Category: GNSS

  • Innovation: The European Way

    Innovation: The European Way

    Performance of the Galileo Single-Frequency Ionospheric Correction During In-Orbit Validation

    By Roberto Prieto-Cerdeira, Raül Orús-Pérez, Edward Breeuwer, Rafael Lucas-Rodriguez, and Marco Falcone

    OFF TO A GOOD START. That’s how we might characterize the European Galileo satellite navigation system. The official beginning of the Galileo program occurred on May 26, 2003, when the European Union and the European Space Agency officially agreed on the first stage of the program (although some work on system concepts took place earlier). The first two prototype or development satellites, Galileo In-Orbit Validation Element-A (GIOVE-A) and GIOVE-B, were launched on December 28, 2005, and April 26, 2008, respectively. The satellites successfully validated key technologies for the full Galileo constellation and secured the system’s frequency allocations.

    The first two In-Orbit Validation (IOV) satellites were launched by a single rocket on October 21, 2011, and the third and fourth IOV satellites were similarly launched on October 12, 2012. The two GIOVE satellites and first two IOV satellites provided an opportunity to use Galileo-only receiver measurements and after-the-fact precise satellite orbit and clock data to compute the position of a receiver’s antenna. Joined by two colleagues, I was pleased to report our successful attempt using dual-frequency carrier-phase and pseudorange data collected on May 17, 2012, in an article in the September 2012 issue of this magazine. The two GIOVE satellites were subsequently retired.

    The four IOV satellites began transmitting navigation messages with valid ephemerides in March, 2013, and this paved the way for the first real-time single-frequency pseudorange Galileo position fix using the broadcast messages on the morning of March 12 at the Navigation Laboratory of the European Space Research and Technology Centre in Noordwijk, the Netherlands. The position fix included compensation for the effect of the ionosphere on the Galileo signals.

    The signals from GNSS satellites travel through the ionosphere on their way to receivers on or near the Earth’s surface. The free electrons populating this region of the atmosphere affect the propagation of the signals, changing their speed and direction of travel. This results in a delay in the arrival of the modulated components of the signals (from which pseudorange measurements are made) and an advance in the phases of the signals’ carrier waves (affecting carrier-phase measurements). The ionosphere is a dispersive medium for radio signals, so by making measurements simultaneously on two frequencies transmitted by a satellite, most of the effect of the ionosphere can be removed. However, single-frequency devices such as most vehicle navigation and handheld receivers don’t have the luxury of dual-frequency correction. These devices must rely on a single-frequency correction model. The coefficients for such a model are included in the navigation messages transmitted by all GPS satellites. Known as the Ionospheric Correction Algorithm or Klobuchar Algorithm, it removes at least 50 percent of the ionosphere’s effect.

    The Galileo satellites also include the parameters of an ionospheric algorithm, called NeQuick G, in their navigation messages. In this month’s column, the Galileo system design team describes the novel European way for modeling the ionosphere for single-frequency users and compares its performance to the current GPS approach.


    “Innovation” is a regular feature that discusses advances in GPS technology and its applications as well as the fundamentals of GPS positioning. The column is coordinated by Richard Langley of the Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick. He welcomes comments and topic ideas. Write to him at lang @ unb.ca.


    Radiowave propagation of GNSS signals is affected by the Earth’s atmosphere and the characteristics of the local environment surrounding the receiver. GNSS systems are based on the broadcasting of radiowave ranging signals in the microwave domain (mainly in the so-called L-band, although some new systems like the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System are also expected to broadcast in the S-band). These electromagnetic signals may suffer from a number of impairments as they propagate from a satellite to a receiver. In considering these effects, we can divide the Earth’s atmosphere into two parts: the electrically neutral atmosphere (primarily the lowest part, the troposphere), whose main effect is a group delay on the navigation signal due to water vapor and the gas components of the dry air, which, for microwave frequencies, is non-dispersive (independent of frequency); and the ionosphere, the ionized part of the atmosphere. The local environment may affect the navigation signal in various ways, too, such as signal fading or complete signal blockage by vegetation or obstacles such as buildings, and multipath, where the signal is broadened in the time and frequency domains due to reflections and diffraction by surrounding objects. In this article, we will discuss the effect of the ionosphere on GNSS signals and how it is being dealt with by the Galileo satellite navigation system.

    The ionosphere owes its existence to solar radiation, primarily extreme ultraviolet light. The radiation ionizes the atoms and molecules in the upper atmosphere at heights of less than a hundred kilometers to a few kilometers above the Earth’s surface, producing a sea of ions and free electrons (collectively known as a plasma). This region is responsible for a number of dispersive (frequency-dependent) effects on navigation signals. Chief among these is a persistent delay of the pseudorandom noise (PRN) ranging codes (and the advance of the phase of the underlying carrier waves), thereby introducing positioning and timing errors if not compensated for. Signals are also susceptible to scintillations — rapid variations of amplitude and/or phase of the signals due to diffraction and refraction caused by plasma irregularities. Furthermore, the ionosphere can bend the signal path, resulting in a slightly longer path than the straight path, and rotate the polarization of the signal.

    The ionospheric refractive index (the ratio of the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum to the speed of their propagation in a medium) is related to the number of free electrons along the propagation path. For this purpose, the total electron content (TEC) is defined as the electron density in a cross-section of 1 square meter, integrated along a slant (or vertical) path between two points (such as a satellite and a receiver). It is often expressed in TEC units (TECU) where 1 TECU = 1016 electrons per meter squared = 0.1624 meters of delay at the GPS L1 frequency.  According to the electron density, the mechanisms responsible for such ionization, and the dynamics, the ionosphere is usually sub-classified in layers of different characteristics: D, E, F1, and F2, with the latter largely responsible for the ionospheric effects on GNSS.

    All of the propagation effects due to the ionosphere depend on a number of factors such as time of the day, location, season, and solar activity. There is also an interaction between solar activity, the ionosphere, and the Earth’s magnetic field, which, at times, can result in a significant disturbance of the ionosphere, as happens during geomagnetic storms. On a long timescale, solar activity follows a periodic, approximately 11-year, cycle. And spatially, the behavior of the ionosphere can be broadly classified into four main regions: the equatorial anomaly regions, located at around ±15-20º on either side of the magnetic equator, usually presenting the largest TEC values; mid-latitude regions, where the daytime TEC values are usually less than half the values found in the equatorial anomaly regions; and the auroral and polar regions, which present moderate TEC values but with larger variability than at mid-latitudes due to the characteristics of the geomagnetic field.

    If we ignore some smaller, higher-order terms, the ionospheric group delay (the delay of the “group” of waves making up the PRN ranging code modulations) may be expressed in meters as 40.3 sTEC / f2, where sTEC is slant TEC in electrons per meter squared, calculated along the straight propagation path between receiver and satellite, and f is the carrier frequency in hertz. This effect introduces ranging errors of several meters if not corrected. The higher order terms usually account for differences at the millimeter level (rising to centimeter level during extreme ionospheric disturbances) and may be safely neglected for code ranging. The effect on the carrier phase has the same magnitude as the code delay, but of opposite sign, meaning that the carrier phase is advanced while propagating through the ionosphere. Since the group delay is dispersive, its effect can be mitigated using linear combinations of signals at two separate frequencies.

    For single-frequency receivers, GNSSes often rely on correction models driven by broadcast data. For example, with GPS, the Ionospheric Correction Algorithm (ICA, also known as the Klobuchar algorithm) uses eight broadcast coefficients to describe the ionosphere, which is represented as a two-dimensional thin-shell model (the vTEC is assumed to be concentrated in a two-dimensional shell at a given height, relying on an analytical mapping or obliquity function to convert between vTEC and sTEC depending on the elevation angle of the received signal). This model is very efficient in terms of computational complexity, and it usually removes more than 50 percent of the ionospheric error, particularly at mid-latitudes.

    Galileo and NeQuick G

    Galileo provides dual-frequency services able to mitigate the effects of the ionosphere, but also services to single-frequency users. For a Galileo single-frequency receiver, an algorithm has been developed based on an adaptation of the NeQuick electron density model.

    With the launch of the Galileo In-Orbit Validation (IOV) satellites and the initial navigation message broadcast, for the first time the end-to-end performance of the single-frequency correction algorithm for Galileo could be analyzed. The objective of the IOV phase was to launch the first four operational Galileo satellites and to deploy the first version of a completely new ground segment. During this phase, the European Space Agency (ESA) needed to validate — in the operational environment — all space, ground, and user components and their interfaces, prior to full system deployment, including the single-frequency correction algorithm performance starting from April 2013. Results were obtained for the period up to March 2014, coinciding with the maximum of solar cycle 24 and including three equinoxes with increased solar activity. In this article, we present performance results showing that the algorithm is capable of correcting more than 70 percent of the ionospheric group delay error under nominal ionospheric conditions, using only the reduced Galileo infrastructure during IOV (four satellites and a partial set of the Galileo sensor or monitoring stations).

    The Algorithm. The Galileo single-frequency correction algorithm is based on an adaptation of the three-dimensional NeQuick electron density model, driven by an effective ionization level calculated with three broadcast ionospheric coefficients.

    The original NeQuick model is a three-dimensional and time-dependent ionospheric electron density model based on an empirical climatological representation of the ionosphere, which predicts monthly mean electron density from analytical profiles, depending on solar-activity-related input values: sunspot number or solar flux, month, geographic latitude and longitude, height and UT. It allows us to calculate the TEC through numerical integration of electron density along a path between a beginning and an end point crossing the ionosphere. As an example, a global vTEC map obtained with NeQuick is illustrated in FIGURE 1. The first version of this model (NeQuick1) was incorporated into a previous version of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) recommendation ITU-R P.532 for TEC estimation in radiowave propagation predictions. Researchers have continued development of the model with updated formulations, and version NeQuick2 is the one currently recommended by the ITU.

    FIGURE 1. Global vTEC map obtained with the NeQuick electron density model for a sunspot number of 150 at 13h UT in the month of April (grid resolution 2.5 degrees × 2.5 degrees).
    FIGURE 1. Global vTEC map obtained with the NeQuick electron density model for a sunspot number of 150 at 13h UT in the month of April (grid resolution 2.5 degrees × 2.5 degrees).

    The NeQuick model has been adapted for Galileo single-frequency ionospheric corrections (for convenience, the Galileo version is known as NeQuick G) in order to derive real-time predictions based a single input parameter, Az, which is determined using three coefficients broadcast in the navigation message. The three coefficients are used in a second-degree polynomial as a function of the modified dip latitude (MODIP) of the receiver, to determine Az, which replaces the solar flux input parameter of the parent NeQuick model, with the following equation:

    INN-E1(1)

    where ai0-2 are the three broadcast coefficients. MODIP is expressed in degrees. A grid table of MODIP values versus geographical location is provided together with the algorithm. A map showing five different MODIP regions is presented in FIGURE 2, each region usually presenting different behavior.

    FIGURE 2. MODIP regions. Contours are modified dip latitudes.
    FIGURE 2. MODIP regions. Contours are modified dip latitudes.

    The performance of the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric algorithm, designed to reach a correction capability of at least 70 percent of the ionospheric code delay, had been assessed in the past using GPS data only and using GPS plus Galileo In-Orbit Validation Element satellite data for an offline estimation of the broadcast parameters.

    Since the first successful autonomous real-time Galileo-based position fix on March 12, 2013, the Galileo navigation messages have been broadcast by the four IOV spacecraft to the external user community, including the ionospheric broadcast parameters determined with IOV-only observations.

    Experiment Period and Performance Indicators

    To analyze the performance of the single-frequency ionospheric correction, a number of performance indicators were used:

    • The root-mean-square (RMS) error of the ionospheric model in meters of L1 code delay, for one station and one day.
    • The relative correction capability, expressed as an RMS percentage, defined as:

    INN-E2(2)
    where STECref is the reference STEC and STECNeQuickG is the STEC obtained with the Galileo correction model. The factor 66 is used to avoid the fact that small absolute errors, which are relatively large due to small reference values, inflate the correction capability; it is linked to a target correction of 70 percent with a minimum absolute threshold of 20 TECU (30 percent of 66 TECU is about 20 TECU).

    Performance verification has been assessed for the period from April 2013 to March 2014, which includes the secondary peak of the current solar maximum. The Galileo broadcast data used for this test are the Az coefficients broadcast by the four Galileo IOV satellites. It is important to remember that during the period of this assessment, the IOV infrastructure was reduced with respect to the target full operational capability, including the generation of the ionospheric parameters: four IOV satellites (no other GNSS satellites were used in the estimation) and a reduced number of monitoring stations.

    Since the ionospheric correction performance assessment can be done independently of the Galileo signals and analysis of performance is preferred over independent data and locations, reference STEC estimated using dual-frequency observables from GPS at stations from the International GNSS Service (IGS), distributed around the world, were selected for the correction capability performance assessment. This resulted in observations of six to nine satellites for any epoch and with more than 120 stations per day, which assured good global coverage for the test. Performance has been computed individually for each set of broadcast parameters. For this aspect of ionospheric correction assessment, the differences between GPS and full constellation Galileo geometries are considered to be negligible.

    As a reference for comparative purposes, for some cases the results have been compared to those obtained with the GPS ICA correction model using the broadcast parameters from GPS satellites.

    The reference ionosphere STEC values were computed using dual-frequency carrier-phase GPS observables from IGS stations at a sampling rate of 300 seconds, and using IGS final global ionospheric maps (GIMs) to level the geometry-free combination of carrier phases. In this context, the IGS GIMs are employed to align the geometry-free or ionospheric combination, LI, to compute the ambiguity term (BI) for each satellite-to-receiver arc:
    INN-E3(3)

    where LI represents the linear combination between signals at frequencies f1 and f2INN-E3a is the ionospheric delay in meters of LI; and BI is composed of several terms: station and satellite phase inter-frequency biases (INN-KLI and INN-KLIJ respectively), LI phase ambiguity (λ1N1jλ2N2j), phase wind-up, multipath, and noise. And i corresponds to the station and j to the satellite.

    Then, in order to compute the corresponding BI term for each satellite-receiver continuous arc, the sTEC prediction of the GIM (sTECGIM_map) is computed for each satellite ionospheric pierce point, and then the average is computed as follows:
    INN-E4(4)

    where the indices i, j, and α correspond to the receiver, satellite, and arc indicator respectively, and the average is performed over the corresponding continuous (no cycle slips) arc (α) of data. INN-E4a  is estimated following the mapping function and the procedures to interpolate in space and time recommended by IGS for GIM maps represented in ionosphere-exchange (IONEX) format.

    With this estimation, the aligned STEC can be obtained as:
    INN-E5(5)

    which is the STEC used as an accurate sTEC estimation or “truth”  reference value.

    Results

    The first analysis that we performed was the daily RMS error and correction capability for all stations. Most days have shown very promising performance. To see different levels of performance, results for one “bad” day and one typical “good” day, in the period of experimentation, are presented in FIGURE 3. It is observed that even for the “bad” day, the correction capability is above 70 percent, except for some stations in the equatorial regions. This performance is exceeded significantly for the “good” day, with RMS residual ionospheric errors below 1.5 meters for L1 even at low latitudes.

    FIGURE 3a. Performance of the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric correction when using the E11 satellite broadcast, “bad day” RMS error in meters of L1.
    FIGURE 3a. Performance of the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric correction when using the E11 satellite broadcast, “bad day” RMS error in meters of L1.
    FIGURE 3b. Performance of the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric correction when using the E11 satellite broadcast, “good day” RMS error in meters of L1.
    FIGURE 3b. Performance of the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric correction when using the E11 satellite broadcast, “good day” RMS error in meters of L1.
    FIGURE 3c. Performance of the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric correction when using the E11 satellite broadcast, “good day” correction capability in percent.
    FIGURE 3c. Performance of the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric correction when using the E11 satellite broadcast, “good day” correction capability in percent.
    FIGURE 3d. Performance of the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric correction when using the E11 satellite broadcast, “good day” correction capability in percent.
    FIGURE 3d. Performance of the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric correction when using the E11 satellite broadcast, “good day” correction capability in percent.

    The evolution of the RMS residual error both for Galileo NeQuick G and GPS ICA from April 2013 to March 2014 are presented in FIGURE 4. In this figure, ionospheric activity at the equinoxes is clearly observed in the degradation of performance, and the influence of increased solar activity from October 2013 to March 2014 is also evident.

    FIGURE 4. Global daily RMS ionospheric residual error in meters of L1 after correction with Galileo NeQuick G (red) and GPS ICA (blue) from April 2013 to March 2014.
    FIGURE 4. Global daily RMS ionospheric residual error in meters of L1 after correction with Galileo NeQuick G (red) and GPS ICA (blue) from April 2013 to March 2014.

    The residual error of the Galileo correction model is already at the level of the expected capability for the full constellation. It also shows better performance as compared to the GPS ICA model, especially at equatorial latitudes.

    The level of correction capability for each station for the Galileo NeQuick G model and the GPS ICA model are presented in FIGURE 5 for a quiet day in May 2013 and an active day during the spring equinox in 2014.

    FIGURE 5. RMS correction capability (percent, with a lower bound of 20 TECU) of Galileo NeQuick G correction models for day 127, 2013.
    FIGURE 5a. RMS correction capability (percent, with a lower bound of 20 TECU) of Galileo NeQuick G correction models for day 127, 2013.
    FIGURE 5b. RMS correction capability (percent, with a lower bound of 20 TECU) of GPS ICA correction models for day 127, 2013.
    FIGURE 5b. RMS correction capability (percent, with a lower bound of 20 TECU) of GPS ICA correction models for day 127, 2013.
    FIGURE 5c. RMS correction capability (percent, with a lower bound of 20 TECU) of Galileo NeQuick G correction models for day 80, 2014.
    FIGURE 5c. RMS correction capability (percent, with a lower bound of 20 TECU) of Galileo NeQuick G correction models for day 80, 2014.
    FIGURE 5d. RMS correction capability (percent, with a lower bound of 20 TECU) of GPS ICA (right) correction models for day 80, 2014.
    FIGURE 5d. RMS correction capability (percent, with a lower bound of 20 TECU) of GPS ICA (right) correction models for day 80, 2014.

    Effect in the Positioning Domain. We have performed two analyses to assess the correction performance in the positioning domain: one using GPS observables and one with Galileo-only observables. In both cases, we used three ionospheric delay mitigation methods: the dual-frequency ionosphere-free combination, the single-frequency GPS ICA correction algorithm, and the single-frequency Galileo NeQuick G correction algorithm.

    The performance of the correction algorithm in the positioning domain using GPS observables was performed with data from two stations: Noordwijk in The Netherlands (a mid- to high-latitude station) and Malindi in Kenya (a low-latitude station) for the day of year (doy) 172 of 2013. Results are presented in FIGURES 6 and 7 showing good performance of the NeQuick G correction, in particular at low latitude. The results do not include code smoothing neither for single-frequency nor dual-frequency positioning. In the results, it may be observed that, as expected, the noise level for single-frequency positioning is much lower than that of ionosphere-free, but a higher bias may be present (the residual mean ionospheric error).

    FIGURE 6a. Horizontal GPS positioning error on L1 using single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), L1 and GPS ICA (red) and dual-frequency ionosphere-free (green) for mid-latitude station in Noordwijk (doy 172, 2013).
    FIGURE 6a. Horizontal GPS positioning error on L1 using single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), L1 and GPS ICA (red) and dual-frequency ionosphere-free (green) for mid-latitude station in Noordwijk (doy 172, 2013).
    FIGURE 6b. Vertical GPS positioning error on L1 using single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), L1 and GPS ICA (red) and dual-frequency ionosphere-free (green) for mid-latitude station in Noordwijk (doy 172, 2013).
    FIGURE 6b. Vertical GPS positioning error on L1 using single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), L1 and GPS ICA (red) and dual-frequency ionosphere-free (green) for mid-latitude station in Noordwijk (doy 172, 2013).
    FIGURE 7a. Horizontal GPS positioning error on L1 and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), L1 and GPS ICA (red) and dual-frequency ionosphere-free (green) for low-latitude station in Malindi (doy 172, 2013).
    FIGURE 7a. Horizontal GPS positioning error on L1 and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), L1 and GPS ICA (red) and dual-frequency ionosphere-free (green) for low-latitude station in Malindi (doy 172, 2013).
    FIGURE 7b. Vertical GPS positioning error on L1 and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), L1 and GPS ICA (red) and dual-frequency ionosphere-free (green) for low-latitude station in Malindi (doy 172, 2013).
    FIGURE 7b. Vertical GPS positioning error on L1 and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), L1 and GPS ICA (red) and dual-frequency ionosphere-free (green) for low-latitude station in Malindi (doy 172, 2013).

    Positioning domain analysis with Galileo-only observations using the four Galileo IOV satellites, and applying the NeQuick G correction, was evaluated for a station in Washington, D.C., for doy 245, 2013, including E1-only, E5a-only, and dual-frequency E1-E5a ionosphere-free observations. (E1 is centered at the GPS L1 frequency, while E5a is centered at the GPS L5 frequency.)  These results are presented in FIGURE 8. The single-frequency positioning performance is considered promising considering the limited number of satellites.

    FIGURE 8a. Horizontal Galileo IOV positioning error on E1 and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), E5a and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (red) and dual-frequency E1-E5a ionosphere-free (green) for mid-latitude station in Washington (doy 245, 2013).
    FIGURE 8a. Horizontal Galileo IOV positioning error on E1 and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), E5a and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (red) and dual-frequency E1-E5a ionosphere-free (green) for mid-latitude station in Washington (doy 245, 2013).
    FIGURE 8b. Vertical Galileo IOV positioning error on E1 and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), E5a and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (red) and dual-frequency E1-E5a ionosphere-free (green) for mid-latitude station in Washington (doy 245, 2013).
    FIGURE 8b. Vertical Galileo IOV positioning error on E1 and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (blue), E5a and single-frequency NeQuick G correction (red) and dual-frequency E1-E5a ionosphere-free (green) for mid-latitude station in Washington (doy 245, 2013).

    Conclusions

    The performance of the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric correction algorithm, based on NeQuick G, was evaluated using the broadcast navigation messages from the four Galileo IOV satellites, both in correction capability and in the positioning domain for the period April 2013 to March 2014. Despite the reduced infrastructure (broadcast ionospheric parameters estimated using only the IOV satellites at a limited number of monitoring stations), the performance shows promising results, in particular for low-latitude regions where the ionosphere is more problematic and, as expected, it has been confirmed that the correction performance is correlated with solar activity.

    Acknowledgments

    The NeQuick electron density model was developed by the Abdus Salam International Center of Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, and the University of Graz in Austria. The adaptation of NeQuick for the Galileo single-frequency ionospheric correction algorithm (NeQuick G) was performed by ESA and involved the original developers of NeQuick and other European ionospheric scientists under various ESA projects.

    Note to Manufacturers

    The publication of the NeQuick G model and the Galileo single-frequency correction algorithm is under preparation for public release by the European Commission.


    ROBERTO PRIETO-CERDEIRA is a propagation engineer in the European Space Agency (ESA) at the European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC) in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, responsible for the activities related to radiowave propagation for GNSS and satellite mobile communications.

    RAUL ORUS-PEREZ is a propagation engineer at ESTEC, working on activities related to radiowave propagation in the troposphere and ionosphere for GNSS and other ESA projects.

    EDWARD BREEUWER is the system integration and verification manager in the Galileo Project Office at ESTEC, responsible for the organization and coordination of all testing activities at the system level. He had overall responsibility for the IOV test campaign.

    RAFAEL LUCAS-RODRIGUEZ is the Galileo Services Engineering Manager for the Galileo project at ESTEC.

    MARCO FALCONE is the System Manager in the Galileo Project Office at ESTEC.


    FURTHER READING

    • Development of NeQuick Ionospheric Model

    “A New Version of the NeQuick Ionosphere Electron Density Model” by B. Nava, P. Coïsson, and S.M. Radicella in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 70, No. 15, December 2008, pp. 1856–1862, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2008.01.015.

    “A Family of Ionospheric Models for Different Uses” by G. Hochegger, B. Nava, S.M. Radicella, and R. Leitinger in Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part C: Solar, Terrestrial & Planetary Science, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2000, pp. 307–310, doi : 10.1016/S1464-1917(00)00022-2.

    “An Analytical Model of the Electron Density Profile in the Ionosphere” by G. Di Giovanni and S.M. Radicella in Advances in Space Research, Vol. 10, No. 11, 1990, pp. 27–30, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(90)90301-F.

    • Evaluation of the Galileo Single-Frequency Ionospheric Model

    “Assessment of NeQuick Ionospheric Model for Galileo Single-Frequency Users” by A. Angrisano, S. Gaglione, C. Giola, M. Massaro, and U. Robustelli in Acta Geophysica, Vol. 61, No. 6, December 2013, pp. 1457–1476, doi: 10.2478/s11600-013-0116-2.

    Ionosphere Modelling for Galileo Single Frequency Users by B. Bidaine, Ph.D. thesis, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium, October 2012.

    “GIOVE-A Experimentation Campaign: Ionospheric Related Data Analysis” by R. Orus and R. Prieto-Cerdeira in Proceedings of NAVITEC 2008, the 4th ESA Workshop on Satellite Navigation User Equipment Technologies: GNSS User Technologies in the Sensor Fusion Era, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, December 10–12, 2008.

    “Assessment of the Ionospheric Correction Algorithm for GALILEO Single Frequency Receivers” by R. Prieto-Cerdeira, R. Orus, and B. Arbesser-Rastburg in Proceedings of NAVITEC 2006, the 3rd ESA Workshop on Satellite Navigation User Equipment Technologies, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, December 11–13, 2006.

    “Advanced Ionospheric Modelling for GNSS Single Frequency Users” by M.A Aragón Ángel and F. Amarillo Fernández in the Proceedings of PLANS 2006, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers / Institute of Navigation Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, San Diego, California, April 24–27, 2006, pp. 110–120, doi: 10.1109/PLANS.2006.1650594.

    • GPS Ionospheric Model

    “Ionospheric Time-delay Algorithm for Single-frequency GPS Users” by J.A. Klobuchar in IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. AES-23, No. 3, May 1987, pp. 325–331, doi: 10.1109/TAES.1987.310829

    Ionospheric Effects on GPS” by J.A. Klobuchar in GPS World, Vol. 2, No. 4, April 1991, pp. 48–51.

    • Ionospheric Effects on GNSS

    GPS, the Ionosphere, and the Solar Maximum” by R.B. Langley in GPS World, Vol. 11, No. 7, July 2000, pp. 44–49.

    • International GNSS Service Ionosphere Map Exchange Format

    IONEX: The IONosphere Map EXchange Format Version 1 by S. Schaer, W. Gurtner, and J. Feltens, February 25, 1998.

  • Test Shows Galileo Increases Accuracy of Location-Based Services

    The European GNSS Agency (GSA) and Rx Networks Inc., a mobile location technology and services company, announced the results of tests conducted by the company measuring the performance of Galileo when used in various combinations with GPS and GLONASS.

    Tests were conducted in real-world environments, including urban canyons and indoors. These environments pose significant challenges to location accuracy due to multipath and obstructed views of satellites. Each test consisted of a three-hour data capture of GNSS signals, which was later replayed to produce hundreds of fixes using a multi-constellation GNSS receiver from STMicroelectronics.

    The results showed that using Galileo with one or more other GNSS constellations provides significantly more accurate location fixes compared to GPS alone, when indoors or in urban canyons. As expected, the GPS+Galileo combination did not exceed the performance of GPS+GLONASS, due primarily to there only being four Galileo satellites available at the time of the testing. It is expected that, as more Galileo satellites are launched, the combination of Galileo with GPS will show further improvements in performance, GSA and RX Networks said.

    According to Gian-Gherado Calini, head of Market Development at the GSA, “Dual-constellation GNSS designs are the standard for many smartphones and other devices. The combination of GPS and Galileo provides a robust solution and is expected to offer performance that will meet or exceed end-user expectations.”

    “The results should be encouraging to any GNSS chipset manufacturer who is considering adding Galileo as a competitive differentiator,” said Adrian Stimpson, senior vice president of Sales and Marketing, Rx Networks.

    Test Results

    Recent test results confirm that Galileo significantly improves accuracy in challenging environments:

    GSA-Positive-Test-Results-27-May

    The tables above show the summary results for various scenarios and constellation combinations. The GPS row shows the absolute 2D errors in meters. All other rows show the improvement (+) or degradation (-) in meters and percentages relative to GPS-only fixes. All measurements are within the 95th percentile.

  • GPS/GLONASS Dispute: CEO Clarifies Misunderstandings

    GPS/GLONASS Dispute: CEO Clarifies Misunderstandings

    Javad Ashjaee
    Javad Ashjaee

    “Use any opportunity to create friendship and peace,” urged Javad Ashjaee, president and CEO of JAVAD GNSS, in a May 23 conversation with journalists. He decried the recent controversy about monitoring stations on both U.S. and Russian soil, saying it was based in misinformation and misinterpretations, inflated by a political crisis in a completely different area. “This [GNSS] is a good thing, that for 25 years kept us together. And if you see, there are lots of high-level meetings between U.S. and Russian officials, they are all very friendly meetings.”

    A transcription of his remarks appears here, below the following main points and clarifications that he wished to make:

    • Earlier this year, Russia sought GLONASS monitoring stations in the United States, not for uploading any data, but for monitoring GLONASS satellites to provide more accurate orbit and clock information, for the free and open benefit of all users.

    • The Russian general who threatened to close down monitoring stations on Russian soil that contribute data to the International GNSS Service was immediately and roundly criticized by Russian scientists and surveyors.  The general subsequently retracted his remarks.

    • The 11-hour GLONASS outage on April 1 was not due to a wait for all satellites to pass over ground control stations on Russian soil to receive a fresh upload of data.  GLONASS has the capability (as does GPS) to make such updates via inter-satellite communication. The delay was caused by the time it took to find the bug in the erroneous software that had been uploaded, and to correct it.

    • Ashjaee also noted that “No military activity requires millimeter accuracy. It is only scientific applications for humanitarian tasks that require millimeter accuracy.  Needing more monitoring stations, such as the IGS stations, is only for that purpose.”

    The Background

    Javad Ashjaee, founder and CEO of JAVAD GNSS, contacted GPS World on May 20 with a message: “I had a discussion today with the head of the GLONASS program in RosKosmos regarding the tracking sites that they wanted to establish in the United States, and the subsequent events. What has been published in most U.S. media is far from the truth. It is time that we contribute to defusing problems rather than putting more fuel on the fire. The world has enough problems already.”

    The Full Statement

    This is the story of GPS/GLONASS. It also gives some insight as to how things get out of control, and much, much bigger issues like war and things like Ukraine  get created. It is just a tiny, simple example.

    When I first heard the issue of GLONASS about 25 years ago and was invited by RosKosmos to Moscow, I didn’t think of Communism or anything political, I thought “30 satellites free, that they’re willing to give to the world, free of charge.” That’s how I got excited. Recently, GPS World published a wonderful history of the growing development of GLONASS and GPS.

    What bothers me now is some negative reactions that I see towards GLONASS. It seems that when they see something negative about GLONASS, they enjoy it. In the reports, read between the lines. When there is a problem with GLONASS, you sense some sort of happiness. There is something of “them versus us.”

    There was the question, “Why do they need things in our country? Don’t they have them in their country?”

    When people don’t know each other, they fear and they create fear.

    One thing we should look at: GLONASS is good for all of us. As President Reagan offered GPS free of charge to the world, and everybody applauded him — the Russians have done the same thing. In Oklahoma, California, everywhere, farmers and surveyors are using GLONASS free of charge, the same as GPS.  And GLONASS has been better, and I emphasize, it has been better because they didn’t encrypt their code so that we had to go behind and decipher and decrypt and all the trouble that we went to during the past 20 years, because GPS didn’t think that we need carrier phase.

    GLONASS is good for America, for the world, as is GPS. If there is a problem with GLONASS, we must be unhappy, as we are unhappy when there is a problem with GPS. And if we can help GLONASS, we must help GLONASS. There is nothing to fear about war, nobody needs [millimeter-level] accuracy of GPS or GLONASS if there is a war between super-powers.

    We should all want GLONASS to give precise information. We care about centimeter-level accuracy, the military doesn’t. Five-meter accuracy is good enough for them. To improve the precise-orbit information of GLONASS is the concern of surveyors and those that need precision GPS.

    Now, what’s the issue? GLONASS needs 50 reference stations all around the world to monitor the orbits of its satellites, to make the precise-orbit information [furnished to users] better. Not to upload information to the satellites. For this, one station is enough, for both GPS and GLONASS, because both have inter-satellite connections that can do this.

    There was speculation in early April that it took GLONASS 11 hours to correct a software bug because it took that long for all the satellites to pass over a control station on Russian soil. This was not the case, I have learned from conversations with their engineers and with the head person responsible for all of this. One engineer made a mistake and uploaded the wrong software. Until they could find it and debug it — and it took them 11 hours to do so — they could not upload correct software to the satellites.

    What they are asking for from the United States is not an upload station. They need as many [globally-distributed] monitoring stations as possible; 50 is good.

    The International GNSS Service (IGS) has 300. To have a good orbit determination for scientific work, to get to the depth of centimeter- or millimeter-level accuracy, the objectives of IGS reports is to have 200 or 300 monitoring stations.  For military work, three or four is enough.

    Russia already has more than 50 monitoring stations. They use IGS stations. They didn’t need to ask for anything. Even [data from] the units we have in our San Jose office is available to everybody.

    So I asked the GLONASS people, “Why did you ask? You have [access to more than] 200 monitoring stations!”

    This was the issue: it was only political. When RosKosmos made internal presentations in Russia to their [government and military] decision-makers, they were asked, “OK, these stations are controlled by who?” By the IGS, they answered. They were told “You must have stations under Russian control.”

    I explained to them that IGS stations, for them, are more convenient and more secure. If President Obama told the IGS, told Stanford University and 200 other universities, to turn off their IGS stations, there would be a lot of disagreement!  President Obama could turn off Russian stations on U.S. soil.  I told them, IGS stations are more convenient and more secure for you than your own stations, and they understood.  They are not pushing for it, they said those officials on the top, they know nothing. They were asking that we must have five stations under our control.

    If you understand this: that the issue was [Russian internal] political, that they don’t need anything.  They already get the precise orbit data from IGS stations.

    Now, the second part or episode of this problem: when a Russian general heard that the United States said “No” to the request for Russian-controlled monitoring stations on U.S. soil, he said “Oh, now they don’t let us do this? We will turn off their stations in Russia.” All surveyors and all scientists in Russia jumped at that general, and he retracted what he had said.

    But people who didn’t understand this [that IGS-participating stations in Russia have nothing to do with controlling GPS satellites or supplying GPS data to users], they put their own statements in the press, they added fuel to the fire.

    The Q&A

    When asked how surveyors in Oklahoma could help GLONASS, as he had urged, Ashjaee replied “They can write to their senators and ask, why didn’t you let monitoring stations be in the heart of Oklahoma too?”

    Afterthought

    Once the first version of this online story was posted, Javad Ashjaee sent in this further comment:

    “Part of my admiration for the GLONASS team is that they managed to pull this project off amidst their worst economical, social, and political times. Compare their situation with GPS that had a huge budget (and still ran way over budget) and with Galileo that took several rich countries to put the budgets and technology together. GLONASS also offered this free and unrestricted service to the world without making any political gestures. No encryption of codes and no selective availability either.

    “There is an abundance of opportunities to create hostility, and there are enough people to promote it. Situations like this are rare that we can grasp the opportunity to promote friendship.”

     

  • GPS IIF-6 Launch Tracked by GPS, Not Radar

    Friday’s launch of a Delta 4 rocket carrying the latest GPS satellite was tracked via GPS itself instead of by radar, reports Spaceflight Now in an article.

    United Launch Alliance’s Atlas and Delta rockets are transitioning to GPS metric tracking for range safety functions, which protect the public and property should a launch vehicle veer off course. The move is a money-saving upgrade to the military’s aging range infrastructure.

    A special avionics system on the launcher transmitted the location. For decades, most rockets launching from Cape Canaveral, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, have been tracked by C-band radar.

  • GPS IIF-6 Launched into Orbit Following Weather Delay

    GPS IIF-6 Launched into Orbit Following Weather Delay

    div_gpsiif6_l3517201433120AM63

    The sixth GPS Block IIF satellite was successfully launched Friday at 8:03 p.m. local time. Built by Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems of El Segundo, California, GPS IIF-6 launched aboard a United Launch Alliance Delta 4 rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

    The launch was originally planned for Thursday evening, but bad weather led to a 24-hour hold. One hour remained in the countdown when the launch was scrubbed.

    Two more GPS IIF satellites are scheduled to launch before the end of the year.

    Below is a video of the launch.

    Here are launch highlights.

    This patch commemorates the launch of GPS IIF-6, nicknamed Rigel.
    This patch commemorates the launch of GPS IIF-6, nicknamed Rigel.

    GPS IIF-6 is nicknamed Rigel. All of the Block II-F satellites have been named after stars. Rigel is is the brightest star in the constellation Orion and the seventh brightest star in the night sky, with a visual magnitude of 0.12.

    In the patch commemorating the launch, Orion is depicted with an alligator head. This is in reference to the “Night Gators,” the part of the launch team that is responsible for moving payloads to the launch pad, which has typically occurred at night.

    A slideshow of photos from United Launch Alliance:

    A slideshow of images from Spaceflight Now.

    Innovation Editor Richard Langley helped compile this report.

  • Russian Proton-M Crashes, Loses Another Payload

    In 2013, Russia lost three GLONASS satellites when their launch aboard a Proton-M rocket went awry, sending the satellites crashing into the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan instead of aloft into space. Before that, in 2010, three other GLONASS satellites ended up in the Pacific Ocean aboard a Proton-M rocket.

    This week, on  May 15, another Proton-M satellite crashed, this time with the Ekspress-AM4R telecommunications satellite aboard.

    Launch of the Proton-M rocket took place from Launch Pad 39 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome at 21:42 GMT. However, an unspecified failure was noted during third stage flight. The rocket and satellite are lost, according to a NASA Spaceflight article.

  • CGSIC Issues Notice on Problem with Certain GPS Devices

    Flawed processing of GPS satellite data in some GPS receiver chipsets has caused concern, but the problem is not with the GPS constellation itself. “SVN 64 broadcasts a data message that clearly indicates SVN 64 is unusable for navigation. Nevertheless, the U.S. government has confirmed that certain GPS receivers are using data from SVN 64, in violation of GPS interface specifications, resulting in outages or corrupted, inaccurate position calculations,” Executive Secretariat Rick Hamilton, Civil GPS Service Interface Committee (CGSIC), said in a May 15 message.

    Read the full text of the message below.


    Known Problem with Certain GPS Devices

    May 15, 2014

    Recently, many GPS users have reported intermittent GPS outages in their devices.  After investigating, the U.S. government has linked the problem to flawed processing of GPS satellite data within certain GPS receiver chipsets.  The GPS satellite service continues to function as designed and is fully operational and available worldwide.

    The problem affects only user equipment that erroneously ignores the satellite health status information broadcast from every GPS satellite.  The problem is not related to the April 28, 2014, activation of civil navigation messages on the GPS L2C and L5 signals.

    Since March 15, 2014, the Air Force has been conducting functional checkout on a GPS satellite, designated Space Vehicle Number (SVN) 64. SVN 64 broadcasts a data message that clearly indicates SVN 64 is unusable for navigation. Nevertheless, the U.S. government has confirmed that certain GPS receivers are using data from SVN 64, in violation of GPS interface specifications, resulting in outages or corrupted, inaccurate position calculations.

    The Air Force testing is scheduled to end in mid-May 2014 at which time SVN 64 will begin normal operation.  At that point, these problems may stop occurring. Meanwhile, the U.S. government urges all GPS device makers to review their products for compliance with the GPS interface specifications, and if necessary, to issue software/firmware updates to users as soon as possible. View specifications.

    Users experiencing GPS outages should check with their device manufacturers for available software/firmware updates.  In addition, any civil user seeing unusual behavior in GPS user equipment should report it to the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center (NAVCEN).  Aviation users should file reports consistent with FAA-approved procedures. Military users seeing unusual behavior should report it the GPS Operations Center (GPSOC).

    Please direct any civil user questions to NAVCEN at (703) 313-5900,
    http://www.navcen.uscg.gov
    Please direct any military user questions to the GPSOC at (719)
    567-2541, DSN: 560-2541,
    [email protected]  https://gps.afspc.af.mil
    Military alternate: Joint Space Operations Center, (805) 606-3514,
    DSN: 276-3514, [email protected]


    See also: Technical explanation for device makers (PDF)

    V/R
    Rick Hamilton
    CGSIC Executive Secretariat
    GPS Information Analysis Team Lead
    USCG Navigation Center
    703-313-5930

  • Disruption in Australia Traced to User Equipment

    User equipment incorrectly interpreting data from a satellite set “unhealthy” led to an apparent constellation outage for roughly 1,000 fleet vehicles across Australia in April. The problem was traced to the way a GPS/telecomm chip reacted to an extended navigation test aboard SVN-49, having to do with the recently launched IIF satellite, SVN-64.

    Although SVN-49 was set unhealthy at the time, the integrator-equipped fleet vehicles across the continent experienced periods of several hours without satellite visibility, in unobscured environments.

    The U.S. Air Force GPS Operations Center reported that in mid-May tests, “PRN 30 [was] broadcasting almanac datasets that do not reflect constellation changes that occurred since it was last uploaded with navigation message data.  [. . . ] The utilization of these almanacs in a manner that regards the time of week, but neglects or mishandles the week number (effectively executing as if the current week number is the week number associated with these almanac parameters), will result in an increasing error in visibility determination and other almanac based estimations (elevation/azimuth, Doppler shift, SV clock offset from GPS time, etc) as the dataset’s actual week offset from the current week increases.”

    The situation occurred once previously,  in 2011 with Mercedes in Europe. The problem was traced to chips from the same manufacturer, installed by the car-maker’s integrator partner, also misinterpreting data from a satellite set unhealthy while broadcasting system test data.

  • GPS IIF-6 Launch Delayed until Friday Night

    Update: The launch of the GPS IIF-6 satellite has been delayed one day due to bad weather.


    Another GPS IIF satellite is expected to lift off aboard a United Launch Alliance Delta 4 rocket from Cape Canaveral at 8:08 p.m. EDT May 15 at the opening of an 18-minute launch window.

    The satellite, designated GPS IIF-6 and built by Boeing, is one of the next-generation GPS satellites, incorporating  improvements to provide greater accuracy, increased signals, and enhanced performance for users. According to Boeing, each GPS IIF satellite has:

    • greater navigational accuracy through improvements in atomic clock technology.
    • a new civilian L5 signal to aid commercial aviation and search and rescue operations.
    • improved military signal and variable power for better resistance to jamming in hostile environments.
    • a 12-year design life providing long-term service and reduced operating costs.
    • an on-orbit, reprogrammable processor that can receive software uploads for improved system operation.

    GPS IIF-6 will be the United Launch Alliance’s fifth launch of 2014 and 82nd overall. It also will mark the 26th flight of the Delta IV launch vehicle since its inaugural flight in November 2002.

    ULA will provide a live webcast of the launch, beginning at 7:48 p.m. EDT. Also, those interested can hear updates to the launch countdown via phone, by dialing the ULA launch hotline at 1-877-852-4321, or join the conversation at www.facebook.com/ulalaunch and twitter.com/ulalaunch, hashtag #GPSIIF6.

     

  • Next Galileo Satellites Arrive in French Guiana

    Next Galileo Satellites Arrive in French Guiana

    Europe’s next two Galileo satellites are unloaded from the Boeing 747 cargo aircraft at Cayenne. The two satellites are scheduled to be launched together by Soyuz from Europe’s Spaceport this summer.
    Europe’s next two Galileo satellites are unloaded from the Boeing 747 cargo aircraft at Cayenne. The two satellites are scheduled to be launched together by Soyuz from Europe’s Spaceport this summer.

    The first two Galileo Full Operational Capability (FOC) satellites arrived safely at a clean room in Kourou, French Guiana, at 20:00 on Wednesday, May 7, in preparation for launch this summer.

    Named “Doresa” and “Milena,” the two Galileo FOC satellites arrived at the Félix Éboué international airport in French Guiana at 02:00 local time. They spent the day in an airlock to acclimatize before being taken to their new home, the S1A clean room, where they could be safely unpacked to begin the launch campaign.

    Europe’s two latest Galileo navigation satellites touched down at Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana packed safely within protective and environmentally controlled containers. The satellites were carried across the Atlantic aboard a 747 cargo carrier, according to the European Space Agency.

    Manufactured by OHB in Bremen, Germany, with navigation payloads contributed by Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. in Guildford, UK, these satellites – the first of 22 full-capability models — had spent several months at ESA’s Technical Centre, ESTEC, in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, where they underwent exhaustive testing in simulated space conditions.

    “Adam”, the third Galileo FOC satellite is currently undergoing testing under space conditions at ESTEC. The fourth Galileo FOC satellite, “Anastacia,” will begin final testing at OHB in Bremen before being shipped to ESTEC. The Galileo satellites are named for the children who won a painting competition organized by the European Commission in 2011.

    After successfully passing the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) last week, Doresa and Milena were released for shipment to the French overseas department. “Thanks to the good collaboration between the participating industrial teams and the experts at the European Space Agency ESA as our customer, OHB was able to successfully finish the FRR,” says OHB’s Director of Navigation Wolfgang Paetsch who will be personally overseeing the launch preparations in Kourou.

    On May 5, the two satellites left on a pair of lorries for Frankfurt Airport in Germany, from where they flew the following evening. After landing in French Guiana, the satellites were  driven to the clean room. The pair will be launched together aboard a Soyuz rocket, joining the four Galileos already in orbit. This initial quartet — the minimum number needed for achieving a position fix — has demonstrated the overall system works as planned, while also serving as the operational nucleus of the coming full constellation.

    “Similar arrival scenes should become familiar over the next couple of years,” said Giuliano Gatti, Head of ESA’s Galileo Space Segment Procurement Office. “These first two Full Operational Capability satellites are effectively preparing the way for the rest of the constellation, allowing the final validation of assembly, testing and launch preparation procedures. A steady stream of satellites is foreseen, coming from OHB to ESTEC for acceptance testing and then on to French Guiana. Thanks to the preparatory work done with these pioneer satellites, future Galileos will be processed more rapidly.”

    The definition, development and in-orbit validation phases of the Galileo programme were carried out by ESA and co-funded by ESA and the EU. The Full Operational Capability phase is managed and fully funded by the European Commission. The commission and ESA have signed a delegation agreement by which ESA acts as design and procurement agent on behalf of the commission. OHB System is the industrial prime contractor responsible for the total of 22 Galileo FOC satellites. 

    The two Galileo FOC satellites were enclosed in protective, air-conditioned containers for their flight.
    The two Galileo FOC satellites were enclosed in protective, air-conditioned containers for their flight.
    “Doresa” and “Milena” head to the clean room.
    “Doresa” and “Milena” head to the clean room.
    The two satellites in the clean room.
    The two satellites in the clean room.
    Dorese and Milena rest side by side in  clean room S1A.
    Dorese and Milena rest side by side in clean room S1A.
  • The System: GLONASS Fumbles Forward

    The System: GLONASS Fumbles Forward

    GLONASS PLOT from the Roscosmos GLONASS Information-Analytical Centre, showing the 12-hour outage, with full service eventually restored on April 2.
    GLONASS PLOT from the Roscosmos GLONASS Information-Analytical Centre, showing the 12-hour outage, with full service eventually restored on April 2.

    Two April Disruptions Furnish Fodder for Multi-GNSS Receivers and Alternative PNT

    In an unprecedented total disruption of a fully operational GNSS constellation, all satellites in the Russian GLONASS broadcast corrupt information for 11 hours, from just past midnight until noon Russian time (UTC+4) on April 2 (or 5 p.m. on April 1 to 4  a.m. April 2, U.S. Eastern time). This rendered the system completely unusable to all worldwide GLONASS receivers. Full service was subsequently restored.

    “Bad ephemerides were uploaded to satellites. Those bad ephemerides became active at 1:00 a.m. Moscow time,” reported one knowledgeable source. GLONASS navigation messages contain, as they do for every GNSS in orbit, ephemeris data used to calculate the position of each satellite in orbit, and information about the time and status of the entire satellite constellation (almanac); user receivers on the ground processed this data to compute their precise position.

    The GLONASS fix could not take effect until each satellite in turn could be reset, during its pass over control stations in Russian territory, in the Northern Hemisphere, thus taking nearly 12 hours.

    During the outage, CEO Neil Vancans of Altus Positioning Systems reported “We are currently experiencing calls from customers all over the world who are experiencing GLONASS ‘outages’ and we have advised customers to switch GLONASS tracking off on our receivers.”

    Such a — possibly human, possibly computer-generated — error could conceivably occur with GPS, Galileo, or BeiDou. “Another reason to have backups,” mused Richard Langley of the University of New Brunswick. “And not just other GNSS.”

    Trouble Chronolog. The constellation suffered a second failure two weeks later. On April 14, eight GLONASS satellites were simultaneously set unhealthy for about half an hour, meaning that most GLONASS or multi-constellation receivers would have ignored those satellites in positioning computations. In addition, one other satellite in the fleet was out of commission undergoing maintenance. This might have left too few healthy satellites to compute GLONASS-only receiver positions in some locations.

    The two blackouts followed two other high-profile disasters: the destruction-upon-launch of three new GLONASS satellites in July 2013, and the Pacific drowning-upon-launch of three satellites in December 2010.

    Internal Dialog. The semi-official Russian news daily Izvestia (“Truth”) reported that the loss of service was inconsequential for Russian users. Loose translation courtesy of Google:

    “Temporary GLONASS failure has not led to tangible consequences for consumers of services because chip manufacturing exclusively with GLONASS for the mass market is practically nil: there are chips that work only with the GPS signals, and there are those that see both GPS and GLONASS.”

    In other words, there are practically no mass-market devices, even in Russia, that use exclusively GLONASS.

    “In any case, the failure of the entire system for a long period is a serious blow to the image of GLONASS, especially in a situation where Russia has made efforts to promote domestic navigation system to external markets. Plus in 2012, the Russian government officially promised to maintain the characteristics of the international community GLONASS at the proper level for 15 years.”

    Industry View, Multi-GNSS. During the first outage, chip company Broadcom was conicidentally conducting multi-constellation receiver tests in Asia. Frank van Diggelen, the company’s chief GNSS scientist, stated, “We have definitive data to show how a multi-constellation receiver survives such an outage. Test data coincident with the GLONASS ephemeris disruption show how a GPS/GLONASS/QZSS/BeiDou receiver survives the complete disruption of one of the constellations.”

    A Broadcom 47531receiver tracking GPS/GLONASS/QZSS/BeiDou signals simultaneously and using logic to analyze redundant measurements to check the validity of all measurements successfully identified and removed the bad GLONASS ephemeris, maintaining position continuity and accuracy. Another receiver under test at the same time, tracking only GPS and GLONASS, wandered significantly in its position reports.

    Industry View, Back Up PNT. Calling it an “unprecedented and deeply worrying total disruption…[that] shook the industry,” Locata Corporation reiterated its call for redundant terrestrial systems to back up GNSS in the wake of the outage.

    Nunzio Gambale, Locata CEO, said “We have been telling the industry for years that you cannot have a critically important capability like GPS without also having a backup! What is Plan B if the satellite systems fail? What replaces the space signal when there is a problem? This event should terrify every nation, government, and company that depends on navigation satellites for their business or, in some cases, their very lives.”

    GNSS navigation and timing functions underpin the world’s banking systems, stock exchanges, digital TV and Internet, cell-phone networks, and, in some cases, the national electricity supply, Locata pointed out. GPS, in particular, plays a crucial role in transportation, shipping, and logistics, serving as the enabling technology for critical functions like air traffic control. Reliability is therefore not just important; it is essential across all applications.

    “We ignore the possibility of these ‘Black Swan’ events at our own peril,” added Chris Rizos of the University of New South Wales.

    eLoran Authorization in Progress

    Russia’s April 1 GLONASS blackout occurred, ironically, only hours after the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to preserve infrastructure that could support a backup system for GPS that could be used for critical infrastructure and applications in the event of a similar disaster occurring in the United States.

    The 2014 Coast Guard Authorization Act requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to halt dismantling and disposal of infrastructure that could be used for a terrestrial system during times and in places where GPS is not available.

    DHS had announced in 2008 that it would build such a backup system, but it never did so, and actually began dismantling, destroying, and divesting itself of Loran equipment and properties. The equipment, facilities, and sites could be used to implement a new generation eLoran system for GPS backup, among other applications. Despite strong recommendations to the contrary by its own panel of experts, the Obama administration, DHS, and the Coast Guard moved in 2009 to kill the Loran program.

    Watchdogs. Congress has lately become more visibly concerned about the vulnerability of the nation’s space systems. The 2014 National Defense Authorization Act tasked the administration with reporting on how it was going to provide necessary national security capabilities when space systems were disrupted. More recently, Congressmen Duncan Hunter (Republican, California), chair of the House Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Subcommittee, held a hearing at which he expressed his concern that the nation has no backup for GPS. He also expressed his frustration with the Department of Homeland Security, reporting that “They said they need to do a study about their study.”

    Congressman John Garamendi (Democrat, California), commented “GPS will go down one day. The question is, is there a backup?”

    The legislation passed by the House authorizes DHS to partner with public or private entities to build a system that would not only back up GPS, but also work indoors, underground and underwater — all characteristics of long-wave Loran technology.

    Resilient PNT. Dana Goward, president of the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation, said such a project would be relatively inexpensive. “If the existing equipment and infrastructure are preserved and reused, the system could be restored and put into operation for less than half the cost to dispose of it.”

    “It isn’t an issue of money,” Goward continued. “It is a question of the government taking this problem seriously and acting on it.”

    The foundation has as offered to partner with the government to build the system.

    “Our government has known about this issue for a long time,” Goward said. “At least since 2001. And there has been a standing presidential direction to obtain backup capability since 2004. But for some reason, it hasn’t yet happened.”

    The government’s official website about GPS (www.gps.gov) has recently updated its page on eLoran and Loran-C with a tracking log for Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, which now goes to the Senate.

    IRNSS’s Second of Seven

    India’s Space Research Organisation launched a navigation satellite on April 4. IRNSS-1B is the second of seven that will comprise the first-generation Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS). It joins IRNSS-1A, already in orbit.

    IRNSS will consist of three geostationary satellites and two pairs in inclined geosynchronous orbits. Each IRNSS satellite uses a rubidium-based atomic clock to keep time, transmitting signals on L and S-band frequencies at 1176.45 and 2492.028 megahertz respectively.

    Lag in Recent GPS IIF’s Health Status

    By Richard Langley

    The GPS Block IIF satellite, IIF-5 or SVN64 (PRN30), launched on February 21, had not as of press time been set healthy. Typically, GPS satellites are checked out and made operational within about a month after launch.

    The delay is due to an extended navigation test being performed by the GPS master control station. A navigation upload for SVN64 was performed in March with ephemeris and clock data as usual streching weeks in advance. However, unlike with operational satellites, no further updated uploads have been performed. The aging ephermis and clock data gradually becomes less and less accurate as time goes by, but should degrade gracefully.

    Some observers will have noticed that the received navigation data from SNV64 changes infrequently. Currently, the navigation data changes once per day with an epoch of 13:00 GPS Time, unlike every two hours with operational satellites. And the data fit interval is 26 hours, compared to four hours.

    The test is scheduled to run until mid-May.

     

  • ESA International Summer School Set for July

    The ESA Summer School is scheduled for July 21-31, at the Campus of the Technical University of Ostrava, Czech Republic. The school provides attendees with a comprehensive overview of satellite navigation, starting from the various GNSS, the signals, the processing of the observations in a receiver, and finally determining the position-navigation-time (PNT) solution.

    Lab work will be carried out to give attendees hands-on experience. In addition, lectures on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Patents, as well as on business aspects will be provided. The future of satellite systems will also be discussed. The main emphasis will be on the development of a group project using innovative ideas and covering all aspects, from the idea, business plan, and technical realization to the marketing of the product or service.

    The program is open to graduate students (with a first university degree), Ph.D. candidates, early-stage researchers and young professional willing to broaden their knowledge. International renowned scientists and specialists will give the lectures as well as the practical exercises and lab work.

    The following participants can register for the ESA Summer School:

    • Graduate students (more than 3 years studies)
    • Ph.D. students and postdoctoral researchers (< 35 years)
    • Young engineers and professionals from industry and agencies (< 35 years)

    The number of participants is limited to 50. Early registration (reduced rate) is recommended (first come, first serve).

    For more information on the detailed program, and to register, visit the event website.