Northrop Grumman Corporation has been awarded a phase two inertial navigation system-related contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory to continue improving geo-registration accuracy for positioning and pointing applications, even in GPS-denied conditions.
Geo-registration of data is critical for accurate interaction between systems, such as locating targets and handing off coordinates to another aircraft. Geo-registration of images involves pairing unreferenced images with the physical locations or exact coordinates of depicted items. This allows aircraft to create accurate maps by stitching together photos and correlating them with their world-based locations, which is useful for intelligence gathering and targeting.
In phase one of the Maintain Accurate Geo-registration via Image-nav Compensation (MAGIC) program, Northrop Grumman integrated geo‑registration algorithms in a vision-aided inertial navigation system that can even operate in GPS-denied conditions. In phase two, the contractor will flight-test the integrated system as well as incorporate additional improvements such as highly detailed 3-D map generation in the algorithm.
“Our positioning and geo-registration solution will help to precisely locate our own aircraft positions and target locations, particularly in challenging, high-threat environments where the adversary might be jamming GPS,” said Charles Volk, vice president of Northrop Grumman’s Advanced Navigation Systems business unit. “Additionally, this will increase the situational awareness of warfighters and help to keep them safer.”
Partnered with Toyon Research Corporation, Northrop Grumman is building on its experience in vision-aided inertial navigation under past programs such as Collaborative Robust Integrated Sensor Positioning, which matched image features and processed visual motion estimations for precise navigation without relying on GPS.
The MAGIC program’s objective is to develop and demonstrate advanced real-time geo-registration and navigation algorithms using a combination of cameras, an inertial measurement unit and GPS information (when available). The program aims to capitalize on recent advances in the availability of low-size, -weight, -power and -cost camera systems that make the inclusion of camera information in navigation and geo‑registration systems for airborne vehicles a significant opportunity.
The HiPer SR for GIS is a compact, integrated GNSS receiver with sub-meter accuracy. Additional, scalable options are available via OAF (Options Authorization File) upgrades, delivering accuracy levels of sub-decimeter and centimeter without the need for additional hardware, Topcon said.
The HiPer SR for GIS can be paired with a Topcon controller and eGIS software, or used with Topcon’s eGPS utility software to use with a third-party device and application such as ArcPad or ArcGIS mobile running on a Windows tablet or mobile device.
“The HiPer SR for GIS brings the very finest in Topcon GNSS technology into a compact and rugged housing,” Jason Hooten, TPS sales manager for GIS, said. “Superior tracking and positioning is provided by the HiPer SR’s Vanguard receiver technology with advanced Fence Antenna.”
“GIS field work is changing as more field workers are using various types of collection devices like smartphones, tablets, and laptops in addition to the traditional data collectors. Unfortunately, the GPS in these devices are not accurate enough for locating buried assets or doing initial inventory collection. The HiPer SR provides this accuracy regardless of job site demands,” Hooten said.
Photo: Topcon Positioning Systems
“The new HiPer SR is an adaptable device that can be used to locate utilities within an inch one day and the next provide sub-meter accuracy for an environmental study. This device provides accurate positioning to different applications as needed. The HiPer SR is small in size, but giant in performance and flexibility.”
Geospatial Solutions Editor Eric Gakstatter, who is also a contributing editor to GPS World magazine, will be attending the 2013 Esri Survey Summit and Esri International User Conference, providing continuous new and analysis for the duration of both conferences. The conferences are being held this week in San Diego, California.
On Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. in Room 24A of the San Diego Convention Center, Gakstatter will deliver a presentation entitled “High-Precision GPS/GNSS on your Smartphone, Handheld and Tablet,” discussing trends and new product innovations for sub-meter and centimeter mapping on smartphone, handheld and tablet devices, including Windows Mobile, Android and iOS (Apple) devices.
Steve Copley, GPS World and Geospatial Solutions associate publisher, shared images of the event on his Twitter account. A few of them are below.
By Oliver Montenbruck, Richard B. Langley, and Peter Steigenberger
Over the past several years, some users of the GPS navigation system have already benefitted from the addition of various new signals in addition to the legacy C/A- and P(Y)-code. With the introduction of the Block IIR-M satellites in 2005, a new civil signal (L2C) was transmitted on the L2 frequency, and a new signal on a new frequency (L5) was introduced as a standard signal with the Block IIF satellites beginning in 2010. These new signals provide direct access to dual-frequency observations and thus enable improved ionospheric corrections for civil, including aeronautical, users. In addition, a new Civil Navigation (CNAV) broadcast message has been defined in the GPS Interface Specifications (IS-GPS-200 and IS-GPS-705).
This message will be transmitted jointly on the L2C and L5 signals and provides a variety of useful new parameters. Compared to the legacy L1 C/A-code navigation message, the CNAV message also offers an increased flexibility concerning the type, sequence, and repeat rate of specific messages.
CNAV messages have already been broadcast over the past two years by the Michibiki (QZS-1) satellite of the Japanese Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS), which shares many aspects of the GPS signal design. In contrast to this, Block IIR-M and IIF GPS satellites have only transmitted dummy messages so far and a fully operational CNAV transmission is only foreseen once the ongoing modernization of the GPS control segment has been completed.
Triggered by various interest groups, the Global Positioning Systems Directorate has just conducted a first test campaign with live CNAV transmissions on L2C and L5 over the two-week period from June 15 to 29 (see Global Positioning System Modernized Civil Navigation (CNAV) Live-Sky Broadcast Test Plan.) It served as a first opportunity for end users and receiver manufacturers to test the decoding and use of the new messages under a wide range of different configurations.
CNAV messages have a common length of 300 data bits and are identified by a message type number that signifies their contents. The messages presently defined for GPS are summarized in Table 1. For QZSS, complementary messages have been established, which enable, among other features, a rebroadcast of GPS-specific data to QZSS users.
Table 1. Summary of CNAV message types transmitted by space vehicles (SVs). Messages marked by an asterisk were transmitted during the recent CNAV test campaign.
Message
Type
CNAV Message Title
Function/Purpose
0*
Default
Default message (transmitted when no message data is available)
10*
Ephemeris 1
SV position parameters for the transmitting SV
11*
Ephemeris 2
SV position parameters for the transmitting SV
12*
ReducedAlmanac
Reduced almanac data packets for seven SVs
13
Clock Differential Correction
SV clock differential correction parameters
14
Ephemeris Differential Correction
SV ephemeris differential correction parameters
15*
Text
Text (29 eight-bit ASCII characters)
30*
Clock, Iono & Group Delay
SV clock correction parameters, ionospheric and group delay correction parameters (inter-signal correction parameters)
31
Clock & Reduced Almanac
SV clock correction parameters, reduced almanac data packets for four SVs
Other than the legacy L1 navigation message, which adheres to a fixed order of subframes, the sequence of CNAV messages can be varied widely to provide users with an optimized set of low latency information and parameters that change infrequently. As a baseline, the two ephemeris message types 10 and 11 are combined with any of the clock-and-auxiliary data messages (types 30 through 37) to provide users with the orbit and clock data of the received satellites. With a transmission duration of 12 seconds per CNAV message on L2C, a minimum of 36 seconds is required to transfer this information to the user if no other messages are transmitted. On L5, which operates at twice the data rate, a new frame is transmitted once every 6 seconds yielding a minimum of 18 seconds for the broadcast of ephemeris and clock data.
The recent test campaign started at 18:00 GPS Time on Saturday, June 15, 2013, with the transmission of message types 10, 11, 15, and 30 on a first space vehicle (PRN24) and included PRN12 from 18:42 onwards. Other space vehicles were sequentially phased in until all active IIR-M and IIF satellites (except for the recently launched IIF-4 satellite) transmitted CNAV on the supported signals. When the test ended exactly two weeks later (June 29, 18:00 GPST), all participating satellites were transmitting a complex master frame of 15 x 4 = 60 individual messages, which was repeated once every 12 minutes (on L2C). Each minor frame comprised the two ephemeris messages and at least one clock-data message (see Table 2).
Table 2. Sequence of message types in a CNAV master frame.
Message Types
10
11
15
30
10
11
32
33
10
11
12
35
10
11
12
30
10
11
12
33
10
11
12
35
10
11
12
30
10
11
32
33
10
11
15
35
10
11
32
30
10
11
12
33
10
11
12
35
10
11
12
30
10
11
12
33
10
11
12
35
Other messages included a reduced almanac (message type 12) and a text message (message type 15) with dummy content (“THIS IS A GPS TEST MESSAGE.”)
The CNAV data were recorded by selected multi-GNSS monitoring stations of the German Aerospace Establishment (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt or DLR) and the University of New Brunswick (UNB), which were specifically configured to record raw GPS navigation frames in addition to the normal observation data. The stations are located at Singapore (SIN0); Sydney, Australia (UNX2); Maui, U.S.A. (MAO0); and Hartebeesthoek, South Africa (HRAG); as well as Fredericton, Canada (UNB) and are equipped with either Javad Delta-G2/G3TH or NovAtel OEM6 receivers. Following initial validation, the raw and decoded data from the CNAV test will be made available to interested users through the Multi-GNSS Experiment (MGEX) of the International GNSS Service (see http:/igs.org/mgex) to facilitate the development of user software and suitable data formats (such as an extended RINEX navigation message format).
The CNAV orbit and clock data were updated once every two hours and offer a slightly higher bit resolution than their legacy counterparts. However, the accuracy of the ephemeris data has not yet been evaluated nor compared to that of the L1 C/A-code navigation data.
As indicated above, the CNAV data can also provide a particularly compact form of almanac data known as the reduced almanac. It does not offer clock information (that is not normally required for a signal search) and assumes a circular orbit, which reduces the overall accuracy. Still, it can be transmitted (and repeated) in a much shorter time interval than the legacy almanac, which requires a total of 12.5 minutes. Each reduced almanac message (message type 12) provides orbit information for a total of seven satellites and it takes a set of five such messages to convey information for a complete constellation. For the master frame layout described above, the full constellation reduced almanac is repeated twice within 12 minutes on L2C (and half this time on L5).
Novel types of CNAV data not covered by the legacy navigation message include the differential code biases (also known as inter-system corrections or ISCs), which are required for pseudorange-based positioning with signals other than the legacy P(Y)-code (in addition to the established Timing Group Delay parameter or TGD). An overview of TGD and ISC values broadcast by the various satellites participating in the CNAV test is given in Table 3.
Table 3. Differential code biases (in nanoseconds) of GPS Block IIR-M and IIF satellites broadcast during the test campaign as part of the message type 30 CNAV messages.
SV Type
SVN
PRN
TGO
ISC L1CA
ISC L2C
ISC L5I5
ISC L5Q5
IIR-M
48
07
-10.71
-0.84
6.52
IIR-M
50
05
-10.24
-0.32
5.41
IIR-M
52
31
-13.04
-0.55
7.36
IIR-M
53
17
-10.24
-0.84
6.17
IIR-M
55
15
-10.24
-0.47
5.62
IIR-M
57
29
-9.31
-0.76
5.06
IIR-M
58
12
-12.11
-0.76
6.64
IIF
62
25
5.59
-2.07
-5.24
-0.38
-0.87
IIF
63
01
8.38
-2.30
-7.57
0.38
2.15
IIF
65
24
2.79
-0.26
-2.27
2.27
3.70
Another important achievement is the provision of Earth orientation parameters (EOP) in message 32, which provides GPS users with access to the celestial reference frame. EOPs were transmitted during the second test week and updated on a daily basis (see Table 4). Knowledge of these parameters is of particular interest for GPS-based orbit determination and navigation of spacecraft (in low Earth orbit), which is preferably referred to an inertial rather than an Earth-fixed coordinate system.
Table 4. Daily Earth orientation parameters from the CNAV test campaign (pole coordinates and dUT1 (UT1-UTC) time differences and derivatives).
Epoch (GPST)
x_p
(arcseconds)
x_p_dot
(arcseconds per day)
y_p
(arcseconds)
y_p_dot
(arcseconds per day)
dUT1
(seconds)
dUT1_dot
(seconds per day)
June 22, 0:00
0.13517
0.00104
0.39657
-0.00054
0.06341
-0.00046
June 23, 0:00
0.13621
0.00102
0.39604
-0.00056
0.06295
-0.00049
June 24, 0:00
0.13740
0.00101
0.39535
-0.00058
0.06231
-0.00053
June 25, 0:00
0.13815
0.00099
0.39487
-0.00060
0.06164
-0.00063
June 26, 0:00
0.13846
0.00096
0.39443
-0.00062
0.06078
-0.00067
June 27, 0:00
0.13885
0.00094
0.39381
-0.00064
0.06004
-0.00067
June 28, 0:00
0.13947
0.00093
0.39310
-0.00066
0.05909
-0.00063
June 29, 0:00
0.13987
0.00090
0.39246
-0.00068
0.05842
-0.00053
Overall, CNAV offers exciting prospects for improved GPS utilization and users may look forward to the next test campaigns, which will tentatively be conducted once every six months.
As a side note, it should be mentioned that individual satellites could be observed to transmit various types of non-standard CNAV messages as well as CNAV messages with improper data (such as an invalid week count) after the end of the main test campaign. Various receivers in the MGEX network, which were processing the received CNAV messages internally and which put full confidence in their proper contents, were mislead by such information. During the actual test campaign, all data appeared fully valid and no problems were reported by the stations.
OLIVER MONTENBRUCK is the head of the GNSS Technology and Navigation Group at DLR’s German Space Operations Center in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany.
RICHARD B. LANGLEY is a professor in the Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering at the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
PETER STEIGENBERGER is a staff member in the Institut für Astronomische und Physikalische Geodäsie of the Technische Universität München (TUM) in Munich, Germany.
In July, the Communications and GPS Navigation Program Office mounted a Small Antenna System on an Aerostar unmanned aircraft, then placed the small UAV in a room lined with signal-absorbent material, where it was subjected to GPS jamming signals. Read more about the tests here.
More than 30 specialists overseeing the world’s five satellite navigation augmentation systems gathered in Russia last week, planning for a high-performance future with many more navigation satellites in orbit, reports the European Space Agency.
The Satellite-Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) Interoperability Working Group was hosted June 25–27 in St. Petersburg by Russia’s Roscosmos space agency and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
With augmentation, additional ground monitoring stations and satellite transponders are applied to sharpen satnav accuracy and reliability across given geographical regions. This enhancement makes satnav suitable for the guidance of aircraft and other precision applications.
Today there are three certified SBAS in operation worldwide: the U.S. Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), Japan’s Multi-functional Satellite Augmentation System (MSAS), and Europe’s Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), the last designed by ESA then turned over for operation by the European Satellite Service Provider, ESSP.
Participants of the 25th Satellite-Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) Interoperability Working Group, taking place on 25–27 June in St Petersburg, Russia, photographed beside Russia’s Svetloe Radio Astronomy Observatory. Equipped with a 32 m-diameter antenna, this site is part of the Very Long Baseline Interferometry network for high-resolution radio astronomy. It is also hosting a reference station for the System of Differential Correction and Monitoring, Russia’s forthcoming SBAS network.
Two more are under development in Russia and India: the Roscosmos-designed System of Differential Correction and Monitoring (SDCM), and the GPS and Geo-Augmented Navigation (GAGAN) system, the work of Indian Civil Aviation and India’s ISRO space agency.
Meeting twice yearly, the task of the Working Group is to ensure that the various systems work together on a standardized
basis, so end-users can pass seamlessly between them.
“The Group’s terms of reference include developing a shared vision for future generations of these systems,” commented Didier Flament, representing ESA.
“The future will see many more navigation satellites in place. So among the most important achievements of the meeting was agreeing on a common SBAS message based on dual-frequency multi-constellation (DFMC) signals from up to four constellations — GPS, Galileo, Compass, and GLONASS — for the post-2020 era.
“Field tests by our Japanese colleagues using GPS and GLONASS combined with MSAS are confirming the improved performance expected from this DFMC concept,” Flament said. “Two solutions have been studied in parallel, one by ESA and one by the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). Both have been compared, with a final single definition to be made before the end of this year. This represents a major step forward towards providing a quasi-global SBAS service.”
Comparing current worldwide SBAS coverage – based on WAAS, EGNOS and MSAS – to the situation envisaged for 2020–25: near-global coverage based on WAAS, EGNOS, MAAS, SDCM and GAGAN, with an expanded network of stations in the southern hemisphere, all based on a common dual-frequency/dual satnav standard being finalised by the SBAS Interoperability Working Group.
A Russian Proton-M rocket carrying three GLONASS navigation satellites crashed soon after liftoff today from Kazakhstan’s Baikonur cosmodrome, reports rt.com (Russia Today).
About 10 seconds after takeoff at 02:38 UTC, the rocket swerved, began to correct, but then veered in the opposite direction. It then flew horizontally and started to come apart with its engines in full thrust. Making an arc in the air, the rocket plummeted to Earth and exploded on impact close to another launch pad used for Proton commercial launches.
The crash was broadcast live across Russia. Fears of a possible toxic fuel leak immediately surfaced following the incident, but no such leak has been confirmed, rt.com reports. The rocket was initially carrying more than 600 tons of toxic propellants.
No casualties or damage to surroundings structures or the town of Baikonur have been reported.
As RT.com reports, the crashed Proton-M rocket employed a DM-03 booster, which was being used for the first time since December 2010, when another Proton-M rocket with the same booster failed to deliver another three GLONASS satellites into orbit, crashing into the Pacific Ocean 1,500 kilometers from Honolulu.
Photo: Russia Today
Photo: Russia Today
Photo: Russia Today
Photo: Russia Today
UPDATE: Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has appointed a special government commission to investigate the causes of the crash and identify any officials who may have been responsible, reports the Christian Science Monitor. Medvedev also directed his government to prepare tougher oversight measures over the space industry to prevent such accidents in future, RIA-Novosti reported.
The first satellite of the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) was successfully launched today.
The launch of IRNSS-1A occurred on schedule at is scheduled for 18:13 UTC from the spaceport of Sriharikota. Liftoff from the first launch pad at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre occurred on schedule at 18:11 UTC. The 1,425-kg satellite was launched by the XL version of India’s rocket PSLV-C22, or Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle.
Solar panel deployment was confirmed and the satellite has power and is operating nominally according to reports.
The IRNSS-1A satellite is the first of seven that will make up the IRNSS. The constellation will consist of four satellites in geosynchronous orbits inclined at 29 degrees, with three more in geostationary orbit. IRNSS-1A is one of the geosynchronous satellites, and is expected to be positioned at a longitude of 55 degrees east.
Not so long ago, paper maps were a necessity in many walks of life. Today, they are increasingly a nostalgic novelty, to coin a term.
It’s not difficult to understand why digital maps replaced their paper brethren. Digital maps are more accurate, more adaptable, and most importantly, in an increasingly real-time environment, much faster at making the appropriate updates and amends.
Now, however, digital mapping finds itself at a crossroads. Crowdsourced navigation platforms like OpenStreetMap — affectionately referred to as the “Wikipedia of maps” — are forcing digital maps and the map-building process to evolve significantly. As a result, the future of mapping is now in the hands of location enthusiasts and everyday map users. These people are redefining what a map is, how data is sourced and utilized, and how much it can cost to harness that information both efficiently and effectively. Those of us who have been in this space for years can see the writing on the wall.
Some, however, are eager to write off crowdsourced mapping. Corporate digital map providers, for instance, often refer dismissively to these mapping platforms as “hobby maps.” Nevertheless, they recognize the potential for change such innovation brings and are vulnerable to it.
What potential? Consider the benefits attainable through a crowdsourced approach, in the following sections.
Scalability
As with any process, cost is critical. It is particularly core to building a digital map. Truth be told, the fewer dollars ultimately spent on a map’s construction, the more its long-term operational preservation and, through that, scalability can be ensured. Despite massive innovation in our field, collecting data and creating a usable international digital map is far from cost-effective or efficient today. Candidly, it is one of the clunkier processes in technology, perhaps because it appears compulsory.
Look no further than Google, which spends billions of dollars a year to maintain its platform, yet we marvel at the huge scope of its operation. In truth, it is an effort in dire need of real streamlining. Google, via its recent acquisition of Waze, along with Navteq, TeleAtlas, and the like, leverage laser-enabled cars and high-tech backpacks that are astoundingly inefficient from a pricing standpoint, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nokia’s Map Mobiles, for example, are each outfitted with more than $25,000 of computing equipment.
To think this is sustainable in the long term, on an international level, is wrong. It will inevitably cripple a map’s quality and viability, with corporate providers choosing to limit global detail and upkeep to balance costs.
For crowdsourced map platforms, this problem does not exist. They can and are scaling rapidly, without the exorbitant costs corporate players are used to — and tired of. These costs secondarily manifest in mapping service usage fees for third parties, as well as subscription costs for consumer navigaton products. For either use case (business-to-business or business-to-consumer) crowdsourcing delivers cost benefits traditional players cannot match. Again, this leads directly to scalability, with crowdsourcing the most enduring maps option.
Same time, same place — different look. Crowdsourced OpenStreetMap (left) and Nokia map (right) of central Berlin, Germany. Photo: Oliver Kühn
Detail
Crowdsourced mapping services and platforms like OpenStreetMap are more than just cost-efficienct tools to coax scale. As a crowdsourced dataset built using more than a million dedicated mappers, OpenStreetMap inherently delivers benefits above and beyond those obtained from corporate map providers like TeleAtlas and Navteq.
The most visible benefit is the unrivaled map quality. With an army of contributors, the data dynamically and constantly evolves — just as places do. Locations are rarely fixed or stable. They change and progress over time. No other service or platform can immediately provide developers with the real-time, on-the-ground granularity of a crowdsourced map. Google and the others are trying, but the costs they incur will ultimately be too taxing to maintain detail.
Firsthand influence carries equal weight. Mappers who edit an open-source map have often had personal interactions with a place or locale. They know places intimately, and this makes their contributions detailed, rich, and hyperlocal. More companies and developers are looking to OpenStreetMap for this reason: they want to future-proof their services and products, making sure that they always have the best and most up-to-date data. Only a platform like OpenStreetMap can do this. Corporate map providers are painfully aware of it, too.
Flexibility
Google owns Google Maps, and TeleAtlas owns its TomTom platform. Not surprisingly, this affects what a third party, whether an automotive company or a travel brand, can and cannot do with the service. It is essentially a copyrighted product like an MP3, an audio digital file. So, Google can limit the way you visually render and showcase its platform. Needless to say, this can be suffocating for those interested in building their own unique services. This is what makes crowdsourced mapping such a significant development for those interested in integrating additional data with a digital map. Do with OpenStreetMap what you will, visually or design-wise; there are absolutely no limitations. Every map can be made unique and rendered differently. This also speaks to the flexibility of crowdsourcing more generally.
Beyond design, crowdsourced maps can harness the data to build completely new maps that cater to a specific concept, creating thematic maps for different uses, such as walking, hiking, bicycling, routes for those with disabilities, and more. More traditional digital maps lack this flexibility; it affords possibilities to source non-traditional location data to build even more accurate maps.
The Future — Through Cars
Despite the fact that crowdsourced maps are forcing digital mapping to adopt a more scalable, cost-efficient, detailed, flexible andaltogether long-term approach, digital mapping definitely has room to grow.
One of the most exciting opportunities for crowdsourced maps specifically, and digital maps generally, lies in car user data, which is just coming into its own. Cars are obviously one of the largest travel tools utilized by individuals on a daily basis, and, with the advent of the connected car, the data that they collect via internal/external sensors has grown more nuanced, granular, and specific over the years.
Cars are simply getting smarter, with sensors capable of providing everything from weather conditions to speed-zone information.
Making this information available in the cloud and combining it with data available via crowdsourced mapping platforms produces remarkable possibilities for innovation.
Imagine adding road-condition data, as just one example, to crowdsourced mapping services. By marrying a crowdsourced map with crowdsourced car-sensor data, the map’s overall utility multiplies immeasurably.
To avoid missteps that have positioned companies like Google to spend billions on building a digital mapping service — unsustainable long-term figures — we must always look to embrace that which is cutting-edge. We find that today in crowdsourced mapping platforms, as they enable us to maintain, update, and enrich maps as never before. We must also consider the limitations of the cutting edge and understand how to improve the latest innovation (car-sensor data, and more) before the once cutting edge becomes the next paper map, so to speak. This is key to evolving maps for the better and for the future.
Oliver Kühn has an MBA from the University of Cologne, Germany. He has 10 years of location-based service experience and was Head of Product Management Special Projects at navigation systems specialist Navigon AG (acquired by Garmin). In late 2008, he co-founded skobbler GmbH, being responsible for business development and legal matters. He is also a board member of the OpenStreetMap Foundation.
I recently attended the Fourth China Satellite Navigation Conference (CSNC, held May 15–17 in Wuhan, China), as an invited speaker and panelist. I had attended the third CSNC last year in Guangzho, and as expected this year’s was a little bigger and a little better. The Chinese GNSS industry is growing quickly, as evidenced by the more than 2000 attendees with as many as 10 simultaneous sessions at some times, with more than 200 presentations over three days, and nearly 150 exhibitors on the show floor. The conference is mainly attended by Chinese, but they are working hard to attract an international audience by providing simultaneous translation of all presentations, and dual-screen projection for slides in English and Chinese if the author chooses.
I couldn’t possibly see everything, so I chose to spend most of my time in a series of sessions on industrial policy, regulations, standards, and intellectual property. I thought those sessions would provide the most unique information this conference had to offer. I expected to hear a lot of standard or official position statements without much audience discussion, but I was pleasantly surprised by the level of information from personal experience that the speakers offered and the amount of lively debate that often followed the presentations. The simultaneous translation was essential and not only allowed me to follow but created the opportunity for multi-language Q&A which allowed more complex questions to be asked.
I was particularly interested in understanding what changes were going to occur since the full release of the BeiDou Interface Controld Document (ICD) in December. One thing I noticed right away is that the term Compass has pretty much gone away. The official name, and what everyone used in their presentation, is BDS. I am not quite sure I follow the methodology, but it’s an abbreviation for the BeiDou Satellite System. I would certainly recommend to anyone meeting with Chinese business associates that you appear very up to date by using BDS instead of Compass in all your presentations, oral, written or PowerPoint.
The changing of the official name is just the first ripple in what I expect will be a wave of changes in the BDS industry (see, I learn fast). One of the most interesting talks was given by Hua Xu, whose affiliation was given in the English program as “BDS specific policies and regulations expert team, ex-director of the policy and regulations Division of Development and Reform Commission.” His talk was entitled “Thoughts of perfecting China’s BDS Industry System Construction.” He related several interesting anecdotes about the history of the satellite program, going back many years, all the way to the Cultural Revolution of the 1970s. As an example of how different the Chinese setting is for legal issues, he told us that in China, if a car hits a pedestrian, the car driver has to pay damages regardless of fault, because since he is driving the car, and the car damaged the pedestrian, he must accept responsibility. Mr. Xu spent more time talking about how China’s GNSS industry must grow in terms of industrial capability, intellectual property, and mass production, and how the government is encouraging that growth.
To date, that growth has been very rapid, as embodied by a vast array of small companies focusing on domestic Chinese applications of BDS, in particular in survey and mapping and in search and rescue. The growth impetus now moves to the automotive sector, where there is continued investment by both the national government and regional governments to promote the use of BDS in transportation projects involving trucks, taxis, and government vehicles. Some may view this as protectionist, due to the approved vendor lists and subsidies that are provided, but I think it is just a natural effort to create local centers of excellence and jobs in a new technology; this process occurs all over the world. The companies that are in this business are the 150 or so who exhibited on the CSNC show floor, and they are the little tigers of my title.
Most of the names of the little tigers are not that familiar outside of China: unicore, BDstar, Olinkstar, and many more. They have developed their own GPS+BDS chips and are selling them in moderate quantities of thousands for domestic customers. At CSNC, they presented lots of results that clearly show the advantages of multi-GNSS (GPS+BDS) within today’s BDS regional coverage area. Furthermore, the accuracy and time-to-first-fix performance of their solutions is comparable to the overall market. However, as market needs in China grow from thousands of units to millions of consumer devices, the little tigers are not quite ready yet to support the Lenovos (computers), HTCs (smartphones) and Huaweis (mobile phones and tablets).
But China wants to see BDS in all those consumer devices, to demonstrate to the world the benefit of BDS; hence the ICD was released in December. The ICD release opened the gate to China’s domestic market that previously was solely hunted by the little tigers. The wolves were waiting at the gate and they have charged in. Broadcomm, CSR, Trimble, NovAtel, and others have already publicly announced BDS support in their mainstream products, in the first few months following the release.
This was the topic of the discussions in CSNC that were most revealing for a foreigner like me to hear. I was ready to ask the tough question of what the future holds in the consumer market, because I figured no one else would. But much to my surprise, the moderator of the session put up a slide that translated to: “B1 ICD was released while Regional System is officially operational, will affect domestic BDS receiver industry? Pros? Cons?” (See opening photo.)
The ensuing discussion was quite lively but polite on both sides of the issue. Would subsidies continue for domestic suppliers? How could local companies hope to attract investment to scale up with international competition? Where could Chinese companies carve out intellectual property to protect their inventions? What could that government really do without running afoul of the World Trade Organization?
Many more questions were raised than answers arrived at, and I think most of the really interesting discussions took place away from the microphones and the simultaneous translation. So I cannot provide them for you.
Even without answers, the act of discussion was enlightening. I think the fact that these discussions are happening in public forums indicates the growth and transformation of Chinese society. There were finance people, engineers, businessmen, government regulators, all debating a difficult topic.
I don’t know the answers, but the little tigers know that the wolves are coming. And they are not running in fear. The openness of the internal debate within China indicates that the little tigers are working on a new plan, and no one should assume that the wolves are going to win. The competition in the domestic Chinese market — the very largest market, by far, of any in the world — is going to be very interesting over the next few months and years.
Greg Turetzky is a principal engineer at Intel responsible for strategic business development in Intel’s Wireless Communication Group focusing on location. He has more than 25 years of experience in the GNSS industry at JHU-APL, Stanford Telecom, Trimble, SiRF, and CSR. With this issue, he joins GPS World’s Editorial Advisory Board.
The statements, views, and opinions presented in this article are those of the author and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author’s present and/or former employers or any other organization the author may be associated with.
The Nexteq T8C by Nexteq Navigation is a multi-functional GIS data collector that integrates voice recording, photo, cellular voice and data, Bluetooth, and a microSD slot into a lightweight and durable package. Combined with a long-lasting battery, an outdoor-readable three-inch color LCD touchscreen, and waterproof/dustproof protection, the T8C offers users a solution for field work. Equipped with NexGeo data collection software running on Windows Mobile 6.5, the T8C provides users with an open, flexible, and scalable solution applications. The T8C also supports third-party Windows Mobile applications.
The built-in high-sensitivity SiRF Star IV GPS receiver provides real-time positions for applications in harsh environments with better than 2-meter accuracy with SBAS coverage. An external GPS antenna can further improve the positioning capability.
