Bradke M., Nischan T., Männel B. (2019): “GNSS data of the global GFZ tracking network,” vol 1. GFZ Data Services. https://doi.org/10.5880/GFZ.1.1.2020.001

    Thoelert S., Hauschild A., Steigenberger P., Montenbruck O., Langley R. (2017), “QZS-2 signal analysis, QZS-3 launched.” GPS World 28(9): 10–14,

  • GPS III ‘Magellan’ starts signal transmission

    By Peter Steigenberger, Steffen Thoelert, Oliver Montenbruck and Richard B. Langley

    The first GPS III satellite, “Vespucci,” was launched in December 2018, started signal transmission in January 2020, and was set healthy later that month. The second GPS III satellite, nicknamed “Magellan,” was launched on Aug. 22, 2019, on a Delta IV rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida.

    Magellan, also identified by its space vehicle number (SVN) 75 (here referred to as GPS-75), started signal transmission with standard pseudorandom noise code (PRN) number 18 (here referred to as G18) on March 13. The L1 C/A, L1 P(Y), and L2 P(Y) signals were activated at 17:16:30 GPS Time (GPST), while the L1C, L2C and L5 signals followed less than two hours after Vespucci’s launch at 18:59:30 GPST. Transmission of navigation messages started at 19:00:00 GPST with GPS-75 (G18) marked as unhealthy.

    PRN G18 was previously used by the 27-year-old Block IIA satellite GPS-34 that had been already removed from the active GPS constellation on Oct. 7, 2019, but continued signal transmission until March 9, 2020. GPS-75 is already being tracked by a large number of tracking stations of the International GNSS Service (IGS). Based on the data collected by these stations, the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE), headquartered in Bern, Switzerland, has been providing precise orbit and clock products for this satellite since March 14.

    A comparison we performed with the CODE precise orbit products revealed initial broadcast ephemeris errors of up to 100 meters (3D) and an orbit-related signal-in-space range error (SISRE) of about 13 meters. Within four days, a SISRE (orbit component) of 24 centimeters was achieved, which closely matches the performance of the rest of the GPS constellation.

    Figure 1 shows the spectral flux density of GPS-75 in the L1, L2 and L5 frequency bands obtained with the 30-meter high-gain antenna of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) located in Weilheim, Germany. The civil L1 C/A, L1C and L2C signals can be identified as sharp peaks in the center of the respective frequency bands.

    FIGURE 1. Spectral flux density of GPS-75 measured with DLR’s 30-meter high-gain antenna. (Figure: Steigenberger, et al)
    FIGURE 1. Spectral flux density of GPS-75 measured with DLR’s 30-meter high-gain antenna. (Figure: Steigenberger, et al)

    The prominent side lobes in the L1 and L2 bands are associated with the military M-code. The wide main lobe of the L5 signal with two smaller and sharper side lobes is caused by the superposition of two in-phase and quadrature signals with a 10-MHz binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) modulation. We found that all signals are in good shape and have a quality similar to that of the first GPS III satellite.

    On March 16, 2020, we detected a significant change in the carrier-to-noise-density ratio of the L1 and L2 P(Y)-code signals. Figure 2 illustrates these changes for the IGS station located in Patumwan, Thailand (CUSV00THA). The L1 and L2 P-code signals are usually encrypted with the W-code to prevent spoofing (the generation of fake signals by adverse parties). The resulting encrypted signals are denoted by P(Y). Geodetic GNSS receivers are capable of tracking the P(Y) signals with a semi-codeless approach.

    FIGURE 2. Carrier-to-noise-density ratio (C/N<sub>0</sub>) of the second GPS III satellite, GPS-75, tracked by the IGS station CUSV00THA in Patumwan, Thailand, on March 16, 2020. Between 20:22 and 21:18 GPST, unencrypted P-code signals were tracked. (Figure: Steigenberger, et al)
    FIGURE 2. Carrier-to-noise-density ratio (C/N0) of the second GPS III satellite, GPS-75, tracked by the IGS station CUSV00THA in Patumwan, Thailand, on March 16, 2020. Between 20:22 and 21:18 GPST, unencrypted P-code signals were tracked. (Figure: Steigenberger, et al)

    As a result, C/N0 of L1 P(Y) and L2 P(Y) are virtually identical and significantly smaller than the C/N0 of the unencrypted signals due to losses of the semi-codeless tracking technique. This can be seen in the blue-colored plot of Figure 2, where the C/N0 values of L1 P(Y) and L2 P(Y) are identical and smaller by 4.5–16 dB compared to L1 C/A depending on the elevation angle of the satellite.

    However, between 20:22 and 21:18 GPST, an increase of the P-code C/N0 values was observed. The values changed by 4.5 and 12.5 dB for L1 and L2, respectively. This change is an indicator that unencrypted P-code signals were transmitted, rather than encrypted ones. This assumption can be verified by the “Anti-Spoof Flag” given as the 19th bit of the handover word (HOW) of the GPS LNAV navigation message.

    Indeed, decoding of the raw navigation data from the IGS station CHOF00JPN in Chofu, Japan, showed that the Anti-Spoof Flag indicated a deactivation of anti-spoofing between 20:22:00 and 21:17:48 GPST and verified our assumption that unencrypted P-code signals were transmitted during that time period.

    It has to be noted that only Javad receivers within the global multi-GNSS network of the IGS show this increase in C/N0. Other receiver types report continuous C/N0 values for the P-code signals, indicating that a semi-codeless tracking technique was continuously applied irrespective of the Anti-Spoof Flag.

    Figure 3 shows the two GPS III satellites’ Allan deviation, which measures the clock stability achieved in orbit; that is, the average frequency error over different time scales. In addition, the Block IIF satellite GPS-63 is shown, which is in the same orbital plane as GPS-75.

    FIGURE 3. Allan deviation of the Block IIF satellite GPS-63 and the GPS III satellites GPS-74 and GPS-75 computed from 5-minute clock solutions produced by DLR. (Figure: Steigenberger, et al)
    FIGURE 3. Allan deviation of the Block IIF satellite GPS-63 and the GPS III satellites GPS-74 and GPS-75 computed from 5-minute clock solutions produced by DLR. (Figure: Steigenberger, et al)

    For integration times up to 2,000 seconds, the clock stability of GPS-75 is slightly better compared to the first GPS III satellite, GPS-74, but the situation is opposite for integration times larger than 5,000 seconds. The latter finding might be caused by the fact that GPS-75, unhealthy at the time, was tracked by a smaller number of stations compared to the healthy GPS-74.

    As a consequence, the observed Allan deviation may partly be contaminated by orbit determination errors. In any case, both GPS III satellites clearly outperform the Block IIF satellite GPS-63 that suffers from thermal line bias variations visible as an increased Allan deviation starting at an integration time of about 2,000 seconds.

    The activation of the second GPS III satellite transmitting the new civil L1C signal enables the estimation of differential code biases (DCBs) between, for example, the L1 C/A signal (Receiver Independent Exchange [RINEX] format observation code C1C) and different tracking modes of the L1C signal. Septentrio receivers track only the pilot component of the L1C signal (C1L), whereas Javad and Trimble receivers perform a combined data+pilot tracking (C1X).

    DCBs are estimated from pseudorange (code) observations of a global tracking network and are corrected for ionospheric delays obtained from global ionosphere maps. The DCB estimates shown in Table 1 are based on eight days of data from 10 Javad, 21 Septentrio and 3 Trimble receivers.

    TABLE 1. Differential code bias estimates in nanoseconds between L1 C/A and L1C for the GPS III satellites and average receiver DCBs. (Data: Steigenberger, et al)
    TABLE 1. Differential code bias estimates in nanoseconds between L1 C/A and L1C for the GPS III satellites and average receiver DCBs. (Data: Steigenberger, et al)

    As we have applied a zero-sum condition for the estimation of satellite DCBs of just two satellites, the values of GPS-74 and GPS-75 obtained from the same type of L1C observables differ only by the sign. The DCBs estimated from different L1C observables, namely C1L and C1X, differ by 56 picoseconds, corresponding to a range difference of 1.7 centimeters. The receiver DCBs are quite homogeneous for receivers from each manufacturer but differ by up to 6 nanoseconds between various manufacturers.

    On April 1, 2020, GPS-75 was set healthy and joined the constellation of operational GPS satellites. The third GPS III satellite, named “Columbus,” was shipped to the Cape Canaveral launch site in February 2020. Its launch is expected no earlier than June 30, 2020, and at least two GPS III launches per year are planned for the near future.

    Equipment. Measurements reported in this article were collected with JAVAD GNSS TRE_G3TH and TRE_3, Septentrio PolaRx5 and Trimble Alloy multi-GNSS, multi-frequency receivers. The spectral overview was captured with a Rohde & Schwarz EM100 digital compact receiver.

    PETER STEIGENBERGER and OLIVER MONTENBRUCK are scientists at the German Space Operations Center of the German Aerospace Center (DLR). STEFFEN THOELERT is an electrical engineer at DLR’s Institute of Communications and Navigation. RICHARD B. LANGLEY is a professor at the University of New Brunswick and editor of the “Innovation” column for GPS World magazine.

    Further Reading

    “Optimum Semicodeless Carrier-Phase Tracking of L2” by K.T. Woo in Navigation, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2000, pp. 82-99, doi: 10.1002/j.2161-4296.2000.tb00204.x.

    Interface Specification IS-GPS-200K: NAVSTAR GPS Space Segment/User Segment Interfaces by Global Positioning Systems Directorate Systems Engineering & Integration, Los Angeles Air Force Base, El Segundo, California, March 4, 2019. Available online: https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200K.pdf

    “Apparent Clock Variations of the Block IIF-1 (SVN62) GPS Satellite“ by O. Montenbruck, U. Hugentobler, E. Dach, P. Steigenberger and A. Hauschild in GPS Solutions, Vol. 16, No.3, 2012, pp. 303-313, doi: 10.1007/s10291-011-0232-x.

    “Differential Code Bias Estimation Using Multi-GNSS Observations and Global Ionosphere Maps” by O. Montenbruck, A. Hauschild and P. Steigenberger in Navigation, 2014, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2014, pp. 191-201, doi: 10.1002/navi.64

  • Drone Rescue supports German Aerospace Center’s FALCon project

    Drone Rescue supports German Aerospace Center’s FALCon project

    The FALCon research project has already carried out initial flight experiments with unmanned small aircraft. Drone Rescue Systems (Photo: Drone Rescue Systems)
    The FALCon research project has already carried out initial flight experiments with unmanned small aircraft. (Photo: German Aerospace Center)

    The parachute safety solution manufacturer Drone Rescue Systems GmbH is supporting the European research project FALCon, the “Formation flight for in-Air Launcher 1st stage Capturing demonstration.”

    Under the leadership of the German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt; DLR), research is being conducted on how launch vehicles can be returned to the launch site as efficiently as possible for re-use.

    The aim of FALCon is to achieve cost-efficient and environmentally friendly satellite transport. The focus of the project lies on the return of rocket stages after launch. To be able to reuse these stages, efforts are being made to recapture them in the air using a “rocket catcher.”

    For the next three years (March 2019 to February 2022) the focus will be on the development and flight demonstration of a technical solution for this idea. While still in the air, rocket stages are to be captured by a transport aircraft over the sea and pulled into the vicinity of the landing site. There, the stages are to land independently.

    “We are proud to be part of the FALCon research project together with five international partners and DLR as part of HORIZON2020 (EC grant 821953), the EU’s largest research and innovation program to date. The capture and towing of rocket stages in flight, that is, an autonomous and safe landing, is a particularly interesting topic for us as a manufacturer of parachute safety solutions,” said Andreas Ploier, CEO of Drone Rescue Systems GmbH.

    The research project has already carried out initial flight experiments with unmanned small aircraft.

  • Year-long ocean cruise finds GNSS interference…everywhere

    Year-long ocean cruise finds GNSS interference…everywhere

    A year-long project aboard a commercial cargo ship collected tens of thousands of snapshots of radio-frequency interference in the GNSS band on a passage from Spain to Korea and back. Most interference was detected in busy port areas, less interference while transiting along coasts, and while least frequent, interference was still found in the open ocean.

    Researchers at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) are still analyzing the vast amount of GNSS disruption data collected during the year-long project. Two papers have already been published about this project, and more are on the way, according to principle researcher Emilio Pérez Marcos.

    In a paper presented at the Institute of Navigation last year, Marcos and his co-authors outlined the results of the last five months of this unique sampling experiment. Detection equipment was mounted on a large Hapag-Lloyd container ship. The antenna was mounted about 50 meters above the water line and provided a line-of-sight of 25km or more. The L1/E1 and L5/E5a frequency bands were continuously monitored. In addition to a “Snapshot” recording device used to save raw data samples (time snapshots), a more resilient DLR multi-antenna receiver was used to assess the impact of interferences in beamforming array GNSS receivers (semi-resilient).

    As might be expected, the most interference was detected in busy port areas. Less interference was experienced while transiting along coasts. While it was the least frequent, interference was still detected during open ocean transits.

    Table: Emilio Pérez Marcos and co-authors
    Table: Emilio Pérez Marcos and co-authors

    Of the 39,045 snapshots recorded, 6,632 contained radio frequency interference at 1dB or higher. Separate tests have shown that many single antenna GNSS receivers begin to perform poorly with interference signals greater than 1dB. The other 32,413 snapshots could represent interference signals that may have come from weaker transmitters, sources more distant from the ship, been the result of adjacent band transmissions, or other phenomena.

    Three particularly strong and persistent interference incidents were noted in the paper.

    The first was detected when the vessel was transiting the Suez Canal northbound. The interference lasted around five hours and 60km. At several points the interference prevented the DLR semi-resilient GNSS receiver from working properly, which would mean that any single antenna GNSS receiver would cease to function completely.

    Vessel going north in Suez Canal. RFI detectable during approx. 60 km. Inset: Eigenvalues during the 5 hours that the RFI was detectable. Graphic: Emilio Pérez Marcos
    Vessel going north in Suez Canal. RFI detectable during approx. 60 km. Inset: Eigenvalues during the 5 hours that the RFI was detectable. (Graphic: Emilio Pérez Marcos)

    The second caused the DLR receiver to fail when the vessel was entering Jebel Ali, the port of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. The DLR receiver provided some resilience thanks to its beamforming capabilities; again any other receiver would have suffered the interference effects earlier being unable to provide any PVT. The receiver did not return to proper operation for 11 days and 5,000km. The reason for this is uncertain and under investigation.

    Particularly strong interference (45dB) caused the third incident and resulted in the DLR receiver failing for three days. It began when the ship was entered the highly trafficked Malacca Straits.

    The equipment used also allowed researchers to determine direction of arrival for the interfering signals and to evaluate whether the interference was a spoofing signal.

    For the reported strong interference events, DLR consulted the captain of the ship, who attested and confirmed the loss of PVT in the ship’s own GNSS receiver, with all the consequences that this implies for the systems that rely on it.

    The paper, “Interference and Spoofing Detection for GNSS Maritime Applications,” was presented at the ION GNSS+ conference in Miami in September of 2018. It described the last phase of a yearlong measurement effort aboard the ship by DLR. An earlier phase of the campaign has also been published in E. P. Marcos et al., “Interference awareness and characterization for GNSS maritime applications,” 2018 IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium (PLANS), Monterey, CA, 2018.

    The authors are preparing additional papers to describe more of the results from the larger project.

    Feature image: Emilio Pérez Marcos

  • UAV achieves full-speed autonomous landing

    UAV achieves full-speed autonomous landing

    In the most critical phase of the landing maneuver, the UAV flight control system must compensate for the accelerated air flow above the ground vehicle. (Photo: DLR)
    In the most critical phase of the landing maneuver, the UAV flight control system must compensate for the accelerated air flow above the ground vehicle. (Photo: DLR)

    Moving at 75 kilometers an hour (47 mph) an unmanned, electric, autonomous aircraft settled gently on the roof of a moving car.

    Scientists from the German Aerospace Center (DLR) Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics combined robotics and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to develop a system where a fixed-wing aircraft automatically lands on a moving ground vehicle.

    The DLR system is designed for commercial applications such as remote sensing and communication. It could be applied to ultra-lightweight solar aircraft that complement traditional satellite systems in the stratosphere. Or, it could support crisis management, such as aiding disaster-communications networks or providing data on climate change.

    Losing weight

    Ultralight solar aircraft can reach more than 20 kilometers in altitude. The weight factor is crucial to how long the ultralight can stay in the air.

    The Demonstrator Platform Penguin BE UAV is equipped with redundnant landing hardware. (Photo: DLR)
    The Demonstrator Platform Penguin BE UAV is equipped with redundnant landing hardware. (Photo: DLR)

    By omitting the traditional landing gear, the dead weight of these UAVs can be significantly reduced. This allows more load capacity, greater range and better performance. A lighter craft also increases payload capacity, creating more space for scientific instruments.

    In flight tests on an airfield in Swabia Mindelheim-Mattsies, the DLR system was successfully tested with a 3-meter, 20-kilogram, electric fixed-wing UAV. A net was provided on the roof of a car, along with optical markers. The UAV can position itself up to half a meter over the 4 x 5 meter landing platform. The optical multi-marker tracking system detects the landing apparatus and determines the relative position of the ground vehicle with high accuracy. The computer-controlled landing is then carried out.

    Movement of UAV and the vehicle are adjusted with the help of special algorithms. With the car and the UAV moving at the same speed, the landing is more like a settling, making the landing safer and easier. Though designed for both autonomous car and UAV, a driver remained in the car for safety during the tests. A robotic vehicle without a driver will be tested next.

    The work was supported by the EU project EC-Safe Mobile Support and complement the activities of the Flight Robotics Group.

    In the semi-autonomous landing vehicle, the driver receives control commands via a graphical display. The crosshairs indicate the location of the UAV. (Photo: DLR)
    In the semi-autonomous landing vehicle, the driver receives control commands via a graphical display. The crosshairs indicate the location of the UAV. (Photo: DLR)

  • First Galileo FOC Satellite on the Air

    Will Be Employable for Surveying, Precise Positioning, and Geodesy

    By Peter Steigenberger and André Hauschild, German Aerospace Center (DLR) / German Space Operations Center

    The first Full Operational Capability (FOC) Galileo satellite started transmitting L-band navigation signals on November 29, 2014. Based on data collected by a global network of GNSS tracking stations of the Cooperative Network for GNSS Observation (CONGO) and the Multi-GNSS Experiment (MGEX) of the International GNSS Service (IGS), we determined that an E1 signal with pseudorandom noise code (PRN) E18 was first tracked at the station LLAG (La Laguna, Tenerife, Canary Islands) at 06:08 UTC.  A few moments later, the satellite’s transmissions were also tracked at other MGEX stations including the E5a, E5b, and E5 AltBOC signals. Based on the computed satellite visibility at various tracking stations, the satellite could be positively identified as GSAT0201, also known as Galileo FOC-FM1 or Galileo 5 with COSPAR ID 2014-050A and NORAD ID 40128.

    FIGURE 1 shows the carrier-to-noise-density ratio (C/N0) of the E18 signals tracked at the CONGO/MGEX station SIN1 (Singapore, using a Trimble NetR9 receiver with a Leica AR25.3 antenna). We selected the signals from this station for analysis due to an E18 pass occurring close to the zenith and covering almost the full range of elevation angles. The E5a and E5b signals (S5X and S7X RINEX identifiers) show very similar performance, whereas the C/N0 values of the E1 signal are 1–2 dB-Hz higher. The C/N0 values of the E5 AltBOC signal (S8X) reach 60 dB-Hz at high elevation angles, which is about 6 dB-Hz higher than the other signals.

    Figure 1. Galileo E18 carrier-to-noise-density ratio for the CONGO/MGEX station SIN1 (Singapore).
    Figure 1. Galileo E18 carrier-to-noise-density ratio for the CONGO/MGEX station SIN1 (Singapore).

    The first pair of Galileo FOC spacecraft was launched on August 22 with a Soyuz launcher from the Guiana Space Centre, Kourou, French Guyana. Due to a malfunction of the Fregat upper stage, the satellites were injected into elliptical orbits with an inclination of about 49° instead of near circular orbits with 55° inclination. In November, the perigee of the first FOC satellite was raised by about 3,500 kilometers by a series of 11 maneuvers with a corresponding reduction in orbit eccentricity from 0.23 to 0.16.

    E18 has been included in the precise orbit and clock solutions of the MGEX analysis center at Technische Universität München (TUM) in Munich, Germany, since December 5. FIGURE 2 shows the detrended estimates of the active Galileo E18 clock for December 7. The presence of a pronounced quadratic term as well the large drift of 33.9 microseconds per day indicate that the active clock is a rubidium atomic frequency standard rather than a more precise passive hydrogen maser. The FOC satellites carry two of each kind of clock.

    Figure 2. Galileo E18 clock estimates for December 7, 2014, with respect to the hydrogen maser at the Ottawa IGS station (NRC1) after removing an offset and drift (blue) or a second order polynomial (red).
    Figure 2. Galileo E18 clock estimates for December 7, 2014, with respect to the hydrogen maser at the Ottawa IGS station (NRC1) after removing an offset and drift (blue) or a second order polynomial (red).

    The TUM orbit and clock product allows researchers to again compute dual-frequency positioning solutions using only Galileo observations, as the In-Orbit Validation satellite E20 has not transmitted an E5 signal since May, when a power anomaly left the satellite with the capability to only transmit an E1 signal. Furthermore, E20 currently does not transmit a navigation message.

    TABLE 1 shows the scatter of single-point positioning using pseudorange (code) observations from the MGEX station MAS1 (Maspalomas, Gran Canaria, Canary Islands) for a Galileo-only, a GPS-only, and a combined Galileo+GPS solution for December 6. At an elevation cut-off angle of 10°, four Galileo satellites were visible from 10:15 until 12:25 UTC (see FIGURE 3). The GPS-only solution covers the same time interval. The start time is not limited by the cut-off angle but an E18 transmission outage from 3:45–10:15 UTC.

    TABLE 1. Single point positioning results for the MGEX station MAS1 (Maspalomas) for December 6, 2014.
    TABLE 1. Single point positioning results for the MGEX station MAS1 (Maspalomas) for December 6, 2014.
    Figure 3. Galileo visibility at the MGEX station MAS1 (Maspalomas) on December 6, 2014. The time period considered in the single-point positioning is indicated by vertical lines.
    Figure 3. Galileo visibility at the MGEX station MAS1 (Maspalomas) on December 6, 2014. The time period considered in the single-point positioning is indicated by vertical lines.

    We used an ionosphere-free linear combination of Galileo E1 and E5 AltBOC code observations and GPS L1 and L2 code observations with a 30-second sampling interval. As the Galileo-only solution suffered from position dilution of precision (PDOP) values of up to 830, a total of 32 epochs with PDOP values greater than 25 were excluded. The geometry of the remaining epochs is still pretty unfavorable. At a mean PDOP value of 7.4, the standalone position solution exhibits a 3D standard deviation (STD) error of 3.4 meters. Use of the Galileo satellites in a combined GPS+ Galileo solution improves the positioning performance. In particular, the height component benefits from the inclusion of the four Galileo satellites with a standard deviation improvement of 25 percent.

    Despite the orbit injection error, the new Galileo FOC satellite has now been successfully activated and added to the Galileo constellation. Unfortunately, the current orbit is incompatible with the standard Galileo almanac format, which may cause restrictions for some commercial receiver types.

    Nevertheless, the satellite can already be tracked by a wide range of geodetic receivers with existing firmware versions and it will, in fact, be possible to use the new satellite for diverse applications in surveying, precise positioning, and geodesy, as well as in general multi-GNSS studies. We now look forward to the activation of the second FOC satellite, which can be expected in early 2015 and will, for the first time, offer multi-frequency signals from a total of five Galileo satellites.