What is the most promising innovation in satellite navigation being introduced by BDS, Galileo, QZSS, or NavIC?
“Two things are having an immediate impact: authentication methods, such as Galileo’s Open Service-Navigation Message Authentication (OS-NMA), and the proliferation of correction services for high accuracy. Navigation message authentication offers a practical, easy-to-implement defense against several (though not all) types of spoofing attacks. QZSS and NavIC offer this too. And though paid correction services have been available for some time, Galileo’s High Accuracy Service (HAS) will bring it into the mainstream. Sometimes innovation is just applying simple techniques in a useful, efficient manner.”
For critical infrastructure, how good a remedy are multi-constellation receivers to GNSS vulnerability?
“Multi-constellation receivers do not do much to combat jamming and spoofing; they only detect failures in a constellation itself through comparison. Since they all are open standards, a good spoofer can fake all the systems simultaneously. Multi-frequency receivers are a bit more resistant to jamming, since one must jam multiple bands, but since all the bands are relatively close, the barrier is not high. To be truly resilient, you need diverse, redundant PNT sensors — IMUs, CRPAs, strong signals of opportunity, lidars, etc. — in addition to GNSS receivers.”
GPS World Editor-in-Chief, Matteo Luccio, discusses Harxon’s new GNSS technology and more from INTERGEO 2023 with Yong Deng, overseas sales manager at Harxon.
CHC Navigation Division Product Manager of Mapping Solutions, Andrei Gorb, talks about the company’s new releases, frequently asked questions and more from INTERGEO 2023.
At INTERGEO 2023, CHC Navigation Survey & Engineering Product Line Manager, Rachel Wong demonstrated the company’s new release, the i89. It is a compact IMU-RTK GNSS receiver with visual surveying and 3D modeling capabilities. Click here to watch our second interview from the CHC Navigation booth!
GPS World Editor-in-Chief met with Ken MacLeod, product line manager and Bruce Shields, director of the systems group at Tallysman Wireless to discuss the company’s new antennas launched at INTERGEO 2023.
Warning sirens about the vulnerabilities of GPS to jamming, spoofing, solar activity and other disruptions have been blaring for many years. Now the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), which represents other federal civil departments and agencies on all GPS-related matters within the federal government, might finally be moving from study to action. On September 12, at the annual meeting of the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee held in conjunction with ION GNSS+ in Denver, Robert Hampshire, DOT’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology and Chief Science Officer, announced the release of DOT’s Complementary Positioning Navigation and Timing Action Plan. It aims to drive CPNT adoption across the United States transportation system and within other critical infrastructure areas. You can read more here and download the planhere.
Which GPS vulnerabilities does DOT aim to address and how quickly can it “drive adoption” of CPNT? Attempting to answer these questions requires pushing through a dense thicket of bureaucratic jargon. I asked Karen Van Dyke, Director for Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) and Spectrum Management in Hampshire’s office four questions. What follows are excerpts from her answers. You can read her full response here.
What is your office’s charter within the federal government to advance the development and deployment of complementary PNT?
Her office’s efforts, Van Dyke told me, “support federal policy governing PNT programs and activities for national and homeland security, civil, commercial, and scientific purposes. These include Executive Order 13905, Strengthening National Resilience Through Responsible Use of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Services (EO 13905) and Space Policy Directive 7, The United States Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Policy (SPD-7).”
Which GPS vulnerabilities and at what scale is this plan addressing?
The action plan, Van Dyke told me, “addresses disruption, denial, and manipulation of GPS for critical infrastructure sectors” on “both a widespread and local scale.”
How and when will this action plan move the federal government’s posture on CPNT from study to action?
Van Dyke cited field demonstrations conducted in 2020 by the Volpe Center of candidate PNT technologies that could offer complementary service in the event of GPS disruptions and a 2021 report to Congress that distilled the PNT resiliency recommendations. DOT, she said, should develop “system requirements for PNT functions that support safety-critical services” and “standards, test procedures, and monitoring capabilities to ensure that PNT services, and the equipage that utilize them, meet the necessary levels of safety and resilience”.
How does DOT intend to engage PNT stakeholders?
Van Dyke pointed to a PNT Industry roundtable that DOT held in August 2022 that included representatives from CPNT technology vendors and critical infrastructure sectors and “informed the development” of the action plan. She also pointed out that on September 11, DOT issued a request for information “as one of the steps to drive adoption” of CPNT services “to augment GPS for the nation’s transportation system, and through the executive branch interagency process, for other critical infrastructure sectors.”
Septentrio has been working on port automation projects with Kalmar, a Finnish company that offers a wide range of cargo handling solutions and services to ports, terminals, distribution centers and heavy industry. I discussed this collaboration with Stef van der Loo, market access manager at Septentrio. Following are excerpts of our conversation. For a much longer version, click here.
What are the challenges operating in a port?
In a container terminal or port, everything is interconnected and, therefore, complex. Lately, GNSS has become more popular, especially when coupled with inertial navigation, because the technology has become more capable of delivering centimeter-level accuracy even in challenging environments where the line-of-sight to GNSS satellites may be partially blocked by containers or structures.
What drives higher accuracy?
this Kalmar container handler has a Septentrio high-accuracy GNSS/INS receiver and an inertial system, which operate in challenging environments of low satellite visibility. (Image: Kalmar)
Every year, every terminal stacks a certain number of containers, but not all the information about them is given to the terminal operating system (TOS) automatically. Sometimes, operators must search for misplaced containers, which may require stopping operations and deploying additional personnel. Additionally, it is not very safe to go into these yards. This is one reason why ports began to deploy positioning systems. However, ten years ago, with meter accuracy, they were failing all the time. Now, improvements in the technology have enabled GNSS to become fit for the challenge. In terminals, you can use GNSS or INS systems for vehicle traffic management, autonomous vehicles and tasks, or to get the position of a container.
For example, when a reach stacker reaches into a stack and locks a container in place, it’s crucial to have a very reliable centimeter-level position. Errors grow as the data is processed from the control systems to the TOS. To know for certain the position of a container when it was placed in a stack errors must not exceed half a meter. Therefore, the reliability and accuracy of the GNSS/INS is crucial for container positioning.
Do you buy the IMUs and do all the integration?
We buy the IMUs mostly from Analog Devices. The integrated inertial navigation solution is our own. We focus on inertial navigation in several markets — including logistics, autonomous mining, and agricultural robotics.
What is the division of labor between you and Kalmar?
Kalmar is both an OEM and an integrator. They are a guru for the automation of logistics terminals. We work with them mainly as an integrator. They will go to a terminal, like other integrators, and install the systems and other equipment. Kalmar built a whole sensor stack with all types of sensors and integrated this in their packages, such as SmartPort. With a train-the-trainer principle, our engineers trained Kalmar employees, so they have first line control of the installations and troubleshooting. Then we are ready to support them where we can. We have a continuous feedback loop with several logistics customers for suggestions and product recommendations for the evolution of our products and services for this segment.
Straddling containers
JAVAD GNSS
Straddle carrier in operation equipped with DELTA-3S. (Image: Canva)
One of the largest container companies in the world needed a solution to manage its straddle carriers, which are specialized container handling vehicles at ports that can pick up large containers and move them to trucks, trains, or other container stacks. This is very challenging for container terminal operators because ports are highly complex operating environments that also provide other maritime services, such as storing and managing cargo, forwarding freight, and clearing customs. To handle containers safely and efficiently, modern terminals have buildings, equipment, and cranes in addition to straddle carriers. All this infrastructure creates a lot of multipath that stresses the capabilities of GNSS receivers.
To develop and install this new system for straddle carrier vehicles, the container company turned to JAVAD GNSS and to ALLSAT GmbH, a German engineering, geodetic and electronic company founded in 1991 that has been JAVAD’s German distribution partner since 1995. To address the challenge, in 2022, ALLSAT GmbH applied a new digital twin concept to supply and support the commissioning of several hundred JAVAD GNSS rover solutions at three international seaports. This required obtaining real-time and highly accurate positional data for moving straddle carriers and uploading it to a terminal information system for control and documentation.
ALLSAT deployed a geodetic conceptual design that integrates JAVAD GNSS Delta-3S receivers and RingAnt G5T and GrAnt-G5T antennas to deliver precise surveying of two GNSS reference stations per port, then commissioned the system on all the straddle carrier vehicles from a single source. It also developed a solution employing two redundantly operating reference stations that broadcast RTK correction data for all GNSS (GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, and BeiDou) on different IP addresses/radio frequencies. All the JAVAD RTK rovers can receive and process data from both correction sources in parallel thanks to their 874 channels and parallel processors. This offers two advantages. First, it provides a comprehensive fallback in the unlikely event that one reference station fails. Second, it greatly improves the reliability, speed and accuracy of the rovers, which operate in an environment rife with signal shadowing and multipath influences.
Working closely with its client and JAVAD GNSS, ALLSAT was able to implement this project, from initial idea to verification and commissioning, in only a few weeks. The combination of redundant, multi-constellation reference stations and JAVAD GNSS multi-base RTK yielded a solution that is highly reliable and available, providing for continuous operation despite the challenging environmental conditions. Additionally, JAVAD GNSS provides firmware updates for the life of the devices, which will enable the customer to rely on this base rover solution for the next 10 years.
Tracking trains
M3 Systems
(Image: Logiplus)
M3 Systems, a French-Belgian geolocation company founded in 1999, has long supported the R&D activities of European space and civil aviation agencies. It also markets products that it developed through its R&D activities. In recent years, M3 Systems expanded its activities into the automotive and rail sectors. To develop a new device for trains, it partnered with two Belgian companies: Logiplus, which makes onboard electronic systems for trains, and ALSTOM Belgium, a division of ALSTOM group, which builds trains and equipment for train tracks. “The objective during the product design was the development of a hybrid sensor that uses both a GNSS sensor to provide absolute positioning, and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) to compensate for environmental obstructions such as trees and urban canyons by calculating the train’s position based on its last GNSS-based absolute position,” explained Jérémy Skelton, project lead at M3 Systems.
IMUs have long been coupled with GNSS because each technology compensates for the other one’s limitations: IMUs suffer from drift and GNSS receivers from signal loss in certain environments. In theory, surveying the tracks and using odometry to monitor a train’s linear position on them would suffice to locate it. In practice, however, wheel encoders “are prone to errors because the wheels are subjected to a lot of sliding and skidding,” Skelton said.“So, we need completely independent sensors.”
This requirement led ALSTOM to propose the development of the IGLOO (an acronym for IMU & GNSS vehicle odometry) input device, which integrates all the different sensors. Logiplus designed and manufactured the hardware, while M3 Systems wrote the algorithm.
The project, which was partially funded thanks to a grant from the European Regional Development Fund and supported by the Région Wallonne of Belgium, was divided into three components:
The software to couple the IMU and the GNSS to compute the train’s velocity.
The auto-calibration solution, which eliminates the need for automatic calibration when starting the sensor.
A hardware platform that incorporates a low cost IMU.
The consortium defines three kinds of zones in which a train will operate, depending on the trustworthiness in each zone of the GNSS signals. “For example, an environment with a clear view of the sky and no nearby obstacles is trustworthy,” Skelton said, “while a forest, an urban canyon, or the entry into a tunnel are not. Without GNSS support, eventually the IMU will also become unreliable.”
At very low speeds, errors must be very low, but at higher speeds a greater speed error is allowed. Operators can extract different levels of data from a GNSS receiver. To achieve a tight GNSS-INS coupling, they can use the Doppler delays and hybridize them with the IMU or use the tracking loop and set the range and Doppler. For a loose coupling, they can directly use the GNSS receiver’s positioning, velocity, and timing data. All couplings are performed by using Bayesian filters, for example the Kalman filter. “Loose coupling will give you less accuracy, reliability, and integrity, but it will also be less CPU-intensive,” Skelton said.
For data acquisition on a train, M3 Systems generated a printed circuit board (PCB) with a u-blox GNSS receiver, a Septentrio Asterix GNSS receiver, nine IMUs (which enables them to choose the best one for the use case), a reference trajectory unit that provides ground truth, and a computer that takes the data from the GNSS receivers and the IMUs. “Everything was integrated for measurement purposes on a rack on a train that runs here in Belgium,” Skelton said, “and all the data was retrieved automatically via a 4G internet connection. We have collected a few thousand kilometers traveled, a few hours of tunnels, and both trustworthy and untrustworthy GNSS signals.”
M3 Systems’ partner Logiplus designed the product to support the hybridization software and interface with the European vital computer (EVC), which monitors and continuously calculates the train’s maximum speed and braking curve. “It is critical for the EVC to have perfect knowledge of the train’s speed, which is the main reason we designed this new device,” Skelton said. “What is specific in that hardware is the computing power, the two systems (GNSS and inertial), and the data fusion algorithm, which allows the hardware to evolve. For example, we can switch to a different IMU.”
The IGLOO system complies with the specified safety requirements, contributing to a more reliable knowledge of the train speed, which reduces the risk of accidents and fatalities, improves traffic flow, and improves the efficiency and safety of the train operations, Skelton pointed out.
Surveying a railroad
Eos Positioning Systems
A rail tunnel at Leigh-on-Sea in East of England. Arcadis used Eos Arrow 100 GNSS receivers alongside Esri’s ArcGIS Survey123 to collect rail assets with submeter accuracy in real time. (Image: Amaro)
Network Rail, which owns and manages the railway infrastructure in England, Scotland and Wales, needed an as-is survey of up to 50,000 electrical assets along 400 miles of rails in the eastern region of the country. It turned to Arcadis, a design and consultancy firm that specializes in sustainable design and engineering services. The project required delivering accurate building information modeling (BIM) plans of the rail line to support operations and maintenance of the electrified infrastructure, while ensuring a safe working environment for the surveying teams. Using Arrow 100 GNSS receivers from Canadian manufacturer Eos Positioning Systems and Esri’s ArcGIS Survey123 and ArcGIS Hub software, Arcadis was able to efficiently capture the data with sub-meter accuracy and share it with Network Rail in real-time.
Arcadis decided to conduct a digital field survey to collect the data and to use GIS to manage it, said Gideon Simons, Associate Director of GIS and Geospatial Consultant at Arcadis. “We provided the survey teams iPads, the Esri application, and the GNSS receivers.” For corrections, it used the Ordnance Survey’s OS Net. “We found through a few assessments and testing that the Eos Arrow’s precision was good enough to meet the project’s requirements.”
The region surveyed is mostly rural but the rail line traverses some very urbanized areas. “One of the first challenges was surveying under cover in stations and in quite a few tunnels. So, we developed methodologies using georeferenced plans and imagery and taking temporary datums using GNSS outside the tunnels, to measure distance and offsets to the assets in the tunnels with measuring wheels that allowed for post-survey processing and the location accuracy required,” said Simons.
Photography was also a key to the success of the project. “In just one depot, we surveyed thousands of assets with many inside train sheds,” said Simons. “We use 360-degree cameras and train view cameras, so that we really understand where assets should be placed.”
The next stage for Network Rail is to maintain that equipment — whether it’s replacing it, bringing it up to code, or potentially installing new assets, Simons pointed out. “In the UK, we use a variety of measurements — imperial and metric. So, it’s been very helpful for the client to have just one source of truth reference that supports their work yet that can still link with other systems and ease communication with wider teams.”
An exclusive interview with Stef van der Loo, market access manager, Septentrio. For more exclusive interviews from this cover story, click here.
What are your key markets and how does this port project fit in?
We have many markets, of course, but we have a big focus on machine automation, mainly for large industrial machinery. Think of agriculture and construction. Port logistics is a newcomer in a sense. In the last 20 years, there’s been a lot of testing with GPS receivers in terminals, but not as much as in construction because the two environments are very different. In a container terminal or port, everything is interconnected and, therefore, complex.
You can equip an excavator with a 3D system and import this data into a building information modeling (BIM) system, but sometimes data is missing and the system breaks. If that happens in logistics the whole chain breaks and you’re stuck. Lately, GNSS has become more popular, especially when coupled with inertial navigation, because the technology has become more capable of delivering centimeter-level accuracy even in challenging environments where the line-of-sight to GNSS satellites may be partially blocked by containers or structures.
So, GNSS is becoming more of a fit for the logistics market.
What have been the drivers of higher accuracy in the past 20 years?
The terminal operators want to increase their throughput of containers. Automation will not always speed up the handling of containers, because autonomous vehicles might move slower than those operated by experienced human operators.
In logistics they started looking at positioning to deal with the loss of containers. Every year, every terminal stacks a certain number of containers, but not all the information about them is given to the terminal operating system (TOS) automatically. If you keep on stacking but with missing data every container on top of a missed one will be wrong, so you fill your system with wrong data. Sometimes, operators must search for misplaced containers, which may require stopping operations and deploying additional personnel. Additionally, it is not very safe to go into these yards. This is one reason why ports began to deploy positioning systems. However, ten years ago, with meter accuracy, they were failing all the time. Now, improvements in the technology have enabled GNSS to become fit for the challenge.
Nowadays, in terminals, you see many non-GNSS positioning systems, such as radar systems, to steer cranes and position containers. We’re replacing many of these systems. There are also transponders in the roads, for vehicle traffic management and for area guided vehicles (AGVs), which are fully autonomous and need centimeter-precision everywhere. GNSS does not work everywhere. You always have some disruptions or gaps in coverage. However, the newer inertial systems can compensate for short GNSS outages so that you get reliable centimeter accuracy. Additionally, the cranes are increasingly automated. Gantry cranes, for example, are on rubber tires but constrained in their movements. Reach stackers, forklifts, and terminal tractors, on the other hand, have free movement. These vehicles are typically equipped with the GNSS or INS systems for traffic management or container and cargo positioning.
The next step would be to move to semi- or fully-autonomous vehicles, of course. GNSS is not enough for that; autonomous technology needs to have different sensors. It’s extremely difficult to prove and to test a new system in a terminal, because it’s an uninterrupted chain of interconnection between the sea, the stacking of the containers, and ground transportation. You cannot just go in with an autonomous forklift or an autonomous reachstacker and try out something. However, you can only prove it when you do it in that chain. Otherwise, it’s a standalone kind of test. So, that’s the biggest obstacle.
Don’t containers have a barcode you can scan or a serial number you can see with a camera?
Yes, they do. The problem is not so much the number on the container but its virtual number in the terminal’s layout. Let’s say that you put container A on square C1. What if you deviate half a meter and TOS puts it automatically in the system in C2 instead? That’s often where mistakes occur. So, you can have OCR scanners and easily scan the code on the container. The problem is where you place the container.
What about the virtual image of all the container stacks?
Yes, the digital twin, like in construction. However, in construction you don’t need the infrastructure. You don’t need to install a radar in a certain place, calibrate it, enter it in the maps, et cetera. That’s more the survey part of construction. The biggest win is when you can equip a vehicle with a standalone system. It needs RTK, but it is standalone for the port. You don’t need large infrastructure, you don’t need to drill holes every two meters to place transponders in the roads in the whole area, perhaps just a small part. That saves them a lot of investments and maintenance.
In terminals, you can use GNSS or INS systems for vehicle traffic management, autonomous vehicles and tasks, or to get the position of a container. For example, when a reach stacker reaches into a stack and locks a container in place, it’s crucial to have a very reliable centimeter-level position. Errors grow as the data is processed from the control systems to the TOS. To know for certain the position of a container when it was placed in a stack errors must not exceed half a meter. Therefore, the reliability and accuracy of the GNSS/INS is crucial for container positioning.
Many AGVs carrying containers still work with road transponders. But if we can assist with our GNSS and INS products, they may be able to make a hybrid form of terminal. In perhaps 80% to 90% of the terminal, GNSS/INS works fine because you have a relatively clear view of the sky.
We already play a big role with Kalmar. They are replacing all legacy positioning systems, which are often heavy on the infrastructure side. So, they’re stuck in their layout, they are not flexible anymore. To handle the positioning of the containers, they preferably do not use any fixed infrastructure. That’s one of the drivers within their SmartPort automation service. So, it’s for flexibility, for traffic management, automation and to position the containers.
The autonomous side is a whole other category. There are many semi-autonomous terminals and they’re partly closed, so nobody can enter them. There you need to do everything fully autonomously, of course, because there are no people inside. Here, too, the Septentrio systems play a role, similar to that of other autonomous vehicle markets. Yet the autonomous terminal evolution is still in its early days. The non-container logistics might take a leap here. We have an increasing number of customers who are developing or retrofitting autonomous logistics vehicles such as the terminal tractors, reach stackers and forklifts mentioned before, specifically for yards and factory plants.
In September, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) released the Complementary PNT Action Plan: DOT Actions to Drive CPNT Adoption. On October 16, Matteo Luccio asked a few questions about the plan to Karen Van Dyke, Director for Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) and Spectrum Management in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R). Below are Luccio’s questions and Van Dyke’s responses.
What is your office’s charter within the federal government to advance the development and deployment of complementary PNT?
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is the lead for civil PNT requirements in the United States and represents the Federal civil departments and agencies in the development, acquisition, management, and operations of GPS. The DOT Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) and Spectrum Management program (within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology) coordinates the development of Departmental positions on PNT and spectrum policy to ensure safety, mobility, and efficiency of the transportation network. The Department also provides civil PNT system policy analysis and coordination representing Federal civil agencies responsible for critical infrastructure in the requirements development, acquisition, management, and operations of GPS.
These efforts support Federal policy governing PNT programs and activities for national and homeland security, civil, commercial, and scientific purposes. These include Executive Order 13905, Strengthening National Resilience Through Responsible Use of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Services (EO 13905), and Space Policy Directive 7, The United States Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Policy (SPD-7).
Which GPS vulnerabilities and at what scale is this plan addressing?
The DOT Complementary PNT Action Plan addresses disruption, denial, and manipulation of GPS for critical infrastructure sectors. These vulnerabilities of GPS include unintentional and intentional jamming and spoofing (both measurement and data spoofing) of the GPS signal and physically impeded environments in which the availability of the GPS signal is impacted (e.g., indoors, underground, and urban canyons). This plan is intended to address vulnerabilities/limitations of GPS on both a widespread and local scale.
How and when will this action plan move the federal government’s posture on CPNT from study to action?
In 2020, the DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) conducted field demonstrations of candidate PNT technologies that could offer complementary service in the event of GPS disruptions. The purpose of the demonstrations was to gather information on PNT technologies at a high technology readiness level (TRL) that can work in the absence of GPS.
While this demonstration was a snapshot in time, there were two central recommendations from the demonstration:
U.S. DOT should develop system requirements for PNT functions that support safety critical services.
U.S. DOT should develop standards, test procedures, and monitoring capabilities to ensure that PNT services, and the equipage that utilize them, meet the necessary levels of safety and resilience identified in Recommendation 1.
The culmination of the demonstration program was the 2021 Report to Congress, Complementary PNT and GPS Backup Technologies Demonstration Report (2021 Demonstration Report). The PNT resiliency recommendations distilled in the 2021 Demonstration Report were vetted through a Federal interagency review process. During the same period, SPD-7 (directed to U.S. Federal Space-Based PNT service providers) and EO 13905 (directed to PNT users) were issued in a coordinated effort to strengthen U.S. PNT policy.
As part of its ongoing responsibilities as civil PNT lead, the Department has developed a Complementary PNT Action Plan to drive CPNT adoption across the Nation’s transportation system and within other critical infrastructure sectors. The plan describes actions that the DOT plans to pursue over the next several years, including engaging PNT stakeholders; monitoring and supporting the development of CPNT specifications and standards; establishing resources and procedures for CPNT testing and evaluation; and creating a Federal PNT Services Clearinghouse. Taken together with efforts of other Federal partners, these initiatives will continue to strengthen the resilience of the Nation’s PNT-dependent systems, resulting in safer, more secure critical infrastructure.
It should be noted that the U.S. Government is not procuring CPNT systems for non-Federal stakeholders, and as always, all activities are subject to the availability of appropriations.
How does DOT intend to engage PNT stakeholders?
DOT held a PNT Industry roundtable on August 4, 2022 that included representatives from Complementary PNT Technology vendors and critical infrastructure sectors. https://www.transportation.gov/pntindustryround
Feedback from this DOT industry roundtable informed the development of the DOT Complementary PNT Action Plan.
On September 11, 2023, DOT issued a Request for Information (RFI) as one of the steps to drive adoption of Complementary PNT services to augment GPS for the Nation’s transportation system, and through the Executive Branch Interagency Process, for other critical infrastructure sectors. U.S. DOT is planning a resiliency test, evaluation, and performance monitoring strategy for PNT-dependent transportation systems. Taken together with efforts of other Federal partners, these initiatives will strengthen resilience of the Nation’s PNT-dependent systems through the U.S. Government’s purchasing power as a demanding customer of Complementary PNT (CPNT) services, along with critical infrastructure owners and operators, resulting in safer, more secure critical infrastructure for the nation.
The DOT Volpe Center issued this RFI seeking information from industry about availability and interest in carrying out a small-scale deployment of very high technical readiness level (Technology Readiness Level (TRL)≥8) CPNT technologies at a field test range to characterize the capabilities and limitations of such technologies to provide PNT information that meet critical infrastructure needs when GPS service is not available and/or degraded due environmental, unintentional, and/or intentional disruptions. This deployment is intended to test these technologies against CI relevant requirements in order to gain confidence in performance and foster user adoption.
It is likely that DOT will hold future industry roundtables with Complementary PNT technology vendors and critical infrastructure sector owners and operators.
