As the dust from this year’s AUVSI Xponential show, which took place May 1-4 in Denver, begins to settle, we complete the overview we began last month and wrap up our coverage of the show.
Septentrio
Septentrio introduced its AsteRx-i V product series of integrated GNSS/inertial receivers, based on the Septentrio m2 GPS/GLONASS/Galileo/BeiDou/QZSS/SBAS receiver and a high-end VectorNav MEMS IMU. Providing:
AsteRx-i V receiver & IMU. (Photo: Septentrio)
Reliable, accurate IMU-enhanced GNSS positioning down to the cm level
Full attitude — heading pitch and roll
Lightweight, low power <50 grams, typically 1.5 W — suitable for UAV applications
AIM+ interference monitoring and mitigation system
High update rate, low-latency positioning and attitude
Also introduced at the show was the AsteRx SB, a packaged version of the m2 receiver with multiple interfaces and Bluetooth wireless, targeted at machine control and other sensor fusion applications.
GSS9000 Simulator. (Image: Spirent)
Spirent Federal
Spirent offered a demo of its “flagship” GSS9000 simulator at the show — with capability to generate all constellations, all frequencies, plus L-band signals. Kalani Needham (director of sales) also mentioned the company’s sim-MNSA program with Rockwell Collins, aimed at providing support for M-code for the GNSS simulation market.
DJI
Inspire drone. (Image: DJI)
As usual, the DJI booth was extremely busy — with a demo area almost continuously flying each of the most popular DJI drones. What I learnt from my visit was that 70 percent of sales are recreational, and the balance is commercial. With quadcopters for hobbyists, using replaceable parts, auto-flight systems and data links, DJI was virtually the first drone manufacturer to market, and still one of the most successful. The Phantom now carries gimbal-mounted cameras and is finding lots of applications with business, academics and government agencies, including first adopters like the film and TV industry.
Phantom 3 drone. (Image: DJI)
DJI drones have weather resistant bodies, strong blades, swap-out easy-charge batteries, and ADS-B, RTK and heading capabilities. Set-up in the field is simple, with an SDK for lab developers, multi-spectral cameras for applications such as crop growth monitoring, real-time data available through the control uplink and infrared/visible slant-range outputs.
DJI’s approach is to keep ahead of the competition by adding more and more technology over time, and the company clearly has the sales volume to support this strategy.
CyPhy Works
PARC tethered drone system. (Photo: Tony Murfin)
CyPhy Works makes and promotes tethered drones — enabling very long endurance reconnaissance/forward observation/inspection/communications. The company got into this specific drone niche because it found customers who couldn’t live with short duration battery-restricted drone operations.
For ground forces, having a real-time video overview from higher altitude is of great benefit; similarly, they’re of great use for disaster recovery efforts, such as in the aftermath of hurricane Harvey in Texas. And if you add a Wi-Fi transducer working through one of two payload ports on its PARC (persistent aerial reconnaissance and communications) platform, you can also reconnect survivors and provide a comms network for first responders.
Ruggedized Duro receiver. (Image: Swift Navigation)
Swift Navigation
Swift is a relatively new GNSS receiver manufacturer, and its Piksi Multi receiver has a lot to do to catch up technically with the products offered by the predominant players in the market. So its approach is to use rock-bottom pricing for almost all of their offerings. Currently, the Piksi has only GPS L1/L2 and GLONASS L1/L2 plus SBAS, but Galileo and BeiDou are promised for later this year.
The new Swift capability launched at the show is Skylark, a cloud-based, hybrid PPP/RTK network currently testing in around six U.S. areas and planned for national and even worldwide coverage sometime in the future. Skylark is apparently cellular, with a large number of base sites, each equipped with a Swift Duro receiver. With a target subscription price of only $495 per year, this could be a popular GNSS assistance service, provided you use compatible Swift receivers in your application.
Swift is targeting automotive applications, and has a San Jose trial underway with Voyage at a retirement community — residents call for a self-driving taxi using a cell-phone app, and get transport anywhere in the 4,000-strong community. A similar trial at the Villages in Florida (125,000 residents and 750 miles of roads) is also apparently getting underway.
Hemisphere GNSS was also at the show with its line of GNSS receiver solutions for UAVs, Atlas Correction Service and a new V500 Heading/Smart Antenna.
The Vector V500 is an all-in-one multi- frequency, multi-GNSS smart antenna that provides RTK-level position and precise heading. The latest generation of Hemisphere’s heading antennas now appears with an integrated GNSS receiver and a rugged design sealed for the harshest environments — a design that has evolved over many years. It takes a great deal of sweat and tears to get to a reliable weather-hardened product, and Hemisphere has no doubt incorporated a lot of experience into this latest product.
Atlas corrections are derived from public JPL data and are supplied worldwide over Inmarsat L-band satellite transmissions.
Harxon Corporation
D-Helix antenna. (Photo: Harxon)
Harxon’s D-Helix antenna got lots of attention at its booth, as did the OEM frequency-hopping transceiver. The D-Helix antenna supports GPS, Galileo, BeiDou and GLONASS, as well as L-band signal reception. With low wind resistance and ruggedized IP67 protection, this antenna appeared to be very popular at the show for UAV applications.
The frequency-hopping OEM transceiver works over 840-900 MHz and weighs in at only 5 grams. With anti-jamming and wide signal capability, this miniature device is designed for complex data-intensive applications. In full duplex mode, secure data transmissions are possible over long distances with low latency. The popularity for this transceiver at the show might be connected with a recent FAA proposed rule that would require transmission of a drone’s registration ID for remote identification.
More
Other neat products and applications the GPS World team came across at the show included:
Topcon’s B111 multi-constellation GNSS receiver and the Topcon-distributed Sirius Pro fixed-wing UAV and Intel Falcon 8+ quadcopter;
the Rockwell Collins aviation Flight Management System, which is apparently being incorporated into the General Atomics commercial Flight Guardian system;
the senseFly eBee series of drones with automated mapping capability and a BVLOS (beyond visual line of sight) trial in Canada with in-flight data — more on this later.
GPS World will bring you a special UAV supplement later in the year, and we will carry more news and details on selected manufacturers and applications within this exciting and ever-expanding drone industry.
An increasingly bitter political and economic argument between the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the European Union (EU) has alternately stalled and unfrozen progress on Galileo.
Why does this matter from a defense and security viewpoint? Because it’s all about access to Galileo’s Public Regulated Service (PRS), the military-grade service and signal — in addition to billions of pounds and euros.
The byzantine maneuvering on both sides may have further implications, in the form of a much-expanded role for the current European GNSS Agency (GSA), with a corresponding reduction in funding scope for the European Space Agency (ESA).
ESA is not directly affected by the Brexit brouhaha, but indirectly, the impacts mount and extend. ESA is technically independent of the EU, but acts as the union’s procurement body for space programs. It is run by the 22 member states on the ESA council — which crucially includes the U.K., as well as non-EU members Norway and Switzerland. Thus, the Brits, while exiting the union in March 2019, will continue to play a voting role in the space agency.
In an second-round gambit, the U.K. had threatened to use its veto on the ESA council to delay procurement of future Galileo satellites. This was seen as an attempt to bring the EU into negotiations over U.K. access to the highly encrypted Galileo PRS.
A navigation and timing signal restricted to use by authorized government agencies, armed forces, police, emergency and other security services, the PRS is designed to be robust to jamming and spoofing and available even in times of crisis.
Under EU rules, only EU member states can access or work on the PRS. Similar to GPS M-code, PRS could be said to be the prime motivating factor for the origins of the European GNSS: the desire, some would say the compelling requirement, to have a military-grade signal under one’s own control.
The U.K. says it will encounter “significant gaps” in a wide range of areas including prisoner transfers, asset recovery, sharing of financial intelligence, victim compensation and access to criminal records for child protection vetting, should it be shut out from the PRS. This doesn’t begin to reveal the real reason: the ability to conduct military, security and defense operations confidently undertaken with a secure and enrypted GNSS signal.
The European Commission maintains that the U.K. will have to “apply” to use the PRS, like any other non-EU country, tacitly as a “foreign entity.” PRS is for EU member states only.
U.K. companies such as CGI U.K. have developed much of the programming and coding of the PRS signal. Current EU rules bar all U.K. companies from bidding on new contracts unless they transfer their work to EU countries before Brexit. The EU wants CGI U.K. to hand its encryption security intellectual property to the Franco-Italian firm Thales Alenia Espace.
This would poke Britain’s defense ministry where it hurts most: access to the key source codes, and a measure of security in military, defense and police operations. The U.K. government also wishes to retain the encryption expertise and personnel, rather than see them outsourced.
Four Galileo satellites placed in the payload container prior to December 2017 launch, which brought the total Galileo constellation to 22. (Image courtesy of ESA)
Whither GSA?
In a separate but closely related debate within the EU, a strategic repositioning is proposed for the GSA: renaming and remaking it into the EU Agency for the Space Programme. This would not only greatly enlarge its sphere of activity and authority, it could create two sparring space agencies in Europe, one wholly under the control of the EU and one with the maverick U.K. on its ruling council.
A draft EU document states ESA’s decision-making procedures “cannot lead to a call into question of the decisions of the [European] Commission or the European Space Agency within the framework of the actions and space programmes of the union.”
ESA is naturally bitterly opposed to its parent organization creating a rival. It has long struggled — behind closed doors — with its semi-independent, semi-subservient role to the EU, which after all holds the ultimate purse strings.
Some in Europe see indications that the GSA rebadging could lead to a gradual transfer of space funding from ESA to the newly rechristened agency if EU discontent rises. “A creep in power” was the term used by one official.
The EU has long expressed concerns over ESA’s governance of the funds handed to it by the EU for space projects. The long stall in Galileo getting up a full head of steam, a period that could be said to have extended from 2002 to 2008 or thereabouts, was seen by some atop the EU as evidence of ESA over-extension: technically expert but fiscally untrained or unqualified.
Opening Salvos
In what now appears to be a dead issue, the U.K. had first demanded reimbursement for the €1 billion it contributed to Galileo. The EU rejected that out of hand, saying it would not negotiate “under threat.”
In a follow-up, the U.K. claimed that while it wished to continue participating in Galileo, it could well start up its own GNSS if it did not receive adequate access to Galileo PRS. The EU stuck to its guns, so to speak: “Third countries [and their companies] cannot participate in the development of security-sensitive matters.”
The U.K. has also bruited blocking Galileo from use of ground tracking stations in British overseas territories, such as the Falklands.
A U.K. minister stated: “The U.K. genuinely wants to remain a major player in the project, with privileged ongoing access from outside the EU, and views its capabilities and contribution to date as giving it the right to that ticket.”
A European spokesperson countered: “For the EU, the decision to leave inevitably entails relegation to a different role and status in the project, and, let’s be candid, offers scope for EU-located firms to take contractual business away from U.K. ones.”
UPDATE: The deadline has been extended to July 16.
What technical and business challenges are getting your attention this year? How are you driving business in today’s economy? What issues are you concerned about? What solutions hold the most promise for positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) in challenged and indoor environments — regardless of which technology provides them?
We want to know, and so does the rest of the industry.
Click to enlarge. (Image: GPS World State of the Industry survey)
GPS World is asking PNT professionals about the developing technology frontiers, the state of their business, the economic climate for products and services, driving market factors, the effects of jamming, the Issue of the Year — and more! Please give us your opinions in the 2018 State of the Industry survey. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses are confidential.
A handful of lucky participants drawn at random will win:
TWO $100 gift cards good (virtually) anywhere.
Complete the survey by July 16. Then look for a complete report of our findings in the September issue of GPS World.
Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback and help us improve our magazine content, industry awareness — and your own business!
The survey covers such topics as:
Technology Trends. PNT is rapidly diversifying among a number of complementary technologies, as GNSS looks to inertial, lidar, laser, cellular, WiFi and other beacons, signals of opportunity, low-Earth orbit satellite constellations and more. Different market sectors have, naturally, different requirements, and these lead to different integration combinations. Where do you see the most promise?
The Global Economy and how it affects business in your sector. Customers’ availability of capital to invest is top-of-mind for most industry professionals, whether designers, manufacturers, integrators, suppliers/dealers, or end users.
Industry Confidence in the road ahead. Sound business navigation requires a fluid, responsive combination of technology, capital, investment, and often most important, human capital. .
Issues of Concern. To what extent do industry leaders take into account the following as well as further factors?
Pricing and competitive issues;
GNSS jamming, spoofing, other RF interference;
Developing compatibility and interoperability of GNSSs: GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, Galileo;
Advantages and drawbacks of other positioning and navigation technologies.
The survey, complete with insightful infographics, will appear in the September issue. Look for it!
My last column described the National Geodetic Survey’s (NGS) GPS on Bench Marks (BM) 2018 interactive web map, and provided an update and status report on stations observed in support of the 2018 GPS on BMs Program. It mentioned that all new data received by the cut-off date of Aug. 31 will be analyzed by NGS and, if appropriate, the results will be included in the next hybrid geoid model. This is a great opportunity to provide data that will help to improve the hybrid geoid model in your region. This column will provide an update and status report on stations observed in support of the 2018 GPS on BMs program and provide an example of how OPUS-shared results identified a station that may have moved since it was last leveled.
As mentioned in the last column, the GPS on BMs 2018 web page contains a link to a web map where users can determine which bench marks NGS would like users to occupy before the August 31, 2018, deadline. The web map also provides a list of the stations observed to date to ensure users are not wasting their time observing stations that already have enough repeat observations. NGS is updating the map weekly to reduce users occupying stations that already have enough redundant observations. The box titled “2018 Web Map” depicts the map update of May 25, 2018. The web map has a search feature so if the user knew a station’s PID, they could locate the station on the map. The box titled “An Example of Using the Web Map Search Feature” depicts the search feature using PID AW0690 (see highlighted section in the box).
The box titled “Map After Searching for PID KW0690” depicts the map after searching for PID KW0690. As indicated by the symbol, the station meets the current criteria. That is, it has two GNSS-derived ellipsoid heights that agree within NGS’ criteria for use in evaluating and generating the next hybrid geoid model.
Map After Searching for PID KW0690
Click to enlarge.
The user can continue to check on the link labeled “Datasheet” to obtain the latest data sheet for the station (see the box titled “NGS Data Sheet for KW0690”).
NGS Data Sheet for KW0690
Click to enlarge.
Next, let’s look at the OPUS shared results for the station (KW0690 – G 171). OPUS shared solutions can be found at this website. (see box tilted “OPUS Shared Solutions Web Page”).
OPUS Shared Solutions Web Page
Click to enlarge.
The user can search for a particular OPUS shared solution by checking on the PID option (see highlighted section on the box titled “Web Page After Clicking on PID Option.”
Web Page After Clicking on PID Option
Click to enlarge.
The box titled “An Example of Selecting an OPUS Shared Solution for a PID” depicts the output after clicking on the button labeled “List Marks.”
An Example of Selecting an OPUS Shared Solution for a PID
Click to enlarge.
The box titled “The OPUS Shared Solution for KW0690 (2018-03-20)” provides the OPUS Shared solution for station KW0690 performed on March 20, 2018. The output provides the NAD 83 (2011) 2010.0 coordinates with error estimates.
The OPUS Shared Solution for KW0690 (2018-03-20)
Click to enlarge.
When there is more than one observation, the output file provides a link to the other observations. In this case, there was another shared solution on March 31, 2014 (see box titled “The OPUS Shared Solution for KW0690 (2014-03-31).”) The two solutions indicate the ellipsoid heights agree to 8 mm (129.269 m – 129.261 m). This is an indication that the station is a valid candidate to be considered for the development of the hybrid geoid model.
The OPUS Shared Solution for KW0690 (2014-03-31)
Click to enlarge.
The second OPUS Shared solution also indicates that there is a third observation (2005-03-19). Clicking on that link provides the NGS data sheet (see box titled “Excerpt from NGS Data Sheet for KW0690”).
Excerpt from NGS Data Sheet for KW0690
Click to enlarge.
It should be noted that this station doesn’t have a published NAD 83 (2011) coordinate. The OPUS shared solutions provide the NAD 83 (2011) ellipsoid height and the NGS data sheet provides the published NAVD 88 orthometric height. Comparing the GNSS-derived orthometric height using the OPUS shared ellipsoid heights and GEOID12B indicate the station is inconsistent with published NAVD 88 orthometric height. The box titled “Table of GPS on BMs Residuals for KW0690” provides the GPS on BMs residuals based on using the latest hybrid geoid model GEOID12B. It was noted that the two ellipsoid heights agree to within 8 mm but the GNSS-derived orthometric heights using GEOID12B indicate that the two stations disagree with the published NAVD 88 height by almost 10 cm. This may be an indication that the station may have moved since the last time it was leveled. The question that needs to be addressed is should this station be used in the development of the next hybrid geoid model. In my mind, there are basically two school of thought on this topic. One, users that have used this individual station as control would like the hybrid geoid model to provide a GNSS-derived orthometric heights consistent with the published height of this station. If a surveyor followed the appropriate precise leveling procedures to check the validity of the station, that is, performed at least a two-mark leveling tie to ensure that the monument did not move, then they would want the model to be consistent with the published value. Two, if the station moved since it was last leveled, the hybrid geoid model would not provide the most accurate NAVD 88 height.
Table of GPS on BMs Residuals for KW0690
Click to enlarge.
The next step is to analyze the GNSS-derived orthometric height using the latest experimental geoid model. Evaluating GPS on BMs stations nearby station KW0690 will help in determining if the station KW0690 has moved since the last time it was leveled. One way that users can determine stations nearby is to use NGS data sheet retrieval program using the option to retrieve stations by point radius. See box titled “Using NGS Data Sheet Point Radius Retrieval Option for KW0690.” The user enters a latitude and longitude value and a radius search in miles.
Using NGS Data Sheet Point Radius Retrieval Option for KW0690
Click to enlarge.
In this case, I entered the latitude and longitude of station KW0690, a radius of 20 miles (approximately 30 kilometers) and selected the option “GPS Stations Only.” The box titled “Output of NGS Data Sheet Point Radius Retrieval Option for KW0690” provides the output of the search. I sorted the stations by vertical control (“V”)
Output of NGS Data Sheet Point Radius Retrieval Option for KW0690
Click to enlarge.
The four bench marks that also have GNSS-derived heights are highlighted in yellow in the box titled “Select the Bench Marks Based on NGS Data Sheet Point Radius Retrieval.” They are all within 20 miles (approximately 30 km) of the station KW0690. By analyzing the GPS on BMs residuals of these nearby stations we can determine if station KW0690 is consistent with its neighbors.
Select the Bench Marks Based on NGS Data Sheet Point Radius Retrieval
Click to enlarge.
I retrieved the data sheets so I could get their published coordinates for the xGeoid17 web tool. See box titled “Excerpts from Data Sheets Based on NGS Data Sheet Point Radius Retrieval” for the data sheets.
Excerpts from Data Sheets Based on NGS Data Sheet Point Radius Retrieval
Once you have the stations that are located near the station you’re interested in you can proceed to the xGeoid17 website to obtain the latest information based on the scientific geoid model. I described this procedure in a previous column. See box titled “Using the xGeoid17 Web tool for Stations Nearby KW0690” for an example of the input to the tool.
Using the xGeoid17 Web tool for Stations Nearby KW0690
Click to enlarge.
The table titled “Table of GPS on BMs Residuals for KW0690 Using xGeoid17b” provides a summary of the results from the xGeoid17 web page. The procedure used to compute the GPS on BMs residuals has been described in a previous column.
Table of GPS on BMs Residuals for KW0690 Using xGeoid17b
Click to enlarge.
Looking at the column labeled “[GNSS-Derived Orthometric Height (using xGEOID17B) minus Published NAVD 88 Height] minus Average Difference” indicate that the large difference that we noticed using GEOID12B at station KW0690 is also seen using the latest experimental geoid model xGeoid17b. Once again, this is an indication that the station may have moved since it was last leveled.
As of May 29, 2018, 1067 of the 5760 priority marks were completed. The box title “Status of NGS 2018 GPS on BMs Program as of May 29, 2018“ is a plot the stations that are labeled as completed and the box titled “Count of Stations Completed by State “ provides the number of stations completed by state. The red triangles are priority A stations completed and the blue “X” are priority B stations labeled as completed.
Status of NGS 2018 GPS on BMs Program as of May 29, 2018
Click to enlarge.
Count of Stations Completed by State May 29, 2018
The number of stations completed as of May 29, 2018, represents about 18.5 percent of the total number of stations that need to be observed. August 31, 2018, is only two months away. According to my latest search of the NGS website (June 3, 2018), 1098 stations are considered done. Hopefully, the number of completed stations will significantly increase during the next last two months. As I have explained in previous columns, there are many invalid GPS on BMs stations that may be used in the next hybrid geoid model unless more bench marks with valid NAVD 88 heights are observed with GNSS. This column provided an update and status report on stations observed in support of the 2018 GPS on BMs program and provided an example of how the OPUS Shared results as identified a station that may have moved since it was last leveled. This is your opportunity to help develop a current, valid hybrid geoid model in your area, and identify NAVD 88 bench marks that have moved since they were last leveled.
Eight years on, and the money generated by a hedge fund still seeks to destabilize the Global Positioning System and the billions of people who benefit from it, whether they create it, administer it, sell it or use it.
That accounts for just about everybody touched by telecommunications and the industrial network, including the brave individuals serving in the military.
For rewards to the few, the U.S. government is lobbied to levy hardship on the many. In the service of that lobbying, the truth is manipulated to suit the ends. Sound familiar?
See this article for facts and findings of years of detailed study of this matter, recounted in the recently released Department of Transportation’s Adjacent Band Compatibility (ABC) Assessment Final Report. That it appears almost a year after all the research and nearly all the analysis was completed suggests that powerful forces are at work, perhaps warring with each other, within the government. Let us hope that the guys and gals with the good hats on can prevail.
The matter now rests with the Federal Communications Commission, an appointed panel not subject to the electorate nor to Congress, whose decisions sometimes carry a scent of influence from hidden quarters. Note particularly the recent ruling against net neutrality, which most agree runs counter to public interest and correlative with private corporate interests.
As our news story states, the ability to use the mobile satellite services (MSS) band for terrestrial services is “limited.” The DOT ABC Assessment, using the 1-dB Interference Protection Criterion of a 1-dB drop in carrier-to-noise density ratio that’s accepted by everybody — specifically, every engineer — on Earth except Ligado Networks, demonstrates conclusively there is no chance the company could actually deploy a viable commercial terrestrial service in the MSS spectrum without disrupting or degrading vital GPS and GNSS services.
The U.S. government and the GPS industry have both expended far too much money and time trying to accommodate a force-fit of a non-compatible use into the bands adjacent to the radionavigation satellite service band, to the benefit of one commercial company’s bottom line.
It’s high time for this nonsense to stop. Nobody, least of all the government and the GNSS industry, owes Ligado anything.
A: Satellite-based and local beacon-based positioning technologies offer the best opportunity for reliable and precise location determination of an autonomous vehicle. Alternate solutions like SLAM and lane keeping are decent augmentations, but suffer from the imprecision that comes from sensing in a large dynamic environment. As satellite and local beacon-based positioning technologies become increasingly more pervasive and accurate, this will continue to yield the most reliable and deterministic solution for safe localization of autonomous vehicles.
A: No matter how good it gets, positioning technology can never ensure the safety of autonomous car passengers and pedestrians. Knowing the position of each car is insufficient; you need to know where everything else is, including children, animals and temporary construction barriers. It is simply not practical to fit everyone and everything with a positioning device that transmits to every nearby vehicle. Collision avoidance therefore needs sensors such as radar and lidar.
A: Realization of safe autonomy requires the establishment of layers of protection using safety mechanisms without dependent faults. Absolute position provided by precise GNSS and inertial technology provides an independent reference for truth test of positioning solutions obtained with vision-based technologies. Vision-based solutions may incorporate common cause faults like sight obstruction, processing algorithms or similar. Absolute positioning can also contribute to realize near-real-time updated maps.
All of us aspire. It is the voice in our heart — our calling, the bud of our true self wanting to bloom. In each of us a seed is planted and when that seed begins to prosper another shoot springs forth. It is how we know we are on the right path. As we approach our true purpose goals and accomplishments align, there is clarity of vision, resistance wanes, and a virtuous cycle lifts us up.
But what if that calling was having every disaster that befalls a nation laid at your feet? Who then among us would willingly take on so great a burden? You might imagine anyone wanting to do so must first pass beneath a door upon which are inscribed the words, “Only the strong of heart may pass and they too shall be challenged.”
Who would be brave enough to enter knowing the lament and sorrow of a nation would be their sustenance? And yet, there is one who willingly accepted the call. He is a giant, forged, not born, in the fires of calamity, chaos and crisis.
But who within the geospatial community would bear such a heavy labor? Would it not be Christopher Vaughan, geospatial information officer (GIO) of the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA)? He is the first person to hold the GIO position for FEMA.
I had the great honor to speak with him recently as he enters his eighth year at FEMA. Being the first GIO meant there was lots of work to do. The geospatial infrastructure for FEMA had to be developed and integrated into the operational core. Operational units needed training to use GIS and learn to become proficient with it. It is a process that could not happen overnight.
There was also the cultural mindset to overcome whenever new technologies enter the workplace, and, no matter how valuable GIS has proven to be there is always resistance to change. These were barriers Chris had to deal with while at the same time doing what he came to FEMA to do — support emergency management operations as disasters occurred; and, as you will see, there is never a reprieve from the whims of Mother Nature. Her wrath is unquenching, unceasing and unrestrained.
Chris became the FEMA GIO in May 2010, after the Haiti Earthquake, arguably one of the worst humanitarian crises in the northwestern hemisphere. Death tolls reached 220,000 according to FEMA’s Earthquake Response Report (FEMA 2010)[1] and over 1.1 million people were displaced; plus, making matters worse, a cholera epidemic broke out during the earthquake recovery efforts. That was the job he walked into.
Even though Haiti is not a responsibility of the United States, it is in U.S. interests to help stabilize the region and provide goodwill to our neighbors. This put Chris up close and personal with the devastation, challenges and aftermath. Several lessons emerged from the Haiti Earthquake which continues to shape Chris’s view of Disaster Response and Recovery (DR&R) to this day, one of the most prominent being, crisis mapping, using crowdsource efforts involving a worldwide audience.
Chris shares that the International Conference of Crisis Mappers held a meeting in 2010 right after the earthquake, “There were about 100 to 150 people from all over the world. I still run in circles with about 40 to 50 of those folks. It was sort of like a Who’s Who of disaster operations.” International volunteers working remotely mapped Haiti in the aftermath so well that Craig Fugate, the FEMA Administrator at the time, recognized Crisis Mappers as having created, “the most comprehensive and up-to-date map available.” Chris would later draw upon this lesson in future emergency management operations.
The Haiti Earthquake stretched FEMA’s responsibilities beyond U.S borders and Chris understood that FEMA needed to prepare for operations in neighboring countries if needed. Chris will most likely be involved in providing much of the geospatial support for those efforts because of FEMA’s advanced technical capabilities and its organizational strength.
That first year was daunting, but there is no respite from the storm, so to speak, and within one year, Chris was faced with the most active tornado season on record. Over 360 tornados touched down in April over a three day period killing a total of 348 people in 21 states in what has been named the 2011 Super Outbreak. Not a month later, Chris was met with yet another defining moment in his career.
On Saturday, May 21, 2011 a storm system developed over the Midwest. Local news reported two tornados had touched down in Kansas — nothing unusual, but storms in the Midwest always cause concern. The next day, Sunday, May 22, 2011, there was more tornado activity. Weather warnings covered the map from the Great Lakes to Texas. Several tornados touched down throughout the day, but for all appearances by late afternoon it looked less severe than the previous month’s outbreak.
Early that evening, the phone calls began and didn’t stop coming in. Reports were that a tornado had devastated Joplin, Missouri. Details were scarce. Communications into Joplin were down. Chris couldn’t get any answers. He needed a clear picture. Where did the tornado touch down? What was the tornado’s track? How big was it? How many people were missing? Where was the damage? What was damaged? Who needs support? Who can be brought in to provide that support? News poured in getting worse with each successive call.
“I needed that GIS perspective so I could see. It was like a surgical knife went right through this town and in that boundary were two nursing homes, one school, a fire station and a hospital. That is what GIS brings to the fight – clarity and context. I didn’t have that.”
The Joplin Tornado turned out to be the deadliest in over 60 years and the most expensive in U.S. history. It was nearly one mile wide and almost 22 miles long killing 161 people. “Joplin, Missouri will always color me for the rest of my career, in how I approach Disaster Response and Recovery Operations, not knowing how big that event really was until we got our arms wrapped around it. We struggled for a long time with just how big that storm path was. We were waiting days on those tornado tracks. We’ve gotten a lot faster. We are down to hours now. The storm prediction center has done some amazing things. They’ve got a whole innovation lab using radar to determine where the tornado touched down. It’s not perfect but it’s far better than where we were.”
The year of 2011 was the worst tornado season in U.S. history. In all, there were 1,697 tornados reported throughout the U.S., the Joplin Tornado being the most significant. Out of that crisis social media evolved as a tool for DR&R operations. This would further develop Chris’s vision for FEMA.
Chris calls 2011 his most difficult year. He has dealt with many of the most infamous events in his eight years as the GIO. Following is a short list:
the Mississippi River flooding (2010),
Hurricane Irene (2011),
the tornado Super Outbreak (2011),
the Joplin Tornado (2011),
Super Storm Sandy (2012),
The Yarnell Fires (2013),
Moore Oklahoma Tornado (2013),
the Oso mudslide (2014),
the Northern California wildfires (2017),
blizzards throughout the U.S. (almost every year)
and most recently
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria (2017).
In fact, in total, since Chris became the GIO, FEMA has declared 1,003 disasters. On average, that is one declared disaster every three days, and disasters last for weeks, and months, and sometimes years, so these have compiling effects.
Dealing with so many disasters, so often, in so short a period of time, Chris has developed a disaster consciousness as he discusses, “There are obviously natural cycles. There is a rhythm to it all. We are pretty accustomed to the rhythm. The snow pack begets the flood season. We are watching the snows and where they build-up because that leads into the flood plains, or drought as the case may be. Our timelines span months. So, we watch El Niño and La Niña. April and May bring the tornados. Then that slides right into wildfire season. But, you never know when that earthquake is going to hit.”
Even with all the real disasters taking place FEMA runs exercises preparing for those rare, cataclysmic events happening once every several hundred years. It’s been over 100 years since a major cataclysmic event of that magnitude has occurred. Scientists predict we are due for one.
Yellowstone, for example, is a huge volcanic caldera. It’s been quiet for hundreds of years even though it remains very active.
The New Madrid seismic zone is also an area of concern. It has been over 200 years since a major event occurred in this area. In 2008 FEMA wrote an in-depth report on the New Madrid and has been conducting exercises on the region ever since.
USGS just released a report focusing attention on the Hayward Fault near Oakland, CA which includes videos of ground shaking simulations (USGS 2018) . The USGS study is not forecasting an event is imminent, but it is a prediction that a 72% chance of a 6.7+ magnitude earthquake will happen in the area within the next 25 years.
“I can promise you this,” says Chris. “If we aren’t involved in a big event we are preparing for one. We are always preparing for the next big one. Right now we are laser focused on earthquake planning. A lot of our time is spent thinking about the worst case scenarios. We’re talking about a Cascadia Subduction event. What would happen if a New Madrid seismic zone event occurred and how would we move that much logistics and people and resources? Where would we put limited resources to affect the most good? We can plan for those types of events. We know where the major faults are. We rely on our partners like USGS to give us their risk assessments of where we should be paying attention. We haven’t had a catastrophic event like that in over 100 years. Getting the emergency management community to think in those terms is probably in the neighborhood of 100,000 people dead. That is a huge task at that scale. That is why we are training.”
FEMA just released their 2018-2022 Strategic Plan and the three key goals are to
Build a Culture of Preparedness,
Ready the Nation for Catastrophic Disasters, and
Reduce the Complexity of FEMA.
FEMA’s exercises are building a culture of preparedness, but for the strategic plan to work FEMA has to engage the population. DHS has a volunteer force called the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) and all interested citizens are encouraged to join. There is most likely one in your area. (Learn more and find out how to get engaged).
CERT is an area Chris would like to tap into. “I think organizations like CERT, the National Map Corps, and other large volunteer based groups that are geographically dispersed are who we need to tap into for crowdsourcing. We are looking at ways to harness this collective power. They are there for a reason. They want to be part of the conversation. So, we want to engage them and are figuring out ways to pull them into our efforts.”
Shortly after the interview with Chris, FEMA announced the 2018 National Level Exercise (NLE) will be incorporating CERT in preparation for the upcoming hurricane season. By the time this article is published the event will have passed, but plan ahead for next year and register for CERT. The information on the website will benefit you, your family and your community. You might even see me there as I will be getting involved too. In the future, those with special skills such as remote sensing, GIS and data science might develop into a specialized corps of volunteers as FEMA works more closely with CERT.
There are some successes Chris celebrates. One of those is the advancements in dealing with floods. Chris states, “We were getting our tails handed to us on floods. No one could really figure out floods. Now, I feel like we’ve got a good handle on it. It was to the point where they’ve stood up a new National Water Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, with a joint venture between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA, FEMA, and I am sure USGS is involved. I would put it on the same scale as the National Hurricane Center. It is building out the National Water Model and it will tell the risk for a given area and provide information on where the flood is actually occurring.”
Another success Chris is excited to talk about is the geospatially enabled alert system called the Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS) that FEMA created. In Chris’s words, “it is an elaborate community where NOAA, the National Weather Service, the state, county and local level feed information into the system and it alerts people in specific areas using geofencing. There is a new REST API the geo-community can use to embed the information into webpages.”
The Making a Difference Award given by Esri. (Photo: FEMA)
Chris is building a legacy in disaster recovery and response by harnessing the power of the crowd. It first happened with the Haiti Earthquake. It was further developed during the Joplin Tornado, and it evolved further during Superstorm Sandy earning Chris and FEMA the Making a Difference Award from Esri in 2013.
Jack Dangermond presented the award, saying, “FEMA supports our nation during crises, and its leadership and staff at all levels work extremely hard to carry out that mission every day. We want to recognize their tremendous work during Sandy. The agency supplied intuitive mapping applications that allowed people to understand the emergency as it unfolded and to begin the process of rebuilding.”
Chris continues advancing the use of GIS in disaster operations and harnessing the power of crowdsourcing, most recently using it during the 2017 hurricane season for operations in Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria.
NOTE: January’s Geospatial Solutions article covers many of those advancements: How GIS and You can Aid In Disaster Response. This article is a follow-on to the January article.
When asked about the success of crowdsourcing efforts Chris shared his views, saying, “You’ve got all kinds of walks of life participating in this. Never before in the history of mankind have we had this speed of communication. I can conference call someone anywhere in the world and have no delay in our conversation. Look, we’ve always had millions of people sitting on the periphery. This is just the explosion of communication we are seeing. I mean, the internet has really only been in wide use for the last 20 years, so we’ve got to put things in perspective. Google Earth came out in 2005, the iPhone in 2007, ArcGIS Online in 2011. So, we’ve come so far in just the past 10 years… it’s really amazing.”
Building on lessons learned from engaging the crowd FEMA has an app that everyone needs to download to their smartphone. You can receive National Weather Service alerts, locate shelters, talk directly with FEMA, and upload pictures about where you are in the event of a disaster. It is an app providing information that can potentially save your life.
After speaking with Chris I left the conversation understanding the only thing bigger than Chris’s responsibility is his heart. Many times during the conversation he talked about ensuring FEMA was there for the most vulnerable populations and that the job of the GIO was to make operations more efficient and save time, because in disasters time saves lives.
Chris Vaughan is a giant in the geospatial world and worthy of the title. He has been forged by calamity, chaos and crisis; and, through it all, remains humble in service to those most in need. Harnessing the power of GIS and the crowd he has forever altered emergency management operations connecting the “Federal” to the “Individual.” He is a leader of the Geospatial community, both by title and by deed. Surely, people’s lives have been saved through Chris’s efforts and countless more will be. When we seek relief because some catastrophe has found its way to our door we can turn our hope towards FEMA that we might be rescued in our darkest hour thanks to the power of GIS and the vision of the FEMA GIO.
William H, Tewelow, GISP
Further information
If you would like to pad your resume FEMA has several free online courses that offer college credits. The courses which most pertain to readers of this article are IS-103: Geospatial Information Systems Specialist; IS-922: Applications of GIS for Emergency Management; IS-63.b: Geospatial Information Infrastructure (GII); IS-60.b: The Homeland Security Geospatial Concept-of-Operations (GeoCONOPS) for Planners and Decision Makers; IS-61.b: The Homeland Security Geospatial Concept-of-Operations (GeoCONOPS) In Depth; IS-62.b: The Homeland Security Geospatial Concept-of-Operations (GeoCONOPS) In Use; and, IS-42: Social Media in Emergency Management. Visit https://training.fema.gov for more information on these courses. If you are a GISP this will afford opportunities to earn points towards certification and renewal.
Information on FEMA’s text alert program
Subscribe to FEMA text: INFO to 43362
Locate open shelters text: SHELTER +Zip code to 43362
Locate Disaster Recovery Centers text: DRC +Zip code to 43362
FEMA’s U.S. Coast Guard Retiree to FEMA Reservist Initiative has nine GIS Specialist positions available: Salary ($15.82–23.69/hr) Position Description: The PLAN GIS Specialist (PLAN0001) conducts basic geo-processing, develops geospatial products, uses specialized geospatial software, operates and calibrates GPS units and mobile data collection devices, and supports customers as needed.
AUVSI Xponential was a big show once again — 8,500 attendees, more than 600 exhibitors, 200 educational sessions and 400 speakers. The show floor was huge as usual, with virtually every kind of UAS product and service imaginable for inspection at small, large and larger booths or display areas.
The morning kick-off presentation on Tuesday was enthusiastic about the coming large-scale adoption of drones and associated robotic technology, with a couple of real-time examples — driverless vehicles at Babcock Ranch in Florida and drone supply deliveries for humanitarian aid in Rwanda.
A view of show floor.
However, there still remain a number of barriers to wide-scale integration of drones into daily life from a regulation perspective, as Steven Bradbury, general counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation, pointed out — while at the same time also indicating that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has granted hundreds of waivers where the safety case has been adequate for lots of commercial UAS operations.
Most of the major GNSS players were exhibiting at the show, so we focused on gathering their news while also collecting a flavor of the many drone system suppliers in attendance.
U-blox introduced its new ZED-F9P multi-band, multi-constellation chip — with GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou signal reception and processing and on-chip multi-band RTK with fast convergence times — promising centimeter-level accuracy and low 85 mA (4x GNSS) power consumption in a 17 mm x 22 mm package.
ZED-F9P signals: coverage added in two stages. Option A – available now. Option B – available Q2/2020.
Initial urban testing in Finland in challenging conditions has indicated RTK performance at 9 cm 94%, with high availability, short convergence times (<10 seconds) and fast reconvergence. This kind of performance is apparently initially targeted at automotive applications — u-blox is a member of the Sapcorda automotive group — and is forecasting samples for this July, with production beginning before the end of this year.
The NovAtel tagline for the show was “Assured PNT,” which matches many U.S. and International agency objectives — this was accompanied by several announcements for both commercial and government agency products and applications.
The integrated E1 package includes NovAtel’s SPAN technology, which optimizes positioning and attitude performance during extended GNSS outages. Both new PwrPak enclosures come with the Interference Toolkit advanced interference detection and mitigation capability.
With most UAVs, the electronics on the airframe can produce a disruptive internal interference environment, and can lead to potential problems for the integration of sensitive GNSS. To help overcome this issue, NovAtel has released the OEM7600 receiver board in an extremely small form factor, enclosed with protective shielding to reduce the effects of emissions from nearby electronics.
The 7600 comes with 555 channels, multi-frequency/constellation positioning; L-band support for TerraStar corrections; serial, USB, CAN and Ethernet interfaces; advanced interference detection and mitigation features; RTK; GLIDE and Steadyline firmware options with 20-g vibration rating and the option to add integrated SPAN GNSS + inertial.
NovAtel also announced Inertial Explorer Express, which provides the same core processing and utilities as Waypoint Inertial Explorer software for applications including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and smaller projects. Inertial Explorer Express will produce centimeter-level position and attitude solutions for lidar, camera and other sensor data with faster processing times and reduced complexity.
On the government/agency business side of the house, NovAtel has been quite successful with the GAJT antenna, which includes integrated anti-jam technology. GAJT is in use operationally and has been shipped to 16 allied nations around the globe, with the latest success being with the artillery Observation Post Vehicles (OPV) for the Canadian Army.
The NovAtel GAJT-710ML GPS anti-jam antenna.
The Type 26 Frigate of the British Fleet will use NovAtel anti-jam technology. (Photo: BAE Systems)
Canadian OPVs are used on the front-line of combat, so its essential that their location and timing information should not be compromised by enemy jammers. The NovAtel GAJT is readily retrofitted to existing vehicles to provide the necessary jamming defense needed by front-line forces.
Previously, NovAtel also announced the selection of GAJT for the UK fleet of Type 26 Frigates – providing essential anti-jam protection for its onboard navigation system.
MB-Two module by Trimble.
Chris Wheeler and Omar Subra were good hosts when we visited them at the Trimble booth — Chris first made a YouTube video for GPS World (see below) and then gave me some insights into what’s new.
Basically, the OEM line has rolled over new versions of almost all individual receiver boards, with the addition of the BeiDou B3 frequency, capability for RTX PPP (precise point positioning) corrections, the addition of new constellations and inertial integration options.
An updated MB-Two receiver module can be configured for single frequency GPS through to dual frequency GPS, GLONASS, QZSS, Galileo and Beidou, uses RTX PPP and has an improved RTK engine for cm positioning from a base-station, or from over-the-air RTK corrections, or provides relative RTK against a moving base.
A typical Trimble application could include capturing an Insitu ScanEagle UAV in a difficult shipboard multipath environment with integrated GNSS-inertial, UAV navigation and control, UAV payload stabilization, or providing a “truth-system” for autonomous unmanned ground vehicles.
Since last year when Trimble introduced a “cell-phone” software receiver application, one useful application could have involved an insurance company using a “pocket-carried” antenna (with integrated RF) for field incident assessments. The cell-phone software license would be transferable to other assessors in the department, while a few pocket antennas are available for the whole assessment crew. This saves purchasing a whole load of hardware, and being limited to where the functionality can be moved or deployed. Everyone has a cell phone, and the relatively inexpensive antenna/RF can be available to all needing them.
Watch this video to learn about Trimble’s latest products, including its BD990 and BD992 GNSS receiver boards.
Trimble is also ramping up its OEM customer service and repair capabilities to improve turn around for multiple customers and applications in the field. Improved results are beginning to help customers and its OEM business, while increased R&D investment is expected to put new products into the field in the fall.
This year Intel’s emphasis continued to be on how to manage the huge amount of data that high-precision visual and multi-spectral cameras are gathering by UAVs carrying out asset inspections for their customers. The Intel view is that this data is useless to an end-user unless it is interpreted and presented in a format that can be readily understood and used for the purpose it was intended.
Let’s say a company operates 75 drones inspecting installations it owns or operates across several states, and that 50 GB of data is the nominal amount of data each drone collects on each mission. That means that nearly 4 TB of data could be collected daily if all 75 drones operate at once. More likely, over 1 TB daily shows up in a central location — a huge amount of unprocessed data.
In a live demonstration, Intel showed how a typical installation inspection — by a drone taking high-resolution still photos at a remote location – could be collected and managed. Once in an Intel processing environment, the data quickly became visual format in 2D or 3D, and could be accessed remotely by an inspection team, saving significant travel costs and time to actionable results.
Intel also promised to soon exceed its record at the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics for the number of drones flown at once — currently set at 1,218 drones. The company’s next target is for a light display using 1,500 multi-colored drones.
Insitu CEO Esina Alic
Insitu held a media event at the show to announce its ScanEagle-3 drone system. Esina Alic, the new Insitu CEO, led a team who introduced and then unveiled the new commercial-standard ScanEagle variant.
This new variant has grown out of 20 years of experience and 15 years of working with the FAA to enable integration of drones into the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). The ScanEagle-3 (SE-3) has been rebuilt with the objective of developing a certifiable vehicle with increased payload and endurance capability that is free of any ITAR restrictions — allowing export without restrictions to the rest of the world.
Insitu unveils the ScanEagle-3 is at Xponential 2018.
SE-3 features include:
Significantly increased (x2) payload
Still provides for full integration of all existing payloads
Commercial, non-ITAR product for the global market
Long-endurance platform
Service contracts available
Product release in Q2 2019
Fully compatible with existing launch and recovery systems
Around ~100 lb without payloads
ScanEagle variants were used in emergency response to the California wildfires at Santa Rosa and Medicina, gathering real-time information for fire-line combatants.
ScanEagle helped fight these wildfires using High Accuracy Photogrammetry (HAP) sensors. Military-grade electro-optical (EO) cameras during daylight and infrared (IR) cameras for night-time imaging extended the time available for tracking fire lines. Penetrating smoke or darkness, these UAVs gathered video and still images that were used to create geo-referenced, high-resolution digital fire progression and suppression maps to guide firefighting on the ground.
This small overview of Xponential 2018 attempts to provide a flavor of the breadth of activity we saw at the show last week. A good portion of this has also been captured through short videos published on the GPS World website, along with news articles.
There is more to come, with a report to follow from the show on Septentrio’s new product releases, Spirent’s GNSS simulation demo, DJI’s overview of drone products featured at the show, CyPhy Works tethered drones, Swift’s announcement of its Skylark correction service trials, Hemisphere’s new Vector Smart Heading Antenna, and Harxon’santennas for drones.
A big show to cover, that’s for sure! It’s a good sign that people were perhaps talking more business than in previous years and a sign that the UAS industry is perhaps moving into its next growth phase.
Contrary to the “Out in Front” editorial published in the April issue of GPS World magazine, there was an Izvestia story published on March 28 touting the possibility of a merger of the GLONASS and BeiDou systems, and there will be an International Conference on Advanced Technologies in Manufacturing and Materials Engineering in Harbin, China, at which such a possibility may hypothetically be discussed.
However, neither hard news nor any official statements have emerged to substantiate such a dubious claim, despite repeated queries to officials of both countries.
Javad Ashjaee (far left, above), CEO of JAVAD GNSS and based in Moscow, communicated that he spoke on a panel at an aerospace technology event organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, alongside representatives from NASA, Boeing, Honeywell and Roskosmos.
Ashjaee asked the Roskosmos official publicly about the prospect of a GLONASS merger with BeiDou, and “he knew nothing.”
The cylinder shows the polarization states that the bio-inspired detector observes; polarization states predicted by the single-scattering model. (Image: Study authors)
With so many recent improvements in navigation, positioning and mapping, you’d think we could place things pretty much anywhere on the globe.
But what about under the ocean? Satellite-based GPS only works to a depth of about 20 centimeters.
To find a new method of underwater positioning, an international team of researchers turned to the humble shrimp. The crustacean uses polarization — the bending, refracting and scattering of light as it passes through water — to find its way.
The team is developing an underwater geo-localization system that uses polarization of light to calculate the position of objects. The study, published in the April issue of the journal Science Advances, carries the promise of increased accuracy in navigation, exploration and deep-sea search-and-rescue missions.
“The rich repertoire of underwater polarization patterns — a consequence of light’s air-to-water transmission and in-water scattering — can be exploited both as a compass and for geolocalization purposes,” write the authors. “We demonstrate that, by using a bioinspired polarization-sensitive imager, we can determine the geolocation of an observer based on radial underwater polarization patterns. Our experimental data, recorded at various locations around the world, at different depths and times of day, indicate that the average accuracy of our geolocalization is 61 km, or 6 m of error for every 1 km traveled.
“This proof-of-concept study of our bioinspired technique opens new possibilities in long-distance underwater navigation and suggests additional mechanisms by which marine animals with polarization-sensitive vision might perform both local and long-distance navigation.”
As we approach the halfway point of 2018, one cannot help but notice the amount of technology that we use every day and how it affects our daily lives. While George Jetson isn’t whizzing by in a flying car to his glass condo in the clouds, we are utilizing an incredible amount of technology in normal life.
I can sit here typing on a computer or tablet that is many times advanced than the first one I used in junior high school and think nothing of it as futuristic technology has become the norm.
The old standard joke about technology used to be about cell phones and television remote controls; if you needed to figure it out, get your child or even grandchild to help. The youngsters were the majority that could embrace technology because they didn’t have past methods to confuse their ability to figure out how to work the new device.
A funny thing has happened along the way, though; those kids are now grown, and technology has advanced even further.
To help explain the names and timeframes of our generations, I found this chart that explained it all:
To help put this chart in context, the average age of the professional surveyor in the United States is 59 and solidly in the Baby Boomer category. But even with an average that high, there are still a significant number of surveyors in the Silent Generation as the economic downturn of the late 2000s has forced them to continue well into their golden years.
HOW SURVEYORS FIT IN THIS DISCUSSION
The surveying profession has suffered through the same generational challenge as the rest of society. The younger set that started out surveying with electronics have now graduated to much more complex yet capable machinery. Prior to the mid- to late 1970s, electronic technology did not play a role in most surveying operations and tasks. The professional surveyor was widely considered a boundary expert, map maker and establisher of topographic data, with the high-tech mapping work left to the government geodesists (see my July 2017 Survey Scene column).
Most surveyors who learned their craft prior to the electronic age were trained on the job or obtained an engineering degree through a program that may have offered a limited surveying curriculum. Surveying was a career for the outdoor type and required traversing rough terrain at times, as well as being able to withstand weather extremes.
THE NON-TECHNOLOGY GENERATIONS
As a second-generation surveyor, I was fortunate enough to have been exposed to land surveying literally as it was performed by our forefathers. While the tasks performed didn’t utilize a true Gunter’s chain and compass, they were completed with a modern transit and steel tape. The surveys we completed didn’t require high tech equipment as our manual procedures greatly exceeded commonly accepted positional tolerances.
A surveyor maps out boundaries for construction. (Photo: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Most of the work performed by surveyors leading up to the early Baby Boomer generation was much simpler in theory but rarely easy to accomplish due to terrain, weather and the computations necessary to complete the boundary analysis. Traversing a parcel meant having a field crew of several people, often through brush and woods, and time consuming. A large parcel may be days or weeks of field to traverse around with most of it on foot. Once completed, the professional surveyor was tasked with often days of manual calculations, reduction of notes and determination of traverse closure. All the error from days of field work was then balanced through more hand calculations, usually by compass rule or transit rule, and hand drafted onto the final survey plat.
A similar story is followed with topographic and bathymetric surveys and creation of maps with existing conditions. Data collection performed to obtain locations and elevations of existing sites were by radial angle and distance or by grid method, with water depths being determined manually by use of lead lines. In the office this data is placed by manual drafting onto paper, sepia or vellum. Once elevations were plotted, contour intervals were determined by interpolation between each of these points. The creation of the contours was then drawn in by several methods, each with their own level of creativity by the drafter.
Because of the increased use and importance of electronic technology, data collection and advancements of the profession, today’s surveyor is faced with many more challenges than their predecessors. While the concepts for many tasks do follow the protocol for completing a multitude of survey duties, the way we go about collecting and analyzing the data is much more complex than in the past.
The need for our profession to identify these challenges and create opportunities for modern day surveyors is upon us, as our educational and training needs to be ramped up to stay current with demand. All professional surveyors, regardless of what generation they were born in, have filled or will fill an important role in society as expert measurers.
However, the rapid advancement of technology has exposed the lack of additional education and training necessary to keep our standing in serving the public’s health and welfare.
My point here is not that the work and tasks performed by past generations of surveyors was easier, but it did require more manual labor and less technical education and training. I liken the situation to automotive mechanics and how much more technology goes into working on a modern car versus vehicles of earlier generations.
Many mechanics tuned engines by “feel” with no recordable technology to tell them otherwise. I wouldn’t think of calling the expertise shown by past mechanics as inferior to today’s automotive mechanics; each has been trained to rely on different skills sets to work with completely different engines. Thus, I feel the same way in comparing different generations of surveyors. Different tools and methods require unique and specific training for the surveyor to perform at the highest level.
For example, look at the survey-related equipment, software and services within GPS World magazine; most of the articles, case studies and advertisements are for things not even considered five to 10 years ago. All these items require a different mindset of more technical and analytical processing, so the surveyor’s educational requirements and approach must adjust with the technology.
As time marches forward, the need for more advanced surveyors is reaching a critical point.
HOW TODAY’S SURVEYORS GET THE JOB DONE
Today’s surveying profession, including the field and office technicians, rely heavily on technology more than ever.
Many threads of advancing technology go into weaving the tapestry of modern surveying, with the primary material of GNSS being utilized throughout. I have written in the past regarding my thoughts on the single greatest advancement in surveying (see my May 2016 Survey Scene column) and my argument gets stronger with newer technology adding to the way we measure our world.
Here are some of the tasks in which the surveying profession uses GNSS as a basis of measurement and location, and why specific education and training is critical to proper execution:
Boundary surveys
Photo: Tim Burch
Like the surveyors before us, boundary establishment and re-establishment are the main responsibility of the profession. However, with GNSS, the ability to produce more location data has increased tremendously by reducing the need to perform intricate traverses through places when not necessary. It has also reduced the need to perform tedious traverse computations and adjustments; instead, least square adjustments are made to GNSS observational data to provide accurate results.
Topographic surveys
This data can be acquired by a combination of GNSS and conventional total station methods but is based upon geolocation information determined by primarily geodetic coordinates through GNSS solutions. Relying on GNSS data with no standard procedure for location and elevation verification can lead to major issues if not caught by an educated user.
All these methodologies, also known as remote sensing, have revolutionized mass data collection with the enormous amounts of information that can be acquired in a short amount of time. Each has specific functionality and limitations but rely on geolocation as a main attribute of the data. Because of the large data files that are created, the output is in the form of a point cloud rather than the traditional P,N,E,Z,D format normally utilized by surveyors. Like topographic surveys, this data typically relies on GNSS information for geolocation.
Photo: Simon Batzdorfer, Markus Bobbe, Martin Becker and Ulf Bestmann
Unmanned aerial and terrestrial systems
The newest of the data collection methodologies, the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has taken the surveying world by storm. A good percentage of the new adopters (including me) utilize commercial grade multi-rotor units coupled with a high-resolution camera for orthometric photos and video clips of project sites.
While this method uses photogrammetry as its data collection method, it relies on GNSS for establishing ground control points (GCP) to establish geolocation to a known coordinate system. Higher end models incorporate RTK units to minimize the number of control points as well as utilizing lidar and/or hyperspectral modules for high end remote sensing.
Along with the airborne variety, land-based unmanned vehicles are starting to catch on as additional data collectors of open, navigable terrain. These autonomous devices are being equipped with lidar and cameras to augment aerial data in concert with UAVs to gather redundant information for quality checks.
As stated above, these remote sensing technologies, whether used statically or on an unmanned system, all create large point cloud data files that can be cumbersome to manage.
Bathymetric surveys
Many advancements have been made in producing measuring devices using sonar technology, including side- and multi-beam models for more detailed observations in varying conditions. GNSS plays a big role in this survey method due to the electronic ability to combine the depth readings of sonar instantaneously with geographic location. This improvement in data collection provides much more accurate and reliable information for the mapping of water bodies and passageways.
Bathymetric surveys are also getting in on the unmanned vehicle program as well with shallow draft autonomous watercraft being used in places where regular bathymetric vessels cannot go for survey data. More of these crafts are being implemented as they become more affordable.
What do these categories have in common? Most rely on specialized training and equipment to perform each specific task. Surveying has evolved past a “one size fits all” situation and demands that each sector of surveying have personnel trained for the job and have the right equipment to get it done.
A central figure in all these tasks is also GNSS technology; from survey-grade receivers to UAV’s, the tasks all revolve around geolocation.
HOW DOES THE PAST COEXIST WITH THE FUTURE?
The modern-day surveyor now has many different tools at their disposal that generations of surveyors before us couldn’t begin to fathom. The ability to perform at such levels of production and accuracy using new equipment and software is incredible and humbling. However, I’m afraid the technology is outpacing the profession. How many surveyors have taken the time to educate themselves on these enhancements? Because I think we are stretching ourselves too thin, now is the time for the professional surveying community to pause for a self-assessment of our abilities and what it will take to catch up with reality.
One of the biggest hurdles the surveying profession is facing are the lack of qualified technicians for positions both inside and out. The recession of 2008-2011 reduced the number of technicians in our field due to the lack of work being done in the economic downturn, but it also came at a time when technology was starting its upward run at increasing survey task efficiency. The downturn forced many surveyors and firms to make drastic cuts and reduce their investment in new technology, equipment and training to be more efficient. The surveying profession is now paying the price for that downturn with few adequately trained technicians along with licensed professionals not staying current with technological innovation and advances.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE…?
Tim Burch with seventh-and eighth-grade students.
The professional surveyor must embrace technology by promoting the profession to more places beyond the four-year college. We must start in junior-high and high school in math, science and history classes encouraging students to investigate surveying as a career. We also need to support technical and vocational programs that can help introduce surveying as a possible path beyond their certificate or associate degree. One of the simplest topics I use in presentations is the discussion of GNSS technology and how it is built into almost everything the student sees. From their cellphone to the cars their parent’s drive, GNSS surrounds us with geolocation information to make our lives easier.
These technicians aren’t going to all come from a four-year university programs; they are going to come from those teenagers who spend hours honing their hand-eye coordination with video games and drone racing. They will also be the fluid minds writing code for the next big app, and the surveying profession needs to embrace them to incorporate their work in our geolocation world.
The professional surveying occupation has become much more than establishing boundaries of parcels; it now requires knowledge for mapping literally anything in the world. The challenge now is to find those who want to help us continue this surveying and mapping tradition. Fellow surveyors: are you up to the challenge to find your replacement?
This month, we bring you a guest column on the 34th Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Robin Wrinn, a communications professional based in Atlanta, gives her perspective on the premier annual space event, held in April. Among her findings: information on the mission longevity vs. technology innovation debate, GPS IIIF program bids, discussions of time and space, and more.
— Alan Cameron, editor
During recent interviews with Lockheed Martin and Harris Corporation conducted during the 34th Space Symposium (April 16-19) in Colorado Springs, time and space were a frequent focus of discussion, but not in the normal “continuum” kind of way.
Greater mission longevity is one of the key improvements GPS III delivers over those currently in service. Space Vehicles 1-10 have a planned mission life of about 15 years – 25 percent longer than their satellite predecessors. Yet that bragging right begs the question “How long should a satellite ‘live’ up in space with technology innovation occurring almost annually?” After all the last Block IIR-M series satellite was launched in 2009. To put that into perspective, that same year the Canadian company Blackberry (RIM) held 20 percent of the smartphone OS market share and was the second largest OS in the world. Apple had just introduced the iPhone two years earlier.
A partial answer to that question it seems is advanced payload technology. Both Lockheed Martin and Harris Corporation highlighted their advances in payload capabilities that would enable built-in flexibility to adapt satellites in orbit to advances in technology, as well as changes in missions. Lockheed Martin provided the media a tour of their RF (Radio Frequency) Payload Center of Excellence (Payload Center). Meanwhile, Harris Corporation recently announced that is has completed development of the company’s fully digital Mission Data Unit (MDU), which is core to the navigation payload for GPS III 11 +.)
As a reminder, the current Harris payload for SVs 1-10 includes:
Greater than three times reduction in range error,
Up to eight times increase in anti-jamming power,
Added signals – including one (L1C civil signal) compatible with other Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), like the European Space Agency’s Galileo.
And greater signal integrity.
According to Harris, the new, fully digital navigation payload it has engineered will deliver more powerful signals, PLUS the ability to change and upgrade the satellites incrementally over the mission life.
Meanwhile, Lockheed recently announced a partnership with NEC to introduce artificial intelligence for computer learning in orbit. And the company’s Payload Center subject matter experts touted their significant advances in processers and a move toward the next generation of antennas, arrays and transmitters that would drive more flexibility and capability and resilience into satellites.
Observation: It seems the market pressures of ‘new space’ players is prompting delivery of products that can drive more value for less cost. In this case, delivery of a common payload architecture and electronically steered beams to make satellite antennas become any shape you want. Most likely, beams of a different size on demand is a much better business case than a static one built five years ago.
GPS III 1-10 on track. in full production. GPSIII SV1 awaiting U.S. Air Force “Call Up” for Launch
Lockheed Martin’s GPS III SV03 became fully integrated in August 2017. Photo: Lockheed Martin
The day I interviewed Lockheed Martin’s Navigation Systems mission area Program Manager Johnathon Caldwell, the company had submitted its proposal for the U.S. Air Force’s GPS III Follow On (GPS IIIF) program. That same day, April 16, the media was given a tour of Lockheed Martin’s GPS III satellite assembly floor. It was clear from both Lockheed’s press materials and Caldwell that Lockheed Martin believes it is fully recovered from prior production hiccups and is
• “on track” to deliver GPS Space Vehicles (SVs) 1 through 10, and
• deserves to win the bid for GPS IIIF. Now that Boeing has dropped out of the running, it seems they probably have it. (The government has said it will announce the award in March 2019.)
Here is the GPS III SVs 1-10 Update:
SV 01. Declared “Available for Launch” (AFL) by the Air Force on Sept. 28, 2017. Awaiting “Call Up” for launch. A formal date has not been set. “Sometime this year” was the answer Lockheed Martin provided when asked a timeframe.
SV 02. Completed Thermal Vacuum (TVAC) testing, Dec. 2017. Currently in final environmental EMI (electromagnetic)/EMC (electromagnetic compatibility)/PIM (passive intermodulation) testing. AFL expected Summer 2018.
SV 03. Fully integrated, Fall 2017. Currently in TVAC testing, AFL expected. Spring 2019
Interview with Harris Corporation’s Jason Hendrix, PNT Program Director.
GPS World readers are familiar with the differences in the GPS III signals as compared to those transmitted by satellites to date. What are the differences in the GPS III satellite payloads that were instituted to enable those new signals?
The main difference is the power. The Air Force’s requirements called for significantly more anti-jamming capability. All the transmitters are a higher power.
What was the most significant obstacle (or top obstacles, plural) in designing and manufacturing this new payload, to new Air Force specifications? How did you overcome it/them?
Same answer really, the higher power. Keeping in mind, we went from a 7-year mission life requirement to a 15 year. That higher power puts more strain on components and new cyber requirements in software. When you couple all that together we are not just upgrading payload technology. It is really engineering a new set of payload requirements. It’s new generation, advanced.
What are the advantages of a digital payload over the alternative? When you say “Our current GPS payload is 70 percent digital” does that refer to the IIR payload? The offered “fully digital navigation payload with enhanced performance” — is that the GPS III payload? What’s the new 30 percent that has gone digital?
The advantages and the 30 percent difference are the timekeeping system portion. We’re moving from a manual, analog timing to digital to deliver to the Air Force more flexibility. It’s a nice option to have to be able to reprogram in orbit and maybe enhance capabilities desired in the future.
Can you provide any perspectives on how Harris is performing now in delivering payloads for SVs 1-10?
We’re now ahead of schedule. We delivered the 5th payload three weeks early (early March 2018). We are on time for 4 and three more are due this year.
Interview with Lockheed Martin’s Navigation Systems Mission Area Program Manager Johnathon Caldwell
Can you provide some general updates on assembly of GPS 1-10?
Photo: LMCO
Vehicle SV01: It is ready and we’re very excited about that. We defer to the Air Force on questions about launch date. But once they call it up we will install the solar panels and take it to a C-17. Then load it in the back of the plane and fly it down to Florida. We will then take it over to the vehicle processing facility and mate it up with the launch vehicle provider. The GNST – the satellite prototype -has gone to the Cape twice already. So, we have conducted a dry run for shipping SV 01.
Vehicle SV02: It has completed thermal vacuum testing – a major milestone. We’re in the last of the environmental tests. And we’re tracking to have that vehicle declared AFL this summer.
Vehicle SV03. It is fully integrated and is in the T-Vac chamber now. The door is closed and it’s going through tests. (Pump down to vacuum is achieved in approximately three hours and the total testing time is 70 days.)
Vehicle SV04: It is fully integrated on the floor. It is in its baseline electrical tests and will be in environmental tests as soon as 3 comes out of the chambers. It is staged to go in right after – 3.
Vehicle SV05: It is about to go through its integration to the propulsion core. And five has its navigation payload. Integrating it this summer.
Any changes in your production approach having completed SV01 that you are fixing in your production approach to SV02, 03 or 04?
No, the performance on Vehicle 01 was as designed there were no technical or design changes necessitated throughout the rest of the fleet. So, it was a very successful from that perspective – from the standpoint of validating the design and wringing it out, Vehicle 01 served its purpose well.
It had a very good T-Vac. I would say overall when you look at the industry, Vehicles 01 – 02, our vacuum test campaigns are the most rigorous test. Both went through their tests quite well. Some of the best I’ve seen.
We consider thermal vacuum the gold standard for testing any satellite before it goes into operations. It really is putting the craft through the paces. When it goes through the testing, the satellite is on. It is working. It is exposing it to the heat and the cold and the zero pressure while the satellite is functional. The entire thermal vac testing from start to end is a little over 70 days. “Test like you fly.” From the time it launches and deployment sequence we test it like it is real. Minus the shaking, the satellite thinks it is getting launched. Meanwhile, our people are looking at the data and its health. T Vac is a huge milestone for a satellite to go through it and come out without any issues. Which is why we are so pleased about the two.
Have there been any production delays since last year.
No, we’ve been quite stable in our production schedule.
Can you shed some light as to how many Lockheed Martin employees are involved in the production of GPS III?
The way we’re organized, there are engineers that flux in and out of the project depending the stage we’re in. This is production program, so we use the skillsets we need at the time we need them, then those engineers go on to do other work. But this also comes back to some of the commonality we’re trying to achieve across out product lines. That when you have common processes, common parts and common procedures in building spacecraft you gain leverage and major cost savings to have flex in resources.
Can you speak to any issues with subcontractors? Any delays?
No, since last year, the Harris production line has stabilized. We’ve been receiving Harris payloads, and we’ve just received the 5th payload and we’re finishing up integration. Vehicle 6 navigation payload is currently in test. And Vehicle 7 and 8 payload production is going according to schedule. We feel Harris has definitely overcome some of the challenges of the past. And we’ve been seeing stable production deliveries. By the end of this year we should receive 3 more payloads and by the first quarter of next year, the 8th, and they are contracted for 9 and 10.
From a civilian perspective, can you remind us what will be different with GPS III?
Three times better accuracy and up to eight times improved anti-jamming capabilities. And it is a longer life vehicle and healthy constellation of satellites that people can rely on. The new L1C signal is common with other GNSS, like Galileo, so as that becomes incorporated into equipment, it will give you more data points for better service, more accuracy and reliability.
For GPS IIIF requirements, are there capabilities that will require innovation or new technology?
We’ve designed with some of those capabilities in mind. If you just look down the list. The regional military protection is about bringing higher power and boosting the signal where the military needs it most. That’s not a particularly new technology per se, but it is bringing a new capability that the current GPS satellites don’t have.
The Search and Rescue payload, again, I wouldn’t consider it a new capability, it is provided by a partner nation, a Canadian company, but it effects those folks in need.
Digital payload. For 11+, fully digital payload for greater flexibility for the government. It allows the government to expand or enhance capabilities of the mission over time. It enables loading new software to do different things.
GPS III was designed with a modular, flexible architecture. Because Lockheed Martin knew that as time goes by, technology evolves. New technology becomes available and the government’s mission needs are likely to change.
Now that ability to evolve is down to the payload with a fully, 100 percent digital payload.
Lockheed Martin has been working on a lot of the GPSIII F design requirements already (preliminary design review level).
Can you speak to the other “Risk Retired” you mentioned in your slides?
Last fall, we had our first time with the OCX zero ground system. It’s one thing to talk to satellite in the high bay, it’s another thing to talk to it with the entire Air Force control network you plan to use when you’re operating. So, we were excited to get that done and run the entire chain from the vehicle out from the Air Force control network the AFCN network, utilizing the OCX system to command the vehicle. It was a big milestone for us. And previously we demonstrated our compatibility of our signals (with OCX).
Our future satellites in our GPS IIIF proposal share a common design with GPS III so they also will be compatible with OCX because we have proven that compatibility.
Can you speak to the GPS III Ground System Support Contracts Lockheed Martin has received?
The government asked us to help provide some gap fillers for the ground system (rmw note: if OCX isn’t there yet). To take the heritage AEP ground system and provide the ability to fly GPS III satellites using that ground system. So that activity has been going well and the critical design review has been completed and it is on track for delivery to the government next year. And subsequently, we were also put on contract for the M-code new signal to add some capabilities to the legacy ground system to begin to furnish early use of that new GPS III M-code signal to the military. We’ve been working hard on that. We conducted our preliminary design review last fall and just recently completed a critical design review to add that capability.
