Anello Photonics and Q-CTRL have entered a strategic partnership to develop resilient navigation solutions for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) operating in environments where GPS is degraded or unavailable.
The collaboration focuses on integrating Anello’s Silicon Photonics Optical Gyroscope (SiPhOG) technology with Q-CTRL’s Ironstone Opal quantum magnetic navigation capabilities. This integration creates a multi-layered quantum navigation solution (QNS) designed to provide continuous, bounded positioning estimates that do not degrade over the course of a mission. By combining silicon photonics-based inertial sensing with quantum-powered magnetic map matching, the companies aim to provide a critical backup to GNSS.
Reliability in satellite navigation has become a significant concern across both defense and commercial sectors. Vulnerabilities such as jamming and spoofing pose a documented $1B daily threat in the United States, impacting logistics, transport, and military operations. Recent disruptions in the Persian Gulf have further highlighted the challenges faced by maritime and aerial platforms when GNSS signals are compromised.
The initiative represents the first time these two specific technological approaches have been integrated to scale quantum navigation solutions. As electronic warfare evolves and the use of autonomous systems expands, the ability to operate without a constant GPS signal is becoming a standard requirement for next-generation mobility and mission-critical platforms.
In my February GPS World newsletter, I highlighted that the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) staff participated in GeoWeek 2026 in Denver. They engaged with geospatial product and service users and provided the latest updates on the status of the modernization. On March 25, 2026, as President of American Association for Geodetic Surveying (AAGS), I participated in a GeoWeek webinar titled “NSRS Modernization is Here: What Surveyors Need to Know Now.”
The webinar was based on presentations by NGS and others at GeoWeek 2026. The webinar provided the status of NGS’s new modernized NSRS and the professional societies (AAGS, ASCE, ASPRS, and NSPS) addressed how they are helping others to prepare for the change. It is available to everyone under the “On-Demand Webinars” section of Geo Week News here: https://www.geoweeknews.com/webinars.
First, at the end of February’s newsletter, I shared my main thoughts and concerns that I believe NGS and the broader community should carefully consider before NGS adopts the new modernized NSRS.
I encourage you to watch the GeoWeek Webinar mentioned above for the latest update from NGS on the modernized NSRS.
I have already shared my concerns directly with NGS, but it’s important that they also hear from the user community. You can provide feedback via [email protected], user forums, or upcoming webinars and Q&A sessions.
Although I covered these points in my last newsletter, I believe they remain important, so here’s a shorter version of my key thoughts and concerns:
Timeline uncertainty: Clearer, more frequent milestone updates (beyond the Track Our Progress page) would help manage expectations.
OPUS and processing continuity: NGS should commit to a longer grace period — or ideally a defined parallel support window — for legacy OPUS tools (particularly OPUS-Projects 5) after the official adoption of the modernized NSRS.
Data access and usability in the new DDS: The new web-based system needs to provide robust APIs or export options that are comparable to those in current datasheets/legacy tools.
Transformation tools and legacy data handling:Users need confidence that transformations minimize errors, especially in deformation-prone areas.
Communication and outreach: Case studies, training resources, and FAQs that describe real-world practical examples, tailored to common workflows, need to be developed and documented.
Again, I encourage anyone reading this (including NGS staff) to test the beta products actively, submit detailed feedback, and participate in forums/Q&As. The community input will make or break the success of this once-in-a-generation update
Regarding the 2026 Society of Land Surveyors of Iowa (SLSI) Annual Meeting, I was grateful to receive the invitation and truly enjoyed attending. As always, I came away from this gathering of surveyors with valuable insights.
The conference was exceptionally well organized, with plenty of time for meaningful interactions among attendees, exhibitors, and speakers. In total, 285 people attended.
As expected, I presented on the new modernized NSRS. The topics I covered are listed in the box titled “Topics Addressed During my ½ Day Session on the New NSRS.”
I was fortunate to have Ben Sullivan, Seiler Geospatial, set the stage for my presentation by providing a short introduction to the new modernized NSRS. He provided an overview that addressed: (1) what the new national datum is, (2) how it will affect the geospatial community, and (3) how users can prepare for it once officially released by the NGS.
Topics Addressed During My Half-Day Session on the New NSRS
What to expect between NAD 83 (2011) and NATRF2022 in Iowa?
Why is NGS modernizing the NSRS and what are the expected coordinate changes in Iowa?
How are reference frames and datums defined?
What are the differences in CORS coordinates between the Multi-year CORS Solution 2 (MYCS2) and Multi-year CORS Solution 3 (MYCS 3) in Iowa?
What does NGS mean by time-dependent coordinates and why is it necessary for the new, modernized NSRS?
How will plate tectonics be handled in the new, modernized NSRS?
What’s the difference between NAD 83 (2011) epoch 2010.0 and NATRF2022 epoch 2020.0 in Iowa?
What are the differences between Reference Epoch Coordinates (REC) and Survey Epoch Coordinates (SEC)?
What’s the difference between ITRF2020 and NATRF2022 in Iowa?
How do you use NCAT to convert between reference frames and compute State Plane Coordinates?
Why is it important to have the appropriate metadata of your old projects for the implementation of the new, modernized NSRS?
What to expect between NAVD 88 and NAPGD2022 in Iowa?
How will orthometric heights be determined in the new, modernized NSRS; that is, how will NAPGD2022 orthometric heights be determined in the new NSRS?
Review of Computing GNSS-Derived Heights
What’s the estimated difference between NAVD 88 and NAPGD2022 epoch 2020.0 in Iowa?
How will NAPGD2022 Orthometric heights be determined using GEOID2022?
What are the differences between GEOID2022 models and Hybrid Geoid Model GEOID18 in Iowa?
How will NAPGD2022 affect the National Flood Insurance Program and the Elevation Certificate?
Updates from the National Geodetic Survey at GeoWeek 2026
Many of the topics covered in my session have been addressed in previous newsletters. For example:
My June 2020 newsletter explained how NAPGD2022 orthometric heights will be determined using GEOID2022, and why NGS will require GNSS occupations on primary marks when submitting leveling projects.
Whenever I attend conferences, I visit exhibitors to ask about the modernized NSRS. Many had heard of it, but only a few could explain the differences or how their company will adapt products and services to the new reference frames. Several said their company is aware of the change but couldn’t specify how or when they’ll respond. I encourage all users to contact their equipment and software providers and request a detailed plan for addressing the new NSRS.
I want to highlight two sessions I found both very interesting and important for surveyors. They were presented by Todd Horton, PE, PLS of Meridian Geospatial.
Meridian Geospatial Consulting Todd Horton, PE, PLS, is the owner of Meridian Geospatial Consulting, LLC. Todd has provided technician training and continuing education seminars for the land surveying industry since 2005. Todd served in the US Air Force and with the Illinois Department of Transportation in planning, design, construction, surveying and maintenance of civil engineering projects including commercial structures, airfields, utility systems and highways. He joined the full-time faculty at Parkland College in Champaign, IL, where he taught land surveying and construction management courses for 25 years. Todd founded the land surveying associate degree program at Parkland College in 2001. Having retired from full-time teaching, Todd has joined Farnsworth Group Inc. as a part-time senior project land surveyor. You can reach him at [email protected]. (From https://www.meridiangeospatial.com/)
One of Horton’s presentations was titled “Professional Ethics.” In it, he highlighted how new technology is reducing the size of surveying crews and improving overall efficiency. However, this comes at the cost of reduced opportunities for mentoring the next generation of survey technicians and surveyors.
I’ve recreated his diagram below to illustrate the issue.
Crew Size vs. Mentorship
Crew vs Mentorship. (Recreated from Todd Horton’s presentation)
As shown in Horton’s diagram, while new technology increases efficiency and allows for smaller survey crews, it also reduces the time available for surveyors to mentor technicians and the next generation of professionals.
Training and mentoring are extremely important for the continued growth and development of individuals in the surveying and mapping community.
He explained that the world consists of two types of individuals: specialists, who have a narrow skill set and limited opportunities, and generalists, who possess broader knowledge and skills, think multi-faceted, and are forward-looking.
He emphasized that a professional surveyor typically needs 3 to 5 surveying technicians to successfully complete a project. While professional surveyors regularly attend training sessions (as evidenced by many participants at this conference), technicians often have little or no access to formal training.
He advocated that technicians should be trained as generalists. This means equipping them not only with better tools and equipment, but also with a strong foundational knowledge and skill set — especially understanding the “why” behind the “how.” This deeper knowledge enables them to prevent problems before they occur and effectively troubleshoot issues when they arise.
I addressed this same concern in my November 2022 newsletter, where I warned that the industry is creating a growing number of “buttonologists” — technicians who rely heavily on pushing buttons without deeper understanding.
This trend concerned me then, and it still does today. That’s why I was especially pleased to hear Todd directly address the issue and offer a clear path forward for improving training and development for both technicians and surveyors.
A participant at one of my workshops stated that “GPS has made geodesists out of all of us.” In my opinion, the advancements in GNSS equipment and processing software provided some users with a “false sense of knowledge or security” that they understood what was happening within the “black box.” One of my colleagues at NGS said that the new equipment and software programs were creating a field force of “buttonologists.”
He highlighted that the surveying community needs more technicians than licensed professionals. As a result, we should prioritize training and development for technicians. This is a constant need and would help reduce turnover rates.
He also emphasized the importance of growing future professionals from within the technical ranks. Doing so would increase technicians’ motivation and desire for advancement, making them more eager to take on greater responsibility and pursue professional growth.
He provided the following training approaches:
On-the-job training
Self-guided study
Continuing education resources
Online content
College courses
Live skill training
He noted that these investments in training will yield the following advantages in professional and organizational development:
Enhanced employee skills
Opportunities for career advancement
Stronger organizational performance
Sustained competitiveness via continuous learning
Increased productivity
Higher employee retention
A thriving culture of innovation
Horton also discussed a training program he’s involved in that not only trains technicians but also includes training for the trainers. This “train-the-trainer” approach helps accelerate the program’s growth and impact.
For more information, I encourage you to reach out to Horton directly for additional details about his programs and his ideas on improving technician training.
Horton also gave a very good session on a very difficult subject, that is ALTA/NSPS “Relative Positional Precision (RPP).”
As a side note: see the box titled “Top 5 Key Changes in the 2026 ALTA/NSPS Standards” for the key changes in the 2026 ALTA/NSPS standards. Detailed information on the ALTA/NSPS 2026 document can be downloaded at the following NSPS weblink: https://nsps.us.com/page/2026ALTA.
Precision (RPP): The clarification of RPP is a core technical change. While it does not alter how surveys are performed, it improves consistency and understanding of measurement quality expectations across the profession.
Shift from “on the ground” to “practices generally recognized as acceptable” (Sections 5 & 6): This is one of the most significant forward-looking changes. It explicitly accommodates modern technologies such as drones, lidar and future tools (including AI), without locking the standards to specific methods.
Expanded guidance on sourcing title evidence when a recent title commitment is unavailable: This change directly affects research responsibilities and risk management, especially on projects where title information is incomplete, delayed, or unconventional.
Requirement to note evidence of possession or occupation along the entire perimeter: This materially broadens what must be considered and documented in the field, regardless of how close that evidence is to the boundary line – an important title-risk issue.
Clarification that verbal (“parol”) statements must be noted when made: This adds explicit documentation requirements tied to conversations with landowners or occupants, which can be critical in dispute resolution and liability defense.
Todd started his presentation by providing RPP as defined by ALTA/NSPS (2026):
Relative Positional Precision (RPP) is the acceptable indicator of measurement quality on an ALTA.NSPS Land Title Survey.
It is defined as the length of the semi-major axis, expressed in meters or feet, of the error ellipse of the line connecting the monuments or witnesses marking adjacent boundary corners of the surveyed property at the 95 percent confidence level.
His session was organized into nine sections labeled RPP Keys for Success:
Choose one equipment and a measurement method based on the accuracy needs of the project.
Use well-adjusted instruments and procedures to eliminate systematic errors in measures.
Make internal checks to detect blunders in measurements.
Make redundant measurements to have a large degree of freedom.
Access the quality of control that will be used.
Avoid weak network geometry.
Organize all field measurements for software input.
Establish standard errors for all observation conditions.
Adjust and analyze results.
In these sessions, he covered fundamentals including:
precision vs. accuracy,
systematic vs. random errors, and
absolute vs. relative accuracy.
Horton emphasized that systematic errors follow mathematical or physical laws and can usually be modeled or reduced with proper procedures, while random errors persist after blunders and systematic errors are addressed. By using improved equipment and proper procedures to detect, reduce, or remove errors, users lower the uncertainty in their results — reducing uncertainty should be a goal for any product or service.
Many people are familiar with the classic bow-and-arrow (or target) diagram that illustrates the difference between precision and accuracy.
I recreated Horton’s diagram on this topic because it effectively highlights that our ultimate goal in surveying is to reduce uncertainty in our results.
As the diagram shows, simply repeating observations can give the appearance of good precision, but it does not guarantee accuracy. The result can be high precision with low accuracy — and therefore a large remaining uncertainty.
Precision vs. Accuracy
Recreated from Todd Horton presentation
Todd noted that most RPP values are derived from a properly weighted least-squares adjustment. Many manufacturers’ software packages now use least squares to estimate RPP, making it essential to provide accurate error estimates so the data are correctly weighted in the adjustment.
To illustrate this point, he provided clear examples of the following concepts:
Determining the appropriate error estimates for data,
Measuring errors,
Degrees of freedom and redundancy,
Significance and confidence intervals,
Appropriate weights of measurements,
Propagation of errors, and
Statistical tests for analysis of data and results.
He explained how to compute the allowable RPP and offered practical advice on selecting the appropriate equipment and measurement methods, tailored to the accuracy requirements of the project.
In my opinion, this topic can be challenging to grasp without a strong mathematical background. Todd did an excellent job explaining the concepts clearly while avoiding excessive mathematical detail.
To illustrate the RPP, Todd presented two real-world examples of combined networks using GNSS and traverse data. The first example combined GNSS with an open traverse using EDM, horizontal, and zenith angles. The second example incorporated RTK GNSS vectors with a closed traverse using classical survey data.
This was an excellent session. I highly recommend reaching out to Todd for more details about his programs and insights.
I want to thank the organizing committee of the 2026 SLSI Annual Meeting for the kind invitation to participate in their conference. I truly enjoyed the experience and came away with many valuable insights from this excellent gathering of surveyors.
Septentrio, part of Hexagon, offers a new enclosed multi-frequency GNSS receiver: AsteRx EB.
The cost-effective product offers uncompromised high-accuracy positioning and GNSS heading for industrial robots, port logistics, marine, and scalable automation applications. Its IP67 enclosure protects the receiver from harsh weather conditions, while built-in advanced GNSS+ algorithms ensure reliable operation in environments that are challenging for GNSS, such as areas with foliage or near GNSS interference sources.
The RAIM+ integrity monitoring system ensures truthful positioning, which is essential for autonomous navigation. The compact enclosure of AsteRx EB enables easy installation, reducing time-to-market.
“AsteRx EB is an ideal boxed receiver for customers who need reliable, resilient, and highly accurate positioning in a compact form factor and at a price point that makes rapid scale-up possible,” said Danilo Sabbatini, Product Manager at Septentrio, part of Hexagon.
In a dual-antenna configuration, AsteRx EB delivers sub-degree GNSS heading for systems that require orientation in addition to RTK positioning. The built-in AIM+ anti-jamming and anti-spoofing technology protects the receiver from intentional or unintentional GNSS interference.
AsteRx EB extends Septentrio’s lineup of enclosed GNSS receivers. Like mosaic-go, it can be used for quick and easy testing or evaluation of Septentrio’s reliable positioning technology. Thanks to its robust housing, it can be deployed in a wide range of industrial applications. For systems exposed to very harsh weather conditions or intense mechanical stress, the AsteRx RB3 ultra-rugged receiver provides the highest level of protection.
As GPS World readers know, the growing prevalence of GPS/GNSS jamming and spoofing outside of conflict zones interrupts vital aviation safety technologies and presents challenges to maritime commerce and the global economy. An alarming example is playing out along the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, prompting 13 coastal European nations and Iceland to highlight in January 2026 “growing GNSS interference” and collectively reinforce requirements to comply with existing regulations and international law designed to ensure the safety of all maritime vessels engaged in shipping.
As commercial aircraft report navigation anomalies and maritime operators experience false position data in congested waterways, global authorities are sounding alarms that GNSS interference will continue to rise without immediate action. In March 2025, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and International Maritime Organization (IMO) issued a joint warning expressing “grave concern” that disruptions from GNSS jamming and spoofing constitute an urgent threat to public safety, telecommunications networks and international commerce.
Compounding harmful interference incidents led the GPS Innovation Alliance (GPSIA) to act. Defeating illegal and harmful interference outside of combat zones requires a coordinated, whole-of-government strategy that focuses on stopping bad actors through deterrence and enforcement, and directing resources toward preventing and sanctioning those violating international commitments and laws prohibiting jamming and spoofing. Investing in GPS modernization and integrating innovative signals from complementary PNT satellite systems into devices and receivers will deliver PNT that surpasses today’s technologies to the global community.
Roadmap for Action
In September 2025, GPSIA led a coalition of leading industry groups in sending a letter to the Departments of Defense and Transportation that called for urgent action to address GPS jamming and spoofing. We noted the United States has the technology and expertise to solve this issue, and the administration has the power to act. GPSIA followed the letter with a whole-of-government strategy providing a clear roadmap for the administration. While some recommendations have been implemented, other opportunities remain.
Focus on the Real Culprits
The culprits in each of these scenarios are bad actors putting public safety and global commerce at risk with harmful interference outside conflict zones. The global community relies on several unique technologies that can be impacted by harmful interference, such as cellular and Wi-Fi signals, radars and automated information systems. The misplaced focus on faint GNSS signals or dependencies on GNSS derail collective efforts to immediately regain interference-free global commerce and bolster public safety.
Governments and international organizations mandate certain industries integrate safety-of-life technologies into their operations — and they do, at great cost. Officials should in turn be given the political support and resources to stop bad actors from intentionally interfering with them.
What to Do Next
Public and continued diplomatic engagement are critical. By amplifying European counterparts, condemnations from senior U.S. officials can raise the reputational costs for bad actors and reaffirm international norms that protect GNSS signals and other technologies from harmful interference.
Engaging with the ICAO is important. The U.S. should reinforce its commitment to providing modern civil GPS signals that support navigation in international airspace and encourage ICAO to prioritize the enforcement of global GNSS protections.
GPSIA also recommends Executive agencies establish an interagency task force that rapidly identifies and disseminates information about interference events with civil operators, including sanitized intelligence information on intentional jamming and spoofing of commercial aircraft and ships.
Civil operators also should be invited to participate in interference coordination calls and reporting. Sharing radio-frequency interference data, incident reports and threat assessments among military and civil agencies and operators is essential to preserving public safety. The Performance-based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s recommendations for continuity of operations during GPS disruption events should continue to be implemented with urgency.
The GPS III satellite has additional anti-interference features. (Image: Lockheed Martin)
Deterrence and information sharing must be coupled with sustained enforcement. Federal agencies have taken welcome action to interdict illegal jamming equipment, reporting an 830% increase in seizures since 2021. We applaud the U.S. government for prioritizing resources to stop the illegal import and sale of these devices.
GPSIA commends the Kingdom of Norway’s annual Jammertest, which allows receiver and device manufacturers to test interference detection and counter jamming and spoofing. These realistic test scenarios, together with strengthened enforcement and prioritized intelligence collection and analysis, will enhance public safety.
Modernize GPS
While GPS satellites continue operating with an extraordinary 99.99% availability and no outages on record, the health of the constellation and jamming and spoofing incidents affecting receivers and devices, demand action. The final GPS III satellite is scheduled to launch this spring. Next-generation GPS IIIF satellites are being built. Their launches should be prioritized to reduce the number of satellites on orbit that are one system or subsystem away from failure. GPSIA welcomed the passage of the FY2026 Defense Appropriations Bill, which bolstered national and economic security by investing needed funding for modernized GPS IIIF satellites and long-term PNT leadership.
Notably, the current GPS program plan does not include counter-spoofing technologies. Implementing counter-spoofing authentication capabilities for Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) signals would further strengthen aviation resilience.
Ground infrastructure modernization is equally important. The GPS ground station must be able to command and monitor GPS III and IIIF satellites and the modern L5 aviation signal.
Streamline Regulatory Activities
Regulatory modernization represents another area of progress. In September 2025, the State Department removed jam-and spoof-resistant Controlled Reception Pattern Antennas (CRPAs) from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), fulfilling one recommendation from GPSIA’s strategy.
Certification processes also must evolve, and integration of CRPAs into aircraft should be accelerated. The modern L5 signal and counter spoofing signal authentication signals must be incorporated into FAA-certified and other receivers as soon as possible.
Recommendations for the FCC
President Trump’s December 2025 Executive Order (EO), “Ensuring American Space Superiority,” directs U.S. departments and agencies to detect and counter threats to U.S. space infrastructure. It also states that his administration will enable industry to develop and deploy advanced space capabilities, including terrestrial and cislunar PNT applications. This EO should serve as a “North Star” for the FCC, resulting in increased enforcement resources to address illegal jamming and spoofing, and a regulatory environment prioritizing innovative, advanced commercial satellite PNT systems that complement GPS. Demonstrating American leadership in space demands that we step forward, not backwards, in our PNT capabilities.
The FCC is evaluating the record developed in its Notice of Inquiry, Promoting the Development of PNT Technologies and Solutions, and is reportedly considering future rulemaking. The FCC’s task is not to replace GPS, but to ensure that the regulatory environment protects its spectrum, increases enforcement actions against those perpetuating harmful interference and enables innovation that complements this foundational system. This balanced approach will fulfill President Trump’s mandate, preserving public safety and economic security, and ensure continued American leadership in PNT.
Global Safety and Commerce
Baltic and North Sea shipping lanes have become a flashpoint for GPS jamming and spoofing, prompting 13 European nations and Iceland to issue a joint warning in January 2026 over interference threatening maritime safety and global commerce. (Photo: Dmitri Toms / iStock / Getty Images Plus / Getty Images)
The FCC’s Notice of Inquiry uncovered dozens of PNT technologies, ranging from those in the marketing stage, to hyper-localized solutions, to proposals to exploit “signals of opportunity.” Creativity and ingenuity abound in the commission’s record, but the docket’s many filings lacked technical details to evaluate whether the systems advance the nation’s PNT leadership.
The hallmarks of GPS are its worldwide coverage, and the continuity, availability, integrity and accuracy of its signals. Our modern global community deserves complementary PNT systems and signals that meet or exceed GPS capabilities. A few satellite-based solutions stood out as holding promise to do so.
Systems operating in low-Earth orbit (LEO) can transmit stronger signal power due to their proximity to Earth, improving performance in urban environments and contested spectrum conditions. Systems operating in different frequency bands, such as TrustPoint’s C-band system, add spectral diversity, making it far more difficult for an adversary to disrupt all PNT services simultaneously. When combined with modernized GPS signals and authentication capabilities, this layered approach can deliver robust services while complementing the foundational role of GPS.
Terrestrial systems cannot replicate global coverage of satellite constellations. They are also vulnerable to wildfires, hurricanes and other disasters.Building parallel terrestrial networks would require significant investment while delivering a fraction of modernized satellite systems’ capabilities. Nor do terrestrial signals provide the continuity, availability, integrity and accuracy of satellite systems.
The Progress is Real
GPSIA is pleased to report that progress is being made in several areas outlined in its “whole-of-government” strategy. It’s time to accelerate that progress. In May 2026, GPSIA members will convene to evaluate this strategy and outline what more the PNT industry can do to play a part in defeating harmful interference. Our members also will meet with government officials to underpin that government-led enforcement and solutions to jamming and spoofing can further illustrate the importance of PNT to U.S. leadership in space, and national security, public safety and the global economy.
Juniper’s newest GNSS receiver, the Juniper Spire, is designed to simplify location data collection. With the Spire, users can achieve high-accuracy results with a light, compact design, one-button operation, and corrections services right out of the box.
Built for rugged environments and long workdays, it offers seamless integration with mobile devices and data collection apps, making it a reliable companion for all GIS and asset mapping applications.
It is designed for work in both remote areas and urban settings, and supports SBAS, Network RTK, and future correction services. Gather meter to centimeter-level data with our most forgiving antenna. With fast satellite acquisition, multi-constellation tracking, and extended battery life, it delivers consistent performance across a wide range of applications—from environmental monitoring to utility inspections.
Key features include:
Accuracy down to the 2cm range
Worldwide corrections with SBAS, RTK, and future compatibilities
SparkPNT has released the SparkPNT Facet FP, a high-precision GNSS receiver designed to deliver centimeter-level accuracy with a focus on long-term flexibility, ease of use, and open-source innovation.
Built for a rapidly evolving positioning landscape, the Facet FP combines multi-band, multi-constellation GNSS support with fully open-source firmware — giving users a platform that can adapt as technologies continue to advance. Built to last, all models are contained in a robust waterproof cast-aluminum housing, with an internal structure designed for compatibility with the company’s Flex system of GNSS modules.
This gives users the choice between three different modules, plus the choice of having tilt-compensation or not, offering six different options with a range of price-points, securities and accuracies for different needs and applications.
Other notable features include:
MFi Certification
LoRa radio with detachable antenna
Internal survey-grade L1/L2/L5/L6 GNSS antenna
IP-67 rated housing that blocks out dust, water and other environmental hazards
Marine technology company Savvy Navvy has partnered with Seaward Automation to integrate its full navigation solution to their Command vessel management system, completing a fully integrated helm experience for boaters worldwide.
Officially launching at the Palm Beach International Boat Show taking place March 25-29, the integration combines Seaward Automation’s innovative vessel system with Savvy Navvy’s intuitive, data-rich navigation charts.
The Command interface enables real-time control of critical vessel systems while consolidating multiple standalone displays into a single integrated helm experience. It is fully customizable for OEM integration or refit applications, ensuring a seamless fit for any vessel.
Credit: Savvy Navvy
In less than 18 months since launch, award-winning Savvy Integrated has quickly gained traction with marine manufacturers and boat builders looking for modern and flexible navigation solutions.
Seaward Automation specializes in advanced, logic-based automation solutions for sportfishing vessels and pleasure craft, as well as sailing yachts and commercial marine platforms. Its full vessel automation platform, Command, launched less than a year ago.
Savvy Navvy provides smart routing, giving users the optimal route and dynamic ETAs based on real-time data: departure time, chart information, weather conditions, tide, boat specifications and local regulations.
A live demo of Savvy Navvy on the Command platform will be available at the boatshow, Slip A215.
A new data visualization illustrates how an experimental NASA technology can provide extra lead time to communities in the path of a tsunami. Called GUARDIAN (GNSS Upper Atmospheric Real-time Disaster Information and Alert Network), the software detects slight distortions in satellite navigation signals to spot hazards on the move.
The animation breaks down a real-life case study: 2025’s massive Kamchatka earthquake and the tsunami that it sent racing across the Pacific and towards Hawaii at more than 500 mph (805 kph).
The visualization shows the magnitude 8.8 earthquake (seen in purple) strike off the Russian coast on July 29, 2025, triggering the tsunami. The red, orange, yellow, and green ringlets represent real-time readings from ground stations tracking GPS and other navigational satellite signals. The disturbances were spotted by GUARDIAN’s artificial intelligence-powered detection algorithms as soon as eight minutes after the earthquake.
For the next several hours, signs of the tsunami were picked up by GUARDIAN across the Pacific Ocean in near real time. The system flagged an incoming wave off the coast of Kauai some 32 minutes before it made landfall and was detected by tide gauges (shown in blue).
The results highlight GUARDIAN’s potential to augment existing early warning systems, said Camille Martire, one of its developers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California.
Currently, determining whether an earthquake generated a tsunami remains a challenge. Forecasters rely on seismic data and computer simulations to make their best prediction, then wait for pressure sensors attached to the ocean floor to confirm a passing wave. Those sensors work well but are expensive and thinly dispersed. Gaps in coverage remain. And in those gaps, warning time disappears.
The GUARDIAN approach is complementary and cost effective because it monitors existing data from GPS and other constellations that make up the Global Navigation Satellite System. It’s also free to access, though for now best suited to analysts trained to interpret its findings.
How GUARDIAN works
All day, every day, geopositioning constellations transmit radio signals to ground stations around the globe. On the ground, the data is refined to sub-decimeter (less than 10 centimeters) positioning accuracy by JPL’s Global Differential GPS System. Before the signals get there, however, they must travel through an electrically charged skin of plasma called the ionosphere.
Solar storms and other space weather can wreak electrical mayhem in the ionosphere, and so can events on Earth. Tsunamis and earthquakes, by displacing large amount of air at Earth’s surface, unleash pressure waves that can slightly perturb the radio signals coming down from satellites. While systems are in place to correct for this “noise,” GUARDIAN considers it a useful signal.
Currently, GUARDIAN scours data from more than 350 GNSS ground stations around the Pacific Ring of Fire, a hotbed for the ocean’s deadliest waves. And the system is not confined to tsunamis. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, missile tests, spacecraft reentries, meteoroid splashdowns — anything that produces a large rumble on Earth is potentially fair game. While the Kamchatka event didn’t cause widespread damage to people or property, it showed how the next time disaster strikes, NASA science could give communities a few more minutes to act.
GUARDIAN is being developed at JPL by the GDGPS project, which is partially supported by NASA’s Space Geodesy Project.
The NASA Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) and principal investigator Stephen Leroy of JANUS Research Group have released GNSS Radio Occultation (GNSS-RO) datasets.
The data release includes 72 different products from 15 different GNSS-RO receivers (or constellations of receivers) processed at four different GNSS-RO retrieval/processing centers. The data from different processing centers have been reformatted to have a common Climate and Forecast Metadata Conventions (CF) compliant format.
The algorithm was developed with funding from the NASA ACCESS 2019 program and the NASA Supplements for Open Science Support. These are the version 2.0 GNSS-RO products; version 1.1 is available through the AWS Registry of Open Data.
GNSS-RO data undergoes processing that is radically different from that of most atmospheric sounders, but it can still be categorized by its processing step:
uncalibrated data, as provided by the satellite instrument with communication information stripped, are Level 1a (not part of this release);
calibrated data, wherein the clock biases of the transmitters and receivers are removed and precise orbits determined are Level 1b;
extremely high vertical-resolution profiles of RO bending angle and microwave refractivity are Level 2a; and
profiles of temperature, pressure, and specific humidity on a coarser vertical grid are Level 2b.
Products are still being added to the archive. This initial release is complete for all processing levels of the COSMIC-1 data sets from four different processing centers. After all of the products in the initial release are complete for available data through July 2025, the project will bebegin forward processing for missions still actively producing data.
For more information about these products please see the README document and the Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD).
The U.S. Air Force has opened market research for a GPS Increment 2 GNSS M-code receiver for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) program.
The Air Force’s Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center at Eglin Air Force Base published a Request for Information on March 17 to identify qualified vendors capable of developing and producing the receiver.
Key requirements include:
demonstrating a point-of-departure design at or above Technology Readiness Level/Manufacturing Readiness Level 5 applicable to U.S. Department of Defense tactical missiles
identifying existing programs leveraged
providing current TRL and MRL status
presenting a funded development plan to achieve required maturity.
Respondents must also
describe their technical approach for the GPS receiver
identify the status of Increment 2 M-code Application Specific Integrated Circuit certification with the GPS Directorate Security Team
demonstrate an active production line delivering DoD M-code receivers where possible
provide a notional low-risk development and integration schedule from contract award.
The government is using the market research phase to assess vendor capability before proceeding to formal solicitation. The opportunity is open to qualified commercial vendors without foreign participation. The government is seeking established manufacturers with demonstrated capability in DoD M-code receiver production.
Respondents must submit white paper responses of 10 pages or less by May 29. Administrative information including company credentials, facility security clearance, and executed Non-Disclosure Agreements must be submitted separately and do not count toward the 10-page limit.
SBG Systems has expanded its product line with the launch of the Stellar-40, a modular and scalable inertial navigation system (INS) designed for demanding environments and mission-critical applications.
Designed for land, air and marine platforms, the Stellar-40 integrates a tactical-grade IMU, a GNSS receiver and advanced sensor fusion algorithms within a compact and rugged enclosure. The system is designed to provide reliable navigation performance in high-vibration, high-dynamics and electronically challenging environments.
The development of the Stellar-40 focused on two main objectives: increasing resilience in harsh operational conditions and improving production scalability. To overcome the vibration sensitivity commonly encountered in defense and industrial applications, SBG Systems implemented an innovative three-level mitigation approach:
Sensor-level isolation: Dampers integrated directly at the IMU sensor level reduce vibrations at the source.
Resonance-free enclosure: A specialized housing engineered to drastically minimize resonance and internally induced vibrations.
Structural isolation: Custom external dampers designed to isolate the unit from harsh vehicle dynamics.
This architecture supports stable system behavior in dynamic environments.
Beyond mechanical robustness, the Stellar-40 addresses modern electronic warfare challenges. The system incorporates a high-performance GNSS receiver designed to actively mitigate advanced jamming and spoofing threats. When GNSS signals are degraded or unavailable, the system relies on multi-sensor fusion and dead-reckoning capabilities to maintain navigation continuity.
Positioned as the heavy-duty counterpart to the Ekinox Micro, the Stellar-40 introduces a revised mechanical and electronic design intended to simplify integration and manufacturing processes. The system is suited for defense programs, robotics platforms, UAVs and autonomous systems requiring compact, scalable navigation solutions.
“Stellar-40 was developed with scalability and integration flexibility as key priorities,” said Kaoutar, product manager at SBG Systems. “The design aims to support a broad range of platforms while keeping large-scale production in mind. This product brings high-end resilience against vibrations, jamming and spoofing into a box that teams can completely trust in real-world operations.”
With the introduction of the Stellar-40, SBG Systems continues to expand its range of inertial navigation solutions for professional and industrial applications.
The Stellar-40 is designed for a wide range of applications across defense and autonomous systems. It supports platforms such as UAVs, robotics and other autonomous vehicles that require compact and scalable navigation solutions. Its revised mechanical and electronic design simplifies integration and manufacturing, making it well-suited for both large-scale production programs and demanding operational environments.
The world is rapidly filling with connected devices. IoT Analytics reports that 18.5 billion IoT devices were online in 2024, with growth accelerating toward an expected 21.1 billion by the end of 2025 and 39 billion by 2030. As artificial intelligence drives demand for richer, more precise device data, the need for reliable, high‑accuracy positioning becomes foundational.
Yet today’s GNSS infrastructure — including cellular-based real‑time kinematic (RTK) networks — was never designed for this scale. Billions of devices — from vehicles to drones to industrial sensors — depend on location data, but the traditional GPS model struggles under three converging pressures: (1) massive device growth, (2) rising accuracy requirements, and (3) increasing vulnerability to interference.
These pressures are reshaping expectations for positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) and creating demand for a new, more resilient delivery model.
Why Accuracy and Resilience Matter More Than Ever
Autonomous systems are the clearest example of the accuracy challenge. Xona Space Systems CTO Dr. Tyler Reid notes that safe autonomous driving requires 10 cm accuracy 95% of the time and 30 cm accuracy at “eleven nines” reliability. Standard GPS, accurate only to several meters, cannot meet these thresholds — even with traditional enhancement techniques.
At the same time, GNSS signals face growing threats. Spoofing and jamming events are now daily occurrences in parts of Europe, and U.S. federal agencies increasingly require contract bidders to incorporate resilient PNT technologies alongside legacy GNSS.
Finally, the explosion of IoT devices introduces a network‑scale challenge. Many of these devices could benefit from high‑precision positioning, but continuous unicast RTK streams are not an efficient use of cellular networks, especially as billions of devices come online.
Together, these factors point to a simple conclusion:
A new delivery model for high‑precision GNSS corrections is needed — one that is accurate, resilient, and scalable.
Why a Hybrid Approach Is Required
RTK positioning is the gold standard for centimeter‑level accuracy. It works by combining GNSS signals with correction data from a known base station. However, traditional RTK has two major limitations:
Coverage constraints — corrections must be delivered within a limited range of the base station due to the fact that accuracy diminishes the further the GNSS base is from the rover.
Network constraints — corrections are typically delivered over cellular networks, which become inefficient at scale.
Precise Point Positioning (PPP‑RTK) can extend range and reduce dependency on local base stations, but today’s PPP‑RTK implementations are proprietary and lack a common standard.
To support billions of devices — many mobile, many mission‑critical — the industry needs a correction‑delivery model that is:
Nationwide
Efficient at scale
Resilient to interference
Cost‑effective for high‑volume IoT deployments
This is where hybrid RTK becomes essential.
Introducing Hybrid RTK: A Dual‑Path Delivery Model
Hybrid RTK refers to the dual‑path delivery of GNSS correction data, consisting of:
Primary path: ATSC 3.0 broadcast
Fallback path: Cellular (LTE/5G)
Upstream messaging: Cellular for acknowledgments or device telemetry
Compared to a satellite-based RTK solution or even a cellular-only RTK solution, hybrid RTK will deliver corrections over a far more reliable and scalable network, because it’s both broadcast and terrestrial-based.
Why broadcast first?
ATSC 3.0 provides:
One‑to‑many multicast efficiency
Predictable capacity and uniform latency
Wide coverage footprints
Strong penetration in dense urban environments
Lower cost per delivered bit
This makes it ideal for distributing high‑precision correction data to large numbers of devices simultaneously — something cellular networks are not optimized for.
Why cellular second?
Cellular fills in:
Coverage gaps where ATSC 3.0 is not yet deployed
Uplink needs (e.g., device status, position feedback)
Mobility scenarios requiring two‑way communication
The result is a resilient, nationwide correction layer that scales with IoT growth.
EdgeBeam Wireless: A New Entrant with a Broadcast‑First Architecture
EdgeBeam Wireless is deploying a hybrid RTK network that leverages the existing infrastructure of U.S. television broadcasters — including secure facilities, hardened towers, and nationwide engineering resources — for both over-the-air RTK delivery and collocating GNSS base stations.
This approach provides several advantages:
Accelerated deployment of GNSS base stations designed to complement existing base networks.
Lower infrastructure costs than cellular‑only RTK networks.
High reliability through broadcast delivery.
Scalable distribution for dense IoT environments.
Nationwide reach as ATSC 3.0 coverage expands.
EdgeBeam’s broadcast‑first model — branded by the company as “Enhanced GPS” or “eGPS” — is best understood simply as hybrid RTK with broadcast as the primary downlink. While this hybrid approach does require some additional hardware to receive the broadcast, pricing is already very competitive to cellular because these chips will be found in every television set in the country. Moreover, EdgeBeam already has products available for end users that want to leverage a hybrid network without having to do any development work.
Broadcast RTK: A New Network Layer at the Edge
Broadcast RTK uses ATSC 3.0 to distribute GNSS correction data over the last mile. This creates a new edge network layer that can support both GNSS and other data applications, including:
High‑precision GNSS corrections
Multicast distribution of positioning data
Offloading of appropriate high‑volume traffic (e.g., video) from cellular networks
Enterprise‑grade reliability for industrial and transportation systems
By shifting the heavy downlink load to broadcast, cellular networks are freed to handle uplink messaging and mobility support — a more efficient division of labor.
This hybrid architecture is not just about improving individual device accuracy. It enables something more powerful.
A New Generation of Shared Situational Truth
When many devices operate on the same centimeter‑accurate reference frame at the same time, a new capability emerges: Shared Situational Truth (also known as shared situational awareness).
This refers to a consistent, real‑time understanding of location and timing across a fleet, system, or environment. Hybrid RTK enables this by delivering synchronized, high‑precision PNT to large numbers of devices simultaneously. By offloading RTK delivery to a broadcast network, cellular and other communication networks can then be used to share a device’s position and other data with other local devices.
What is being shared?
Precise location
Precise timing
Who is sharing it?
Vehicles
Fleets
Drones
Industrial robots
Infrastructure sensors
Emergency services
Insurance and logistics platforms
What does it enable?
Examples include:
Safer ADAS/ADS through lane‑level awareness
Collision avoidance for drones and autonomous systems
Fleet optimization using precise, time‑aligned movement history
Improved insurance models through reliable behavior measurement
Faster accident resolution with time-synchronized location records
Infrastructure‑to‑vehicle coordination for road hazards or construction zones
In transportation alone, EdgeBeam’s hybrid RTK solution could make entire traffic systems safer and more predictable — not just individual vehicles. And importantly, this can be done far more efficiently than via just a cellular-based solution.
Conclusion: A Foundational Shift in PNT Delivery
The convergence of IoT growth, accuracy demands, and GNSS vulnerabilities is forcing a rethinking of how high‑precision positioning is delivered. Hybrid RTK — with broadcast as the primary downlink and cellular as a complementary path — offers a scalable, resilient, and cost‑effective solution.
For industries ranging from automotive to logistics to public safety, the shift from “nice‑to‑have” to “must‑have” high‑precision PNT is already underway. As hybrid RTK networks expand, the ability to deliver centimeter‑level accuracy at scale will unlock new applications, new efficiencies, and new expectations for how devices understand and interact with the world.
EdgeBeam Wireless is building this new correction layer — one designed for the billions of devices that will depend on precise, reliable positioning in the years ahead.
