ArkEdge Space Inc. has completed a study commissioned by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) on “Elemental Technologies and Systems for a Dedicated, GNSS-Independent LEO-PNT Satellite System.”
Positioning, navigation and timing derived from GNSS is increasingly subject to interruption and interference, both through environmental and security challenges. Finding methods to protect PNT information against such interference is of paramount importance for governments and commercial actors alike.
The ArkEdge/JAXA project addressed such challenges by examining and categorizing the necessary elemental technologies — signal design, receiver technology, ground infrastructure, satellite sensors, and the overall system architecture — required to realize a LEO-PNT system capable of providing PNT without reliance on traditional GNSS.
The study’s focus included achieving satellite orbit determination and time synchronization without GNSS, one of the key challenges facing alternative PNT providers. It explored a new architecture for onboard time determination that avoids the need for large atomic clocks. Instead of onboard clocks, the system transmits precise timing information from combinations of ground-based reference clocks, pseudolites and inter-satellite optical links to disseminate information and enable on-orbit ODTS.
Concept art of the LEO-PNT satellite constellation. (Credit: ArkEdge Space)
The study considered diverse frequencies to strengthen anti-jamming measures. It also looked at novel signal design, receivers, encryption and signal authentication methods, and their suitability for LEO-PNT satellites. Results of the study will contribute to the next stage of development for a GNSS-independent LEO-PNT concept.
“This study is critical to advancing our understanding of Japan’s future relationship with PNT,” said ArkEdge Space Chief Strategy Officer Tomoaki Yasuda. “Across the world, users are facing denial of GNSS services, and that can have critical consequences for sectors including the economy, transport and emergency services, among others. We look forward to progressing the GNSS-independent LEO-PNT concept with the support of our partners.”
“Due to the prevalence of GNSS interference, alternative PNT systems are becoming increasingly important to protect users and assets such as critical national infrastructure,” said Masaya Murata, JAXA. “Following the successful conclusion of this GNSS-independent LEO-PNT study with ArkEdge Space, our investigation into a robust and resilient LEO-PNT system continues. We are also emphasizing international cooperation with other LEO-PNT providers to maximize users’ PNT experience and continue to engage in collaborative discussions.”
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has selected Spirent Communications to supply its lunar positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) simulation solution. The solution will support JAXA’s lunar exploration efforts and aid in developing essential navigation infrastructure for future moon missions.
Spirent’s PNT X solution allows JAXA to simulate lunar PNT services in a controlled laboratory setting before their deployment on the moon. This capability is critical for testing and validating navigation equipment for lunar missions in accordance with the emerging LunaNet specifications, which include adaptable S-band frequency solutions. The system also ensures scalability for future space exploration.
Using the PNT X system, JAXA can experiment with novel S-band signals and evaluate the performance of receivers that rely on standalone S-band Lunar PNT signals or a combination of Lunar PNT and Earth-based L-band GNSS infrastructure. The simulation of these signal combinations demands high levels of precision, which Spirent’s specialized architecture is designed to meet.
This collaboration builds on a longstanding relationship between Spirent and JAXA. In 2011, JAXA utilized Spirent’s simulation technology to verify the performance of early Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) receivers. Since then, Spirent simulators have supported multiple advancements in QZSS.
Spirent’s lunar PNT simulation solution seeks to present new opportunities for space agencies developing lunar constellations, satellite and receiver developers and organizations planning lunar missions or seeking to establish additional PNT infrastructure on the moon.
In early 2015, the Navigation Support Office of the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) began a collaboration. At its core, the ESA-JAXA collaboration is designed to cross-validate Japan’s Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) Precise Orbit Determination (POD) results and share expertise to improve the POD accuracy of QZSS.
The cross-validation of the QZSS POD performance was implemented by jointly analyzing QZSS observations and validating the POD results of the QZSS satellites. As a result of this joint activity, ESA and JAXA have significantly improved the robustness and accuracy of their respective POD products. This collaborative approach not only ensures the continuous improvement of QZSS force modeling and precise orbit determination performance but also demonstrates the effectiveness of international cooperation in advancing the field of space navigation, especially as the benefits of GNSS interoperability become very evident.
An important milestone in this collaboration was ESA’s role in supporting the In-Orbit Testing (IOT) activities for QZS-1R towards the end of 2021. The successful execution of these tests demonstrated the practical results of the ESA-JAXA partnership and further solidified the commitment of both agencies to enhance their capabilities for QZSS POD and associated products.
FIGURE 1 ESA’s Solar Radiation Pressure (SRP) model output in satellite-Sun frame.
The benefits of this collaboration extend beyond the agencies to the entire scientific community. Notable achievements include the revision of metadata for the QZSS constellation, such as the optical properties of the QZS-1 solar arrays, which have been refined and improved through shared expertise, while simultaneously releasing the satellite mass and attitude mode history in a machine-readable file format for easy access and adoption by the users.
To evaluate the spacecraft models and metadata for QZS-1R prior to their public release, ESA and JAXA conducted several comparative tests. Since both organizations use different software packages for satellite POD — ESA uses NAPEOS (Dow, Springer 2009, Enderle et al., 2019 and 2022) and JAXA uses MADOCA (Kawate et al., 2023) — their results can be considered as largely independent. One comparison involved the Solar Radiation Pressure (SRP) model results produced by both organizations. FIGURE 1 shows the accelerations in satellite-Sun frame computed by ESA’s SRP model. The comparison of the computed SRP accelerations in different reference frames, spacecraft-fixed and inertial, showed excellent agreement with differences of less than 0.1 nm/s².
FIGURE 2 One-way Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) range residuals calculated with respect to QZS- 1R orbits generated with (green) and without (blue) a-priori radiation force models and displayed as function of the Earth-Probe-Sun angle.
In addition, pseudo-range and carrier phase dual-frequency measurement data from 200 tracking stations of the International GNSS Service (IGS) network were used to generate precise QZS-1R satellite orbits and clock offsets on a day-to-day basis over a 12-month period spanning from January to December 2022. Comparison between ESA and JAXA solutions yielded a root-mean-square (RMS) agreement of 8.6 centimeters (orbit) and 0.21 nanoseconds (clock), respectively. Analysis of Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) data from seven stations of the International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS) suggests a radial RMS accuracy of the generated orbital trajectories of about 4 cm. Without applying the analytical models for SRP and other non-gravitational perturbation forces, such as antenna thrust (AT), the RMS accuracy decreases by a factor of five (FIGURE 2).
In conclusion, the ESA-JAXA collaboration on Japanese Quasi-Zenith Satellite System POD has been a resounding success. Through this continuous and mutual support, performance cross-validation and knowledge sharing, significant improvements related to modeling and subsequently to POD accuracy could be achieved for ESA as well as for JAXA. Additionally, the global scientific community benefitted from this ESA/JAXA collaboration via improved QZSS POD products and validated metadata.
A successor to the first Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) satellite, QZS-1R, was launched at 11:19 a.m. Japan Standard Time, Oct. 26, from the Tanegashima Space Center.
QZS-1R was carried aboard H-IIA rocket No. 44 by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The flight proceeded as planned, and, 28 minutes 6 seconds after launch, the payload separated from the launch vehicle.
Designed for a 15-year lifetime, QZS-1R will replace the QZS-1 (Michibiki-1). QZS-1 launched on Sept. 11, 2010, and entered its quasi-zenith orbit 10 days later. Three other quasi-zenith navigation satellites launched in 2017 to complete the constellation.
QZSS began service in November 2018 with four satellites. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) plans to have seven satellites aloft by 2023.
An H-2A rocket launches from Tanegashima Space Center carrying the QZS-1R satellite. (Photo: MHI)
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) successfully launched a second navigation satellite on June 1.
The H-IIA Launch Vehicle No. 34 (H-IIA F34) delivered into orbit Michibiki No. 2 of the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) at 9:17:46 a.m. (JST) from JAXA’s Tanegashima Space Center.
The launch and flight of the rocket proceeded as planned, and the separation of the satellite was confirmed 28 minutes and 21 seconds after the launch time.
The event will be held October 23-25 at the Clarion Congress Hotel in Prague, Czech Republic.
After abstracts are reviewed, authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by April 15.
Speakers include Satoshi Kogure of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, GPS World author Dorota Grejner-Brzezinska of the Institute of Navigation and The Ohio State University, Günter Hein of the European Space Agency, and more.
Topics of the event include:
satellite navigation systems — GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, BeiDou/Compass, QZSS, etc.;
augmentation systems — SBAS, GBAS, etc.;
GNSS modernization;
signal processing in navigation systems and systems integration;
GNSS receivers and antenna technologies;
interference and spectrum management, jamming and spoofing;
autonomous navigation;
MEMS, atomic clock and micro PNT;
space and atmospheric weather effects on GNSS;
aviation applications;
marine applications;
terrestrial applications;
precision agriculture and machine control applications;
healthcare applications;
urban and indoors applications;
automobile navigation;
space applications and remote sensing;
precise positioning, RTK;
radar and alternative sensors;
GNSS environmental monitoring;
ionosphere monitoring with GNSS;
algorithms and methods;
collaborative methods;
alternative signals for PNT;
backups to GNSS;
time and frequency distribution;
and other PNT topics.
IAIN says it is a “non-governmental, nonprofit organization with the objective of uniting national and multinational institutes and organizations which aim to foster human activities at sea, in the air, in space and on land, and who may benefit from the development of the science and practice of navigation and related information techniques.”
Visitors from non-European countries must possess a valid passport for at least three months after the event date.
In May 2011, Dinesh Manandhar and Hideyuki Torimoto of GNSS Technologies, Inc., Japan, penned a very interesting article in GPS World titled – Opening Up Indoors: Japan’s Indoor Messaging System, IMES. The opening paragraph of their lengthy article seemingly describes the Holy Grail for the indoor positioning lobby:
“An indoor messaging system (IMES) has been developed to meet the challenges of indoor and deep indoor positioning, as a system that can be implemented in any device that has a GPS/GNSS receiver without hardware modification. IMES can provide reliable 3D position data with a single transmitter device without performing range calculation[s].”
They go on to describe the IMES concept thusly:
“The main concept of IMES is to transmit position and floor ID of the transmitter with the same RF signal as GPS. IMES transmits latitude, longitude, height, and floor ID by replacing the ephemeris and clock data in the navigation message of GPS. A single unit of IMES is enough to get the position data, since the position itself is directly transmitted.”
Now, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to start thinking about interference and spoofing issues or risks, especially when you read that the navigation message ephemeris and clock data are being replaced by data broadcast by IMES. To be fair, the authors address these issues briefly:
“Since IMES shares the same frequency as [the] GPS L1 band (1575.42 MHz), there is an interference level that IMES may have on GPS signals. This interference has been studied in detail by conducting experiments and simulations. Based on these studies and analysis, various methods have been considered to avoid harmful interference to GPS signal. To avoid such interference, IMES center frequency is shifted by +/– 8.2 KHz from GPS L1 band. This will have the least impact on the GPS L1 band signal. For example, if the IMES signal is –110 dBm (very strong) and the GPS signal is –142 dBm (very weak), the loss of GPS signal (C/N0) due to IMES is less than 2 db. If the IMES signal is –120 dBm and the GPS signal is –142 dBm, there is no loss of GPS signal (C/N0). Based on this analysis, the IMES transmitter power must be controlled such that the maximum power to the receiver does not exceed –110 dBm at a distance of 3 meters from the transmitter. [There are] guideline[s] specified in the QZSS IS document for setting the transmitter effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) based on location.”
Let’s put these concerns in perspective. I thoroughly enjoyed the article and firmly believe that we desperately need to solve the indoor positioning and navigation problems, especially for our warfighters and first responders. While many of today’s excellent commercial receivers work well indoors near windows and doors, they are absolutely abysmal underground and deep inside large buildings with lots of metal, or in the middle of dense urban canyons such as Tokyo, Japan. Without a doubt, there is a dire need for a system like IMES — or maybe exactly like IMES — but there must be some caveats and stipulations as to how the IMES system is implemented.
Not Alone
Fortunately, I am far from being a lone wolf in voicing my concerns and my position, for once again the conspiracy theorists as well as renowned scientist and policy makers are concerned about IMES and the operating systems they supposedly desire to replace or augment. Chief among them is the Father of GPS, Dr. Bradford Parkinson, who has frequently described improperly operated in-band pseudolites as “…just another name for a legal jammer or spoofer.” Having known Brad for almost 40 years, I am convinced few GPS experts in the world today have as much experience with pseudolites as Dr. Parkinson. Consequently, the very reason that an indoor navigation system such as IMES is needed may well be a portent for why it may well fail, unless it is implemented properly.
It would be easy but extremely tedious to write about the numerous issues facing IMES in a complicated and technical manner. Certainly previous articles have become bogged down in minutia, and I want to avoid that. It is actually very simple. The issues are fairly straightforward and should be faced head on and not hidden in the midst of tech-speak lingo, legal jargon, policy minutia or politics. So lets dive straight in, shall w,e and make sure these issues see the light of day?
Interference
There can be no doubt that IMES has the potential to significantly interfere with GPS and QZSS signals. The authors of the IMES article are quite clear concerning the potential for interference, and in their own way attempt to mitigate it with signal power restrictions. Their example of a small three- to four-story building with IMES transmitters may indeed be adequate for signal power mitigations, but what happens in Tokyo where tall buildings — skyscrapers if you will — abound? When the Tokyo Skytree skyscraper opened to the public in 2012, it was then listed as the world’s tallest tower and Japan’s biggest new landmark. At over 2,080 feet tall, this is definitely the type of building where one would need an IMES system. With an average of 20 IMES transmitters per floor and weighing in with over 200 floors, we can quickly see that there would be over 4,000 IMES transmitters in this one building alone, all broadcasting simultaneously on or near the center frequency for GPS. Absent stringent regulations and infinite care (the IMES article authors propose that the pseudolite network operator will have the responsibility to continuously monitor each pseudolite and the pseudolite network to prevent interference), and perhaps even with those caveats in place, the GPS L-band noise floor would be such that GPS signals would be incapable of being received.
Now, put 20 such buildings in a ten-block area and the noise floor would be almost incalculable and certainly not predictable. Dr. Parkinson’s fears are realized; your legalized IMES system becomes a distributed network of jammers and/or spoofers. However, technically IMES is currently far from being a legal jammer or spoofer as currently IMES transmitters are not legal to operate in the GPS band at 1559-1610 MHz under the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Treaty per the International Table of Frequency Allocations of the ITU Radio Regulations. The ITU further states that IMES currently operates on an interfering basis with the co-primary allocations (ARNS/RNSS) in this band, and therefore are in violation of the ITU Treaty. However, Japan’s frequency regulatory agency can develop and implement regulations that allow IMES operations. When this occurs, if not operated within stringent guidelines, IMES could then be considered a legalized jammer or spoofer.
Even the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, the JRC, states in its Executive Summary on pseudolites that in-band pseudolites pose a significant jamming risk to GNSS receivers. Specifically they state:
Pseudolites or pseudo-satellites are an emerging technology with the potential of enabling satellite navigation indoors. This technology found several applications that are not limited to indoor navigation. Precise landing, emergency services in difficult environments and precise positioning and machine control are few examples where pseudolite technology can be employed.
Despite the great potential of this technology, severe interference problems with existing GNSS services can arise. The problem can be particularly severe when considering non-participating receivers — legacy devices not designed for pseudolite signals. The design of pseudolite signals is thus a complex problem that has to account for market requirements (modifications of existing receivers for enabling the use of pseudolite signals, measurement accuracy, target application), regulatory aspects (frequency bands to be allocated for pseudolite services) and interference problems.
JRC investigates the main aspects to be considered for the design of a pseudolite signal standard minimizing the interference problem without compromising the location capabilities of the system. The focus is on the signal characteristics and topics relevant for the signal design.
Pseudolite or Communications System
The second technical portion of the interference issue revolves around how exactly you define IMES, for when you are dealing with radio regulation agencies semantics matter. Think back to the first paragraph of this article where the IMES authors defined IMES as a messaging system. That certainly sounds like a communications system to me, and others agree. Consequently, the question has been raised and rightfully so: Is IMES a navigation and positioning system, a pseudolite or a communications system? Honestly, to me it sounds like a bit of all three, but if you define it as a communications system, then Japan is seeking to authorize the integration of a communications system with known significant interference issues with GPS signals right in the middle — indeed, potentially on the center frequency of the protected navigation band using terrestrial PRN codes assigned by the U.S. government. If IMES is deemed an indoor pseudolite, then the interference issues are still there. But it is defined as a bonafide PNT system using authorized terrestrial PRN codes. Talk about a bucket of worms!
The issues here are numerous, and they need to be fully addressed to ensure that all those who are potentially affected clearly understand what is being proposed and the risk for the public at large, including who owns responsibility if something goes wrong. I could go on for several pages on this issue alone, but suffice it to say, we do not want to authorize a communications system that is a known and acknowledged GPS interferer right in the middle of the band — or anywhere in the band for that matter. Remember all the issues GPS had in the past several years with a communications system in adjacent bands. So, do we really want a known communications system — or communications system masquerading as a pseudolite, for that matter — with known GPS signal interference issues in the restricted GPS frequency spectrum? The blaringly obvious answer is absolutely not! Yet this is exactly what the IMES authors are proposing not only for Japan, but eventually, if they receive authorization, for other countries around the globe as well. Japan has twice petitioned the U.S. government to make the assigned IMES terrestrial PRN code allocations global in nature. Fortunately, to date those request have been denied.
Dichotomy
Certainly, other countries and companies have noticed this apparent frequency authorization dichotomy and are following suit. For instance the Conference of European Postal and Telecommunications agencies, or CEPT, which is Europe’s regional representative to the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC), has proposed adding several troubling IMES-related agenda items for the quadrennial WRCs coming up in 2015 and 2019. Even more importantly, these critical issues could be aired in the next three weeks, as the agenda for the 2015 WRC will be largely set at a plenipotentiary conference happening October 20 through November 8 in Busan, South Korea.
There are what I consider to be dangerous proposals under consideration by the ITU (International Telecommunication Union), which should concern GNSS users worldwide. The ITU is the United Nations’ specialized agency for information and communication technologies — ICTs. This is the ITU, where every member state (currently 193) gets one vote, whether they fully understand the technical issues or not and regardless of whether they are a space-faring nation or have a dog in the fight, so to speak. This means that the vote of tiny Saint Lucia counts the same as the United States or Canada or Australia. The ITU charter is to “…allocate global radio spectrum and satellite orbits, develop the technical standards that ensure networks and technologies seamlessly interconnect, and strive to improve access to ICTs to underserved communities worldwide.” Fortunately, the ITU regulations, unlike the CEPT or IMES proposals, wisely require new transmitters proposing to operate in the radio navigation spectrum to operate without causing interference to primary users. Meanwhile, there are member states, countries and companies that want to capitalize on this seeming dichotomy within the global safety-of-life, historically protected, radio bands. Those nefarious efforts, for the future of GPS and GNSS worldwide, need to be stopped in their tracks.
Spectrum is a limited and valuable resource, to say the least, and here fortunately the ITU regulations have it right and do not risk human life, by intruding and potentially interfering with the frequencies used globally by airliners to control, route and land aircraft. I am convinced there are solutions available to us through cooperative efforts with the ITU and other national organizations that will produce pseudolites without causing interference in the protected safety-of-life frequency bands.
When Is a PRN Code Not a PRN Code?
Some of you who are a bit more savvy or have been following this fiasco for some time may now be thinking, what’s the problem, the IMES authors are merely using and proposing further use of U.S. government-authorized terrestrial PRN codes for IMES. This indeed touches on the third thorny issue, which is not only technical but political as well — the use of and authorization to use PRN codes for what is ostensibly a communications system, if you believe the authors of the IMES article, who go to great lengths to differentiate IMES from pseudolites. They continually make the argument that IMES is not a pseudolite, but as we shall soon see, when the U.S. government authorized these specific PRN codes (173-182) for Japan, they were to be used solely for a low-power terrestrial pseudolite program, not an in-band communications system.
Technically, these specific PRN codes assigned to the Japanese for IMES expire in 2017. The authorization of these PRN codes come with numerous restrictions that legally make the codes useful only for the Japanese landmass. This is where the technical, political and operational issues come to a head. We are in for some tough sledding here. However, I will endeavor to make it as simple as possible.
History
In 2007, ten PRN codes were specifically assigned to the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency or JAXA “for the Indoor Messaging System (IMES) terrestrial pseudolites of the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS).” The Memorandum of Agreement from the GPS Wing at SMC (Space and Missile Systems Center) in Los Angeles at Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) clearly states that the codes are valid for ten years and expire on 19 November 2017, unless a renewal application is filed and approved. Hence, PRN codes 173-182 for IMES were assigned with several crucial caveats and restrictions by the U.S. government that are definitely pertinent to our discussion:
The codes are designated for low-power terrestrial regional applications limited to Japan only.
Although the GPS Wing conducts an initial check on PRN number requests with respect to potential interference issues, the issuance of a PRN number does not convey authority to radiate in the [GPS] band. In order to radiate in the GPS L1 band, the applicant [Japan] shall obtain a frequency assignment from the [Japanese] national authority.
The GPS Wing assumes no responsibility for ensuring systems using these spreading codes follow domestic radio frequency regulations or other applicable laws or regulations, or for ensuring that systems using GPS PRN codes do not cause radio frequency interference.
GPS PRN codes were developed for signals transmitted from satellites, and are not necessarily optimized for use by terrestrial transmitters.
The maximum effective isotropic power for each terrestrial transmitter will be less than -94 dBW.
The QZSS [organization] is responsible for the redistribution of these spreading codes throughout Japan and will limit their use to Japan only.
With all these restrictions, it is difficult to see how the IMES authors could legally use, distribute or promote authorization of IMES and the use of the PRN codes outside of Japan and at the power levels related in the GPS World IMES article. Regardless of the IMES author’s interpretation of the PRN code assignment, the GPS Wing 2007 Memorandum restrictions and caveats are clear, and it cannot be disputed that the codes expire in 2017 unless renewed by the USAF. The PRN codes are restricted to the landmass of Japan even if they are renewed, and if IMES wishes to broadcast anywhere in the GPS band, they need to have permission from their national frequency allocation authority (the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, which is equivalent to the U.S. FCC –Federal Communications Commission) to do so.
The Way Ahead
This is the easy part from my perspective. See if you don’t agree. If the U.S. government is concerned about IMES and what Japan is planning to do with the assigned PRN codes for terrestrial use, the U.S. government through the USAF has the options to:
Rescind the PRN codes immediately.
Insure the Japanese adhere to the caveats and restrictions in the original Memorandum.
Simply refuse to renew or recertify the codes for future use and/or recommend for IMES frequencies that are outside the protected GPS band.
Update and clarify the footnote on the GPS Wing PRN Codes website pertaining to the Japanese IMES PRN Codes with all the restrictions listed in the GPS Wing Memorandum so other countries will realize this is not a global IMES PRN assignment.
Japan is a valuable ally and we need to work together cooperatively, but frankly, the plans laid out for IMES by the authors in the GPS World article must be troubling to those whose job it is protect the GPS spectrum and enforce mutual agreements with our allies. If we were just concerned about a Japanese IMES system, this whole discussion might be moot. However, other countries and commercial companies around the world are watching closely and laying the groundwork for similar IMES and pseudolite incursions into the GPS L-band spectrum — if the Japanese are allowed to proceed and the limited use of PRN codes for IMES is not clarified for all. No one, and I include the Japanese, wants to see this happen if it means interference with GPS, and QZSS for that matter.
Fortunately, where European countries are concerned, there are the ITU regulations. Specifically for GPS and pseudolites, the CEPT regulation has a license condition that requires the pseudolite network operator to submit to the European country regulator confirmation of the terrestrial PRN codes from the GNSS operator before operating pseudolites in the GPS band. So again, the U.S. government wields the hammer here.
Therefore, the U.S. government must act immediately and decisively to put an end to the threats against the protected GPS spectrum caused by the proposed in-band IMES system. At the same time, the Japanese government has an obligation and responsibility to adhere to the letter of the law where the original GPS Wing 2007 IMES Memorandum is concerned.
Finally, the U.S. government must urgently engage cooperatively with the European Union administration and Japan to prevent the authorization and proliferation of interfering devices in the GNSS frequency bands, and to work together to ensure the positive benefits to GNSS from commercializing pseudolite uses outside the GNSS radio frequency bands. GNSS manufacturers worldwide are successfully marketing commercial pseudolites that do not cause interference. In my opinion, this is the way to go both in terms of regulations and governance.
Until next time, happy navigating, and remember GPS is brought to you free of charge by the United States Air Force.
By Chris Rizos, Co-chair, Steering Committee of Multi-GNSS Asia
A dramatic increase over the next five years to roughly 100 GNSS satellites in the skies over Asia and Oceania makes that region the fastest growing area in GNSS. The Multi-GNSS Asia (MGA) initiative, a cooperative international demonstration campaign, seeks to take full advantage of this scientific and technical windfall, gaining early experience with the new signals and services of multi-constellation GNSS.
The MGA organization is sponsored by Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), and seeks to promote the region as the “showcase of the new GNSS era” through this demonstration campaign. See an animation of the burgeoning satellite availability over the coming decade. The MGA demonstration campaign consists of a series of activities from 2010 to 2015.
Infrastructure Deployment. JAXA is currently deploying a multi-GNSS monitoring (MGM) network, consisting of continuously operating reference stations equipped with multi-GNSS receivers, that will support the production of precise orbit and satellite clock offset information for the multiple constellations. The MGM-net will be deployed in two stages. The first 20 receivers supplied by JAXA will go to hosting countries and organizations in the Asia-Oceania region by early 2012, with an additional 40 available for deployment globally in 2013. The MGM-net is a component of the tracking network of the International GNSS Service (IGS) global multi-GNSS experiment (M-GEX, igs.org). Both MGM-net and M-GEX will include data and analysis centers and faciltate the sharing of information and resources among participating organizations. The multi-GNSS tracking data will be available to everyone in the form of RINEX files.
Projects. Joint experiments involving new or extended multi-GNSS applications, such as disaster management, intelligent transportation systems, precise positioning, and location-based services will be promoted among GNSS providers, receiver manufacturers, local service providers, government organizations, and universities in the Asia-Oceania region. Some of these will take advantage of the special characteristics of the first QZSS satellite, Michibiki. Several project proposals have been submitted over the last year; one of particular interest is a call by JAXA for a “Multi-GNSS Joint Experiment.” Such experiments could include using the broadcast augmentation message known as the L-band Experimental (LEX) signal, modulated on the L6/E6 frequency at 1278.75MHz, to support precise positioning. China has recently proposed a “BeiDou Application Demonstration & Experience Campaign” (BADEC) as an MGA project activity.
Regional Workshops. An important MGA activity is the organization of an annual workshop to report on joint experiments and results and to promote new joint projects. The First Asia Oceania Regional Workshop on GNSS (AORWG), held in January 2010 in Bangkok, Thailand, drew 195 participants from 18 countries.
The second AORWG took place that November in Melbourne, Australia, and drew 101 participants from 11 countries.
The most recent AORWG was held November 1–3 this year on Jeju Island, South Korea, attracting 86 participants. Five demonstration projects were proposed by researchers from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and Malaysia, and were all endorsed by the MGA Steering Committee.
They are:
Evaluation of Multi-GNSS for Precision Agriculture in Korea; Chungnam National University, Korea
Sustainable Resource Utilization by Precision Farming of Oil Palm Plantation; RTK-Auto Guided Oil Palm Planter; On-the-Go Soil ECa Mapping; University Putra Malaysia , Malaysia
Automated rice transplanter guided by using Multi-GNSS including QZSS; Agricultural Research Center, National Agriculture Research Organization , JAPAN
Joint QZSS/GPS positioning using L1/L5 band signals; National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan
Multi-GNSS Experiment; Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, Australia.
The status of the MGM-net deployment and the results of the demonstration projects will be presented at the fourth AORWG scheduled for November 2012 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
China’s BADEC. At the third AORGW, Dr. X. R. Dong, an expert from the International Cooperation Research Center of China Satellite Navigation Office (CSNO), introduced plans for several long-term project activities under the banner of the BeiDou/GNSS Application Demonstration & Experience Campaign (BADEC). This is another important proposal from China, following the International GNSS Monitoring and Assessment Service (iGMAS) that has drawn attention and support from GNSS providers, users, and international organizations.
A subgroup dealing with iGMAS is approved and setup by ICG-6; the sub-group is co-chaired by Dr. X. R. Dong, IGS and Satoshi Kogure from Japan. Besides continuing to advocate for iGMAS, the goals of BADEC include seeking to make the Asia-Oceania region a showcase of the new GNSS era, and including BeiDou-specific goals such as “welcome the introduction and utilization of BeiDou services,” “let users experience the Multi-GNSS including BeiDou,” and “encourage GNSS provider and users to carry out experiment and demonstration jointly.”
Both IGMAS and BADEC will contribute to promote the GNSS open-service performance, compatibility, and interoperability, to be implemented through extensive international cooperation, especially with the IGS’s M-GEX and MGM-net.
Chris Rizos is professor and head of the School of Surveying & Spatial Information Systems, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. He is president of the International Association of Geodesy, serving from now into 2015.
Experimenting with GPS on Board High-Altitude Balloons
By Peter J. Buist, Sandra Verhagen, Tatsuaki Hashimoto, Shujiro Sawai, Shin-Ichiro Sakai, Nobutaka Bando, and Shigehito Shimizu
In this month’s column, we look at how a team of Dutch and Japanese researchers is using GPS to determine the attitude of a payload launched from a high-altitude balloon.
INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley
IT IS NOT WIDELY RECOGNIZED that relative or differential positioning using GNSS carrier-phase measurements is an interferometric technique. In interferometry, the difference in the phase of an electromagnetic wave at two locations is precisely measured as a function of time. The phase differences depend, amongst other factors, on the length and orientation of the baseline connecting the two locations. The classic demonstration of interferometry, showing that light could be interpreted as a wave phenomenon, was the 1803 double-slit experiment of the English polymath, Thomas Young. Many of us recreated the experiment in high school or university physics classes. A collimated beam of light is shone through two small holes or narrow slits in a barrier placed between the light source and a screen. Alternating light and dark bands are seen on the screen. The bands are called interference fringes and result from the waves emanating from the two slits constructively and destructively interfering with each other. The colors seen on the surface of an audio CD, the colors of soap film, and those of peacock feathers and the wings of the Morpho butterfly are all examples of interference.
Interference fringes also reveal information about the source of the waves. In 1920, the American Nobel-prize-winning physicist, Albert Michelson, used an interferometer attached to a large telescope to measure the diameter of the star Betelgeuse. Radio astronomers extended the concept to radio wavelengths, using two antennas connected to a receiver by cables or a microwave link. Such radio interferometers were used to study the structure of various radio sources including the sun. Using atomic frequency standards and magnetic tape recording, astronomers were able to sever the real-time links between the antennas, giving birth to very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) in 1967. The astronomers used VLBI to study extremely compact radio sources such as the enigmatic quasars. But geodesists realized that high resolution VLBI could also be used to determine — very precisely — the components of the baseline connecting the antennas, even if they were on separate continents.
That early work in geodetic VLBI led to the concept developed by Charles Counselman III and others at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the late 1970s of recording the carrier phase of GPS signals with two separate receivers and then differencing the phases to create an observable from which the components of the baseline connecting the receivers’ antennas could be determined. This has become the standard high-precision GPS surveying technique. Later, others took the concept and applied it to short baselines on a moving platform allowing the attitude of the platform to be determined.
In this month’s column, we look at how a team of Dutch and Japanese researchers is using GPS to determine the attitude of a payload launched from a high-altitude balloon.
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is developing a system to provide a high-quality, long duration microgravity environment using a capsule that can be released from a high-altitude balloon. Since 1981, an average of 100 million dollars is spent every year on microgravity research by space agencies in the United States, Europe, and Japan. There are many ways to achieve microgravity conditions such as (in order of experiment duration) drop towers, parabolic flights, balloon drops, sounding rockets, the Space Shuttle (unfortunately, no longer), recoverable satellites, and the International Space Station. The order of those options is also approximately the order of increasing experiment cost, with the exception of the balloon drop. Besides being cost-efficient, a balloon-based system has the advantage that no large acceleration is required before the experiment can be performed, which could be important for any delicate equipment that is carried aloft.
In this article, we will describe JAXA’s Balloon-based Operation Vehicle (BOV) and the experiments carried out in cooperation with Delft University of Technology (DUT) using GPS on the gondola of the balloon in 2008 (single baseline estimation) and 2009 (full attitude determination and relative positioning). The attitude calculated using observations from the onboard GPS receiver during the 2009 experiment is compared with that from sun and geomagnetic sensors as well as that provided by the GPS receiver itself.
Nowadays, GNSS is used for absolute and relative positioning of aircraft and spacecraft as well as determination of their attitude. What these applications have in common is that, in general, the orientation of the platform is changing relatively slowly and, to a large extent, predictably. Here, we will discuss a balloon-based application where the orientation of the platform, at times, varies very dynamically and unpredictably.
Balloon Experiments
Scientific balloons have been launched in Japan by the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), now a division of JAXA, since 1965, and it holds the world record for the highest altitude reached by a balloon — 53 kilometers. Recently, balloon launches have taken place from the Multipurpose Aviation Park (MAP) in Taiki on the Japanese island of Hokkaido. The balloons are launched using a so-called sliding launcher. The sliding launcher and the hanger at MAP are shown in FIGURE 1.
Balloon-Based Operation Vehicle. As previously mentioned, JAXA’s BOV has been designed for microgravity research. The scenario of a microgravity experiment is illustrated in FIGURE 2. The vehicle is launched with a balloon, which carries it to an altitude of more than 40 kilometers, where it is released.
Figure 2. Microgravity experiment procedure.
After separation, the BOV is in free fall until the parachute is released so that the vehicle can make a controlled landing in the sea. The BOV is recovered by helicopter and can be reused. The capsule has a double-shell drag-free structure and it is controlled so as not to collide with the inner shell. The flight capsule, shown hanging at the sliding launcher in Figure 1, consists of a capsule body (the outer shell), an experiment module (the inner shell), and a propulsion system. The inner capsule shown in FIGURE 3 is kept in free-falling condition after release of the BOV from the balloon, and no disturbance force acts on this shell and the microgravity experiment it contains.
The outer shell has a rocket shape to reduce aerodynamic disturbances. The distance between the outer and inner shells is measured using four laser range sensors. Besides the attitude of the BOV, the propulsion system controls the outer shell so that it does not collide with the inner s
hell. The propulsion system uses 16 dry-air gas-jet thrusters of 60 newtons, each controlling it not only in the vertical direction but also in the horizontal direction to compensate disturbances from, for example, wind.
Flight experiments with the BOV were carried out in 2006 (BOV1) and in 2007 (BOV2), when a fine microgravity environment was established successfully for more than 7 and 30 seconds, respectively.
Attitude Determination. Balloon experiments are performed for a large number of applications, some of which require attitude control. Observations from balloon-based telescopes are an example of an application in which stratospheric balloons have to carry payloads of hundreds of kilograms to an altitude of more than 30 kilometers to be reasonably free of atmospheric disturbances. In this application, the typical requirement for the control of the azimuth angle of the platform is to within 0.1 degrees.
JAXA is developing the Attitude Determination Package (ADP, see TABLE 1) for a future version of the BOV, which contains Sun Aspect Sensors (SAS), the Geomagnetic Aspect Sensor (GAS), an inclinometer, and a gyroscope. Each SAS determines the attitude with a resolution of one degree around one axis and the ADP has four of these sensors pointing in different directions. Inherently, this type of sensor can only provide attitude information if the sun is within the field of view of the sensor. The GAS also determines one-axis attitude. The resolution of magnetic flux density measured by the GAS and applied to obtain an attitude estimate is 50 parts per million. This results in an attitude determination accuracy of the GAS of 1.5 degrees with dynamic bias compensation. The inclinometer determines two-axis attitude with a resolution of 0.2 degrees.
Table 1. Sensor specifications.
Background GPS Experiment. DUT is involved in a precise GPS-based relative positioning and attitude determination experiment onboard the BOV and the gondola of the balloon. Not only is the BOV a challenging environment, but so is the gondola itself, because of the rather rapidly varying attitude (due to wind and — especially at takeoff and separation — rotation) and the high altitude. For a GPS experiment, the altitude of around 40 kilometers is interesting as not many experiments have been performed at this height, which is higher than the altitude reachable by most aircraft but below the low earth orbits for spacecraft. An altitude of about 40 kilometers is a harsh environment for electrical devices because the pressure is about 1/1000 of an atmosphere and the temperature ranges from –60 to 0 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, the antennas are placed under the balloon, which affects the received GPS signals. Later on, we will describe in detail two experiments performed in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
The GPS receivers on the first flight in 2008 were a navigation-type receiver, not especially adapted for such an experiment. The data was collected on a single baseline with two dual-frequency receivers. The receivers were controlled by, and the data stored on, an ARM Linux board using an RS-232 serial connection.
For the second flight in 2009, we used a multi-antenna receiver, for which the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls altitude restriction was explicitly removed. This receiver has three RF inputs that can be connected to three antennas, so the observations from the three antennas are time-synchronized by a common clock. The receiver has the option to store observations internally, which simplified the control of the GPS experiment. We used three antennas: one L1/L2 antenna as the main antenna and two L1 antennas as auxiliary antennas.
Theory of Attitude Determination
In this section, we will provide background information on the models applied in our GPS experiment. More details can be found in the publications listed in Further Reading.
Standard LAMBDA. Most GNSS receivers make use of two types of observations: pseudorange (code) and carrier phase. The pseudorange observations typically have a precision of decimeters, whereas carrier-phase observations have precisions up to the millimeter level.
Carrier-phase observations are affected, however, by an unknown number of integer-cycle ambiguities, which have to be resolved before we can exploit the higher precision of these observations. The observation equations for the double-difference (between satellites and between antennas/receivers) can be written for a single baseline as a system of linearized observation equations:
(1)
where E(y) is the expected value and D(y) is the dispersion of y. The vector of observed-minus-computed double-difference carrier-phase and code observations is given by y; z is the vector of unknown ambiguities expressed in cycles rather than distance units to maintain their integer character; b is the baseline vector, which is unknown for relative navigation applications but for which the length in attitude determination is generally known; A is a design matrix that links the data vector to the vector z; and B is the geometry matrix containing normalized line-of-sight vectors. The variance-covariance matrix of y is represented by the positive definite matrix Qyy, which is assumed to be known.
The least-squares solution of the linear system of observation equations as introduced in Equation (1) is obtained using from:
. (2)
The integer solution of this system can be obtained by applying the standard Least-Squares Ambiguity Decorrelation Adjustment (LAMBDA) method.
Constrained LAMBDA. In applications for which some of the baseline lengths are known and constant, for example GNSS-based attitude determination, we can exploit the so-called baseline-constrained model. Then, the baseline-constrained integer ambiguity resolution can make use of the standard GNSS model by adding the length constraint of the baseline, ||b|| = , where is known. The least-squares criterion for this problem reads:
.(3)
The solution can be obtained with the baseline-constrained (or C-)LAMBDA method, which is described in referred literature listed in Further Reading. Later on, we will refer to the attitude calculated by this approach simply as C-LAMBDA.
For platforms with more than one baseline, the C-LAMBDA method can be applied to each baseline individually, and the full attitude can be determined using those individual baseline solutions. For completeness, we also mention a recently developed solution of this problem, called the multivariate-constrained (MC-) LAMBDA, which integrally accounts for both the integer and attitude matrix. Both approaches are applied in the analyses of the BOV data.
Onboard Attitude Determination. In this article, we also use the onboard estimate of the attitude as provided by the multi-antenna receiver. The method applied in the receiver is based on a Kalman filter and the ambiguities are resolved by the standard LAMBDA method. The baseline length, if the information is provided to the receiver a priori, is used to validate the results. For baseline lengths of about 1 meter, the receiver’s pitch and roll accuracy is about 0.60 degrees, and heading about 0.30 degrees according to the receiver manual. We will refer to the attitude as provided by the receiver as KF.
Flight Experiments
In this section, we will discuss our analyses of the GPS data from two of the BOV experiments.
Gondola Experimental Flight 2008. In September 2008, we performed a test of the ADP for a future version of the BOV and a GPS system containing two navigation-grade GPS receivers. The goal of the experiment was to confirm nominal performance in the real environment of the ADP sensors and GPS receivers on the gondola; therefore, the BOV was not launched. The data from the single baseline was used to determine the pointing direction of the gondola, an application referred to as the GNSS compass. The receivers and the controller were stored in an airtight container (see FIGURE 4) and the antennas were sealed in waterproof bags. The location of the two GPS antennas on the gondola is indicated in Figure 4. The baseline length was 1.95 meters. Both receivers used their own individual clocks, so observations were not synchronized. The trajectory (altitude) of this flight is shown in the right-hand side of Figure 4, with the longitude and latitude shown in FIGURE 5. This is a typical flight profile for our application. The flight takes about three hours and reaches an altitude of more than 40 kilometers.
Figure 4B. Single baseline experiment performed in September 2008, the flight trajectory (altitude).
First, the balloon makes use of the wind direction in the lower layers of the atmosphere, which brings it eastwards. During this part of the flight, the balloon is kept at a maximum altitude of about 12 kilometers. After about 30 minutes, the altitude is increased to make use of a different wind direction that carries the balloon back in the westerly direction toward the launch base in order to ease the recovery of the capsule and/or the gondola.
At the end of the flight, there is a parachute-guided fall over 40 kilometers to sea level, for both the gondola and the BOV (if it is launched), which takes about 30 minutes. In this experiment, we could confirm the nominal operation of some of the sensors and reception of the GPS signals on the gondola under the large balloon.
Gondola Experimental Flight 2009. In May 2009, the third flight of the BOV was performed. The three GPS receiver antennas and the other attitude sensors were placed on an alignment frame for stiffness, which was then attached to the gondola. Furthermore, we used a ground station to demonstrate the combination of GPS-based attitude determination and relative positioning between the platform and the ground station. As the motion of the system is rather unpredictable, we used a kinematic approach for both attitude determination and relative positioning.
Preflight static test: Before the flight, we did a ground test using the actual antenna frame of the gondola (see FIGURE 6). The roll, pitch, and heading angles for this static test are shown on the right-hand side of this figure. Due to the geometry of the baselines, the heading angle is more accurate. For this static test, we can calculate the standard deviation of the three angles to confirm the accuracy achievable for the flight test. These results are summarized in TABLE 2. For the baselines with a length of about 1.4 meters, we achieved an accuracy of about 0.25 degrees for the roll and pitch angles and 0.1 degrees for heading, which is as expected from the lengths and geometry of the baselines. Using single-epoch data, we could resolve the ambiguities correctly for more than 99 percent of the epochs (see TABLE 3). Also, the standard deviation of the receiver’s Kalman-filter-based attitude estimate (KF) is included in the table. The accuracy is, after convergence of the filter, similar to our C-LAMBDA result, although the applied method is very different. The Kalman filter takes about 10 seconds to converge for this static experiment, whereas the C-LAMBDA method provides this accuracy from the very first epoch. For completeness, the instantaneous success rate of the standard LAMBDA and MC-LAMBDA methods are also included in Table 3.
Gondola nominal flight: Next, we applied the same GPS configuration on the gondola. An important difference with respect to the static field experiment is that the antennas were now placed under the balloon and inside waterproof bags (see the picture on the left-hand side of FIGURE 7). The right-hand side of Figure 7 shows the flight trajectory (altitude) of the experiment. At 21:05 UTC (07:05 Japan Standard Time), the balloon was released from the sliding launcher (Figure 1). In 2.5 hours, the balloon reached an altitude of more than 41 kilometers from which the BOV was dropped. At 23:55, the BOV was released from the Gondola, and at 23:59 the gondola was separated from the balloon. After the release of the BOV, the balloon and gondola ascended more than 2 kilometers because of the reduced mass of the system. For this flight, the attitude determination package and the GPS system were installed on the gondola to confirm the nominal performance of all the sensors.
Figure 7A. Full attitude experiment performed in May 2009, sensor configuration.
Figure 7B. Full attitude experiment performed in May 2009, flight trajectory (altitude).
Using the new GPS receiver with three antennas, we are able to calculate the full attitude of the gondola. The roll and pitch estimates, from both C-LAMBDA and KF, are shown in FIGURE 8. The heading angle from the GPS-based C-LAMBDA and KF, and that from the GAS and SAS sensors are shown in FIGURE 9. As explained in a previous section, the four SAS sensors will only output an attitude estimate if the sun is in the field of view of a sensor. Therefore we can distinguish four bands in the heading estimate of the SAS, corresponding to the individual sensors (indicated in Figure 7 as SAS1 to SAS4).
Figure 8A. GPS results for roll angles during nominal flight.
Figure 8B. GPS results for pitch angles during nominal flight.
Figure 9A. GPS results for heading angle during nominal flight.
Figure 9B. GAS and SAS results for heading angle during nominal flight.
The number of locked GPS satellites at the main antenna is shown on the right-hand side of Figure 7. Before takeoff, we saw that the number of locked channels varies rapidly due to obstructions, but after takeoff the number is rather constant until the BOV is separated from the gondola. Before takeoff, the GPS observations are affected by the obstruction of the sliding launcher and therefore ambiguity resolution is only possible on the second baseline (see Figure 8). Also, the GPS receiver itself does not provide an attitude estimation during this phase of the experiment. During takeoff, we see large variations in orientation of the gondola (up to 20 degrees (±10 degrees) for both roll and pitch), which can be estimated well by both C-LAMBDA and KF. Again, the Kalman filter takes a few epochs to converge (in this case, 15 seconds from takeoff), whereas the C-LAMBDA method provides an accurate solution from the very first epoch. After takeoff, the attitude of the gondola stabilizes and the C-LAMBDA and KF attitude estimates are very similar.
We investigated the difference between the attitude estimation from the different sensors during nominal flight. The mean and standard deviations of the differences are shown in TABLE 4. If we compare the C-LAMBDA and KF attitudes, we observe biases for all angles. This is something we have to investigate further, but the most likely cause for this bias is the time delay of the Kalman filter in response to changes in attitude, as we observed in the static experiment in the form of convergence time.
Table 4. Attitude differences (offset/standard deviation) for flight test of 2009.
The standard deviation for the difference in the estimates of roll, pitch, and heading is as expected. For the comparison with the other sensors, we use the C-LAMBDA attitude as the reference. Between C-LAMBDA and GAS/SAS, we observe a bias, most likely due to minor misalignment issues between the sensors. The standard deviations in Table 4 are in line with expectation based on the sensor specifications. During this part of the flight, we achieved a single-epoch, single-frequency empirical overall success rate for ambiguity resolution on the two baselines of 95.09 percent. As a reference, we also include in TABLE 5 the success rate for standard LAMBDA using observations from a single epoch. If we make use of the MC-LAMBDA method, the success rate is increased to 99.88 percent as shown in the table. The success rate is higher as the integrated model for all the baselines is stronger.
Gondola flight after BOV separation: After the separation of the BOV from the gondola, the gondola starts to ascend and sway. FIGURE 10 contains roll and pitch estimates for this part of the flight until the gondola separation. In the figure, we see large variations in the orientation of the gondola (up to 40 (±20) degrees for roll and 20 (± 10) degrees for pitch). It is interesting that after BOV separation, during the large maneuvers of the gondola caused by the separation, both KF and C-LAMBDA estimates are available but to a certain extent are different. Table 4 also contains standard deviations and biases between C-LAMBDA and KF for this part of the flight.
Figure 10A. GPS results for roll angles during nominal flight.
Figure 10B. GPS results for pitch angles during nominal flight.
We conclude that the differences (standard deviation but also bias) between C-LAMBDA and KF — both for roll and pitch — are increased compared to the nominal part of the flight. This confirms our expectation that the Kalman-filter-based result lags behind the true attitude in dynamic situations, whereas the C-LAMBDA result based on single-epoch data should be able to provide the same accurate estimate as during the other phases of the flight.
Future Work
For the final phase of the experiment program, we would like to collect multi-baseline data from a number of vehicles. The preferred option for the experiment is three antennas (two independent baselines) on the BOV, and two antennas (one baseline) on the gondola. Furthermore, similar to our 2009 experiment, a number of antennas at a reference station could be used. The goal of the final phase of the program is to collect data for offline relative positioning and attitude determination, though real-time emulation, between a number of vehicles that form a network.
Acknowledgments
Peter Buist thanks Professor Peter Teunissen for support with the theory behind ambiguity resolution and, including Gabriele Giorgi, for the pleasant cooperation during our research. The MicroNed-MISAT framework is kindly thanked for their support. The research of Sandra Verhagen is supported by the Dutch Technology Foundation STW, the Applied Science Division of The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and the Technology Program of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. This article is based on the paper “GPS Experiment on the Balloon-based Operation Vehicle” presented at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers / Institute of Navigation Position Location and Navigation Symposium 2010, held in Indians Wells, California, May 6–8, 2010, where it received a best-paper-in-track award.
Manufacturers
The Attitude Determination Package’s Sun Aspect Sensor is based on photodiodes manufactured by Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.; the Geomagnetic Aspect Sensor is based on magnetometers manufactured by Bartington Intruments Ltd.; the inclinometer is based on a module manufactured by Measurement Specialties; and the gyro is manufactured by Silicon Sensing Systems Japan, Ltd. For the 2009 experiment, we used a Septentrio N.V. PolaRx2@ multi-antenna receiver with S67-1575-96 and S67-1575-46 antennas from Sensor Systems Inc. Details on the receivers and antennas used for the 2008 experiment are not publicly available. A Trimble Navigation Ltd. R7 receiver and two NovAtel Inc. OEMV receivers were used at the reference ground station. The ARM-Linux logging computer is an Armadillo PC/104 manufactured by Atmark Techno, Inc.
Peter J. Buist is a researcher at Delft University of Technology in Delft, The Netherlands. Before rejoining DUT in 2006, he developed GPS receivers for the SERVIS-1, USERS, ALOS, and other satellites and the H2A rocket, and subsystems for QZSS in the Japanese space industry.
Sandra Verhagen is an assistant professor at Delft University of Technology in Delft, The Netherlands. Together with Peter Buist, she is working on the Australian Space Research Program GARADA project on synthetic aperture radar formation flying.
Tatsuaki Hashimoto received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Tokyo in 1990. He is a professor of the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).
Shujiro Sawai received his Ph.D. in engineering from the University
of Tokyo in 1994. He is an associate professor at ISAS/JAXA.
Shin-Ichiro Sakai received his Ph.D. degree from the University of Tokyo in 2000. He joined ISAS/JAXA in 2001 and became associate professor in 2005.
Nobutaka Bando received a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Tokyo in 2005. He is an assistant professor at ISAS/JAXA.
Shigehito Shimizu received a master’s degree in engineering from Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, in 2007. He is an engineer in the Navigation, Guidance and Control Group at JAXA.
FURTHER READING
• Authors’ Proceedings Paper
“GPS Experiment on the Balloon-based Operation Vehicle” by P.J. Buist, S. Verhagen, T. Hashimoto, S. Sawai, S-I. Sakai, N. Bando, and S. Shimizu in Proceedings of PLANS 2010, IEEE/ION Position Location and Navigation Symposium, Indian Wells, California, May 4–6, 2010, pp. 1287–1294, doi: 10.1109/PLANS.2010.5507346.
• Balloon Applications
“Development of Vehicle for Balloon-Based Microgravity Experiment and Its Flight Results” by S. Sawai, T. Hashimoto, S. Sakai, N. Bando, H. Kobayashi, K. Fujita, T. Yoshimitsu, T. Ishikawa, Y. Inatomi, H. Fuke, Y. Kamata, S. Hoshino, K. Tajima, S. Kadooka, S. Uehara, T. Kojima, S. Ueno, K. Miyaji, N. Tsuboi, K. Hiraki, K. Suzuki, and K. M. T. Nakata in Journal of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Vol. 56, No. 654, 2008, pp. 339–346, doi: 10.2322/jjsass.56.339.
“Development of the Highest Altitude Balloon” by T. Yamagami, Y. Saito, Y. Matsuzaka, M. Namiki, M. Toriumi, R. Yokota, H. Hirosawa, and K. Matsushima in Advances in Space Research, Vol. 33, No. 10, 2004, pp. 1653–1659, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2003.09.047.
• Attitude Determination
“Testing of a New Single-Frequency GNSS Carrier-Phase Attitude Determination Method: Land, Ship and Aircraft Experiments” by P.J.G. Teunissen, G. Giorgi, and P.J. Buist in GPS Solutions, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2011, pp. 15–28, doi: 10.1007/s10291-010-0164-x, 2010.
“Attitude Determination Methods Used in the PolarRx2@ Multi-antenna GPS Receiver” by L.V. Kuylen, F. Boon, and A. Simsky in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2005, the 18th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Long Beach, California, September 13–16, 2005, pp. 125–135.
“Development of the Integrated Navigation Unit; Combining a GPS Receiver with Star Sensor Measurements” by P.J. Buist, S. Kumagai, T. Ito, K. Hama, and K. Mitani in Space Activities and Cooperation Contributing to All Pacific Basin Countries, the Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Pacific Basin Societies (ISCOPS), Tokyo, Japan, December 10–12, 2003, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 117, 2004, pp. 357–378.
• Ambiguity Estimation
“Instantaneous Ambiguity Resolution in GNSS-based Attitude Determination Applications: the MC-LAMBDA Method” by G. Giorgi, P.J.G. Teunissen, S. Verhagen, and P.J. Buist in Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, accepted for publication, April 2011.
“Integer Least Squares Theory for the GNSS Compass” by P.J.G. Teunissen in Journal of Geodesy, Vol. 84, No. 7, 2010, pp. 433–447, doi: 10.1007/s00190-010-0380-8.
“The Baseline Constrained LAMBDA Method for Single Epoch, Single Frequency Attitude Determination Applications” by P.J. Buist in Proceedings of ION GPS 2007, the 20th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Fort Worth, Texas, September 25–28, 2007, pp. 2962–2973.
“The LAMBDA Method for the GNSS Compass” by P.J.G. Teunissen in Artificial Satellites, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2006, pp. 89–103, doi: 10.2478/v10018-007-0009-1.
“The Least-Squares Ambiguity Decorrelation Adjustment: a Method for Fast GPS Integer Ambiguity Estimation” by P.J.G. Teunissen in Journal of Geodesy, Vol. 70, No. 1–2, 1995, pp. 65–82, doi: 10.1007/BF00863419.
• Relative Positioning
“A Vectorial Bootstrapping Approach for Integrated GNSS-based Relative Positioning and Attitude Determination of Spacecraft” by P.J. Buist, P.J.G. Teunissen, G. Giorgi, and S. Verhagen in Acta Astronautica, Vol. 68, No. 7-8, 2011, pp. 1113–1125, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.09.027.
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has controlled the orbit of the first quasi-zenith satellite system (QZSS) satellite, Michibiki. JAXA inserted Michibiki into the quasi-zenith orbit from the drift orbit starting on Sept. 21. The final orbit control operation was performed for about 50 seconds from 6:28 a.m. on Sept. 27 JST (Japan Standard Time).
After the operation, JAXA confirmed that the satellite was successfully injected into its preordained quasi-zenith orbit with its center longitude of about 135 degrees through the orbit calculation. The calculation results are as follows.
Michibiki was launched from the Tanegashima Space Center at 8:17 p.m. JST on Sept. 11.
JAXA will carry out the initial functional verification of the onboard mission devices in cooperation with organizations that will perform technological verifications for about three months. These organizations include the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, the Electronic Navigation Research Institute, and the Satellite Positioning Research and Application Center.
JAXA provided these definitions of drift and quasi-zenith orbit:
Drift orbit: The last step orbit prior to the quasi-zenith orbit. The orbit altitude and inclination (angle against the equator) are equal to those of the quasi-zenith orbit, but the longitude of the center of the figure-8 orbit is not above Japan. After being injected into the drift orbit, it will take a few days to maneuver the satellite to have its figure-8 center above Japan, thus it will ultimately fly in the quasi-zenith orbit.
Quasi-zenith orbit: While the quasi-zenith orbit has the same orbit period of 23 hours and 56 minutes as the geostationary orbit, it can let a satellite stay over Japan longer by taking an elliptical orbit with higher altitude above Japan and flying in a figure-8 orbit.