Taoglas, a provider of IoT and M2M antenna products, has launched a range of high-performance GNSS antennas specifically designed to power the next generation of applications that require highly accurate location capabilities.
These applications include navigation, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), surveying, agriculture, connected cars and autonomous vehicles.
The new antenna range is Taoglas’ most comprehensive series of high-precision GNSS antennas and incorporates new form factors and use of multiple RF bands.
Taoglas’ new range includes systems and antennas that use Galileo, GLONASS and BeiDou, as well as GPS L2 or L5 bands.
“Today’s connected devices and applications demand new ways of approaching the age-old problem of location accuracy,” said Dermot O’Shea, co-CEO for Taoglas. “In certain applications, there is simply no room for positioning errors — location accuracy is an absolute requirement.”
The GRS.10 smart antenna. (Image: Taoglas)
The new antenna range includes:
The GRS.10, a smart antenna that includes a high-performance Taoglas GNSS (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, BeiDou) ceramic patch antenna module integrated with a u-blox NEO-M8U GNSS receiver.
The Torpedo series GNSS quadrifilar helical antennas, extremely high-performance wideband satellite antennas for position-information-critical applications. It provides high circularly polarized antenna gain across a wide beamwidth. These are available in a passive (QHA) or active (AQHA) versions.
The BOLT A.90.A.10451111, a new GNSS timing antenna that includes lightning-induced surge protection. It is designed for the base station market. The advantage over other timing antennas is the addition of GLONASS and BeiDou frequencies.
The complete range of precision GNSS antennas also includes:
The MAT.12A. (Image: Taoglas)
The ASFGP.36A.07.0100C, a ceramic GPS L1/L2 low-profile, low-axial-ratio, embedded stacked active patch antenna.
The MAT.12A, a GPS/GLONASS/BeiDou dueling-loop chip antenna evaluation board, which delivers the advantages of a circularly polarized patch antenna with two miniaturized low-profile chip antennas on a smaller PCB footprint at one-fifth the weight.
This week, Taoglas also launched small form-factor ultra-wideband (UWB) antennas designed to work with DecaWave’s chipset and module solutions for applications including asset tracking, follow-me drones, healthcare monitoring, smart home services and other applications that demand high-performance indoor localization capabilities.
Taoglas’ complete range of GNSS and UWB antennas will be on display in Booth N.614 at Mobile World Congress Americas, Sept. 12-14, in San Francisco.
The day started like any other day. The land surveying crew loaded up their vehicle, equipment and marching orders to tackle the next project on the list.
This field party is like most surveyors across the globe — they are equipped with the latest surveying technology including GPS base and receivers, robotic total station and a UAS for aerial photography. These tools are necessary to be competitive in today’s surveying arena as speed and productivity are paramount to the success of the project and the company.
But on this day, any device with the ability to determine geographic location via satellite reception was rendered useless.
Today became known as the day that GPS went away.
How we became dependent on GPS
Let’s back up the story to the introduction of GPS and how our dependency on this technology came to be. With the invention of satellites culminating with the Russian effort to launch Sputnik, the United States became involved in a “race to space.” Our early efforts to use satellites were proven worthy with the successful ability to track submarines by reception of radio signals and trilateration.
Further enhancements through research resulted in the development and creation of the NAVSTAR satellite in 1978. By 1993, 24 satellites were in orbit to make the GPS system fully functional (NASA.gov).
Meanwhile, the Russians were committed to a satellite network for navigational purposes during the same time period. The first satellite, Kosmos-1413, was launched in 1982 with the full 24 satellite constellation becoming operational in 1995.
Together, these systems (known as global network satellite systems or GNSS) allowed for location and navigation abilities never thought possible, and the surveying community began its adoption of the technology.
Early survey adopters of GPS were usually large engineering firms, state departments of transportation (DOTs) and federal agencies that could afford the large financial commitment to the equipment (both GPS and computers), software and computing costs required to use the technology.
The data-collection times were long, and the software analysis required enormous patience and extensive mathematical knowledge, but the results were beyond what the everyday surveyor had ever before accomplished.
Significant distances could now be measured with the same or better accuracy than taping or using an electronic distance meter could have provided. The true revolution came when real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS was invented and was affordable to the everyday surveyor (GPS World, May 2016).
S/A and A-S
Most GPS users, especially operators of survey-grade receivers, are not aware of the early days of satellite navigation and the military’s use of selective availability, otherwise known as S/A (GPS World, Sept/Oct 1990). This methodology was implemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) on May 25, 1990 to limit accuracies for non-military GPS users.
This procedure was created to allow erroneous timing at random occurrences throughout transmission of satellite radio signals. These variations in timing more than negatively tripled the normal precision of an autonomous GPS position calculation, all in the name of introducing uncertainty to potential enemy users.
And if S/A wasn’t enough, the DoD also could implement another deterrent called anti-spoofing (A-S) and encrypt the precision or P-code of the satellite signal. The big factor here is that the general public (in our case, the surveying community) didn’t know if or when A-S was turned on. These factors were frustrating to the GPS user, so data collection and coordinate determination became a tedious operation.
Early receiver use by surveyors relied on differential GPS data collection for high-accuracy location (<10 cm or better). This method consisted of placing one or more receivers on known positional points (usually on monuments published through the National Geodetic Survey) while simultaneously performing data collection on new points for positional establishment.
Prior to S/A, the software utilized to analyze and reduce the data collection provided feedback on “bad” data, but there were usually environmental issues causing the problem (such as cycle slips and radio interference.) The software would highlight the suspect data for the reviewer to determine validity and acceptance.
Because of the nature of differential GPS data collection, error checking remained the same once S/A was implemented. If the software calculated an incorrect coordinate at a known point, the same measurements to the new survey point were dismissed as a false reading.
Surveyors were mostly left unfazed by S/A as real-time kinematic (RTK) and real-time network (RTN) follow a similar procedure utilizing a correction from a known terrestrial point. Even with the anti-spoofing activated, the surveying profession continued to use this high-tech location system that revolutionized long distance measurement. Things have been running along smoothly with steady improvement of receivers, data collectors, and data coverage until…
The day it goes away
…the unthinkable happens. Our national satellite system is no longer available.
It doesn’t matter why GPS has gone away on this day. It could be for many different reasons: federal budgets; enemy interference such as geomagnetic disturbances (GMD) or electromagnetic pulse (EMP);
conventional or nuclear war; interference from solar storms, asteroids, or comets; or the system just simply breaks.
Artist’s rendering of a cross-section of the Earth’s magnetosphere. (IMAGE: NASA)
Another thing for all users of GNSS to consider in these tumultuous times is how newer systems are integrating other countries’ satellite networks into their navigational observations.
Our relationship with the Russian government can be on unsteady ground from time to time, so our use of their GLONASS signals must be reviewed for accuracy as well (See GPS World, August 2017).
It won’t matter whether a spoofed satellite signal originates from a private Russian hacker or from their actual government; it will still lead to incorrect information and bad data. Imagine having to revise a plat because the GLONASS data was purposely corrupted!
Obviously, the main reason they would allow transmittal of misinformation would be for military reasons, but I can only imagine their joy of messing with professional navigation and the recreational users in the U.S. These opportunities will also apply to the Chinese and Indian constellations, too.
We’re not ready
The bottom line is that we, the U.S., aren’t ready for it. Whatever may be the reason for the failure, we do not have a backup plan and have relied much too heavily on satellite navigation. Gone is our ability to navigate through our electronic devices, including smartphones, fitness trackers, in-car mapping and, yes, high-precision surveying equipment. These items have now become door stops and space wasters.
This new conundrum doesn’t just stop with the surveyor and recreational GPS equipment. A significant amount of construction equipment relies on machine control, from bulldozers and road graders to high-rise cranes.
This will also affect a large amount of agricultural equipment and processes. Those high-tech tractors with autosteer and computer-guided planters? Back to the drawing boards. So many things in our lives today are guided or controlled by navigational systems designed around GPS use, and the surveyor is squarely in this mix.
What’s a surveyor to do?
The first thought on the surveyor’s mind is now having to perform all surveying tasks with instruments that are not based on satellite navigation. Yes, the reason for this GPS shutdown isn’t widespread enough to affect cellphone signals and other radio communications, but it killed off the one navigation system more people rely on than any other.
Because of this unfortunate shutdown, all GPS-based equipment is now worthless. This means your trusty RTN receiver with cellphone connection, your old base unit for those times when cellphone coverage is lacking, the fancy new UAV for taking orthophotography, and your cellphone or handheld GPS receiver for tracking down NGS monuments — all of them are done. Only your conventional equipment will complete the job.
Is the surveying profession finished? How do we locate those remote section corners in the middle of nowhere?
Don’t throw in the towel just yet. Surveyors have been measuring land using these types of instruments for centuries, with today’s versions being electronic and sophisticated. Robotic servos, mini computer-data collectors, efficient radio links and active tracking prisms have turned our forefathers’ simple transit into a sophisticated topographic or construction staking machine.
Data collection is much easier than writing everything in a field book, and have graphical interfaces and remote connection capability to keep you in touch with the office from nearly anywhere. The reality, however, is that the surveyor will now have to use methods and equipment for traversing, data collections and all staking tasks that will greatly reduce our productivity and profitability.
Experience could also end up being a big factor here as well. The average age of the professional land surveyor in the United States is 58 and climbing. This means most of these practitioners have been in the business well before GPS technology, so there is still the potential of surveying without the electronic birds in the sky.
Surveyors can still hang their shingle and practice their craft, but we’ve now lost a big component of our world: geographical location. The key to the success of GPS was the ability to determine geographic location and subsequently convert that information into a data format compatible with one’s local system. From UTM coordinates to State Plane, the world became smaller with this technology.
The surveyor can still determine latitude and longitude using manual surveying methods for specifically observing the sun and Polaris. The mathematics and procedures are complicated, but they still allow for determining a geographical location with high accuracy.
We can also utilize the extensive geodetic monumentation networks established nationwide, all started around the formidable effort by the Coastal and Geodetic Survey. This key federal agency, later to become the National Geodetic Survey, laid the groundwork and set the monuments for the backbone of our national horizontal network system. This system has been augmented over the years by their own programs, as well as state and local authorities, to expand our coverage to all portions of the United States.
By incorporating these monuments into a survey, a relationship to geographical datums is still easily obtained. While these methods of establishing geographical coordinates through use of conventional equipment sounds time consuming, without GPS and other satellite-based navigational aids, it will become much more cumbersome.
So, what do we do next?
Depending on which industry you are in or your necessary level of accuracy, several alternatives are being developed. For those in the shipping industry (including the trucking sector, which numbers more than 15 million vehicles), accuracy may only need to be nominal — for instance, 5 meters, give or take.
Several systems are in development with the biggest priority on enhanced loran (short for “long range navigation”) or eLoran (also see GPS World April 2014 and GPS World Nov 2015). Several bills are currently being reviewed in the U.S. House and Senate for consideration of funding this technology.
These programs are still under development, but DARPA has been tasked with finding another system so our dependence on GPS will not cripple our defense in a time of war.
Abraham Lincoln, the county surveyor — a statue at Lincoln’s New Salem State Historic Site, Illinois.
Another alternative will be private satellite networks. With programs like SpaceX and Blue Origin, vehicles to carry new satellites into orbit are now a viable option. It will be possible for companies to create their own networks for private or commercial use.
With the large number of construction, shipping and automobile sales, the day may come when the navigation system within each of these is proprietary. However, if we are faced with geomagnetic disturbances (GMD) or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) as mentioned earlier, it won’t matter whose network it is — they will all be rendered useless.
Until another viable option is created, the surveyor will be forced to take a step back in productivity and technology with conventional instruments. While not the most ideal thing, it will force the profession to retrain its entire workforce on procedures and methods that haven’t been regularly utilized for many years.
For some, it will be like throwing away the computer for a typewriter or the remote control for the television set. For others, it will be an opportunity to truly “follow in the footsteps” of past surveyors. They will understand exactly how their predecessors went about “running the lines” and completing a true boundary survey.
I, however, hope we don’t find ourselves in this situation, and that a suitable backup system or even a more advanced replacement for our antiquated GPS is invented soon.
But if the day comes and our GPS goes away, I’m guessing that surveyors not having their favorite locating device will be the least of our society’s worries. It will truly be a day that will live in infamy.
The second Lockheed Martin GPS III satellite completes a test simulating a strenuous launch environment.
The launch is the most strenuous part of a satellite’s life. To survive the extreme sound wave pressure and pounding vibrations generated by more than 700,000 pounds of thundering rocket thrust, spacecraft need a solid, reliable design if they hope to arrive operational on orbit.
On July 13, Lockheed Martin’s second, fully assembled GPS III space vehicle (SV) completed a realistic simulation of its future launch experience and passed this critical acoustic environmental test with flying colors, the company said.
During acoustic testing, GPS III SV02 was blasted with deafening sound reaching 140 decibels in a specialized test chamber equipped with high-powered horns. (Photo: Lockheed Martin)
During acoustic testing, the GPS III SV02 satellite was continuously blasted with sound reaching 140 decibels in a specialized test chamber equipped with high-powered horns. For comparison, that is about as loud as an aircraft carrier deck and human hearing starts to be damaged back at about 85 decibels, the company said. The test uses sound loud enough to literally shake loose anything not properly attached.
“With this launch-simulation test, we are talking about sophisticated, advanced satellite technology and electronics enduring tremendous forces and then working flawlessly afterward,” said Mark Stewart, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for Navigation Systems. “Passing this test with GPS III SV02 further validates the robustness of our GPS III design. We credit this success and risk-retirement to all the pathfinding work we accomplished early in the program.”
The GPS III SV02 satellite is part of the U.S. Air Force’s next generation of GPS satellites and will bring critical new capabilities to the warfighter. GPS III will have three times better accuracy and up to eight times improved anti-jamming capabilities.
Spacecraft life will extend to 15 years, 25 percent longer than the newest GPS satellites on-orbit today. GPS III’s new L1C civil signal also will make it the first GPS satellite to be interoperable with other international global navigation satellite systems.
GPS III SV02 is Lockheed Martin’s second GPS III satellite to successfully complete acoustic testing. The company’s first satellite, GPS III SV01 — which is in storage awaiting its expected 2018 launch — completed acoustic testing in 2015.
The GPS III SV02 satellite is now being prepared for Thermal Vacuum (TVAC) testing this fall, where it will be subjected to extreme cold and heat in zero atmosphere, simulating its on-orbit life. The satellite is expected to be delivered complete to the Air Force in early 2018.
GPS III SV02 is the second of 10 GPS III satellites Lockheed Martin is contracted for and is assembling in full production at the company’s GPS III Processing Facility near Denver. The $128 million, state-of-the-art manufacturing factory includes a specialized cleanroom and testing chambers designed to streamline satellite production.
Lockheed Martin’s GPS III satellite design includes a flexible, modular architecture that allows for the insertion of new technology as it becomes available in the future or if the Air Force’s mission needs change. Satellites based off this design are already proven compatible with both the Air Force’s next generation Operational Control System (OCX) and the existing GPS constellation.
Enclosed in its protective container, Galileo Full Operational Capability (FOC) Flight Model 21 (FM21) is seen departing ESA’s ESTEC Test Centre on Aug. 24. Photos courtesy of the European Space Agency
News from the European Space Agency
The last of 22 Galileo satellites has departed the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Test Centre in the Netherlands. This concludes the single longest and largest scale test campaign in the establishment’s history, ESA said.
Cocooned in a protective container for its journey — equipped with air conditioning, temperature control and shock absorbers — the final Galileo satellite left the establishment by lorry on Aug. 24.
ESA’s Test Centre at ESTEC in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, houses a collection of test equipment to simulate all aspects of spaceflight. It is operated for ESA by private company European Test Services (ETS) B.V.
In May 2013, the Test Centre began testing the first of 22 Galileo “Full Operational Capability” (FOC) satellites, having previously performed the same function for the very first Galileo “In-Orbit Validation” satellite under a separate contract.
Pictured is a Galileo Full Operational Capability satellite being removed from the Phenix thermal vacuum chamber after a fortnight-long “hot and cold” vacuum test.
The Galileo FOC satellites had their platforms built by OHB System AG in Germany, incorporating navigation payloads coming from Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. in the United Kingdom. They then traveled on to ESTEC to be subjected to the equivalent vibration, acoustic noise, vacuum and temperature extremes that they will experience for real during their launch and orbit, plus testing of their radio systems.
With a steady stream of satellites coming off the production line, the challenge for the combined ETS and OHB team overseeing Galileo testing was to put them through all necessary tests on a rapid and efficient basis, while also keeping the Test Centre accessible to other European missions requiring its unique services.
A total of 14 FOC satellites have since joined the first four IOV satellites in orbit, forming an 18-strong constellation that began Initial Services to global users on Dec. 15, 2016. The next four FOC satellites are scheduled for launch on an Ariane on Dec. 5.
Europe’s Galileo navigation satellites orbit 23 222 km above Earth to provide positioning, navigation and timing information all across the globe.
“For the first time in more than four years, there are no Galileo satellites in the Test Centre, but hopefully this will not be the end of our association with the programme,” said Jörg Selle, managing director for ETS. “The contract for making the next eight Galileo satellites — known as Batch 3 — was also awarded to OHB last June, and ETS will be bidding for the contract to test these satellites too.”
“The availability of the ETS facilities in ESTEC have substantially contributed to the programme,” said Paul Verhoef, ESA director of the Galileo Programme and navigation-related activities. “We thank ETS for their professionalism and support over this extended period.”
The final Galileo travelled back to OHB in Germany for some final refurbishment ahead of its launch together with another three satellites in December.
The Aug. 31 launch of a new Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) satellite failed when the protective fairing did not separate.
Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) chairman AS Kiran Kumar confirmed that the mission to launch India’s eighth navigation satellite, IRNSS-1H, from the second launch pad at the spaceport of Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota, was unsuccessful.
The 1425-kg satellite was expected to expand the existing seven satellites of the NavIC constellation. The launch vehicle PSLV-C39 lifted the satellite on Aug. 31 using the XL variant, of PSLV equipped with six strap-ons, each carrying 12 tons of propellant.
The three phases of the launch went smoothly, but unfortunately, the heat shield which was supposed to be separated in the fourth stage could not be detached.
IRNSS-1H was planned as a replacement satellite for IRNSS-1A.
Per Enge, Professor and Director, Stanford university Center for Position Navigation and Time
Satelles, a secure time and location solutions company, has appointed Per Enge to its board of directors. Satelles provides a time and location solutions delivered over the Iridium constellation of 66 low-earth-orbiting satellites.
Enge is the Vance and Arlene Coffman Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics for Stanford University, where he is also the director of the Stanford Center for Position Navigation and Time.
“I am eager to join the Satelles Board of Directors and look forward to supporting the management team,” Enge said. “I am encouraged by the progress Satelles has made and continue to have confidence in the leadership team and future growth of the business.”
Enge’s laboratory has worked with the U.S. Coast Guard to design a medium frequency radio system to broadcast differential GPS corrections to maritime users, and this system has been implemented as a worldwide standard.
His laboratory also worked with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration to develop WAAS, the Wide-Area Augmentation System that provides GPS integrity data to airborne users. Today, WAAS is carried by more than 100,000 aircraft, and similar systems have been implemented in Europe, India and Japan.
Enge also serves on the board of directors of Amida Technologies, and he serves as a technical advisor to Polaris Wireless.
He has received the Kepler, Thurlow and Burka Awards from the Institute of Navigation for his work. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the Institute of Navigation.
Enge received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois in 1983. In 2012, the U.S. Air Force inducted Enge into the GPS Hall of Fame.
“It is with great pleasure that we welcome Per to Satelles Board of Directors,” said Michael O’Connor, Satelles CEO. “Per has distinguished himself as a technology innovator and brings to our board of directors deep expertise in global navigation satellite systems. His wealth of experience and expertise in GPS and other technologies adds new depth to our board as we continue to deliver Satellite Time and Location to users around the world. We look forward to working with Per on our mission is to deliver trusted time and location solutions that augment and enhance existing solutions — including GPS.”
The Russian navigation satellite GLONASS-M 52 has traveled from ISS-Reshetnev Company’s facilities in Zheleznogorsk to the Plesetsk launch site, reported ISS-Reshnetev on Aug. 25.
GLONASS-M 52 is one of the GLONASS system’s ground spares. It was built by ISS-Reshetnev Company more than two years ago and was stored at the company’s facilities waiting for launch.
Before flying to the cosmodrome, GLONASS-M 52 was thoroughly tested and prepared for transportation. ISS-Reshetnev technicians used multi-layer insulation and special cases to protect the satellite’s sensitive equipment from damage during transport.
GLONASS-M 52 was loaded in a special container and flown to the Plesetsk cosmodrome on an IL-76 aircraft accompanied by ISS-Reshetnev specialists. The satellite is due to launch in September.
There are currently six GLONASS-M satellites in the ground reserve of the GLONASS navigation satellite system. All of them were constructed by ISS-Reshetnev Company in strict compliance with contract terms and are now stored at its facilities.
Each of these satellites is on standby for launch and can be shipped to the cosmodrome whenever needed to augment the GLONASS orbital constellation.
GLONASS-M 52 will replace a retired long-lived satellite that carried out its mission in orbit 1.5 times longer than initially designed.
GLONASS-M 52 is expected to launch in September. (Photo: ISS-Reshetnev)
By Omar Garcia Crespillo, Daniel Medina, Anja Grosch, Jan Skaloud and Michael Meurer / Presented at the European Navigation Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, May 2017
Simulation Comparison: Classical GNSS/INS EKF and robust Huber EKF. Click to enlarge.
We designed a tightly-coupled integration between GNSS and inertial navigation systems (INS) where we modify the update step of a classical Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) to consider different robust estimators (such as M-estimators). We consider different faulty scenarios where the pseudoranges contain one or several non-modeled biases. The tightly-coupled GNSS/INS robust Kalman filter performance in the presence of biases is compared with the classical EKF and with a loosely-coupled Robust-GNSS/INS approach. The robust tightly-coupled version is able to minimize more efficiently the biases effect thanks to the direct redundancy of the inertial sensor within the robust estimator.
We set a simulated scenario based on a realistic trajectory and generate both GNSS and inertial measurements following state-of-the-art error models. We analyze the filter behavior under the presence of pseudorange measurement faults. For that purpose, we have run 100 Monte Carlo simulations over the given trajectory, and we have generated synthetic pseudorange biases of 40 meters in satellites PRN 18 and PRN 24 every 20 seconds. The filter error performance in the position domain is shown for the classical EKF and for a robust EKF based on Huber estimation criteria, the mean simulation error as well as the 95 error confidence interval. The classical EKF is highly affected by the sudden biases, and their effect influences for some seconds the estimation, while the robust Huber EKF is less sensitive to the presence of these biases because it is able to better adjust the estimation to minimize their effect in the final position estimation error.
The eclipse across America on Aug. 21 was not only a magnificent visual event, it was also observed indirectly by the impact that it had on the propagation of radio signals — including those of global navigation satellite systems.
There was a decrease in the number of free electrons in the part of the Earth’s ionosphere along the eclipse path where sunlight was temporarily blocked by the moon. While not as significant as the daily variation as day turns to night, the effect was clearly seen in the signals received on the ground from GPS satellites.
GPS signals are routinely used to monitor the behavior of the ionosphere. The density of electrons in the ionosphere affects the speed of propagation of radio signals and this effect is slightly different at different frequencies.
By combining measurements made on the L1 and L2 legacy signals transmitted by all GPS satellites using high-grade receivers, scientists and engineers can measure the total electron content (TEC), which is the number of electrons in a column with a cross-sectional area of one meter squared along the path of the signal from satellite to receiver.
This value can then be projected to the vertical direction using a simple equation. Given the large number of electrons in the column, we measure the TEC in TEC units (TECU), where 1 TECU = 1016 electrons per square meter.
TEC time series from two continuously operating GPS monitoring stations near the path of totality, BREW at Brewster, Washington, and NISA at Boulder, Colorado, show a small dip of about 2 TECU or so around 18:00 UTC on Aug. 21, coincident with the timing of the eclipse. These time series are illustrated in FIGURES 1 and 2. Also shown in the figures are the time series for the day before, Aug. 20, which just show the normal diurnal ionospheric variation.
Figure 1. Time series of vertical total electron content observed using all GPS satellites observed at Brewster, Washington, on Aug. 21, 2017, the day of the eclipse (in blue) and the time series from the previous day, Aug. 20., 2017, for comparison (in red).Figure 2. Time series of vertical total electron content observed using all GPS satellites observed at Boulder, Colorado, on Aug. 21, 2017, the day of the eclipse (in blue) and the time series from the previous day, Aug. 20., 2017, for comparison (in red).
The effect of the eclipse was also be seen in the real-time correction data transmitted by the U.S. Wide-Area Augmentation System (WAAS) using geostationary satellites.
WAAS provides enhanced accuracy, integrity and availability for GPS single-frequency users using a network of dual-frequency GPS receivers all across North America. Corrections include a grid of ionospheric propagation delay values, updated every 5 minutes, which are used to account for the delay in receiver measurements.
FIGURE 3 shows part of the grid transmitted by WAAS and the path of totality across the U.S. Three of the grid points are close to the path and the time series of delay values of these points are shown in FIGURE 4.
Figure 3. Map showing the locations of a subset of the grid points used for the WAAS ionospheric delay corrections highlighting the three grid points close to the eclipse path of totality used to examine the effect of the eclipse along with one grid point far removed from the path for comparison.Figure 4. Time series of ionospheric vertical delay values of three WAAS ionospheric grid points along the eclipse path of totality on Aug. 21, 2017, along with the values from a grid point far removed from the path.
We see clear dips in values of up to about 50 centimeters. This is equivalent to what we see in the TEC time series from the BREW and NISA monitor stations since 1 TECU equates to 16 centimeters of propagation delay at the GPS L1 frequency.
Furthermore, the times of the dips correspond to the times of totality as the eclipse quickly moved across the country from west to east. Also shown for comparison in Figure 4 are the delay values for a grid point far removed from the path of totality, which show only the normal diurnal variation.
Not only does a total eclipse mesmerize the general public, it excites many scientists and engineers, too. A number of university research groups organized special eclipse observing campaigns to collect data from GPS receivers as well as other ionospheric monitoring tools to better understand exactly how the ionosphere reacts to a total eclipse of the sun.
And although we expect future analysis of the data will show features of great interest to science, the immediate results from the total eclipse of Aug. 21 show no significant impacts on the position, navigation and timing service GPS provides.
GPS “weathered” the eclipse with flying colors.
(Attila Komjathy, Siddharth Krishnamoorthy, Anthony J. Mannucci, Lawrence C. Sparks, Lawrence E. Young and Giorgio Savastano from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory operated by the California Institute of Technology; Gerald W. Bawden from NASA HQ Earth Science Division; and Hyun-Ho Rho and Richard B. Langley from the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, contributed to this article.)
This month we bring you a guest column by Steffen Thoelert, André Hauschild, Peter Steigenberger and Oliver Montenbruck of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) and Richard B. Langley of the University of New Brunswick.
UPDATE:Since Sept. 10, continuously operating DLR receivers in Sydney, Australia, and Chofu, Japan, have been reporting measurements from QZSS satellite J07, which, according to the QZSS Interface Control Document, is the geostationary satellite QZS-3.
The second satellite of Japan’s Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) has started transmitting navigation signals. QZS-2, or Michibiki-2, was launched on June 1, 2017, and joins its predecessor QZS-1 (Michibiki-1), which has been in orbit since September 2010.
Both satellites have been placed into inclined geosynchronous, elliptical orbits, which enable extended satellite visibility periods over Japan and are characteristic features for this regional navigation system.
The third satellite, QZS-3, was launched on Aug. 19, 2017, into a geostationary orbit. If all goes according to plan, a fourth satellite in an eccentric orbit will follow by the end of this year and complete the constellation.
QZS-2 Signal Tracking
It is not straightforward to tell when QZS-2 started signal transmission exactly. About four weeks after launch, on June 27 between 10:17 and 12:37 UTC, several Septentrio PolaRx GNSS receivers in the Asia-Pacific region recorded continuous L5 observations. About one week later, on July 4 shortly after 03:02 UTC, Javad and Trimble receivers picked up L1 C/A and L5 signals from QZS-2 for a few seconds. Then again, between 23:03 UTC on July 6, and 01:36 UTC on July 7, several receivers intermittently tracked the L1 C/A, L2C and L5 signals. Finally, on July 10, starting at approximately 01:03 UTC, these three signals were continuously tracked until approximately 04:00 UTC on July 12. Up until Aug. 1, signal tracking had remained intermittent, but has been stable since. This was presumably the result of interruptions in the signal transmission due to test activities.
Figure 1. QZS-2 signals tracked by GNSS receivers in Chofu, Japan, (top plot) and Sydney, Australia, (bottom plot). The plots depict the measured C/N0 for L1 C/A (black), L2C (red) and L5 (green) together with the observed pseudorange (grey). The frequent discontinuities in the pseudorange are due to the receiver clock adjustments. Both receivers exhibited a short tracking outage at approximately 06:00 UTC. The interruption in tracking at Chofu around 08:00 UTC is due to the low elevation angle of the satellite.
The plots in FIGURE 1 show QZS-2 signals as tracked by GNSS receivers in Japan and Australia on July 10. The two first sets of broadcast messages were transmitted on July 16 at 6:00 and 7:00 UTC. Regular transmission of broadcast ephemerides started on July 27 at 22:00 UTC, but deviations from the hourly update rate still occur from time to time.
Identical or Fraternal Twins?
At first glance, QZS-2 seems like a look-alike of QZS-1, but there are many differences between the two spacecraft. Most apparent is the presence of an additional auxiliary antenna. Like QZS-1, QZS-2 transmits its navigation signals on the L1, L2, L5 and L-band Experiment (LEX) frequencies through the main antenna, while the augmentation signal L1S (formally known as Submeter-class Augmentation with Integrity Function or SAIF) is transmitted from a separate antenna. However, the new L5S signal, which is introduced with QZS-2, is transmitted with yet another antenna.
The new satellite also has a shorter “wingspan” of only 19 meters, since it is equipped with two solar panel segments on each side, compared to three segments for QZS-1 with a width of 25.3 meters. The second QZSS satellite also follows a different attitude model: Unlike QZS-1, which switches between yaw-steering mode and orbit-normal mode depending on the sun’s elevation angle with respect to the orbit plane, QZS-2 always remains yaw-steering except for short periods of time when orbit maneuvers are performed. Further differences will become apparent in the analysis of the signal spectra in the subsequent sections.
The Cabinet Office of the Government of Japan, which oversees QZSS as a national undertaking, has published QZSS satellite metadata information on its official website. At the time of writing, only one document for QZS-2 is available, which contains information about the satellite’s properties such as mass, dimension, attitude law and reference frame, but also antenna and laser retroreflector positions, antenna phase-center offsets and variations as well as signal group delays.
Additional documents containing metadata for QZS-1, -3 and -4 and further information about QZS-2 are in preparation.
Rubidium Clock
FIGURE 2 illustrates the stability of the QZS-2 rubidium atomic frequency standard (RAFS) by means of the Allan deviation (ADEV). Data from a global network of 150 GNSS stations was processed to estimate GPS and QZSS satellite orbit and clock parameters.
Figure 2. Allan deviation of the rubidium atomic frequency standards of GPS Block IIF satellite G32, QZS-1 (J01) and QZS-2 (J02).
However, whereas about 60 of these stations provide QZS-1 observations, QZS-2 is only tracked by 13 stations. ADEV values for QZS-1, QZS-2 and a GPS Block IIF satellite were computed from a daily solution for Aug. 3 with 30-second clock sampling.
At an integration time of 100 seconds, the QZS RAFS reaches an ADEV of better than 3 × 10-13.
At longer integration times, the QZS-2 clock almost reaches the stability of the GPS Block IIF RAFS.
Based on this preliminary analysis for only one day, the QZS-2 clock seems to perform as expected. The larger ADEV values compared to QZS-1 for integration times up to 1,000 seconds might be attributed to the significantly smaller number of tracking stations contributing to the QZS-2 clock solution. The quality of the clock solution will improve as soon as more stations are able to track QZS-2.
Signals with High-Gain Antenna
Complementary to the receiver measurements and analysis, the German Aerospace Center (DLR) has also recorded raw spectral and in-phase and quadrature (IQ) data of QZS-2 to get further insights into the transmitted signal structure and initial signal quality. FIGURE 3 shows a spectral measurement of the complete GNSS L-band frequency range, which shows the signal transmissions of QZS-2 in the L1, L2, L5 and L6 bands. The signal was captured with DLR’s 30-meter high-gain antenna at Weilheim, southwest of Munich, operated by DLR’s German Space Operations Center.
Figure 3. QSZ-2 L-band normalized power spectra recorded at Weilheim, Germany, on July 18, 2017 at 20:43 UTC.
This first view of the signal transmission shows a good spectral shape, appropriate band filtering and no out-of-band unwanted spurious emissions of the satellite. For further analysis, we looked closer at each signal-band spectrum and performed IQ-sample recording.
Comparing the QZS-2 spectra to that of QZS-1, we see differences in the signal structure for the L1 frequency band.
Figure 4. QZS-1 and QZS-2 L1 spectral flux density.
FIGURE 4 shows the L1 spectra of both satellites. The additional signal component can be seen at an offset of 6 x 1.023 MHz and 18 x 1.023 MHz from the L1 center frequency of 1575.42 MHz. This is the result of the new L1C-pilot modulation, which is based on the time-multiplexed binary offset carrier (TMBOC) modulation technique using a mixture of BOC(1,1) and BOC(6,1). See here for detailed information.
Another difference is present in the L6 band and can be seen within the signal time domain or the IQ domain. The new satellite transmits two components (one each for the I- and Q-channels) while QZS-1 transmits only one I-component. This observation is fully in line with the QZSS Interface Specification. On QSZ-2, an additional L6 signal component (Centimeter-Level Augmentation Message for Experiments, L6E) is implemented. FIGURE 5 shows the IQ constellation plots of QZS-1 and QZS-2 for the L6 band.
Figure 5. L6 IQ constellation plots for QZS-1 (left) and QZS-1(right).
Source: GPS World
Furthermore, the L5 band IQ plot of QZS-2 exhibits significant differences compared to QZS-1. These differences, which are illustrated in the plots of FIGURE 6, are due to an additional L5S signal transmitted by QZS-2.
Figure 6. L5 IQ constellation plots for QZS-1 (left) and QS-2 (right).
Source: GPS World
The QZS-2 L5 IQ diagram is fairly easy to understand as a coherent superposition of two distinct quadrature signals from two antennas. One signal is the GPS-like L5 signal transmitted from the main L-band antenna, while the other (L5S) signal originates from a new L5S antenna. This is illustrated in FIGURE 7.
Figure 7. QZS-2 L5 IQ constellation plot including demarcation of the L5 and L5S signals.
For illustration purposes, the dashed orange square in Figure 7 relates to the 10 MHz L5 signal, while the smaller red squares are the 10 MHz L5S signal.
A code generator has been setup according the QZSS L5 and L5S interface control document (ICD). An analysis of the correlations of possible pseudorandom noise (PRN) codes resulted in the detection of PRN 194 and PRN 196. Based on the information in the ICDs, PRN 194 is used for L5 and PRN 196 is used for L5S.
The performed code correlation analysis also yields the finding that the L5 signal is approximately 3.5 dB stronger than the L5S signal. Note, however, that both signals have a specified minimum receive power of -157 dBW. Due to the limited visibility of QZSS satellites from the Weilheim ground station, it is not possible to verify this value.
Conclusion
With the launch and activation of QZS–2, the deployment of Japan’s regional navigation system is moving forward again. The launch of a geostationary satellite, QZS-3, took place on Aug. 18. A fourth Japanese navigation satellite is scheduled to launch later this year. With this rapid sequence, the target date of 2018 for the completion of an operational constellation with four satellites is quite realistic.
Steffen Thoelert, André Hauschild, Peter Steigenberger and Oliver Montenbruck are from the German Aerospace Center (DLR).
Richard B. Langley is from the University of New Brunswick and authors the monthly Innovation column for GPS World magazine.
QZS-2 L-band spectra, July 18, 2017, Weilheim, Germany. (Courtesy DLR)
Second QZSS Signal on Air
The successful launch of the Michibiki No. 2 satellite of the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) on June 1 has been followed by broadcast initiation. Researchers at the German Aerospace Center, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), have been observing the satellite from their ground station in Weilheim. They will provide a written analysis in the September issue.
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency launched first Michibiki satellite of the anticipated four-satellite constellation in September 2010.
Air Force to Recompete GPS III Follow-on
The U.S. Air Force will launch multibillion-dollar competition between current GPS III contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. and former GPS Block I and Block II contractor Boeing Co. for as many as 22 new GPS III satellites. At press time, an industry day in was scheduled for July 20 in El Segundo, California, to solicit company input, according to a new draft Request For Proposals.
In 2015 the Air Force undertook the first phase of a now two-year process to determine whether to put the next block of satellites up for competition. An initial review “has determined that viable, low-risk, high-confidence sources exist to conduct a full and open competition” for a second phase starting in fiscal 2018, according to the draft.
Lockheed Martin is assembling the first 10 satellites of the Block III program. Formal delivery of the first satellite was scheduled earlier this year, delayed by of a series of now-resolved problems with the navigation payload, cracked capacitors and a subcontractor gaffe last year that resulted in the wrong part being tested.
The satellite, which passed all of its qualification testing and verification, has been placed in storage pending the results of an unrelated review of the propulsion systems used to boost military satellites into orbit. The plan remains to launch the first GPS III satellite by spring of 2018.
“Lockheed Martin is working closely with the Air Force on resolving any concerns about the mission readiness of SV01’s Propulsion Subsystem,” Eschenfelder said in February. “We are confident that this review will not delay the Air Force’s planned spring 2018 Initial Launch Capability (ILC).”
NAVIC Clock Failures Resemble Galileo’s
The seven orbiting satellites of the Navigation Indian Constellation (NAVIC, formerly India’s Regional Navigation Satellite System, or IRNSS) have been hit by problems with some of their rubidium atomic clocks, similar to difficulties encountered earlier by Europe’s Galileo program.
NAVIC G-1 launch April 2017.
The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) had announced in July 2016 that all three atomic clocks on IRNSS-1A, launched in 2013, had malfunctioned, rendering that satellite ineffective.
Now, reports indicate that four more atomic clocks on the other six satellites launched more recently are not performing as required.
ISRO plans to launch a replacement satellite called IRNSS-1H in July-August to compensate for the loss of IRNSS-1A, although it is yet to announce the failure of more atomic clocks, which has not incapacitated the clock systems on the other six satellites.
The European Space Agency reported in January that anomalies had occurred in three of 36 Rubidium Atomic Frequency Standard (RAFS) clocks in the 18-satellite Galileo system, although none of the satellites were affected. ESA had said, “These failures all seem to have a consistent signature, linked to probable short circuits, and possibly a particular test procedure performed on the ground.”
ISRO has nine satellites indented for IRNSS. While seven satellites make up the Indian regional navigation constellation, the other two were indented as backup in the event of failure. Each satellite has three atomic clocks, one the primary timekeeper and the other two acting as backup.
“Measures are being taken to correct the problems caused by the clocks in the launch of future satellites. The atomic clocks to be used in the other satellites have been modified to prevent malfunction,” a senior official in the programme said.
ISRO chairman Kumar has indicated the number of satellites could go up from the originally envisaged seven to 11 but it is not clear if this is a consequence of the failing clocks. “We are set to launch more navigational satellites. They are in the process of approvals and clearances,” he said recently, and added efforts were on to revive the IRNSS-1A clocks.”
In Europe, the European Space Agency and an industrial partner-supplier have agreed that “some refurbishment is required on the remaining RAFS clocks” to be used in new Galileo satellites.
Look to GSA Service Centre for Galileo Advisories
In July, a wide transfer of responsibilities for the Galileo constellation took place, from the European Space Agency (ESA) to the European Global Navigation Satellite System Agency (GSA) of the European Union. Key among these was a handover of communications responsibilities to manufacturers, users and markets.
All parties can now find updates in the form of Notice Advisory to Galileo Users (NAGUs) at the GSA’s Galileo Service Centre, www.gsc-europa.eu/system-status/user-notifications.
NAGUs are issued as new satellites are launched and when satellites become ready for service provision, or to give advance warning of signal unavailability owing to planned maintenance or testing activities, or to notify users of unplanned outages and then to inform them when satellites become active again.
“Keeping our users in the picture on planned activities that might lead to satellite unavailabilityhas helped them to plan their own test activities and to prepare future products,” said Rafael Lucas Rodriguez, ESA’s Galileo services engineering manager.
A total of 189 NAGUs were issued under ESA oversight in the last four years, as the constellation grew to its current 18 satellites. The user base increased from 86 to 774 registered users on the European GNSS Service Centre website as companies worked to prepare Galileo-ready products. In December 2016, Galileo’s Initial Services began operating.
One regular consumer of Galileo NAGUs, Broadcom, uses them to organize engineering activities and tests as well as input them into its orbit prediction engine for its Long Term Orbits products.
NASA has issued a statement to let the GPS community know what to expect when the total solar eclipse takes place across America on Aug. 21.
On Aug. 21, the eclipse will cross all of North America. Anyone within the path of totality will see the moon completely cover the sun, and the sun’s tenuous atmosphere — the corona — can be seen.
Observers outside this path will still see a partial solar eclipse where the moon covers part of the sun’s disk.
A map of the United States showing the path of totality for the August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse. (Image: NASA)
For NASA, the eclipse provides a unique opportunity to study the sun, Earth, moon and their interaction because of the eclipse’s long path over land and coast to coast. Eleven NASA and NOAA satellites, as well as the International Space Station, more than 50 high-altitude balloons and hundreds of ground-based assets, will take advantage of this rare event over 90 minutes, sharing the science and the beauty of a total solar eclipse with all.
Via live streams and a NASA TV broadcast, NASA will bring the Aug. 21 eclipse live to viewers everywhere in the world.
Below is the statement from NASA regarding GPS.
NASA Note on the Aug. 21 Solar Eclipse and Its Effect on GPS Users
FOR THE GPS COMMUNITY
From ionospheric point of view, the expected effect of solar eclipse is a significant reduction in solar EUV ionization (solar EUV radiation is blocked) and thus in the amount of ionospheric total electron content (TEC) with respect to nominal conditions along the eclipse path.
Some observations also show wave-like TEC perturbations in small magnitude (~1 TECU) during eclipse as shown in the attached reference. The wave-like perturbations appear to be the effect of atmospheric gravity waves or traveling ionospheric disturbances (TIDs) that might be triggered during eclipse.
The TEC decrease would reduce ionospheric-induced delay of GPS signals. The small-magnitude TIDs won’t cause any major effects on GPS signals. These should not cause loss of GPS signals.
I have not seen any reports about ionospheric scintillation observations during eclipse (I might have missed them). It would be interesting to analyze GPS data along the path of upcoming August eclipse to see if any scintillation events could be triggered.
We have some GPS data processing tools at JPL and can contribute to this analysis.
FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC
A solar eclipse occurs when the Moon passes between the Sun and the Earth, thereby totally or partly obscuring the image of the sun for a viewer on Earth. There is a region of Earth’s upper atmosphere, called the ionosphere which affects radio waves, including GPS.
The ionosphere consists of “ions,” a shell of electrons and electrically charged atoms and molecules. Because ions are created through sunlight interacting with the atoms and molecules in the very thin upper atmosphere, the density (thickness and consistency) of the ionosphere varies from day to night.
The ionosphere bends radio signals, similar to the way water will bend light signals. That is why you can hear AM radio broadcasts from far away at night. Also, ham radio operators rely on the ionosphere to bounce their signals from their station to the far reaches of the globe.
Since GPS is a radio signal, its measurements are slightly impacted by ionosphere changes, resulting in small increases in position error. For all except very precise GPS users, these changes are negligible.
Note that a total eclipse of the Sun is similar to our day-night cycle, only much faster. So, while the ionosphere will be more dynamic during an eclipse, it will not cause a loss of the GPS signal.
In summary, while any effects from the eclipse are of scientific interest, GPS service should not be adversely affected by the Aug. 21 solar eclipse.
Ionospheric effects should not be confused with those from solar flares (a brief eruption of intense high-energy radiation from the sun’s surface) that can cause significant electromagnetic disturbances on the earth, impacting radio frequency communications/transmissions (including GPS signals) and power line transmissions. Solar flares are not produced because of an eclipse.
(NASA acknowledges the expertise of Larry Young and Xiaoqing Pi of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory for content, and AJ Oria of Overlook Systems Technologies for the coordination and editing of these statements.)
