Tag: John Lavrakas

  • Expert Advice: Managing GPS, Take Two

    John Lavrakas
    John Lavrakas

    By John Lavrakas, Advanced Research Corporation

    What a difference eight years can make! My September 2006 GPS World article “Managing the GPS Constellation for Today’s Needs” dealt with GPS performance issues many high-precision users then faced. Demanding applications of real-time precision positioning, such as precision agriculture and machine control, did not find enough satellites in view to support their needs.

    I posed the question: Is the problem with the number of usable GPS satellites, or with growth in the demands of the user community? The 2006 answer was: a little bit of both.

    Now the issue has pretty much gone away. Users have adapted to incorporating other GNSS signals, initially GLONASS and now BeiDou. Russia’s commitment to operate GLONASS at full capacity developed into today’s operation of its 24-satellite constellation. China’s similar declaration led to deployment of 16 satellites to date toward an eventual constellation of 35. Europe is likewise poised to offer global services with Galileo. GPS’s days as the sole provider of ubiquitous, accessible services appear to be over.

    One of my 2006 recommendations was for GPS decision-making authorities to support an aggressive program to replace aging satellites. This has been done. GPS went from one IIR-M satellite in 2006 to the present seven IIR-M satellites and seven IIFs. They provide a new civil signal on L2C, and the IIF provides a new civil safety-of-life signal on L5. 

    Let’s look at the differences in service between 2006 and 2014 as shown in Table 1. GPS RMS user range error (URE) has been cut in half, and the number of usable GNSS satellites has gone up by 39 percent (44 to 61). 

    Table 1.  Differences in GPS service between 2006 and 2014.
    Table 1. Differences in GPS service between 2006 and 2014.

    Today GPS and GLONASS operate at full capacity. GPS exceeds its marks by providing 31 satellites broadcasting signal-in-space range errors in the half-meter range, even as Block IIF satellites add L2C and L5 signals. GPS high-precision users also employ space-based augmentation systems services such as WAAS, EGNOS, and QZSS. Internet-connected GPS receivers, including those in cellular phones, use Assisted-GPS to provide near instantaneous times to first fix. 

    One drawback to GNSS is its undependability when subjected to blockage, interference, or spoofing. GNSS services should be made more resilient, and PNT users must diversify their positioning sources. We are now moving into a hybrid world, in which PNT services go far beyond “just GPS” to multi-GNSS services augmented by other PNT technologies, including assisted GNSS, inertial sensors, and terrestrial positioning services. Although diversifying PNT sources increases cost, it may not be as much as some might think. At a recent PNT symposium at Stanford University, Greg Turetzky of Intel predicted even consumer-grade receivers used in automobiles, tablets, and smartphones will embrace all GNSS, despite the added cost in chip size and power. 

    Setting aside the larger PNT discussion and considering only GPS, what challenges must GPS address to remain the cornerstone of PNT services? Here is my list of the top issues GPS faces today.

    Signal Vulnerability. Since the issue of GPS vulnerability was raised in the 2001 Volpe Report, this issue has not changed, but the stakes have risen much higher. There is greater dependence on the GPS service than ever before, with over a billion users. It is generally conceded that for many applications, reliance on GPS in its current form is insufficient and even risky. Brad Parkinson espouses the mantra of protect, toughen, and augment GPS, focusing on steps necessary to strengthen its service.

    Numerous methods are being explored and implemented to protect and toughen GPS: increased signal power on modernized satellites, improved antennas, and authentication of the signal against spoofing. The U.S. Department of Transportation is actively seeking ways to protect GPS spectrum through public workshops on GPS adjacent-band compatibility. 

    The GPS civil signal remains open to malignant spoofing by nefarious forces. Various methods are being proposed to counter this threat. It may seem that adding signal authentication is a bit too late, since civil GPS signals have already been defined in interface specifications, but it turns out this may not be the case. At the Stanford Symposium, Col. Matt Smitham of the GPS Directorate stated that now is a good time to play with the civil navigation message implementations to explore features like authentication. “This is the time to do this, change the message types,” he said. Thus, there is an opportunity to counter this threat. 

    Gaps in Service. A low-power service that has limited operation in many settings, GPS does not provide full functionality at the Poles, nor does it work indoors or underwater. This issue is exacerbated by society’s demands for PNT services anywhere. The 2008 National PNT Architecture identified these gaps as a primary concern, encouraging numerous actions to resolve them. 

    Split Leadership. Although the Space-Based PNT Executive Committee and its National Coordination Office provide a mechanism for establishing high-level policy and providing outreach, they fall short of meeting other essential needs for acquiring, operating, and sustaining GPS. Funding for GPS is split between a number of departments and agencies including the DoD, DOT, the FAA, and NASA. The net effect is prioritization decided by individual departments and agencies, but not by the GPS leadership itself. Thus, some programs get funded by Congress, such as satellite and control system acquisition and the FAA’s NextGen program, but others do not. Civil signal monitoring and complementary PNT services to support increased PNT resilience have not been adequately funded. GPS operations experience the tragedy of the commons: GPS civil signal formats are defined but service standards and management protocols are not. 

    How to Manage GPS for Today

    • Resolve GPS vulnerabilities by strengthening the system and augmenting the service. Take the lead in addressing system vulnerabilities, including mitigating jamming and interference, and installing protections against spoofing. Hold forums on authentication means and methods, and fund research demonstrations using pre-operational civil signals.
    • Work to close the gaps in service. Implement reduced-cost-impact, easily accessible complementary technologies to fill GNSS gaps. Implement civil signal monitoring using alternative networks until the Next-Generation Operational Control System incorporates civil signal monitoring requirements.
    • Establish even closer cooperation between military and civilian leadership to provide unified funding, acquisition, and operations. Ensure a unified message to Congress for multi-agency funding needs. Work together to implement new civil signals, including operational protocols. Set dates cooperatively and meet them.

    The GPS program produced a revolution in ubiquitous positioning, navigation, and timing that cannot be stopped. Care must be taken to ensure its services continue to benefit mankind while its vulnerabilities do not cause undesired harm to its users. With thoughtful planning and execution, GPS leaders will succeed.


    John W. Lavrakas is president of Advanced Research Corporation, providing expertise in global positioning systems, having spent the past 34 years in GPS, working in its command and control, user operations, GPS receiver development, and satellite navigation performance analysis. He can be reached at [email protected].

  • Expert Advice: BeiDou, How Things Have Changed

    John Lavrakas
    John Lavrakas
    Economically, the System Differs Significantly from Its GNSS Cousins

    John W. Lavrakas

    In May 2007, I authored an article in GPS World looking ten years into the future and envisioning how the GNSS field would operate at that then-distant time. Reviewing my assessments, I see that I was both accurate and wide of the mark with my predictions.

    The prediction that has proved accurate was that the GNSS world would be hybrid, with no one system as the sole provider of satellite-based positioning and timing services. This was hardly a risky prediction. Most in the GNSS community would have come to the same assessment.

    But what I did not see coming were the advances China would take with its BeiDou program. My original assessment was based on three GNSSs only: GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo, and did not include BeiDou.

    When I did my analysis in 2006, China was pretty quiet on BeiDou: no technical descriptions, no interface control document (ICD); no presentations at conferences of the Institute of Navigation. What little we knew about BeiDou was that it was a limited system, offering at best a regional solution. The original design was an active system using geosynchronous satellites, requiring each remote unit to request position from the satellite, which was calculated and sent back to the remote station.

    How things have changed.

    Since 2007, China has reshaped the BeiDou concept into a full-fledged modern GNSS, offering CDMA codes, navigation messages, and data rates comparable to GPS and Galileo — and lots of satellites. The ICD states in section 3.1, “When fully deployed, the space constellation of BDS consists of five geostationary Earth-orbit (GEO) satellites, twenty-seven medium Earth-orbit (MEO) satellites, and three inclined geosynchronous satellite orbit (IGSO) satellites.” No dates are provided, however, regarding attaining these numbers. So the BeiDou system promises to be on par with the other GNSSs.

    Why does this matter?

    While technically the BeiDou system resembles its cousins, economically it presents quite a different animal. Unlike other nations offering GNSS, China has a huge capacity for manufacturing at low cost. Considering this situation from a business perspective, a possible scenario could be that China offers GNSS chipsets that operate with BeiDou (either solely or as a hybrid with another GNSS)at extremely low prices. In doing so, China could corner the market for general purpose LBS applications (setting aside specialty receivers, such as for surveying and aviation applications). The price point would be so attractive that LBS services would employ Chinese devices in preference to the GPS ones, much like consumers purchase television sets: most come from China, and none are made in the United States any more.

    China offers something, then, in this scenario that neither Russia, Europe, nor the United States can currently match. This may not be the scenario that eventually occurs, but it is possible. Other factors such as local terrestrial PNT solutions and dual-frequency improvements will come into play, but what I have described is one possible scenario. While the signal is free, the equipment is not, and when we are talking about a billion or more installations, cost is going to be a big driver.

    Am I going out on a limb and saying that BeiDou will be the system of choice in another ten years or so? No, I would not go this far.

    But I do say that serious competition for GNSS users (read “market share”) is now in play. Further, it is important for each GNSS operator to recognize this as they consider the services and features they choose to offer, and the impact these have in capturing their share of the market. GNSS providers now must factor the business aspect of their services as much as the technical, scientific, or safety of life. The U.S. government, for one, has gotten a bit complacent in upgrading GPS services to meet user needs, operating from a basis that it is the only GNSS on the block. It could wake up one day and find this no longer to be the case.


    John Lavrakas is president of Advanced Research Corporation, where he provides consulting services on satellite navigation and fishery information systems. He has spent 32 years in GPS, supporting development of the GPS Control Segment, GPS user equipment, GPS performance analysis capabilities, and developing and marketing location-based systems. He is past president of the Institute of Navigation and an ION Fellow.

  • GPS Transmitter Frequencies

    Why are the two GPS Transmitter frequencies (1575.42 and 1227.6 MHz) coherently selected integer multiples of 10.23 MHz master clock?

    Question posted on CANSPACE on October 30, 2006, by Sivaraman Ranganathan.

    The document defining the GPS signal, IS-GPS-200, states that “The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV.” This makes the L1 and L2 multiples of the common frequency source 10.23MHz. (Section 3.3.1.1). Why is this? I believe this is done for simplicity of system design and operation. All components of the signal (code, carrier, and navigation data) are derived from the atomic frequency standards on board the satellite. If this were not done and separate frequency sources were used, then biases between the different components would occur, which would have to be calculated and removed.

    IS-GPS-200 furthermore states in Section 3.3.1.8 that the C/A and P(Y) digital codes are as well derived from the same frequency standard. “All transmitted signals for a particular SV shall be coherently derived from the same on-board frequency standard; all digital signals shall be clocked in coincidence with the PRN transitions for the P-signal and occur at the P-signal transition speed. On the L1 channel the data transitions of the two modulating signals (i.e., that containing the P(Y)-code and that containing the C/A-code), L1 P(Y) and L1 C/A, shall be such that the average time difference between the transitions does not exceed 10 nanoseconds (two sigma)”.

    Despite the coherence of the two carriers, it is understood there is a difference between the radiated L1 and L2 signals due in part to the different paths the signals take within the on-board electronics. This is called the differential group delay and an estimate of this difference is broadcast to users in the navigation message. The difference between L1 P(Y) and L2 P(Y) is designated Tgd (reference paragraph 20.3.3.3.3.2). The difference between L1 P(Y) and L2C is called the Inter-Signal Correction (ISC) (reference paragraph 30.3.3.3.1.1).

    For further technical discussion of this topic, see the book Global Positioning System, Signals Measurements, and Performance by Pratap Misra and Per Enge (section 2.3.1).

    John Lavrakas, President

    Advanced Research Corp.