GPS World

Category: Opinions

  • Leadership Talks: Is Galileo Real, or Not?

    Leadership Talks: Is Galileo Real, or Not?

    Javad Ashjaee, front left, with colleagues in his Moscow office.
    Javad Ashjaee, front left, with colleagues in his Moscow office.

    Javad Ashjaee (JA) is president and CEO, Javad Navigation Systems. Alan Cameron (AC) interviewed him by phone at his Moscow office.

    AC: What details can you give us about the “new beginning” you mentioned in your May profile?

    JA: Things have changed a lot during the past six years. ASICs, microprocessors, and electronic technology in general have progressed significantly. These advances give us much better fundamental tools to implement new signal processing innovations and to design better and smaller products, while at the same time reducing their cost. With new GPS signals, improved GLONASS, and Galileo on the horizon, there are lots of opportunities and challenges to get me going for many years again. I phrased it as a “new beginning” because in the past six years I was not as productive as I wanted to be, due to situations beyond my control.

    AC: How do you see your “complete independence” playing out in the marketplace?

    JA: Now I can start working on GNSS technology again and hope to make a difference in this field again. The last six years were the darkest years of my professional life. The partnership that I had hoped would be a complementary force in pursuing the most innovative technologies turned out mostly frustrating, and it put stumbling blocks in the way of what I wanted to accomplish. By “complete independence” I mean the contractual limitations have expired, and I am free to pursue new technologies on my own and bring innovations to the marketplace that my team and I feel proud of.

    We have just started this new round of technical development and we are trying to define the technical directions. I hope to bring a completely new generation of GNSS products to the market in the second half of 2007. What keeps me motivated and as excited as my first attempts of 25 years ago is the level of support and encouragement that I receive from all my colleagues, friends, and even some of my competitors.

    AC: What technology challenges are you and your team tackling?

    JA: One of my technology challenges is to bring high-end Galileo into the GPS/GLONASS picture. My first decade of GNSS involved GPS, the second decade GPS+GLONASS, and in the third decade I hope for GPS+GLONASS+Galileo. Of course there are also innovations in signal processing in every one of these navigation systems. As I said earlier, enhancements in the electronic industry, as always, keep pushing us to come up with new products, similar to what you see in the computer and mobile communications industries. The life of any product cannot be longer than two years.

    I’m waiting for the Europeans to tell us what is really their plan for Galileo. I want to focus a lot on Galileo but I should admit that with Galileo I’m partially hopeful, but partially disappointed, too.

    AC: Why are you disappointed about Galileo?

    JA: I basically do not know, or I should say do not understand, the current plan of Galileo as presented; and I could not find anyone who could give reasonable answers to my questions. It is not obvious who the forces behind the Galileo project are, who is going to fund it, and who needs it to the extent that they are willing to pay for it. On several occasions, in different forums I tried to raise such questions and subsequently became convinced that unfortunately my worries and questions regarding Galileo were valid. Let me raise these questions once again here with you. I hope all my worries and suspicions regarding Galileo prove to be false and sincerely hope that Galileo to become a reality soon.

    Despite all the questions and uncertainties about Galileo, but due to good publicity, in many communities Galileo has received much more attention than GLONASS, which already has about 20–25 years of on-orbit history and currently about 16 operational satellites on orbit — and recently, with current oil prices, a solid plan to complete the system soon. Until recently many companies were trying to fight or ignore GLONASS, believing that it was not likely that Russia would complete the system. Now Trimble, NovAtel, and Leica have recently announced that they have GLONASS in their receivers, too.

    The attention given to Galileo, even before they have a first real satellite, is because of the credibility that the Europeans have earned. I hope this credibility continues to grow by providing open information to the public. Unfortunately, in my belief, so far they have not done so.

    One of the issues confronting Galileo is the explanation of its funding and management. It has been said that Galileo will be funded as a private business, but no one has ever provided a business model. When I try to guess about the structure of any business plan based on the information I have received, I conclude that it is very unlikely that it can be funded as such. The fate of Iridium — which did have a detailed business plan but overestimated its number of subscriptions — makes us more worried about Galileo, which does not even have a business plan. Iridium had the support of large, experienced industrial names like Motorola.

    Any company whose stock is being traded publicly will suffer a lot as soon as they announce involvement in any project that does not have a solid business plan. The larger the company, the more vulnerable they are to close scrutiny by stock-market analysts.

    Funding in Doubt

    In providing details on Galileo funding, it was said that most of the Galileo funding will come from bank loans. This makes the issue of a business plan much more urgent and critical for Galileo, especially given the fate of Iridium. Alternatively, the money could come from specific governments. This would easily put an end to the discussion of private funding and give much hope to all of us. I hope this will happen soon.

    There are several other flaws in Galileo’s private financial planning. First, GPS tried to make itself a self-funded program but quickly concluded that it was not feasible. Second, if GPS authorities were wrong, and it could have been done as a self-funded project, now with GPS being offered for free, Galileo has a much tougher time to make it as a private enterprise. Note that GLONASS is also there for free. Can you start a pizza business, when you know the guy next door is giving away pizza for free?

    Third, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will buy Galileo-only receivers, which means Galileo wants to piggy-back itself on GPS and receive money from the operational GPS. In our pizza example, imagine that your pizza shop can sell its pizza only if it can add slices of pizza from the free shop next door! Clearly the shop next door will stop providing you free pizza if it sees you are making money — or it will at least want its share of the profit.

    The progress in GLONASS, also offered free of charge, makes it even harder for Galileo’s private plan to succeed. With 30 GPS and 24 GLONASS satellites, at any given instance we have more than 14 visible satellites. The critical number to have reliable and robust RTK is something like 10 satellites. The additional Galileo satellites are a plus, but the European system cannot survive if it bases its financial plan on riding on the shoulders of GPS (or GPS+GLONASS).

    It short, the Galileo private funding scheme assumes free support from GPS — which means Galileo assumes that U.S. tax payers will continue to fund Galileo.

    I am certain that even if GPS authorities do not object, the U.S. taxpayers will. U.S. citizens and organizations like the U.S. GPS Industry Council will take the issue to the proper authorities.

    By collecting the first license fee from users or manufacturers, Galileo authorities open the door for large international disputes that put the fate of Galileo in question and raise the issue of customer liability, if it is going to be modeled financially as I mentioned earlier.

    In the private business model of sharing profit with GPS, Galileo will be at a disadvantage for many years until they have operational satellites comparable to GPS.

    The current situation of Galileo, as I see it, is that some independent and mostly research-oriented organizations have been able to collect enough money to define signals. We have seen some published information, such as Günter Hein’s article in GPS World (“Galileo Signal and Frequency Design,” June 2003) on the signal structure. But now when the ICD is published, the signal structure is drastically different.

    The Military Question

    Similar to GPS and GLONASS, the need for Galileo mostly comes from military establishments and markets. The two recent wars showed that the benefits of satellite navigation systems are no longer a luxury, but a necessity for any country that possesses a certain level of modernized military. The French government needs its own navigation system to independently market its Exocet missiles and Mirage 2000, for example. The Chinese government also has need for such systems, and this could be the reason that they push to fund and participate in the Galileo project.

    Does this mean France will break from NATO and join forces with China? This brings us to the very difficult question of international alliances, much more serious than the financial and funding issues that I raised earlier. I find it unlikely that the United Kingdom may want an independent navigation system separate from the United States. France may be the only major country that is willing and can afford to fund such system. This is an extremely difficult issue. I cannot think of any country in Western Europe that is pushing for the breakup of NATO.

    This is an order of magnitude more difficulty than money. This is an issue of East-West alignment, and the breakup of NATO, which has many more consequences.

    It is very simple-minded if we think Paris taxi drivers are pushing to have their own system because they do not trust the United States!

    Although the European military should be most concerned about the future of Galileo, they have been absent from all the Galileo conferences that I have attended. The only European military uniforms I have seen were those of a German Air Force brass band that played Mozart songs at the Munich ENC-GNSS conference.

    At best, it seems that some large European companies have teamed up to lead the Galileo project and keep space, control, and user segments under their management and control, and then try to attract money from military sources. This scenario also does not seem to have much chance of success. It is unlikely that military organizations will allow leadership and control of their vital navigation systems to remain in private-sector hands. Under any circumstances, the military organizations will be the real force behind the Galileo even though they may hide it publicly, at least for a while.

    Galileo’s best chance of success is for the French government to pay all or at least most of the costs, and not depend on support from other countries who do not have much vital interest and dependence on a new navigation system. I hope this will happen sooner rather than later.

    Galileo is not going to delay because of technical issues. There is no problem for the Europeans to have a good signal structure, or to launch good satellites. There is enough intelligence in Europe, they can solve those quickly. Financial and, more important, political issues will determine the future of Galileo.

    Will Galileo happen or not? I have no answer. I had a chance to share my thoughts with several prominent authorities. They mostly agreed with my concerns but they said it was politically incorrect for them to even discuss these sensitive issues.

    To go forward, I will work on Galileo and will assume that the Galileo authorities will work with the GPS authorities and will make a playing field such that U.S. GPS manufacturers can have the same benefits from Galileo that Europeans have from GPS. Previously we followed the information that was released unofficially by Galileo (by semi-official authorities) and we made chips to track those signals. Next we will follow the new ICD and we will make receivers based on it.

    Meanwhile we will try to tap whatever legal authorities, the GPS authorities in the U.S., to help us make the playing field level, to make the Europeans give us the same prompt access to information that they give to European organizations, without any charge.

    The United States has been so generous and so open in providing complete and honest GPS information to all, that the first GPS satellite was actually tracked in the UK. Dr. Brad Parkinson noted this point in his keynote speech at the European Navigation Conference in Manchester.

    I was so hopeful and supportive of Galileo in the article I wrote for you some months ago. But as I tried to find information regarding the future of Galileo, I developed serious concerns. I pray for Galileo to become a reality soon.

    AC: What percentage of Javad Navigation Systems’ annual budget is devoted to research and development?

    JA: We do not have a fixed percentage. Developing technology is our first priority and has always been a priority for me. We spend whatever it takes to have the best technology, even if we have to borrow money — though we have never had to. Probably this has been the reason that in all my history of involvement with GPS, the past 25 years, we were profitable every single quarter, because our focus was spending on technology, and giving priority to it. I don’t think there is any other GPS company in the world that can claim profitability for every quarter for 25 years. Our cumulative annual growth in each company was 45 percent. Currently we have a staff of over 100. Our Advanced Theoretical Design team alone consists of more than twelve professors and scientists with more than 200 person-years of experience.

    AC: How can we best navigate the next years of new signals, structures, and so on?

    JA: The main thing is that we request all U.S. GPS authorities to help to make this a level playing field.

    If the Galileo authorities really intend to combine GPS with Galileo for commercial markets, they’d better be as gracious and open as GPS authorities were to them.

    Iridium

    Iridium communications service was launched on November 1, 1998, and went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy on August 13, 1999.

    The system was originally to have 77 active satellites (later reduced to 66) to enable worldwide voice and data communications using handheld devices. Its financial failure was largely due to insufficient demand for the service. The system is currently being used extensively by the U.S. Department of Defense for its communication purposes.

  • NDGPS Heads Toward the Budget Chop Block

    Nationwide Differential GPS (NDGPS) heads toward the budget chop block. Its 2007 allocation has been scaled back to zero.  As in aught, nought, zot.

    NDGPS, also referred to as the Coast Guard differential system, made its first NDGPS broadcast in the early-to-mid-90s. After years of industry talk about real-time DGPS, NDGPS was the first, mostly reliable source of real-time corrections that was free of charge (via your tax dollars).

    Support from the mapping and non-aviation navigation markets pushed the government (the Department of Transportation took the lead) to continue the build-out of the NDGPS network. Each year, more sites were added, and NDGPS became a solid resource for folks wanting a free source of DGPS corrections that delivered meter-level accuracy. They just had to buy the hardware (beacon receiver and antenna) to use it. Today, more than ten years later, there are more than 80 broadcasting sites — and more planned — spread out over the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, providing free DGPS coverage used by hundreds if not thousands of users on a daily basis.

    A successful program?

    Up to and including FY 2006, Congress and the President allocated a substantial annual budget for NDGPS improvements, operations, and maintenance. For example, the FY 2006 budget came to approximately $10 million — half of what was originally requested. Almost $100 million more is needed to complete the network build-out. After that, about $9.2 million is needed annually to operate and maintain the system.

    However, unlike years past, this years budget (FY2007) for NDGPS improvements, operations and maintenance is………………….$0 (zero). The rumor mill says that since there’s no money to operate and maintain, some sites may actually be shut down. That’s not the case according to the Department of Transportation, however.

    “The FY06 budget provides approximately $10 million for the NDGPS program.  These funds will be used to operate and maintain the existing NDGPS system through October 1, 2007”, says Steven Kulm, Director, Office of Pubic Affairs for the DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration.

    So that means no money for new sites that were planned for FY 20007, and no money for developing new technologies such as High Accuracy (HA)-NDGPS.

    Wow, what went wrong?

    The problem facing NDGPS today, in my opinion, is the lack of a “killer app.” In other words it’s a neat tool and serves hundreds (if not thousands) of people on a daily basis, but if it disappeared tomorrow, life would go on. Therefore, when it comes to cutting the budget during tight times, programs like NDGPS are prime targets.

    Now, I’m guessing the DOT may say that PTC (Positive Train Control) may be the killer app for NDGPS because it reportedly will save the railroad industry “billions” each year. That may be so, but if it was that easy to sell, then no one would be hacking away at the relatively puny NDGPS budget.

    Putting the pressure on NDGPS is the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Wide Area Augmentation Service (WAAS) program. Like NDGPS, WAAS is a free government service providing corrections to improve accuracy and reliability of GPS positioning. The FAA began developing WAAS in the mid-90s and it was declared operational in July 2003.

    WAAS has two things going for it that NDGPS doesn’t.

    • A killer app. The future of aviation navigation is based squarely on GPS, and WAAS is an integral part of that program. The FAA is banking so heavily on GPS and has so many initiatives based on GPS, that there is no way it can back its way out of the program…and it shouldn’t. There are so many valuable uses for GPS in aviation that it boggles the mind. Some applications are focused on efficiency (e.g. better traffic control and throughput) and others are safety-of-life driven (e.g. situational awareness such as ADS-B). Because of this, the FY 2007 budget for WAAS is close to $100 million.

    • WAAS is easy to use for non-aviation folks like us. It’s a no-brainer and it comes standard on every GPS receiver you purchase today. Whereas NDGPS requires the use of additional hardware (a 300khz receiver) and a separate antenna, no additional hardware or software is required to use WAAS. Using WAAS is virtually automatic. NDGPS receivers will never reach that level of simplicity. Good quality NDGPS antennas, by their nature, are bulky and I have serious doubts that any company will attempt to design an NDGPS receiver-on-a-chip (some have tried and failed), especially at this late stage of the game. With those two strikes, consumer GPS units will never incorporate NDGPS technology. And thus NDGPS will never achieve mass-market status like WAAS already has.

    Availability

    The foothold that NDGPS-supporters are hanging onto is the issue of the correction availability. Whereas WAAS is satellite-based and is dependent on line-of-sight between the user and the broadcast satellite, NDGPS broadcasts corrections on the 283-325khz band and does not require line-of-site between the user and the transmitter. It can even be received inside some buildings. However, signal propagation is interrupted by rough terrain and in metro areas, and ambient radio interference can interrupt the signal too. Although it’s not a true national service, there are certainly areas where the NDGPS can be received and WAAS can’t. The reverse can be stated also.

    Accuracy

    The NDGPS vs. WAAS debate in the surveying/mapping community has been a lively one this past year. This is due largely to major GPS manufacturers introducing professional mapping GPS receivers that use WAAS to achieve meter-level accuracy. Although NDGPS has the capability of being more accurate than WAAS, meter-level accuracy seems to be good enough for most mapping applications given the additional expense and equipment overhead required to use NDGPS. Think about it: Garmin discontinued their NDGPS receiver product line and now every GPS product they sell is WAAS-enabled.

    Fate

    Clearly, from a funding perspective WAAS has won the battle for now and has NDGPS back on its heels. The next twelve months (or less) will determine the direction of the NDGPS program.

    “At this time, the U.S. Department of Transportation is deliberating how to administer the program in the future.  We anticipate the Administration’s proposed FY08 budget (to be released in early 2007) will provide guidance on what the future of NDGPS will be,” says Kulm.

    The challenge for NDGPS-supporters in the next few months is to not let the purse-string holders forget about NDGPS and its niche applications. If it’s business-as-usual in FY 2007 and the purse-string holders don’t feel the pain, what are the odds they’ll throw money at NDGPS in FY 2008?

    — Eric Gakstatter

  • No Joy in Surveyville

    I have something to say about our mainstay — GPS — and its troubles of late. So many people in the survey/mapping community have asked me when this problem is going to be resolved. The problem is there aren’t enough healthy satellites for surveying community to use.

    I think the GPS decision makers don’t believe there is a problem because
    with a clear sky, you still get a 3D position, anytime, anywhere in the world.
    Herein lies the problem: we don’t usually work in clear-sky environments.
    Neither do consumer GPS users. My Honda Odyssey GPS navigation system doesn’t
    get a GPS position fix nearly as much as it used to.

    (Just to clarify: I’ve spent the past 16 years in the GPS survey/mapping
    industry using many brands of GPS equipment and software. My first ten years
    in GPS were spent as a product manager and the last six years as a GPS user
    and consultant. I’m a non-partisan advocate for the GPS user community.)

    The fact is that GPS has suffered more outages to key satellites (or satellites
    in key orbital slots) in the past year than it has since GPS was declared operational
    in the early 90’s.

    PRN 25 has behaved like a legacy Jaguar automobile for the past 6+ months:
    an hour shut down for maintenance for every hour it has spent operational.
    Of course I’m exaggerating, kind of, but I’m sure you understand
    my point if you’ve been using RTK with any frequency for the past 6+
    months. I reported last month that the next GPS satellite launch (scheduled
    for September ’06) would most likely replace PRN 25 according to the
    Chief GPS Liaison at the USCG, Doug Louden. But I’m beginning to doubt
    this, given the precarious slot that PRN 30 occupies and its surprisingly rapid
    decline in health. PRN 30 is on its last clock from what I understand. It isn’t
    as old (9.5 yrs) as PRN 25 (14 yrs), but it’s still two years past its
    design life.

    Other GPS satellites are significantly past their design life and heading
    for failure. You can’t use RTK a full day with the current GPS constellation
    even with every satellite healthy. Take one out that’s in a key slot
    like PRN 25 or PRN 30 and it gets really ugly.

    I think it’s not unreasonable to ask the GPS JPO for a healthy, reliable
    constellation of GPS satellites.

    Delays in launching replacement satellites have been so significant that GPS
    users have quit asking me about new launches. It looks like only one will be
    launched in 2006 and only one will be launched in 2007 — if the schedule
    doesn’t slip further. This is a far cry from the “three-a-year” launch
    plan laid out a few years ago.

    I don’t believe the GPS JPO thinks there is a problem, but you only
    have to look at the new product introductions to understand that there is.  For
    years, most survey-grade GPS manufacturers ignored GLONASS and thought it would
    go away, and GPS would fill the bill. However, in the last 12 months, the number
    of survey-grade GPS manufacturers offering GPS/GLONASS products has at least
    doubled.

    Meanwhile, GLONASS is pushing forward with an aggressive launch schedule.
    Three in December ‘06, three in Q3 ’07 and three in Q4 ’07.
    Furthermore, the two new GLONASS satellites that are already in orbit are reportedly
    to be declared operational in the next 60 days. Granted, only time will tell
    if they can honor that schedule, but even launching half of what they plan
    would be significant.

    So, I’d like to raise my hand from the back of the classroom and say
    the Survey, Construction and GIS industry segments aren’t happy with
    the way GPS is performing these days.

    — Eric Gakstatter

  • Letters to the Editor – July 2006

    Flex Power

    See “Potential Problems for Users of Modernized GPS Signals in Mixed-Mode Operations” by Eric Gakstatter in The System news section, page 15, June issue.

    Dear Mr. Gakstatter,

    The Navstar GPS Joint Program Office (JPO) appreciates receiving inquiries regarding GPS signals, because it often helps us improve the signal documentation. We are particularly glad to field questions from GPS World because of your ability to “spread the word.”

    We have entered a new era. During the 27 years since the first GPS satellite was launched in 1978, there have been only three navigation signals. When the first Block IIR-M satellite was launched on 25 September 2005, the number of navigation signals doubled with the addition of L2C and M codes on L1 and L2. Block IIF satellites will add L5, and Block III satellites will provide L1C. From the original three signals the number will grow at least to eight, not including the fact that L1C, L2C, L5, and the M codes each have two separate components, a pilot carrier and data. Further complicating the mix is the need to multiplex more than the two original signals on L1 and L2 while maintaining a constant total amplitude but permitting power to be shifted from one signal to another, that is, flex power. Also, instead of only two fixed message structures, now there are many, and the new ones are more flexible than before.

    All of these changes are designed to improve performance, and they will. However, it is inevitable that in the process some confusion will result. For example, IS-GPS-200D addresses the phase relationship between L2P(Y) and L2C in one of the notes in Table 3-III (and similarly in paragraph 3.3.1.5) by stating: “The two carrier components on L2 [L2P(Y) and L2C] may not have the phase quadrature relationship. They may be broadcast on the same phase.” It was expected that this would inform users of the two possible phase relationships. However, only when receivers actually observed a phase change during on-orbit testing of the first IIR-M did the full implication of these few words sink in.

    The purpose of such phase flexibility is to optimize a satellite’s power efficiency throughout its life and for each of its signal configurations. Unlike the past where the C/A and P(Y) phase relationship was defined and fixed, the multitude of new signals and their components may take on different phase relationships from time to time and from satellite generation to generation. This flexibility is needed to achieve the best overall results from signal modernization, but it may impose new tasks on user equipment and on differential messaging services.

    For example, the JPO was not aware that L2C user equipment would employ cross-mode phase measurements between legacy (code-aided cross correlation) phase measurements and direct L2C phase measurements. In a common mode system, a very rare phase shift should cause little or no problem. (One question to commercial users is whether the satellite should be taken out of service briefly during such a phase change.) If cross-mode measurements are used, then the phase relationships must be known. This can be done by messaging, such as having the information in an almanac. However, it probably is better and certainly faster for the user equipment to monitor these relationships.

    The JPO has had a long-standing process for dealing with such issues. It is called the Interface Control Working Group (ICWG). Information about the ICWG, including how to join, is available at: http://gps.losangeles.af.mil/engineering/icwg/. The JPO has long wanted more commercial participation so these types of questions can be discussed and resolved and the specifications improved. We invite you and your readers to participate, especially during this time of rapid signal modernization. Thank you.Respectfully, best regards,

    — Mark C. Crews

    U.S. Air Force, Navstar GPS Chief Engineer

  • Potential Problems for Users of Modernized GPS Signals in Mixed-Mode Operations

    PRN 17, the first IIR-M satellite launched in September 2005, began broadcasting the second GPS civil signal, L2C, in December 2005. PRN 17 is the first in the new generation of GPS satellites with a new feature called flex power. According to the U.S. Air Force, flex power adds the capability for the Department of Defense to increase power on both P- and M-code (both military) signals to defeat low-level enemy jamming.

    When flex power was enabled for testing (for a very short period of time), a problem was observed by certain GPS users. This problem was associated with the definition of the phase relationship between L2C and legacy L2 P/Y. In this scenario, users who are operating L1/L2/L2C GPS equipment, in conjunction with legacy L1/L2 GPS equipment, could have a problem maintaining carrier-phase ambiguity resolution with any modernized satellite operating in modes where signal phase relationships are changing or are unknown.

    This is not just a flex power issue, but a potential issue with any new modernized GPS signal if provisions are not included to inform users in real time of signal phase relationships. This is potentially a long-term problem because there will be a mixed set of modernized/legacy signals for an extended period of time, as well as a mixed set of modernized/legacy user equipment. The important thing is that these potential problems can be fixed by broadcasting appropriate data in the GPS navigation messages in a timely manner.

    This fix to this potential problem would slightly change the GPS user interface specifications and add bits for defining the phase relationship between the modernized and legacy signals. This data would have to be added to both the L1 and L2C signals since, for the time being, there is no data on the L2C signals. For L1C, (in the draft L1C specification) the phase relationship between L1C and L1 C/A has been defined. For L2 and L2C interoperability during modernization, a similar parameter to provide the phase relationship between the L2 P/Y and L2C is needed for mixed equipment processing. (Refer to Section 3.5.4.6 subframe 3, page 7 signal phase of the newly released Draft IS-GPS-800 L1C specification dated April 19, 2006.)

    Another possible solution is for L2C-capable receivers in a network to track both L2C and L2 P/Y simultaneously, to directly measure the phase difference between the two phases. However, the drawback is that the more robust L2C signal will be tracked at times when the legacy L2 P/Y cannot &#151 the main reason for implementing L2C in the first place.

    — Eric Gakstatter
    Contributing editor of the Survey & Construction newsletter

  • Potential Problems for Users of Modernized GPS Signals inMixed-Mode Operations

    When the new flex power feature aboard PRN 17, the first IIR-M GPS satellite,
    was enabled for testing (for a very short period of time), a problem was observed
    by certain GPS users.

    PRN 17, the first IIR-M satellite launched in September 2005, began broadcasting
    the second GPS civil signal, L2C, in December 2005. PRN 17 is the first in
    the new generation of GPS satellites with a new feature called flex power.
    According to the U.S. Air Force, flex power adds the capability for the Department
    of Defense to increase power on both P- and M-code (both military) signals
    to defeat low-level enemy jamming.

    When flex power was enabled for testing (for a very short period of time),
    a problem was observed by certain GPS users. This problem was associated with
    the definition of the phase relationship between L2C and legacy L2 P/Y. In
    this scenario, users who are operating L1/L2/L2C GPS equipment, in conjunction
    with legacy L1/L2 GPS equipment, could have a problem maintaining carrier-phase
    ambiguity resolution with any modernized satellite operating in modes where
    signal phase relationships are changing or are unknown.

    This is not just a flex power issue, but a potential issue with any new modernized
    GPS signal if provisions are not included to inform users in real time of signal
    phase relationships. This is potentially a long-term problem because there
    will be a mixed set of modernized/legacy signals for an extended period of
    time, as well as a mixed set of modernized/legacy user equipment. The important
    thing is that these potential problems can be fixed by broadcasting appropriate
    data in the GPS navigation messages in a timely manner.

    This fix to this potential problem would slightly change the GPS user interface
    specifications and add bits for defining the phase relationship between the
    modernized and legacy signals. This data would have to be added to both the
    L1 and L2C signals since, for the time being, there is no data on the L2C signals.
    For L1C, (in the draft L1C specification) the phase relationship between L1C
    and L1 C/A has been defined. For L2 and L2C interoperability during modernization,
    a similar parameter to provide the phase relationship between the L2 P/Y and
    L2C is needed for mixed equipment processing. (Refer to Section 3.5.4.6 subframe
    3, page 7 signal phase of the newly released Draft IS-GPS-800 L1C specification
    dated April 19, 2006.)

    Another possible solution is for L2C-capable receivers in a network to track
    both L2C and L2 P/Y simultaneously, to directly measure the phase difference
    between the two phases. However, the drawback is that the more robust L2C signal
    will be tracked at times when the legacy L2 P/Y cannot — the main reason
    for implementing L2C in the first place.

  • L2C — not just vanilla GPS anymore

    Welcome to the second edition of GPS World’s Survey & Construction e-newsletter. My name is Eric Gakstatter ([email protected]). I’ve spent the past 16 years in the GPS survey/mapping industry using many brands of GPS equipment and software. My first ten years in GPS were spent as a product manager and the last six years as a GPS user and consultant. I’m a non-partisan advocate for the GPS user community.

    This subject of this month’s column is L2C. It’s not just about vanilla GPS anymore. GPS modernization weighs heavily in future of satellite surveying. What does L2C bring to the table? When do the new features become useful enough to start making equipment purchasing decisions? While some of the answers may be obvious, others may surprise you.

    First of all, I’ll preface this column by noting that L2C is only a small part of the Global Navigation Satellite System picture that includes L5, GPSIII,  Glonass (Russia’s satellite system) and Galileo (Europe’s satellite system). Discussing all of the GNSS components is too much for one column so I’ll be chipping away at all of them in the coming months.

    Last September (’05) was a big step for GPS modernization when the first IIR-M satellite was launched…starting the next phase of GPS with a second civilian signal (L2C). Currently, there is one civilian signal (L1 C/A). L2 was designed for military use…although civilian manufacturers have been very resourceful in developing codeless techniques for utilizing L2; therefore making dual frequency receivers (L1/L2) very useful for the user community.

    Basically, L2C can be viewed as an add-on feature to the existing L2 band. In practical terms, L2C will help in two areas:

    • It will allow for user receivers to more accurately correct for the error that is generated when the GPS signal passes through the Earth’s ionosphere. L2C provides manufacturers with a new code, enabling them to address the ionospheric delay in a more direct manner than the codeless techniques used by today’s dual frequency receivers. It will also open the door for non survey-grade GPS manufacturers to design survey-grade dual frequency receivers at a much lower R&D cost with fewer patent blocks.
    • Contrary to popular belief, the L2C signal is weaker (not stronger) than L1 C/A code. The idea that L2C will “punch through the trees” with a stronger signal is incorrect. What L2C does offer is a more robust code structure with improved error-correcting methods that will allow it to be used more effectively in marginal satellite signal conditions than what we experience today. Just how much it will help will only be known when the satellite constellation is in place and the receivers are developed to optimize it.

    These two enhancements will result in more competition in the survey-grade GPS receiver marketplace because survey-grade dual frequency receivers will be easier to design. With increased competition, it’s reasonable to expect more competitive prices. With L2C, you can also expect GPS to perform better in weaker satellite conditions.

    With the benefits of L2C to the survey/mapping market clearly established, when are we going to be able to use it? Well, it’s going to be awhile. The publicized year of 2010 is not realistic as this point. Educated speculation says that 2012 is more likely. Don’t forget that it’s not just a matter of tossing satellites into orbit. There are control and management systems on the ground that need to be developed, tested and rolled-out to make use of the new signal. After the hype generated last September when the first IIR-M satellite was launched, the delays in the follow-up IIR-M launches have been disappointing. For example, the launch scheduled for 1Q 2006 has been pushed out until September…a full year after the first IIR-M.

    From the launch schedule, you can see it’s a bit early to start making equipment purchasing decisions based on L2C. Yes, I think that manufacturers will do their best to exploit a partial constellation of L2C satellites and perhaps there will be some innovative
    developments in that area, but just note that by the time there is a minimum constellation of L2C satellites in orbit, there will be another two or three generations of receivers that will have been introduced to the market.

    I’m at the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping annual conference this week in Orlando. Look for my report on conference news in next month’s issue.

  • WAAS Clarification

     

    The FAA’s announcement (reported in March GPS World) that WAAS in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada may be significantly inhibited by relocation of WAAS-broadcasting satellite AOR-W before the new PanAmSat becomes fully operational in fall 2006 caused unease in some surveying organizations. Based on tests completed last year, before anyone knew that AOR-W would relocate to 142W longitude, these organizations replaced legacy GPS mapping units using post-processing and the Coast Guard NDGPS with high-performance WAAS-enabled mapping receivers.

    The FAA notice doesn’t tell the full story, however. Two new WAAS broadcasting satellites launched last fall. PanAmSat (133W) began broadcasting in test mode with corrections full-time this March, and Telesat (107W) is scheduled to begin the same mode on or around April 1, 2006. The FAA announcement does not take into account either of these broadcasting satellites.

    If these test signals are considered, there will be no degradation in WAAS visibility. In fact, users in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada will enjoy dual WAAS satellite coverage. WAAS satellite visibility in central and western North America has improved in the past 60 days with the new test signals and relocation of AOR-W.

    However, the FAA won’t certify the accuracy/reliability of the new satellites until after extensive testing. Until then, non-aviation receivers may use the signals at their discretion &#151the same mode WAAS operated in prior to its July 2003 commissioning. Also, non-aviation WAAS receivers may not be configured to use the new test signals; check with the manufacturer.

    &#151 Eric Gakstatter, Editor of GPS World’s new Survey &#38 Construction E-Newsletter

  • Welcome to GPS World’s Survey & Construction Newsletter

    Hello, and welcome to the first issue of GPS World’s Survey & Construction Newsletter. You are encouraged to forward this email to your colleagues, and they in turn are encouraged to sign up for their own — free — subscription.

    I’m Eric Gakstatter ([email protected]), your editor on this resource for the survey and construction communities. I’ve spent the past 16 years in the GPS survey/mapping industry using many brands of GPS equipment and software. My first ten years in GPS were spent as a product manager and the last six years as a GPS user and consultant. I’m a non-partisan advocate for the GPS user community.

    The first subject I’ve selected to discuss with you is the FAA’s WAAS program because of the recent and significant changes that have taken place in this program.

    WAAS UP?

    WAAS is one of the most widely misunderstood GPS technologies of today in the survey/mapping marketplace. Recent WAAS broadcasting satellite launches and a WAAS broadcasting satellite relocation along with vague press releases have further muddied the waters. In the interest of panic-relief for survey/mapping WAAS users, a more prudent, in-depth explanation is warranted.

    Recently, I was on a construction site for a project I’m involved with. It was a park-like setting with a lot of drainage and irrigation being laid. From the beginning, I knew the job superintendent was very comfortable with technology. The younger, lean fellow spoke efficiently, carried a laptop and seemed on top of his game when questioned by various owner’s reps and sub-contractors….he even carried a hand-held GPS mapping receiver that he used to map various structures installed throughout the project.

    Of course, I had to talk with him about his thoughts and perceptions of GPS. A part of the conversation went as follows:

    Me: How accurate has that unit been for you?

    Him: Very accurate. Do you see that little airplane on the screen (he points at the screen)?

    Me (looking at his screen and trying to figure out what he’s talking about): Oh, yes.

    Him: That means there’s an AWACS airplane flying near here sending me corrections. You know, the military airplane with the big antenna on it?

    I sighed deeply as the image my mind had built of this young, high-tech construction superintendent faded away.

    That “little airplane” on the screen he was referring to was an indicator that his GPS receiver was using corrections from a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) satellite.

    WAAS is perhaps one of the most widely misunderstood GPS technologies of today in the survey/mapping marketplace and the above conversation is a typical example.

    Further complicating this is the recent announcement by the FAA that WAAS in the northeastern US and Eastern Canada may be significantly affected by the relocation of AOR-W (the US east coast WAAS broadcasting satellite) before the new PanAmSat will be considered fully operational in Fall 2006. See the FAA announcement at http://gps.faa.gov/programs/waas/non-aviationUsers.htm.

    The FAA announcement set off a panic in some organizations that had recently implemented a significant number of high performance, WAAS-enabled mapping receivers to replace legacy GPS mapping units that used post-processing and the Coast Guard NDGPS system. These organizations based their decisions on performance tests completed last year before anyone knew that AOR-W was going to relocate to 142W longitude instead of 98W longitude as originally announced.

    The rest of the story…

    First of all, two new WAAS broadcasting satellites were launched last Fall. One of them (PanAmSat at 133W longitude) began broadcasting in test mode with corrections full-time this month (March). It is expected that the other (Telesat at 107W longitude) is scheduled to begin broadcasting test mode with corrections full-time on or around April 1, 2006. The FAA announcement does not take into account either of these broadcasting satellites.

    If these test signals are considered, there will be no degradation in WAAS visibility. In fact, users in the Northeastern US and Eastern Canada will enjoy dual WAAS satellite coverage. For example, in Montreal, Quebec the two new WAAS broadcasting satellites will be visible at ~28 degrees and ~12 degrees above the horizon. Before the AOR-W relocation, it was the only WAAS satellite visible and it was at ~36 degrees above the horizon.

    WAAS satellite visibility in the central and western US, Mexico and western Canada has improved dramatically in the past 60 days with the new test signals and relocation of AOR-W. For example, in Portland, Oregon, WAAS satellite POR is visible at ~12 degrees above the horizon. The two new WAAS broadcasting satellites and relocation of AOR-W to 142 degrees west longitude now means that three additional WAAS satellites will be visible at ~32 degrees, ~36 degrees, and ~35 degrees above the horizon in the Pacific Northwest.

    The caveat is that the FAA won’t certify the accuracy/reliability of the new WAAS broadcasting satellites for quite some time after extensive testing. Until that time, non-aviation receivers are free to use the test mode signals at their discretion. This is the same mode that WAAS was operating in prior to it’s July 2003 commissioning. Also, your non-aviation WAAS receiver may or may not be configured to use the new test signals. You should check with the manufacturer of your unit.

    Well, I didn’t have the heart to tell him then there weren’t any AWACS airplanes sending him corrections (although I did tell him later). It’s just one more example I’ve encountered of the misinformation floating around about WAAS among survey/mapping professionals. There is not enough space in this issue to debate the advantages/disadvantages of WAAS for survey/mapping usage, but don’t be so quick to dismiss the technology before you fully investigate it’s performance and consider the recent developments.

  • Galileo, GLONASS, and GPS

    By Javad Ashjaee, President & CEO, Javad Navigation Systems

    The launch of the Galileo test satellite marks another very significant and exciting day in the history of navigation. Just as competition between GPS manufacturers rapidly enhanced technology and performance, the competition between the constellation providers should do the same.

    In 1984 a high-end GPS receiver weighed more than 100 pounds, performed poorly, was very difficult to operate, and came with a price tag of about $200,000. Thanks to competition, a high-end GPS receiver now weighs less than one pound, performs significantly better and with greater ease, and costs less than $5,000.

    The benefits of the competition Galileo will bring are already apparent. I believe that the Galileo project had a significant role in removing Selective Availability (SA) from the GPS signal, or at least expedited it. In fact, the removal of SA was announced at the first conference discussing Galileo. The Galileo project also proved to be a positive influence on the GPS modernization project and encouraged faster development of GLONASS satellites.

    Undoubtedly, competing with GPS was the main reason and force behind the creation of GLONASS. GLONASS, in turn, helped the removal of SA from GPS and encouraged the Galileo project. With Galileo, history may very well repeat itself.

    Galileo Advantages. Galileo has several advantages over its historical counterparts. Galileo benefits from more than 30 years of experience with GPS and 20 years with GLONASS. It should be, and most probably will be, more advanced than GPS and GLONASS from the get go. Galileo also has the luxury of international support in general and that of U.S. GPS officials in particular. In contrast, GLONASS was a project of the Cold War and was, at best, ignored by the West. I witnessed current U.S. support for GLONASS, however, a few months ago when coordinating the meeting between U.S. Department of Defense and Russian officials to discuss common GPS and GLONASS signals. With a solid support system and history on its side, Galileo has a promising future.

    That is not to say that Galileo goes unchallenged. GPS and GLONASS started mostly as military projects. The two recent wars clearly demonstrated the significance of such navigation systems as an essential military component, forcing military powerhouses to compete further and faster. Galileo’ motivation, however, is partly military, partly commercial, and partly pride. Satisfying the commercial motivation is a factor that, in my opinion, could hinder the timely progress and success of Galileo. The one-country support of GPS and GLONASS seems to have expedited the decision-making process. Galileo has scattered decision-making centers but seems to be resolving this disadvantage quickly.

    Galileo Opportunities. From the technical side, I do not see any fundamental problem for the interoperability of GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo. GPS and GLONASS signal structure differences are much more drastic than those of GPS and Galileo. Yet we were able to circumvent GPS-GLONASS technical issues relatively easily. The amazing opportunity is the fact that, with Galileo on the horizon, all existing receivers will be obsolete in a few years, and the challenge of competing to make the best user equipment is enormous. I am excited to begin this new round of competition as soon as technical issues and specifications are finalized.

    The competitive, historical, and technical aspects of Galileo help create the face of the future of navigation. GPS is already an established system. It will continue to improve and serve as the backbone of navigation systems for many years to come. GLONASS, too, is halfway there. Russia has strong motivation to complete and support it, and with the price of oil at the current level, it will prove to be a strong competitor sooner than we may think. The recent launch of three GLONASS satellites is a good signal. Galileo is starting solidly. Will China create a fourth navigation system? It has the need to support its military operation and markets and has the financial might to pay for it. I cannot imagine a fifth system, at least not in this century. Multiple navigation systems operating independently help increase public awareness and confidence and open and expand markets quickly.

    A key factor in the success of GPS was the cooperation between GPS authorities and manufacturers. Technical details were readily available to all GPS manufacturers worldwide. In 1983, during development of the first generation of GPS receivers at Trimble, I had daily phone conversations with then Captain Karl Kovach at the GPS Control Segment to ask questions and give him feedback on GPS satellite performances that I was observing. Availability of cost-effective high-quality receivers brings the fruits of the system to the world.

    A gentleman from a GLONASS-related institute recently described the status of GLONASS as “ constellation of 14 satellites and many thousands of Javad receivers.” Generously giving me credit for my past activities, he also pointed to the importance of open, unbiased cooperation within industry. I hope Galileo’ commercial structure and objectives allow all of us to compete to develop user equipments of the highest quality and lowest cost.

    For the recent launches of Galileo and three GLONASS satellites, congratulations to all of us civilian users!

  • Expert Advice: Unhealthy, Unappreciated, Incompletely Understood: The State of Our System

    By Jules G. McNeff

    The Defense Science Board recently released the long-awaited report of its Task Force on the Future of the Global Positioning System. The Task Force conducted its deliberations during the latter half of 2004 and early 2005, a period of significant behind-the-scenes activity bearing on GPS. These activities included international negotiations and agreement, national policy discussions on GPS management, and considerations affecting GPS governance. After a lengthy Department of Defense internal review process, the report was approved for public release in October.

    The Task Force itself represented a remarkable confluence of talent, including experts in GPS design, in military, civilian, and scientific applications of GPS, and in the inner workings of military, government, and industry operations. The insights and guidance of its co-chairs, Dr. James Schlesinger and Dr. Robert Hermann, with their unique combination of experience and personal credibility, lent enormous gravity to the undertaking. Their product illuminates in many ways the critical role GPS plays in our world. As an opening premise, proved throughout the report, it notes that “GPS is vital to the United States and to the DoD because, as a fundamental information system, it provides a common thread of precise position and time throughout our national security and economic infrastructures.”

    One can remember many previous boards and committees that issued recommendations for GPS, and may have built a semblance of awareness but didn’t lead to tangible action. The result, noted from the beginning by the co-chairs, was that the apparently healthy GPS program wasn’t really all that healthy and that the malaise affected virtually all aspects of the program. They urged and the Task Force responded with discussion and findings specifically intended to be actionable and to address the underlying causes of the malaise, which are rooted in long-standing institutional factors that will require reinvigorated leadership and persistent follow-up to correct.

    The Task Force noted a general lack of awareness of GPS role in the national infrastructure on the part of senior leaders in all areas of government. Although many people are aware of narrow aspects of GPS performance in individual applications, very few are truly aware of the breadth of GPS contributions to the national security and economy, nor of the enabling effects GPS has on critical national infrastructures. The Task Force viewed raising that awareness level among the nation’s senior leadership as key to addressing some of the other problems facing the program. Many of the other problems derive from lack of or misplaced management attention that allowed the components of the system to become unsynchronized.

    Unbalanced attention to satellites at the expense of operational control functions and user equipment, annual diversion of funding from GPS to other programs, and delays among all the services in programming funds to equip military forces with improved user equipment are all symptoms of incomplete understanding of the role of GPS in military missions in general. Delays in making new signal capabilities available to users and reluctance to incorporate civil information sources into GPS constellation management are symptoms of incomplete understanding of the role of GPS in domestic and international civil infrastructures. Dilution of and uncertainty about policy and operational authority and responsibility for GPS are symptoms of insufficient appreciation among the most senior leaders for the critical importance stable, coherent policies and clear lines of communication represent to the consistent operation of GPS as a national resource and international utility.

    This was a full slate of weighty issues, and the Task Force members addressed each in their discussions and findings. The report of their efforts has now been published (www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-10-GPS_Report_Final.pdf) and is being briefed at the highest levels of the Defense Department and in other government offices.

    The recommendations it contains can serve as a prescription to make the Global Positioning System more healthy, robust, and vibrant for all of its military and civilian users and applications around the world. But the prescription will only be effective if the report’s messages are received, understood, accepted, and acted upon by those charged with the responsibility to maintain GPS viability. One cannot overemphasize the importance of firm and systematic implementation of the recommendations coupled with focused, dedicated, and persistent follow-up. Otherwise, this uniquely capable and credible Task Force will have seen its efforts wasted and its findings will become just another report.

    Given the undeniable importance of GPS to both the national and international security and economy, that would be a monumental tragedy.

    Jules G. McNeff served for several years in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense and was responsible for DoD navigation systems policy and overall management and oversight of the GPS program. He subsequently worked at SAIC and NASA before joining Overlook Systems Technologies as vice president for strategies and programs. He became a charter member of the Editorial Advisory Board of GPS World in 1990.

  • The View From Here: Mapping Harmony

    By Glen Gibbons

    The Global Positioning System has provided more than a few ironies in its relatively short existence: A system so accurate that, until last year, government policy required operators to degrade the quality of the open C/A-code signal. A navigation instrument more accurate than the maps across which navigators plotted their courses. Early GPS-based car guidance systems that displayed vehicle location in the middle of buildings or lakes.

    But, as with so many other aspects of daily life, what may have seemed funny before September 11 is no longer a laughing matter..

    The need for a better correspondence of location information is underscored by the urgency being given to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) five-year-old mandate for enhanced 911 (E911) services. E911 provides mobile telephone users with the same automatic location information (ALI) of emergency calls now en-joyed by users of wireline phones at fixed sites. The benefits of ALI for getting police, firefighters, and ambulances to an emergency quickly are obvious..

    The first phase of E911 implementation — identifying the nearest cell site from which a call comes — only covers less than half of the U.S. population. Implementation of Phase II, which requires much more accurate real-time positioning, was scheduled to begin October 1. Last month, however, the FCC granted extensions to five national wireless carriers for initiating their Phase II plans. The agency still expects carriers to provide all mobile phone users with E911 coverage by the end of 2005..

    Three wireless carriers will employ handset-based assisted-GPS techniques in providing ALI that must be twice as accurate (50 meters versus 100 meters) as the “network-based” positioning that the other carriers have selected. (This should prove interesting in the marketplace. Because the E911 capability imposes no direct cost on customers, why would consumers choose non-GPS equipment and carriers offering substantially less accurate service?).

    Little of the E911 delay stems from unavailability of GPS technology. Upgrading software at switching servers is the primary cause for postponements sought for handset-based systems. Even with the lower accuracy standards, however, carriers with network-based solutions pleaded for more time to get their positioning technology to work..

    After the communications and positioning kinks are worked out of the E911 systems, public safety and commercial location-based service providers will still face an operational dilemma. That is the mismatch between positioning techniques and mapbases and differences among maps discussed earlier. Cartographers have long understood that variations among coordinate systems and datums can make the same latitude/longitude mean different things to different people. But until GPS came along, navigation and tracking techniques were so much cruder that such cartographic variations disappeared inside the error ellipse of the positioning systems..

    Under Phase II, emergency call centers (public safety answering points or PSAPs, in FCC parlance), public safety agencies, and E911 callers need to be on the same page. Use of proprietary mapbases with incompatible grid designs in either paper or electronic format is a recipe for disaster. It will create coverage ambiguities near PSAP boundaries (Which agency should handle the call?) and lead rescuers tens or even hundreds of meters away from injured or imperiled callers. Yet a distinctive reference grid seems like a much less important proprietary feature for competing map vendors than the other information and cartographic design built into their products..

    The Public X-Y Mapping Project has proposed one solution to this mishmash of maps: adoption of a U.S. National Grid (USNG) for Spatial Addressing. The USNG would effectively match up with the Military Grid Reference System (MGRS), taking advantage of that public domain systemyy?s use of the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid. MGRS is one of the most common datums residing within GPS receivers and could be made the default mode for E911 calls, according to Jules McNeff, one of the mapping project’s principals and a well-known GPS advocate.

    Agreement between civilian and military mapping standards in these days of homeland security concerns probably wouldn’t be a bad idea. And the benefits, of course, would carry over into the commercial realm of value-added location-based services, too..

    The interagency Federal Geographic Data Committee’s standards working group recently recommended adoption of USNG as a preferred national standard. “Effective implementation of USNG on maps and in GPS receivers is the single most important thing [that we] can do to improve emergency response operations nationwide almost immediately,” says McNeff. Readers interested in exploring the USNG proposal can find more details on-line at and.

    Whether it’s USNG or another universal reference system, GPS manufacturers, public safety agencies, commercial service providers, mapmakers, and the general public have a common interest in achieving a GPS-friendly national spatial standard.