GPS World

Category: Opinions

  • NGS to replace NAVD 88 in 2022: What GNSS users need to know — Part 10

    NGS to replace NAVD 88 in 2022: What GNSS users need to know — Part 10

    Understanding the differences between the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 and the new 2022 Vertical Reference Datum

    My Survey Scene columns have focused on procedures and routines for establishing GNSS-derived orthometric heights. My last column focused on analyzing NGS’ GPS on BM data set that is used to make National Geodetic Survey’s (NGS) hybrid geoid models. It provided procedures that users could employ when analyzing the differences between the modeled geoid values and the computed geoid values using GPS/Leveling data. This GPSBM data set or one similar will be used to make the next hybrid geoid model, as well as provide input to the transformation model between the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) and the new 2022 Vertical Reference Datum. As I emphasized, all geospatial users should help develop this GPS on BMS data set to help improve the National Spatial Reference System and future hybrid geoid models.

    Large relative differences in residuals between neighboring stations provided examples of stations that should investigated based on different reasons: No. 1, a weak NAVD 88 is leveling network design in the region; No. 2, the station’s published height attribute code implies that the station was not rigorously adjusted into the NAVD 88; and No. 3, station pairs have different adjustment dates indicating a possible adjustment distribution correction issue or movement.

    It was mentioned that NGS has a program called “GPS on Bench Mark” to support users that occupy bench marks with GNSS equipment. It was also mentioned that in addition to participating in the NGS’ GPS on Bench Mark program, all geospatial users should participate in the NGS 2017 Geospatial Summit, which will be held in April 2017 in Silver Spring, Maryland. This summit is an opportunity for all users of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) to obtain a better understanding of NGS’ plans to modernize the NSRS. Users will be able to provide feedback directly to NGS leadership.

    This column will briefly address NGS’ plans to replace the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 in 2022; and, in my opinion, why GNSS users need to obtain a better understanding of the differences between the NAVD 88 and the new 2022 Vertical Reference Datum.

    First, NGS has a very nice website that discusses their new datums of 2022.

    The frequently asked question section provides information on the expected changes in coordinates.

    I have highlighted three FAQs that I believe users should learn more about. (See box titled “Excerpts from NGS’ New Datums FAQs, below.) Under the FAQ “Why is NGS replacing the North America of 1983 and the North America Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)” it states that the NAVD 88 is both biased (by about one-half meter) and tilted (about 1 meter coast to coast) relative to the best global geoid models available today.

    Excerpts from NGS’ New Datums FAQs Web Page

    Why is NGS replacing the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)? NAD 83 and NAVD 88, although still the official horizontal and vertical datums of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS), have been identified as having shortcomings that are best addressed through defining new horizontal and vertical datums. Specifically, NAD 83 is non-geocentric by about 2.2 meters. Secondly, NAVD 88 is both biased (by about 0.5 meters) and tilted (about 1 meter coast to coast) relative to the best global geoid models available today. Both of these issues derive from the fact that both datums were defined primarily using terrestrial surveying techniques at passive geodetic survey marks. This network of survey marks deteriorates over time (both through unchecked physical movement and simple removal), and resources are not available to maintain them. The new reference frames (geometric and geopotential) will rely primarily Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) as well as an updated and time-tracked geoid model. This paradigm will be easier and more cost-effective to maintain.

    How will accessing the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) change with the release of the new datums? The NSRS will be accessed using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology that references Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) and relies on a time-dependent gravimetric geoid model. This method of accessing the NSRS is a paradigm shift from accessing NAD 83 and NAVD 88 through the use of geodetic survey marks.

    How can I learn more about the new reference frames? NGS will participate in and host meetings to discuss the transition from NAD 83 and NAVD 88 to the new reference frames. We will continue to update our website with events, announcements and new outreach materials, as they become available.

    The “Get Prepared” section on the New Datum website explains how users can get a ready for the new datums. In this section, NGS provides a figure that depicts the approximate orthometric height change between the NAVD 88 and the 2022 Vertical Reference Datum (Figure 1).

    [FIGURE 1] New Datums: Approximate Orthometric Height Change
    [FIGURE 1] New Datums: Approximate Orthometric Height Change
    This figure may look familiar to many of you. The difference between the NAVD 88 and the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) was more than a meter from the east coast to the west coast. This difference was documented in a 1992 report titled “Special Report – Results of the General Adjustment of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988.” Figure 2 shows a plot of the differences between NAVD 88 and NGVD 29.

    [FIGURE 2]
    [FIGURE 2] NAVD 88 minus NGVD 29 Datum Shift Contours
    A similar difference was detected in 1929 when the NGVD 29 general adjustment was performed. Figures 3 and 4 depict the adjusted height differences between the NGVD 29 fully-constrained adjustment and a minimally-constrained adjustment. The heights of 26 tide stations were constrained in the fully-constrained NGVD 29 general adjustment. Four of the constrained tide stations have been labeled to show the differences between the east coast and the west coast of the U.S.

    [FIGURE 3] Coast-to-Coast Height Differences in the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 General Adjustment – Plot A
    [FIGURE 3] Coast-to-Coast Height Differences in the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 General Adjustment – Plot A
    As indicated in the plots depicting the results of the NGVD 29 General Adjustment, the difference between stations at St. Augustine, Florida, and Fort Stevens, Oregon, was 86.3 centimeters. This is similar to the trend between the NAVD 88 and NGVD 29. It should be noted that most of the original NGVD 29 leveling data were revealed, so the leveling data observed prior to 1929 were not included in the general adjustment of the NAVD 88. In 1929, the Coast and Geodetic Survey (the predecessor of the NGS) decided to constrain the heights of the 26 tide gauges and force the differences between the constraints.

    [FIGURE 4] Coast-to-Coast Height Differences in the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 General Adjustment – Plot B
    [FIGURE 4] Coast-to-Coast Height Differences in the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 General Adjustment – Plot B
    Prior to performing the NAVD 88 general adjustment a special project was performed to evaluate possible constraints including constraining heights of various tide gauges. Regardless of which datum definition scenario was chosen, i.e., the height of one tide gauge or heights of multiple tide gauges on the east and west coasts of the U.S., the results showed that large differences between NAVD 88 and NGVD 29 heights would exist. These differences were due to many factors, such as large distribution corrections (residuals) from the NGVD 29 adjustment, better estimates of corrections applied to account for systematic errors, crustal movement, and estimating geopotential differences using real gravity values instead of normal orthometric height differences. Based on the results from the special study, NGS decided to constrain the height of one tide gauge and not force the differences between constraints. This was mainly because of the uncertainty of the heights of the tide gauges representing the same equipotential surface. The new 1988 heights are much better estimates of orthometric heights than are the NGVD 29 heights.

    As part of the NAVD 88 datum definition study, NGS also compared Satellite-Derived Orthometric heights computed using the best available geoid model and ellipsoid heights with NAVD 88 leveling-derived heights. See box titled “Excerpt from 1992 report titled “Special Report – Results of the General Adjustment of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988.” As stated in the report, based on the comparison, combining VLBI-derived orthometric height difference data with leveling data in NAVD 88 would not have helped to control remaining errors in the leveling data, or significantly improved the estimates of adjusted heights in the network adjustment. The results were consistent with the accuracy statements of GEOID90. VLBI-derived orthometric heights did not show the same 1.5 m difference indicated by the LMSL (epoch 1960-78) tidal heights. Therefore, if the coast-to-coast leveling does indeed contain long-wave-length systematic errors, the errors probably are not as large as 1.5 m.

    Corrections to account for known systematic errors were applied to the leveling data involved in the NAVD 88 but it is recognized that the leveling data could still have a small systematic error remaining in the data. The leveling distance from the east coast to the west coast is over 5,000 kilometers. If we assume that the leveling crew performed a setup every 150 meters, then the number of setup across the country would be over 30,000 setups. If we assume a systematic error of 0.02 millimeters, then the accumulated error could be at least 600 millimeters (60 centimeters). Although, there also could be a small systematic error in the scientific geoid model due to an undetected and/or unmodeled long wavelength error. (Of course, this statement is from the NAVD 88 Project Manager, me, and may be a little bias). At this moment, it really doesn’t matter why the systematic difference exists, just that it does and that the new 2022 Vertical Reference Datum will be established using the same process used to generate the scientific geoid models. Therefore, it is important for all users of geospatial data to prepare for the changes.

    Excerpt from 1992 report titled “Special Report – Results of the General Adjustment of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988”

    Comparison of NAVD 88 Adjusted Heights from the General Adjustment with Satellite-Derived Orthometric Heights

    In a report by Despotakis (1987), discussed in the datum definition study by Zilkoski, Balazs, and Bengston (1989), numerical computations of geoid heights using several methods were compared with satellite-derived geoid heights (ellipsoid heights minus orthometric heights) at laser tracking stations around the world. Despotakis’s report states:

    The numerical computations of the geoid undulations using all the four methods resulted in agreement with the “ellipsoidal minus orthometric” value of the undulations on the order of 60 cm or better for most of the laser stations in the eastern United States, Australia, Japan, Bermuda, and Europe. A systematic discrepancy of about 2 m for most of the western United States stations was detected and verified by using two relatively independent data sets. The cause of this discrepancy was not found.

    The results of the 1989 datum definition report provided a possible explanation for this systematic discrepancy of 2 m in the western U.S. stations (i.e., the difference between NGVD 29 and NAVD 88 in western United States was about 1.5 m). Applying NAVD 88 heights to Despotakis’s study reduced the 2 m bias to 60 cm.

    The problem with adjusting space-derived orthometric height data with leveling data is similar to the problem of using LMSL tidal heights as weighted observations in a leveling network adjustment: The uncertainties in space-derived orthometric height differences are too large to help control remaining errors in the leveling data. Space-derived ellipsoid height differences over long lines are probably more precise than leveling-derived orthometric height differences over the same distance. The uncertainties of geoid height differences used to convert ellipsoid height differences to orthometric height differences are large compared with the formal errors of leveling height differences. Several Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) stations, which were tied into NAVD 88, were included as special junction stations. The results of the final adjustment comparing NAVD 88 adjusted heights with VLBI-derived orthometric heights derived using the best available estimates of ellipsoid heights (Strange 1991) and geoid heights (Milbert 1991) are given in Figure 11.

    Figure 11 indicates that the results are consistent with the accuracy statements of GEOID90. In coast-to-coast geoid height differences, the accuracy of the underlying geopotential model OSU89B (Rapp and Pavlis 1990) dictates the accuracy of GEOID90. OSU89B is believed to have a standard error of approximately 60 cm. VLBI-derived orthometric heights do not show the same 1.5 m difference indicated by the LMSL (epoch 1960-78) tidal heights. Therefore, if the coast-to-coast leveling does indeed contain long-wave-length systematic errors, the errors probably are not as large as 1.5 m. Combining VLBI-derived orthometric height difference data with leveling data in NAVD 88 would not have helped to control remaining errors in the leveling data, or significantly improved the estimates of adjusted heights in the network adjustment. As the accuracies of geoid models continue to improve, space-derived orthometric height data will be incorporated into NAVD 88 and future adjustments.

    The “Get Prepared” section on the New Datum website has a “GPS on Bench Marks” option. This is where NGS recommends that you obtain accurate GNSS-derived ellipsoid heights on NAVD 88 bench marks. We discussed this program in my last column. In Addition to improving the transformation model from NAVD 88 to the new 2022 Vertical Reference Datum, occupying more NAVD 88 bench marks with GNSS will help to identify regions of the country where the GNSS-derived orthometric heights obtained using the 2022 Vertical Reference Datum will be more accurate than the current NAVD 88 leveling-derived orthometric heights.

    My last column used the GPS on BMs dataset to identify potential issues in the published NAVD 88 heights. Figure 5, below, shows two stations (FA1337 and FA1560) are about 20 kilometers apart, and the difference in residuals is -18.6 centimeters (-12.4 centimeters minus 6.2 centimeters). This is a large difference for only 20 kilometers. What is even more significant is that the group of stations near FA1337 are all negative residuals (around -10 centimeters) and the group of stations near FA1560 are all positive residuals (around 6 centimeters). When the two stations are only 13 kilometers apart the GPS on BMs residual is 13.6 centimeters (Figure 6). These are two examples where the 2022 Vertical Reference Datum will provide a more accurate orthometric height difference between stations less than 20 kilometers apart. These differences are significant and could easily effect the results of many construction, transportation and flood plain mapping projects.

    [FIGURE 5] Large GPS on BMS Residuals Between Stations 20 km Apart at the NC/SC Border (Note: rejections by geoid team have been removed)
    [FIGURE 5] Large GPS on BMS Residuals Between Stations 20 km Apart at the NC/SC Border (Note: rejections by geoid team have been removed)
    [FIGURE 6] Large GPS on BMS Residuals Between Stations 13 kilometers Apart in South Carolina
    [FIGURE 6] Large GPS on BMS Residuals Between Stations 13 kilometers Apart in South Carolina
    In this column, we highlighted NGS plans for the 2022 Vertical Reference Datum and provided approximate height differences that users can expect to see. We also provided a little history behind the differences between the NGVD 29 and NAVD 88, and how each replacement of the vertical reference datum is improving the user’s ability to obtain the most accurate orthometric height.

  • Directions 2017: BeiDou’s road to global service

    Directions 2017: BeiDou’s road to global service

    An effective approach has been taken by the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS), and significant progress has been witnessed in 2016, from the aspects of launching new satellites, verifying new technologies, promoting applications and industrialization, strengthening international cooperation, and formulating fundamental policies.

    Li Wang
    Li Wang

    Construction Update. In March 2016, a BDS satellite was launched into an inclined geo-synchronous orbit (IGSO); another geosynchronous orbit (GEO) satellite was launched in June. These became the 22nd and 23rd BDS satellites overall and further enhanced service capability. The BDS has been maintaining stable operation, and the performance of BDS Open Services has steadily improved. The availability and continuity surpass 99.9%, which can satisfy the nominal requirements of 95% and 99.5%.

    The deployment of a BDS global constellation has progressed steadily. Five new-generation BDS satellites have been successfully launched so far, to verify advanced signal structure, crosslink, on-board clocks with higher accuracy, and other new technologies. Test results showed that the inter-system technical status is coordinated, the accuracy of orbit prediction was increased by 50%, and accuracy of time maintenance was upgraded by about 60% due to crosslink.

    Meanwhile, the construction of augmentation systems is being accelerated. A nationwide reference station network has been built, and the construction of the basic system has been completed. System performance is under test, including meter and decimeter level for wide-area real-time services, centimeter level for areas within Beijing, and millimeter level for post-processing services.

    As for satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS), BDS is actively participating in the design and international coordination activities for the next generation dual-frequency multiple-constellation (DFMC) SBAS standards. The 30th SBAS Interoperability Working Group (IWG) meeting was successfully held in China.

    The document “Development of BDS and Applications of Multi-Frequency Multi-Constellation Navigation Satellite Systems” was submitted by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) during the 39th meeting of International Civil Aviation Organization. This represents Chinese civil aviation authority’s official support of construction of BDSBAS. Development of applications of multi-frequency multi-constellation has been proposed to the international civil aviation community.

    BDS Applications. With the enhancement of BDS service capability, its applications are also making remarkable progress, already producing a BDS industrial chain which comprises the basic products, application terminals, application systems and operational services.

    BDS-based chips have been upgraded in quality and quantity. Great efforts are being made to carry out demonstrations of BDS industrial and regional applications. Mass market applications are flourishing. Chinese industrial production in the field of satellite navigation reached 190 billion renminbi yuan (US$28 billion) in 2015, of which BDS would contribute about 30%. So far, BDS-related products have already been exported to more than 70 countries, and applications and services are available in over 30 countries along the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road (the Belt and Road) region.

    International Cooperation Activities. BDS continuously carries out bilateral and multilateral exchanges and cooperation, in line with the principle that “BDS is developed by China, and dedicated to the world.”

    To provide better services for global users, BDS carries out exchanges and coordination with the other navigation satellite systems in terms of compatibility and interoperability, monitoring and assessment, frequency resource, augmentation systems and other areas. It also strives to implement applications cooperation with countries in the Asia-Pacific region, members in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the League of Arab States (LAS), to bring more benefits to a wider range. On multilateral platforms, BDS continuously contributes to efforts and meetings of the International Committee on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (ICG) and the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). In addition to these international academic activities, China has also been organizing the China Satellite Navigation Conference for seven sessions.

    Fundamental Policies. A whitepaper on BDS released in June 2016 interprets its development concepts and propositions, and is available on the official BDS website. The major content includes: to provide open services for global users free of charge; to continuously improve service performance and enhance the service quality; to promote compatible applications with other navigation satellite systems and to improve users’ benefits; to disseminate BDS information in a timely manner; to protect the radio-navigation satellite frequency spectrum according to law and to firmly reject harmful interference; to enhance BDS applications, industrial development and international application; to actively carry out international cooperation and exchanges, to participate in multilateral activities in the field of international satellite navigation and to promote the ratification of the BDS by international standards.

    The “BeiDou Navigation Satellite System Signal In Space Interface Control Document” (Version 2.1) was published in November.

    As for the standardization process, the “BeiDou Satellite Navigation Standard System” (Version 1.0) has been released, and BDS has been included in the Receiver Independent Exchange Format (RINEX, Version 3.03), approved by the Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services Special Committee 104 on GNSS Service, RTCM SC-104.

    Follow-up Deployment Plans. In 2017, three to four launches of BeiDou satellites will occur. BDS will provide basic services to the countries along the Belt and Road region by 2018, and possess global service capability by 2020.

    BDS will keep improving its nationwide reference station network and steadily enhance its service performance. The dense reference stations for the nationwide frame network will be constructed by 2018, providing meter and decimeter level real-time location services for users in China, even centimeter level service in some areas.

    BDS will carry out the design, validation and construction of SBAS in accordance with international civil aviation standards. The first GEO satellite of BDSBAS will be launched in around 2018. The satellite-based augmentation services covering China and surrounding regions will be provided from 2020, to provide CAT-I services to civil aviation users.

    China will promote construction of a national comprehensive positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) system based on BDS, and strive to establish such a national PNT system with a united benchmark, no-gap coverage, security and effectiveness by 2030, as well as to upgrade capabilities to provide time and space information.

    Summary. BDS will boost the deployment of a global constellation, continuously enhance performance, fulfill its service commitments, make all efforts to advance satellite navigation applications, promote the development of GNSS, and better serve the world and benefit mankind.

  • Directions 2017: GPS navigates the future

    Directions 2017: GPS navigates the future

    I’m proud to be a part of the accomplishments of the men and women of the Space and Missile Systems Center’s Global Positioning System Directorate at Los Angeles Air Force Base in El Segundo, California. The year has been extremely challenging, but looking back on 2016, we have taken real steps forward to modernize the GPS Enterprise and the way we do business. I’d like to share some of our major accomplishments (see “2016 Accomplishments” below) and challenges, and provide some insights for 2017 and beyond.

    steve_whitney-gpsdirectorate-w
    Col. Steven Whitney. (Photo: USAF)

    Civil Partnerships

    While much of our focus is on military capabilities, GPS is a global utility with very strong ties to the civil community. The same principles of transparency and communication are cornerstones of our relationships with the various stakeholders.

    One example of this is our work with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation, where the safety-of-life applications are a key element of our discussions. To ensure a transparent, communication-rich relationship, we hold quarterly program management reviews with these organizations and their stakeholders.

    The GPS Directorate continues to actively participate on a number of committees, such as the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee, that are key to maintaining ties to our civil stakeholders and ensuring that we have an effective flow of information both to and from the Directorate.

    We are currently engaged in the DOT-led Adjacent Band Compatibility study, initiated by the National Space-Based PNT Executive Committee. This year will see the culmination of the effort to determine power levels from potential future adjacent-band sources that are compatible with existing and evolving GPS receivers, and serve as a foundation to determine power levels compatible with evolving GPS/GNSS receivers.

    This study exemplifies our strong ties with the greater GPS community, as well as my push for the Directorate’s efforts to be as transparent as possible, execute data-driven decisions, and be guided by widely accepted international standards.

    Space Segment

    A key milestone occurred Feb. 5, 2016, with the launch of our 12th and final GPS IIF satellite. This marked the end of an extremely successful GPS IIF launch campaign and our most aggressive launch schedule in the last 20+ years: eight successful launches in 24 months!

    The addition of the GPS IIF satellites to the constellation enabled the system to reach its best performance day ever on May 11, 2016, achieving 36.5-centimeter accuracy in average user range error.

    Col. Whitney with the Green Monster, mascot of the U.S. Air Force GPS Directorate.
    Col. Whitney with the Green Monster, mascot of the U.S. Air Force GPS Directorate. (Photo: USAF)

    Moving over to our next generation GPS III satellites, SV-01 continues to make steady progress. In August, the team executed successful functional and physical configuration audits with Lockheed Martin, completing a key task on the road to achieving our available for launch (AFL) date. The AFL declaration signifies completion of production activities, and allows initiation of the Mission Readiness Campaign for launch upon Air Force direction.

    As we march towards AFL, we are tackling several technical challenges, including a capacitor issue discovered during our investigation of SV-03 flight hardware tests. This capacitor is used in many places throughout the navigation payload. Our investigation uncovered inadequate qualification processes by a major subcontractor. Exercising due diligence, the Air Force is now verifying both the build quality of the entire capacitor manufacturing process and production lot via additional capacitor qualification life testing. This activity delayed our AFL until December 2016, approximately a four-month delay from our previous forecast.

    The program is also working to solve several other technical challenges as we progress to completion. SV-01 testing uncovered electro-magnetic interference between a payload component and a hosted payload. Testing also uncovered electron impact issues on the L-band antenna elements. In partnership with Lockheed Martin, the program developed corrective action and design mitigations for both of these issues and is implementing these steps within our production flow for all the SVs. Of course, all these issues together have led to increased cost and contributed to delays in final delivery.

    In the coming year, SV-02, the second GPS III satellite, will also be progressing towards completing production. Currently, all of the SV-02 sub-assemblies have been received by Lockheed Martin and are being integrated into the spacecraft. The next major step in the production flow for SV-02 will be to mate it with its propulsion core.

    Recently, we completed negotiations with Lockheed Martin to extend the production line with purchases of SV-09 and SV-10. These satellites will be technically equivalent to SV-01 through SV-08. This $395 million purchase of two satellites marks a significant affordability milestone for the procurement of GPS III satellites.

    Looking ahead, we are analyzing how to acquire satellites beyond SV-10. We are executing a phased strategy which starts first with determining the viability of a GPS III production design existing beyond the current contractor. We awarded an initial phase of contracts to the Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, and Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems in May 2016 to provide a feasibility assessment of the readiness of their satellites designs. In this phase, the contractors will provide a GPS III production design, manufacturing plans and a navigation payload brassboard test report, along with manufacturing/production processes and facilities maturity.

    We are also collaborating closely on an Air Force Research Laboratory Space Vehicles Directorate activity, the On-orbit Reprogrammable Digital Waveform Generator program, as an opportunity for the three contractors to develop advanced GPS L-band navigation signal processing capabilities in a smaller, more efficient package. This effort could potentially provide future satellites enhanced security in contested environments, more capable signal generation, and additional GPS waveforms to meet the growing needs of both military and civilian users.

    Looking further ahead, the second phase is envisioned to be a full and open competition with contract awards starting in 2018. Contractors will be required to deliver the first satellite in time to support constellation sustainment commitments.

    Control Segment

    Our Control Segment consists of both OCX and our existing Operational Control Segment at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado. The OCX program has struggled with many challenges through the years, producing a cost and schedule growth on OCX that exceeded the prescribed thresholds — in our case, a 25 percent cost growth against the approved Program Baseline.

    I notified the Secretary of the Air Force on June 14 of this development, and on June 30 the Air Force declared a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach on the OCX program. The Nunn-McCurdy process is a mechanism for Congress to maintain oversight of DoD programs and requires the Office of the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review leading to a decision to either certify as critical to National Security or terminate the program.

    The GPS Directorate and Raytheon, the OCX prime contractor, worked closely with teams conducting this in-depth, comprehensive review. The result was determined on Oct. 12 that OCX is essential to national security that no alternatives exist to meet requirements at less cost, remaining costs for the restructured program are reasonable and a higher priority than programs whose funding must be reduced to accommodate the growth, and management structure for the program is adequate.

    With the review behind us, our challenge is to move forward with a stronger, healthier, more focused OCX program. To accomplish this, we are focused on several major areas: stronger systems engineering practices, establishing a single common hardware/environments baseline, greater software installation automation, and implementing industry standard software development processes.

    One of our first milestones next year will be the delivery and deployment of OCX Block 0 in the summer of 2017. Block 0 is the GPS III Launch and Checkout System and provides a subset of the full OCX capabilities needed to launch the GPS III satellites and perform early on-orbit spacecraft bus checkout.

    This delivery starts the drive for our inaugural launch of GPS III SV-01 in the spring of 2018. Raytheon completed two Block 0 key milestones since March 2016, and is now in formal qualification testing before it is deployed to operations early next year. The next year will see OCX development focused on Block 1. It provides the Initial Operating Capability to command and control all GPS satellites and enable the PNT mission, including the international L1C signal and advanced M-code features and capabilities.

    Because OCX Block 0 is not designed to control the GPS III navigation payload, we are modifying the existing OCS to control GPS III satellites under Contingency Operations, or COps. COps will allow operation of the GPS III satellites launched prior to OCX Block 1 delivery in 2021, and provides the Air Force the ability to fly GPS III satellites at a capability level commensurate to a GPS IIF.

    Our COps program has made good progress, completing its Preliminary Design Review last May and successfully passed Milestone B in September. COps is on track to hold its Critical Design Review in November, with delivery planned for the spring of 2019. We are exploring other potential OCS modifications to hedge against further delays in OCX.

    Our OCS sustainment team in Colorado Springs recently completed the largest system update in program history. This update is part of our focus to refresh and bolster the cyber posture of the GPS architecture, and modernize the GPS control segment mission servers and hosted commercial software. These upgrades will protect against infiltration of cyber threats and enable improved data traffic logging for network situational awareness to protect this global utility.

    User Equipment Segment

    Like our other segments, our User Equipment segment had a very challenging but successful year. The MGUE program has worked steadily with our entire industry team, L-3 Communications, Raytheon, and Rockwell-Collins, to complete and test MGUE Increment 1 production prototypes. These Final Test Articles, or FTAs, started delivering this summer and are now capable of acquiring and actively tracking live-sky M-code. With the initial risk reduction testing phase complete, the Directorate will now use the FTAs to perform MGUE developmental testing and verification and hardware qualification testing.

    The L-3 design was also the first on our program team to achieve security certification this October, which marks the very first security-certified M-code receiver card. This not only validates the L-3 design and production, it also validates the GPS security certification process, an enduring function for the Directorate in working with industry. This certification also leads the way for the product to be available to a wide variety of users across the DoD.

    While progress in MGUE has been significant, creating the next-generation of secure, anti-jam, anti-spoof receivers has been more time-consuming and costly than expected. The drive to support warfighter needs for greater performance drives a diverse set of requirements across the DoD. The Air Force made a concerted effort to improve the resiliency of the MGUE receivers, adding complexity to the program. Combined, these challenges have led to extended delivery schedules for the program.

    In the coming years, the MGUE team will lead efforts to integrate MGUE cards into four lead DoD platforms: the Air Force’s B-2 bomber, the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, the Army’s Distributed Defense Advanced GPS Receiver Device for the Stryker armored fighting vehicle, and the Marine Corps’ Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.

    The four lead platforms provide pathfinder integrations and operational testing for the entire DoD community as we move into the modernized GPS era. The program office has already been working closely with the B-2 Program Office and the Joint Service System Management Office in fielding an M-code capable flight prototype Miniaturized Airborne GPS Receiver.

    We have worked jointly on this first lead platform integration effort to field the first ever MGUE receiver integration into a higher order prototype unit. These efforts yielded tremendous integration insights. Prototype lab testing demonstrated live-sky tracking of C/A, Y and M-codes; testing of MGUE connected with a new B-2 flight antenna; and culminating in the first end-to-end demonstration of M-code capability.

    In 2017, the GPS Directorate will set the acquisition strategy and plan forward for the MGUE Increment 2 program, addressing our long-term strategy for Application Specific Integrated Circuits, as well as meeting the needs of future platforms such as precision guided munitions, space receivers, and a modernized GPS handheld.

    The Space Enterprise Vision

    Earlier this year, General John Hyten, former commander of Air Force Space Command, announced the Space Enterprise Vision. The SEV is the result of an AFSPC study that looked at ensuring national security space capabilities in a contested environment, with an emphasis on improved resiliency. In the PNT mission area, there are many ways to provide greater resiliency in-line with General Hyten’s SEV. One that we are leaning forward and looking very hard at is multi-GNSS possibilities.

    At the recent Institute of Navigation conference, many presenters noted that for the consumer market, the multi-GNSS era has already begun. Potential incorporation of non-GPS signals into military user equipment is still under review, but certainly offers the possibility of improving resilience to jamming, spoofing, and operations in obstructed terrain. The broader GPS community is developing approaches to assess multi-GNSS integrity, and we are working with those community members to evaluate the potential impacts to our GPS architecture, especially the ground.

    Another resiliency initiative we are participating in is a DOT-led effort known as Advanced Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring backed by PNT experts from the labs and academia. Once the technical aspects are well understood and the policy decisions are made, the GPS Directorate will be well positioned to take advantage of this opportunity.

    Conclusion

    2016 has been a very challenging and successful year. Looking forward into 2017 and beyond, we have numerous challenges across all segments of the Enterprise — OCX, GPS III, and MGUE — to deliver a modernized architecture. The men and women of the GPS Directorate and our Industry partners are truly some of the hardest working people I have ever had the opportunity to work with. It is their passion and dedication that has allowed us to continue to deliver the Gold Standard. It is my honor to serve with, and for, them.

    2016 Accomplishments

    gps-ocx-raytheon-200x150Our GPS Next-Generation Operational Control System, or OCX program, received the majority of the press attention this year. OCX has struggled to overcome information assurance challenges, as well as poor systems engineering processes and planning from the outset of the program. The cost and schedule growth triggered a rigorous review by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

    The outcome, we believe, will be a restructured, more executable program that is implementing stronger systems engineering practices and industry-standard software development processes.  We still have a ways to go to be successful, but realize we must deliver the capability to command our GPS satellites and will continue to explore programmatic off-ramps should the OCX program falter.

    The past year also saw us bring to a close the GPS IIF production and deployment activities with the successful launch of our 12th and final GPS IIF satellite. Our GPS constellation remains healthy, stable and robust with 31 operational space vehicles: 12 GPS IIR, seven GPS IIR-M, and 12 GPS IIF.

    We ushered in the GPS III era with the completion of Space Vehicle-01 thermal vacuum testing late in 2015 in an unprecedented 72 days. We have, however, uncovered several technical issues challenging our availability for launch. As we ready SV-01, a tremendous effort is ongoing to fully investigate and exonerate these issues to ensure our satellites deliver the capabilities you’ve come to expect from the Gold Standard.

    This year our partners in the Launch Enterprise Directorate awarded a GPS III launch services contract to the Space Exploration Technology Corporation, or SpaceX — their first National Security Space System launch.

    Finally, our Military GPS User Equipment (MGUE) program delivered its first set of Military Code compliant production prototypes for developmental testing and integration. Just as significant, the MGUE program granted the first-ever full security certification to contractor L-3 Communications. These major GPS modernization milestones are successful initial steps, but the progress in delivering the most secure, anti-jam, anti-spoof GPS receivers ever has taken longer than expected, and a great deal of work lies ahead.

    This is by no means an exhaustive list of the year’s accomplishments and challenges, but it demonstrates that we are continuing to modernize the GPS system and maintain transparency on our commitments.

  • What3words gets competition in Xaddress

    Last year, I wrote about a revolutionary addressing system called what3words. I thought that the concept was brilliant in its simplicity and was embarrassed that I didn’t think of it — or at least that someone with a GISP attached to their name didn’t think of it (certified geographic information systems professional).

    (Photo: what3words)
    (Photo: what3words)

    It was, in fact, invented by a musician who got tired of not being able to find the exact location of his next gig.

    What3words certainly made its mark. Since 2013, what3words has received numerous high visibility tech awards and raised more than $13.5 million to expand its use. It’s being used by the United Nations, many commercial shipping firms, Google and Esri. What3words even attracted the personal interest of Prince William and Kate.

    Some naysayers point to the lack of accuracy and precision (only as good as GPS, so not perfect), but what3words has opened a lot of eyes and has even become the addressing standard for the entire country of Mongolia.

    Although some parts of Mongolia are very modern, like the photo to the right, the majority of the country is still isolated with no street addresses, not to mention a nomadic population.

    Other challenging location problems include specific homes in third-world shanty towns, such as Rio’s favelas, or weekend tailgating locations at college football games.

    The bottom line is that we need reliable universal addressing primarily for locations that are not adequately served by conventional street addresses. Most agree that numeric Lat/Long coordinates are the simplest and shortest description of a position on Earth, but there is one big problem. Humans have a hard time remembering and relating to long strings of numbers. Additionally, communicating long number strings can be difficult with little or no way to error check the results other than maybe a checksum digit.

    Numerous systems have been developed to provide understandable and memorable addresses, but what3words seems to have received a lion’s share of the public interest. Others on the “me too” wagon included systems such as Geohash, Mapcode, Openlocationcode and Xaddress. All encode a set of coordinates into more humanly memorable descriptors.

    Although I’m pretty much sold on the utility of what3words, recently released Xaddress, which Paraguayan founder Roberto Dam placed into the public domain this year, has benefits that make it a strong contender.

    Why Xaddress?

    First, I have to preface that I’m not a programmer, and my experience with GitHub and the correspondingly technical community is limited. I struggled with the encoding and decoding process used in Xaddress, since its key selling point is that it is a process that doesn’t require a computer or even a smartphone.

    After reading and mucking around the internet, I ran through a number of rabbit holes and trails with geohash, hash-tagging and spatial math discussions that led me to mathematician Felix Klein and his famous Klein’s bottle (which has nothing to do with this issue, but in which I felt trapped).

    I then read discussions about the value of mnemonics and how it helps humans relate to complex numbers or other difficult memory tasks. This is where both what3words and Xaddress share a common trait — they both display locations using memorable words. But Xaddress adds four new wrinkles:

    1. Although the encoding and decoding of a location into an Xaddress is most easily done using the algorithm on a computer or smartphone, the process can be done manually. It’s not quick and easy, but it can be done.
    2. The Xaddress also contains a visual graphic object or avatar that is used as a visual error check. If you get the address slightly wrong, the avatar displayed will be completely different. Here is a sample showing slight differences in the number resulting in completely different avatars.
    3. Xaddress also adds the city/country to identify the rough location. (Of course, this could also be done with what3words.)
    4. Lastly, Xaddress is an open-source system, unlike the patented what3words system.

    xaddress-avatars-w

    There is much more to Xaddress than I can cover in this short column, so you may want to read Roberto Dam’s more detailed article describing the inner workings of Xaddress. (The numeric to word-encoding process is a bit hard to follow, but give it a chance.)

    There is extensive technical information, discussions and code on GitHub.

    Additionally, the Xaddress website has numerous other examples and references, and you can try encoding your own addresses.

    screen-shot-xaddress-w

    According to NGOs, the majority of the Earth’s population, an estimated 6 billion people, have no address. In third-world countries of Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia and Latin America, it’s difficult to do the things we take for granted, such as receiving mail, getting parts or supplies to start even a simple business, and — even more critical — getting emergency responders to a fire or medical emergency.

    Perhaps, like cellphone technology permitted third-world countries to skip the effort and expense of landlines, new addressing systems may be a shortcut to leapfrog universal addressing.

  • The launch of 4 and declaration of Galileo operations

    The launch of 4 and declaration of Galileo operations

    “Now that we can rely on the powerful Ariane 5, we can anticipate the quicker completion of Galileo deployment, permitting the system to enter full operation,” said Paul Verhoef, ESA’s Director for the Galileo Programme and Navigation-related Activities, following the successful launch Nov. 17 of four satellites at once.

    Verhoef made the following further remarks to GPS World regarding Galileo’s future. The full text of his article will appear in the December issue.

    Paul Verhoef, ESA Director Satellite Navigation, at the Kourou launch site to witness Thursday's liftoff.
    Paul Verhoef, ESA Director Satellite Navigation, at the Kourou launch site to witness Thursday’s liftoff.

    “The European Union is set to declare Galileo operational for initial services at the end of this year, bringing the system to the point where it can start serving users.

    “November’s launch has been years in the making, employing a specially customized variant of Europe’s heavy-lift workhorse rocket called the Ariane 5 ES (Evolution Storable) Galileo. It has more powerful lower stages and a reignitable upper stage, first used in 2008 to supply the low-Earth orbiting International Space Station.

    “Two further Ariane 5 SE Galileo flights are planned to follow, one each for the remaining orbital planes.

    Ariane 5 ES on liftoff from Kourou, French Guiana
    Ariane 5 ES on liftoff from Kourou, French Guiana

    “This new launcher design, adapted beginning in 2012 for Galileo, carried a lower mass payload — four fully-fuelled 738-kg Galileo satellites plus their supporting dispenser — but hauled it to the much higher altitude of medium-Earth orbit, 23,522 km. This precisely targeted orbit actually lies 300 km above the Galileo constellation’s final working altitude, leaving Ariane’s upper stage in a stable graveyard orbit, while the quartet of satellites maneuver themselves down to their final height.

    “The four-satellite dispenser, the interface between the satellites and its launcher, is a wholly new design by Airbus Defence and Space. Its first role is to hold the satellites safely in position during their orbital flight and then to gently release them in separate directions. Its structure has been specially tuned to prevent harmful oscillations being triggered by the vibration and noise of launch. Its design was validated using complex finite -element-modeling software, followed by practical testing of the dispenser together with dummy satellites.

    Launcher. “Ariane’s interstage Vehicle Equipment Bay, hosting the rocket’s avionic brain, underwent a redesign to reduce mass. Engineers also had to take into account this Ariane ES version’s flight time, much longer than any of its predecessors, more than four hours in all. This involved a reworking of the launcher’s electronics and thermal subsystems, to ensure it maintains an optimal operational environment throughout a ballistic coast phase of more than three hours, between two firings of its EPS storable propellant upper stage.

    Ground Control. “This launch marked the first time that ESA carried out launch and early operations (LEOP) for four satellites simultaneously. Usually, simply shepherding a spacecraft through the first critical days in orbit is a demanding enough task. A combined team from ESA and France’s CNES space agency based in Toulouse will make contact, establish control, and then see the four satellites through their initial critical activities. Within the combined team, each position is paired with a counterpart from the other agency to provide three mixed shifts around the clock for these first crucial days. This same team has conducted all Galileo early operations to date alternately from Toulouse or ESA’s ESOC control center in Germany.

    “The work starts with an initial check of on-board health and attitude, progressing to ensure each satellite’s pair of 1 x 5-meter solar wings are deployed and tracking the Sun, and then to point their antennas back towards Earth. Next comes a series of thruster firings to set the satellites onto a drift course into their final orbit, at which point they can be handed over to the Galileo Control Centre in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, for routine operations, and to ESA’s Redu Centre in Belgium to commence a few months of detailed payload testing.

    Galileo at Your Service
    “Around the same time as this key launch, GSAT-210 and GSAT-211, the two previous satellites launched in May of this year, will have completed their in-orbit testing, allowing them to be formally certified as operational members of the constellation. The four new satellites should follow them into operational status by mid-2017. However, the Galileo system will reach initial operational status without these latest six satellites. The European Commission on behalf of the European Union expects to declare the system operational and ready to offer initial services before the end of this year.

    “This will mark a major milestone in the programme, awaited by many citizens in Europe and around the globe. Everyone with a Galileo-enabled receiver will be able to benefit from improved positioning, supplementing the already operational GPS constellation. ESA and the European GNSS Agency (GSA) have been working with European manufacturers of mass-market satnav chips and receivers to ensure that their products are Galileo-ready, offering detailed laboratory testing to close the loop between Galileo and industry.

    Transition. “In parallel to the declaration of initial services, there will also be an institutional change, as the GSA takes up its role overseeing the exploitation of Galileo. At the start of 2017, the formal handover of Galileo infrastructure will be initiated, targeted to conclude by the middle of the year. This mission includes not only the Galileo satellites in space but also the far-flung ground stations located on every continent, essential to the continued high-performance operations of the Galileo system. It also includes the two European Galileo control centers, with the signals overseen from Fucino in Italy and the platforms monitored from Oberpfaffenhofen, plus the communication infrastructure connecting them all together.

    Upgrade. “2017 will see the upgrade of various elements of the Galileo Ground Segment to reinforce its robustness, including updated releases to the Galileo Control Segment overseeing the satellites and the Galileo Mission Segment, overseeing the navigation signals. A new release of elements of the Galileo Security Facility, for security monitoring of the system, as well as the secure Public Regulated Service, will be deployed at the two Galileo Security Monitoring Centres.  The Galileo Ground Segment will gain a sixth tracking telemetry and control facility, for monitoring the satellite platforms in Papeete, Tahiti, and additional processing chains for increased redundancy will be deployed across the Uplink Stations in Kourou, Reunion and Noumea used to update the navigation message information. Similar redundant chains will be finalized for all 15 current Galileo Sensor Stations, which perform continuous collection of Galileo signals to identify the tiniest clock error or satellite drift.”

  • Going beyond GPS is the new order of the day

    The Trimble Dimensions conference.
    The Trimble Dimensions conference.

    Times have changed, and the technology landscape is much, much different today than it was as recently as ten years ago when GPS was the driving-force technology for geospatial users and geospatial equipment, and the exclusive concern of many companies in the industry. In that era, their challenges were to design the best performing receiver in terms of accuracy, size, weight, ruggedness and so on.

    Now, GPS technology has been commoditized in mobile devices (the GNSS chip in your smartphone costs about $1.50), and high-precision GNSS is heading in that direction. It’s hard to make a living designing “GPS boxes.”

    Sure, GPS is still a core technology offered in most hardware products that geospatial professionals use, but it’s not the centerpiece. It’s all about system solutions, of which software (and hardware besides GPS) is a major component.

    As just one example of this overall industry trend, let’s look at how the message of system solutions was abundantly clear last week at the Trimble Dimensions User Conference  in Las Vegas. This event reportedly drew 4,400 attendees from more than 80 countries.

    More than 4.400 attended Trimble Dimensions at the Las Vegas Venetial Hotel.
    More than 4.400 attended Trimble Dimensions at the Venetian Hotel.

    Virtual/Augmented (AR/VR) Reality

    The Trimble Dimensions general plenary discussion didn’t feature the latest GNSS technology. In fact, there was barely a mention of GNSS. Nonetheless, the cool factor was present, with the highlight being a live demonstration of virtually reality using Microsoft HoloLens goggles and Trimble SketchUp software.

    Over the years I’ve written quite a bit about augmented and virtual reality. This technology has a bright future for locating hidden assets (think underground and inside wall infrastructure) and visualizing design ideas. For this technology to work, it’s not just about having a set of goggles. One needs software and an accurate geo-database.

    During the plenary, architect Greg Lynn demonstrated the value of virtual reality technology by “displaying” a building concept on an empty table on the stage. Lynn and a colleague donned HoloLens goggles while a camera was set up with HoloLens goggles to display what they were “seeing” through the HoloLens.

    AR/VR reality are a step closer to being a practical technology to deploy in the field. In a way, AR/VR technology seems to be taking the same path as tablet computers. Tablet computers existed way before the iPad was introduced. They were expensive, and history is littered with failed tablet computer ventures, just like Google Glass failed in the AR/VR world.

    I remember paying ~$2,500 for a Fujitsu Stylistic tablet about 10 years ago for my work. Like the Stylistic, HoloLens isn’t cheap. It’s $3,000 for a development kit and $5,000 for the commercial version. It’s not priced for the average consumer, but the attraction is undeniable and due to the price tag; industrial markets will pick it up before the consumer market will.

    It might take a Steve Jobs-like push to punch it through the finish line, but it’s just a matter of time before AR/VR technology is commonplace.

    Solutions

    Hardware isn’t sticky. Software is. Even better, hardware and software bundled tightly together is the sweet spot. Dimensions showed how, more and more, geospatial technique is geared around solutions, not boxes.

    Trimble partner solutions area at Trimble Dimensions 2016.
    Trimble partner solutions area at Trimble Dimensions 2016.
    Trimble solutions area at Trimble Dimensions 2016.
    Trimble solutions area at Trimble Dimensions 2016.

    One case in point: I took a 45-minute ride from the Venetian Hotel on the Vegas Strip to the outdoor demonstration site in the desert east of Las Vegas.

    The demonstration site was a playground for heavy equipment utilizing Trimble hardware and software — from tractors to scrapers to bulldozers and paving machines. It’s difficult to imagine the scale of the outdoor demonstration site, so following are a few images.

    Demonstration site facing south with the Las Vegas Strip to the southwest.
    Demonstration site facing south with the Las Vegas Strip to the southwest.

    I caught a ride in a fully autonomous tractor that was outfitted with  guidance technology (GNSS using RTX satellite correction service), collision avoidance sensor and display console. It repeatedly stayed within the track defined by the orange cones you see in the above image.

    What good is autonomous guidance without collision avoidance? A sensor on the front of the tractor senses objects and either avoids them, slows down or stops. Trimble says they are working on perfecting the turns at the end of each line where traditionally a driver had to take control. This is a difficult task when the tractor is pulling an implement such as a planter or sprayer.

    In the not-too-distant future, tractors will be completely hands-free from start to finish.

    Wi-Fi radio.
    Wi-Fi radio.

    Back inside the Venetian Hotel, I saw this little beast. No, it’s not a funky GNSS antenna. It’s an industrial Wi-Fi radio. Yes, Trimble owns some pretty cool outdoor Wi-Fi technology vis-à-vis Fidelity Comtech, a company that Trimble acquired in 2015.

    I’ve set up outdoor Wi-Fi infrastructure before in relatively benign environments (think agriculture), but I didn’t use anything like this. This equipment is built to propagate outdoor, long-range Wi-Fi connectivity in nasty, noisy environments like shipping terminals and construction sites. It can reshape the antenna pattern on the fly in microseconds, and shape the beam width/range to cover a specific geographic area.

    GNSS Gear

    Even though I’ve been talking about how this isn’t a just a GPS or GNSS environment anymore, I can’t leave without investigating the latest GNSS gear.

    Check this out.

    Trimble Catalyst software GNSS receiver.
    Trimble Catalyst software GNSS receiver.

    In the past, I’ve written about GNSS software receivers. They exist, but require some serious computing power. Well, some smartphones have powerful CPUs, such as the Samsung Galaxy 6 and 7. Trimble has developed a software GNSS receiver called the Trimble Catalyst that uses the CPU of a Samsung smartphone as the GNSS receiver…dual frequency. The antenna on the range pole is just an antenna, albeit an L1/L2 antenna. Using an RTK network, Trimble says it can deliver centimeter accuracy. Wow.

    To be fair, it’s got some significant limitations such as it only uses GPS and Galileo, only runs on certain Android devices (it will likely never run on iOS devices), and eats up the smartphone battery. And although Trimble said it shares resources in a friendly manner, I must think that a rogue app or update might cause things to slow down. Although it won’t behave as snappy as RTK on an R10 and won’t recover as quickly from obstructions like trees, terrain and buildings, it most certainly could bring high-precision GNSS to a wide-array of previously non-RTK users.

    Thanks, and see you next month.

    Follow me on Twitter.

  • Going beyond GPS is the new order of the day

    The Trimble Dimensions conference.
    The Trimble Dimensions conference.

    Times have changed, and the technology landscape is much, much different today than it was as recently as ten years ago when GPS was the driving-force technology for geospatial users and geospatial equipment, and the exclusive concern of many companies in the industry. In that era, their challenges were to design the best performing receiver in terms of accuracy, size, weight, ruggedness and so on.

    Now, GPS technology has been commoditized in mobile devices (the GNSS chip in your smartphone costs about $1.50), and high-precision GNSS is heading in that direction. It’s hard to make a living designing “GPS boxes.”

    Sure, GPS is still a core technology offered in most hardware products that geospatial professionals use, but it’s not the centerpiece. It’s all about system solutions, of which software (and hardware besides GPS) is a major component.

    As just one example of this overall industry trend, let’s look at how the message of system solutions was abundantly clear last week at the Trimble Dimensions User Conference  in Las Vegas. This event reportedly drew 4,400 attendees from more than 80 countries.

    More than 4.400 attended Trimble Dimensions at the Las Vegas Venetial Hotel.
    More than 4.400 attended Trimble Dimensions at the Venetian Hotel.

    Virtual/Augmented (AR/VR) Reality

    The Trimble Dimensions general plenary discussion didn’t feature the latest GNSS technology. In fact, there was barely a mention of GNSS. Nonetheless, the cool factor was present, with the highlight being a live demonstration of virtually reality using Microsoft HoloLens goggles and Trimble SketchUp software.

    Over the years I’ve written quite a bit about augmented and virtual reality. This technology has a bright future for locating hidden assets (think underground and inside wall infrastructure) and visualizing design ideas. For this technology to work, it’s not just about having a set of goggles. One needs software and an accurate geo-database.

    During the plenary, architect Greg Lynn demonstrated the value of virtual reality technology by “displaying” a building concept on an empty table on the stage. Lynn and a colleague donned HoloLens goggles while a camera was set up with HoloLens goggles to display what they were “seeing” through the HoloLens.

    AR/VR reality are a step closer to being a practical technology to deploy in the field. In a way, AR/VR technology seems to be taking the same path as tablet computers. Tablet computers existed way before the iPad was introduced. They were expensive, and history is littered with failed tablet computer ventures, just like Google Glass failed in the AR/VR world.

    I remember paying ~$2,500 for a Fujitsu Stylistic tablet about 10 years ago for my work. Like the Stylistic, HoloLens isn’t cheap. It’s $3,000 for a development kit and $5,000 for the commercial version. It’s not priced for the average consumer, but the attraction is undeniable and due to the price tag; industrial markets will pick it up before the consumer market will.

    It might take a Steve Jobs-like push to punch it through the finish line, but it’s just a matter of time before AR/VR technology is commonplace.

    Solutions

    Hardware isn’t sticky. Software is. Even better, hardware and software bundled tightly together is the sweet spot. Dimensions showed how, more and more, geospatial technique is geared around solutions, not boxes.

    Trimble partner solutions area at Trimble Dimensions 2016.
    Trimble partner solutions area at Trimble Dimensions 2016.
    Trimble solutions area at Trimble Dimensions 2016.
    Trimble solutions area at Trimble Dimensions 2016.

    One case in point: I took a 45-minute ride from the Venetian Hotel on the Vegas Strip to the outdoor demonstration site in the desert east of Las Vegas.

    The demonstration site was a playground for heavy equipment utilizing Trimble hardware and software — from tractors to scrapers to bulldozers and paving machines. It’s difficult to imagine the scale of the outdoor demonstration site, so following are a few images.

    Demonstration site facing south with the Las Vegas Strip to the southwest.
    Demonstration site facing south with the Las Vegas Strip to the southwest.

    I caught a ride in a fully autonomous tractor that was outfitted with  guidance technology (GNSS using RTX satellite correction service), collision avoidance sensor and display console. It repeatedly stayed within the track defined by the orange cones you see in the above image.

    What good is autonomous guidance without collision avoidance? A sensor on the front of the tractor senses objects and either avoids them, slows down or stops. Trimble says they are working on perfecting the turns at the end of each line where traditionally a driver had to take control. This is a difficult task when the tractor is pulling an implement such as a planter or sprayer.

    In the not-too-distant future, tractors will be completely hands-free from start to finish.

    Wi-Fi radio.
    Wi-Fi radio.

    Back inside the Venetian Hotel, I saw this little beast. No, it’s not a funky GNSS antenna. It’s an industrial Wi-Fi radio. Yes, Trimble owns some pretty cool outdoor Wi-Fi technology vis-à-vis Fidelity Comtech, a company that Trimble acquired in 2015.

    I’ve set up outdoor Wi-Fi infrastructure before in relatively benign environments (think agriculture), but I didn’t use anything like this. This equipment is built to propagate outdoor, long-range Wi-Fi connectivity in nasty, noisy environments like shipping terminals and construction sites. It can reshape the antenna pattern on the fly in microseconds, and shape the beam width/range to cover a specific geographic area.

    GNSS Gear

    Even though I’ve been talking about how this isn’t a just a GPS or GNSS environment anymore, I can’t leave without investigating the latest GNSS gear.

    Check this out.

    Trimble Catalyst software GNSS receiver.
    Trimble Catalyst software GNSS receiver.

    In the past, I’ve written about GNSS software receivers. They exist, but require some serious computing power. Well, some smartphones have powerful CPUs, such as the Samsung Galaxy 6 and 7. Trimble has developed a software GNSS receiver called the Trimble Catalyst that uses the CPU of a Samsung smartphone as the GNSS receiver…dual frequency. The antenna on the range pole is just an antenna, albeit an L1/L2 antenna. Using an RTK network, Trimble says it can deliver centimeter accuracy. Wow.

    To be fair, it’s got some significant limitations such as it only uses GPS and Galileo, only runs on certain Android devices (it will likely never run on iOS devices), and eats up the smartphone battery. And although Trimble said it shares resources in a friendly manner, I must think that a rogue app or update might cause things to slow down. Although it won’t behave as snappy as RTK on an R10 and won’t recover as quickly from obstructions like trees, terrain and buildings, it most certainly could bring high-precision GNSS to a wide-array of previously non-RTK users.

    Thanks, and see you next month.

    Follow me on Twitter.

  • UAV Update: Fuel cells, Droneboxes and hostile drones

    We might have thought of fuel cells in the past coming from historical problems way back on Apollo 13, or more recently in connection with advanced hybrid cars. But now it seems they are one source of long endurance flight for UAVs. Not really a surprise when there are claims of energy levels of 1000 watt/hour per kilogram versus 150 Wh/kg for lithium batteries.

    H3 Dynamics in Singapore has released its Hywings UAV, for which it claims up to 10 hours endurance, provided by the on-board fuel cell. The UAV can carry a high-definition camera, a FLIR thermal camera with data storage and a multispectral imaging camera used for the inspection of agricultural fields.

    Dronebox and quadrotor UAV
    Dronebox and quadrotor UAV

    Dronebox is another H3 innovation designed to enable regular, repeatable, autonomous inspection and remote sensing missions from a field-located drone system.

    Dronebox and quadrotor UAV

    Droneboxes enable autonomous takeoff and landing of a quadrotor UAV from a remote base. When the UAV automatically lands on the base, rapid contact charging is initiated to “refuel” for the next mission. Power is derived from built in solar-collection panels and from conventional “mains” power.

    Drone missions may be scheduled on a regular basis for routine flights to monitor facilities, or be dispatched automatically by an alarm. Data collected by the UAV is downloaded and may be processed and delivered to a client over a cloud service.

    Mindful that not all drone operators are of the friendly kind, more UAV detection, location and disabling systems are being developed and fielded. Elbit Systems in Israel has just unveiled what it calls “a unique solution for protection of closed air spaces, national infrastructures and other critical areas against hostile drones.”

    ReDrone is designed to detect, track and take-out different types of drones using a wide range of RF transmissions. The system can distinguish between a drone’s signals and its operator’s control signals, as well as determining the direction of both the drone and the operator. The system operates over 360 degrees, providing real-time situational awareness of multiple, simultaneous drones within the protection area.

    After detecting a target, the ReDrone system disrupts the radio and video communication between the UAV and the operator, and jams or spoofs the GPS data, sending the hostile UAV off track and preventing an attack.

    Meanwhile, General Atomics — the manufacturers of the venerable Predator military UAV — may be seeking to enhance its civilian image by offering one of its company owned aircraft for humanitarian relief efforts. The Angel One is based on the jet-powered Predator-C Avenger UAV, which is apparently able to carry significant internal cargo. Up to 8,500 pounds of Humanitarian Daily Ration packets (HDRs) for 3,400 people can be delivered by Angel One to ensure that urgently needed food and medical supplies quickly reach victims of war or natural disasters around the world.

    Angel One can fly up to three missions of three hours each day — so, for a mission to deliver aid to a place like Syria, the base of operations would need to be overseas. An internal cargo bay door release mechanism enables two separate drops of aid per mission. The drop area is then evenly distributed with aid packages, ensuring greater delivery success for people in need on the ground over traditional pallet drops, which can be damaged or lost entirely.

    And good news for family visitors to Orlando and California entertainment parks: Disney has obtained a waiver from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow them to fly drones over their theme parks.

    Disney World and Disneyland have no-fly zones, which were put in place in 2003 before war with Iraq. Disney cited those zones in its waiver request, saying their UAVs “will not interrupt national airspace activity.” Disney asked for the FAA OK last year to fly drones at their parks for entertainment displays, including fireworks displays — the waiver now allows Disney Flixel drones to fly at night. In granting the request, the FAA told Disney that it had established adequate mitigation for risk — probably including flying mostly over water at a maximum height of 150 feet while remaining at least 100 feet away from any visitors.

    Finally, AeroVironment in California, who may be better known for its military UAS offerings, has decided to make a run at the commercial market. AeroVironment makes the Raven hand-launched system, which is the most widely used unmanned aircraft system in the world today. They also have a suite of different UAS for various types of applications.

    Photo: The AeroVironment Quantix

    The AeroVironment Quantix is a vertical takeoff and landing quadrotor drone that transitions to horizontal flight after take-off, providing the benefits of fixed-wing aircraft range, reliability and efficiency. Controlled via software on an Android tablet device using one-touch planning and launch, collected data after flight may subsequently be processed within the AeroVironment Decision Support System (AV DSS). This cloud-based data analytics platform incorporates a high level of automation backed by extensive research, using key algorithms to deliver processed results.

    Available by spring 2017, this UAS system is aimed at allowing users to improve operational efficiencies, minimize risk and increase profitability.

    AeroVironment’s commercial Quantix UAV airborne.
    AeroVironment’s commercial Quantix UAV airborne.

    To plan a mission, the operator traces a finger on a map on the tablet to establish an area of interest. The system then guides the operator through an automated pre-flight check of the vehicle and flight plan. Selecting “fly,” Quantix performs a detailed built-in test procedure, optimizes its flight path for maximum coverage, launches, and lands vertically when its mission is complete. On-board color and multispectral sensors gather data over hundreds of acres. The system also includes “land now” and “return home” safety-control features.

    AeroVironment’s DSS then processes stored flight data to produce high-resolution datasets and analysis of agriculture fields and vineyards, bridges, railroad tracks, pipelines, roads and many other valuable assets — cloud-based storage enables archiving of large amounts of image data for historical trend analysis.

    In summary, we have fuel cells on UAVs that make for extended flight time, and remote “drone depots” for automated, recurring inspection systems, another drone detection and disabling system, a Predator available to dispense humanitarian aid, Disney ready to run Flixel light displays at its theme parks, and another UAS defense contractor turning to the commercial market with a complete UAS monitoring, inspection and data processing solution.

    Just a small sample of what’s showing up in the unmanned aircraft system market segment.

  • Poll: Experiences with jamming, spoofing and RF interference

    Poll: Experiences with jamming, spoofing and RF interference

    jimi-purple-hazeNot with Purple Haze, but with signal interference — although, come to think of it, the two may be not unalike, phenomenologically.

    The October reader’s poll asked “Have you directly experienced any of the following? Check all that apply.

    • GPS/GNSS jamming.
    • GPS/GNSS spoofing.
    • Unintentional RF interference.
    • RF interference from unknown source; unknown whether intentional or not.
    • None of the above.
    • Other, please specify.

    The answers rather stunned me in their magnitude. To be sure, respondents were self-selected and thus not totally representative of the electorate (you) out there. People who have undergone jamming or spoofing would be much more likely to step forward and say “Yeah, here,” than those who had not would be to fill out an online form, however brief, simply to say “Nah, not me.”

    At any rate, the answers came back:

    • Jamming: 70 percent (70 percent!)
    • Spoofing: 25 percent
    • Unintentional RF interference: 55 percent
    • Unknown RF interference: 65 percent
    • None of the above: 5 percent

    Among the “other” answers we received were these:

    I’ve participated in official test activities; Incidents caused by GPS booster (low-cost repeater); We regularly see our vehicle tracking systems jammed or providing incorrect positions believed to be via organised theft using sophisticated jammers; Every time I drive past Newark, NJ on I-95; Badly installed GPS antennas, RF interference from old GPS antennas.

    Scanning the affiliations of those answering, the names of organizations actively involved in monitoring or countering jamming and spoofing rise to the top. Still, to get such overwhelming response — only one in 20 was not experienced in this realm — suggests time and energy invested in protections and countermeasures should be doubled, quadrupled or more. Disasters of many kinds loom.

    Speaking of disasters, and of our fondness for placing our finger on the pulse of the GNSS/PNT community, we held a mock presidential plebiscite at ION GNSS+ in September. “Who will be the best GPS president?” That is, who would be the best president for GPS, in terms of funding and support? The answers: Clinton 60 percent, Trump 34 percent. The real results may already be known by the time you read this. And, to paraphrase Gerald Ford (something I never thought I’d find myself doing), our long national nightmare may be over.

    Is it tomorrow, or just the end of time?

  • US military plans autonomous cargo-hauling and combat vehicles, drone swarms

    US military plans autonomous cargo-hauling and combat vehicles, drone swarms

    Soldier-borne sensors, leader-follower cargo-hauling technology and tiny, handheld unmanned aircraft are in the forefront of new technologies planned for U.S. warfighters, according to Maj. Gen. Robert M. “Bo” Dyess. The deputy director of the U.S. Army Capability Integration Center told AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems Defense keynote audience that developing tools and systems demanded by soldiers is key. He cited a recent demonstration exercise, in which soldiers responded enthusiastically to small, backpackable UAS that would let them see over the next hill or fence.

    The Army is also developing autonomous ground systems including an unmanned combat vehicle, fully autonomous convoy operations and swarming unmanned aircraft. Autonomous weapons are seen as key in combatting both relatively low-tech guerilla and militia groups as well as high-tech “near-peer” combatants from organized industrial powers. A contested electromagnetic spectrum is emerging as a critical battlefield in the contemporary and future warscape, Dyess said. Cyberspace, racked by fundamental threats of spoofing, jamming and hacking, becomes the new killing ground.

    Shad Reese, Tactical Warfare Systems, Unmanned Vehicles coordinator for the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, said DoD is elaborating a new unmanned systems roadmap, which should be published in the first quarter of 2017. The roadmap will cover the period 2016-2041.

    Reese said that a key aspect of the new roadmap is swarming technology, although at present there is little work underway in industry to support this. “Everyone and their mom is talking about swarming, but if you step back and look at what’s going on in industry, there are no real players in industry working on swarming.” Some work is underway in academia, but “we would like to have commercially available swarming technology.”

    The Army's squad mission support transport robot (SMET).
    The Army’s squad mission support transport robot (SMET).

    Army’s Ground Robots

    The Army has put a robotic vehicle, the squad mission support transport robot (SMET), designed to carry heavy loads for troops, into an accelerated acquisition program. SMET is a 1,000-lb. tracked or wheeled platform carrying rucksacks, water or ammunition. A SMET version was recently tested in Afghanistan.

    An Army spokesperson said the SMET has also been chosen as a pilot program a new way to do acquisitions that could shave time off development and fielding of new technologies, with industry involved from the start in specifications and requirements.

    Swarms

    Hordes of flying, thinking armed robots that autonomously coordinate amongst themselves, altering attack strategies in mid-mission and pushing through to strike targets kamikaze-style, are also seen as critical to future combat. The Air Force Research Laboratory calls the tactical weapons “distributed collaborative systems.”

    Three drones work together to beam back information about an enemy’s location, and blocks their radar signals. (Image: DARPA)
    Three drones work together to beam back information about an enemy’s location, and blocks their radar signals. (Image: DARPA)

    The Air Force seeks to put “that next level of decision making and capability on the platform. Not only can it maintain itself, but it can work other parts of the team, whether those be airmen, or whether those be other machines to perform a mission task.”

    Swarming micro-drones can be “really fast, really resistant. They can fly through heavy winds and be kicked out the back of a fighter jet moving at Mach 0.9, like they did during an operational exercise in Alaska last year, or they can be thrown into the air by a soldier in the middle of the Iraqi desert.”

    “Swarming is a way to gain the effect of greater intelligence without each individual unit needing to be intelligent,” added one strategist. Last year Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, commander of the Air Force Material Command, called swarming drones “very much a game-changing reality for our Air Force in the future.”

    One consultant added that a human operator may not be able to compete with a fully autonomous system that identifies, analyzes and geolocates a target, especially in such a scenario where the swarm is moving rapidly. “The power and the sheer speed of execution would give them a huge advantage over their adversaries.”

    Kristen Kearns, autonomy portfolio lead at AFRL, said that a major challenge with any autonomous system is verifying and validating that the decisions it is making are correct. Trust, or “verification and validation,” becomes paramount with artificial intelligence, Kearns added. “How do we assure safe and effective operations when we put decision making in the platforms?”

    Steve Walker, deputy director of DARPA, said his agency has been working on developing battle management systems with a blend of manned and unmanned vehicles. “You have humans and unmanned systems and you need data fused together quickly and things are happening fast and you don’t want to overload the human with all that information. … You want to give him or her exactly what he needs to make a decision and have all these distributed effects work together,” he said.

    One official noted the presence of many YouTube videos demonstrating robots flying, sailing or moving in formation. “It’s a good illustration of how so much of the advancement in this space is happening outside the defense world.”

  • Expert Opinions: Testing and simulating against GNSS jamming, spoofing

    Q: What special considerations should be taken into account for testing and simulating against GNSS jamming and spoofing?

     

    Lou, Pelosi, VP, Customer Support, Cast Navigation
    Lou, Pelosi, VP, Customer Support, Cast Navigation

    A: Current integrations of GPS include a controlled reception pattern antenna (CRPA). Testing with a standard interference or jamming source will not provide accurate results. Wavefront generator simulators are capable of outputting signals that correctly stimulate the GPS receiver’s antenna electronics. All of the signals are correctly displaced according to the antenna’s reception pattern with a jamming source that is coherent.

    Said Jackson, President, Jackson Labs Technologies
    Said Jackson, President, Jackson Labs Technologies

    A: Testing GNSS receiver spoofing and jamming resilience under real-life scenarios requires mixing live-sky GNSS signals with synthesized spoofed signals. This requires the spoofing signal generator to be time- and position-locked to the live-sky signal to within nanoseconds. GNSS simulators that allow nanosecond-level synchronization to live-sky signals can enable such testing. Low-cost simulators can enable testing with multiple simultaneous spoofers/jammers.

    Iurie Ilie, CTO & Co-Founder, Skydel
    Iurie Ilie, CTO & Co-Founder, Skydel

    A: With the sophistication of GNSS threats, simulators should be able to generate a variety of interferences and jammers that users can easily control. Also, the jammers’ characteristics (Doppler, power level, and so on) should reflect the dynamic of the vehicle and jammers. Such characteristics are almost impossible to simulate when the jamming source is not integrated with the simulator.

    Lisa Perdue, Applications Engineer, Spectracom
    Lisa Perdue, Applications
    Engineer, Spectracom

    A: For jamming, test for multi-frequency/constellation, accurately controlling jamming-to-signal ratios and strength levels, and simulate several types of jammers: carrier-wave, sweep, noise, FM chirp and so on. For spoofing, two synchronized simulators are best: one for the live sky and one for the spoofer. Tightly control the sync accuracy, the relative power between the two signals, and the spoofer’s estimation accuracy of the target’s position.

    Paul Crampton, Senior Systems Engineer, Spirent Federal
    Paul Crampton, Senior Systems Engineer, Spirent Federal

    A: Antenna technology, directionality and filtering have a large part to play in mitigating the impact of jamming and spoofing. Conventional laboratory receiver testing often overlooks the effect of the antenna. New approaches need to be developed to allow antenna effects be incorporated into testing either by including the antenna to be part of the test setup or by accurately simulating the directionality/filtering capability of the antenna.

    Cyrille Gernot, GNSS Expert, Syntony GNSS
    Cyrille Gernot, GNSS Expert, Syntony GNSS

    A: Most jamming occurs due to RFI used to keep positioning unavailable. As such, typical jammers are CW or sweep-CW. Testing is then mostly a matter of proper jamming-to-signal simulation. On the contrary, spoofing aims at luring the receiver from its true position. Simulations are difficult as slowly power increasing spoofing signals must be synchronized with true received signals to take over the locked tracking loops.

  • Metric oblique image collection with UAVs

    Combining the best of two technologies for rapid situational awareness

    Sometimes we get stuck looking in our own backyard for solutions, only to discover that those on the other side of the fence have been solving similar problems in a parallel effort. That was the case with metric oblique imagery when I joined Pictometry in 2007 and learned a little about the history of the players.

    idan-w
    Idan oblique imagery software ObliMapper.

    Seems that a year after Pictometry inventors and patent holders, John Champa and Steve Schultz, filed their patent in 2002, another company, Idan, located in Israel, came up with the same solution. Idan filed for a U.S. patent in 2003, only to learn that they were too late.

    Ironically, I learned from Joseph Freund, CEO and founder of Idan, that the Idan system was actually developed in 1996, but kept secret until declassified in 2003.

    Although too late for Idan’s patent application, a mutual respect grew between the oblique pioneers. Over the years, Idan and Pictometry worked a number of joint efforts. Idan brought an especially unique perspective to technology, because for them, it was a matter of life and death. When you are a country the size of New Jersey and surrounded by countries literally dedicated to your destruction, your collective mind gets focused very sharply. That was exactly the case with the geospatial firm Idan, who worked very closely with the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to protect their country.

    Over the years, Pictometry became the leading collector of metric oblique imagery and focused on exploiting its vast image library for both public and private users. Today, after merging with Eagle View, Pictometry focuses on commercial application with remote roof measurement being its dominant business. Idan, however, never lost focus on its prime mission: defense. Idan continued to hone the technology and added new tools and hardware with the goal of building the most effective early-warning system with superb analysis capabilities.

    A Robust Viewer

    Idan developed and battlefield-tested tools to exploit oblique imagery. Its Oblivision viewer is different from other oblique image viewing systems in that it shows five synchronized views — an ortho view and four oblique views — with all views moving together as the operator shifts locations.

    At first, this can be a bit overwhelming, with a lot of movement and much data to take in. But with use, the rich visual environment becomes second nature and provides the operator with an effective visualization environment.

    In addition to multiple views, Oblivision provides measuring tools, both horizontal and vertical, GIS vector-data overlay, and analysis tools such as line-of-sight visibility, shadow and explosion vulnerability.

    Here is an interactive example of a joint effort using Oblivision Online to view oblique imagery of Sacramento captured by Pictometry.

    An interactive example of a joint effort using Oblivision Online to view oblique imagery of Sacramento captured by Pictometry.
    An interactive example of a joint effort using Oblivision Online to view oblique imagery of Sacramento captured by Pictometry.

    Improved Image Quality

    Freund explained that Idan’s image quality has seen steady improvement through a joint project with Simplex using Idan’s own-built oblique camera system based on the 100-mp Phase One iXU camera. This has resulted in image resolutions exceeding 3 centimeters ground sample distance (GSD) from flight altitudes of 450 meters.

    ObliMapper: The UAV link

    A shortcoming of most oblique capture systems is that image capture is a complex and cumbersome process not suited for nimble response. The cameras and aircraft require significant preparation, on-station time and extensive post processing. The need for rapid image capture with oblique capabilities prompted Idan engineers to test options that take advantage of small, rapidly deployed UAVs.

    Idan engineers developed a capture system capable of rapid focused area of interest image capture that fills the need: ObliMapper. Using compact georeferenced cameras mounted on COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) UAVs, the ObliMapper system not only captures the imagery; the same system pre-plans and directs the flight of the UAV to optimize the entire capture process.

    dji-mavic-w
    The DJI Mavic UAV.

    Simply stated, the work process can be summed up as follows:

    • Flight planning
      • The user selects the area of interest and identifies the camera being used.
      • The system then creates a route file and uploads it to the drone.
    • Image capture
      • The drone flies autonomously according to the flight plan.
      • The camera captures the imagery.
      • The images are downloaded to the user’s computer.
    • Processing
      • The system automatically processes the images and metadata.
    • Analyze
      • The user views the up-to-date oblique images from all directions with accurate measurements on the oblique images and overlaid GIS data, contour lines, slopes, visibility, etc.

    Two YouTube videos provide an excellent overview of the system and process:

    https://youtu.be/SY1KaE3VfzY

    oblimapper-wNumerous enhancements of ObliMapper are being tested, including 3D model creation using Agisoft or Pix4D, image capture at night, and even the use of a swarm of UAVs to rapidly capture an area of interest in a single pass in hostile areas.

    The images captured by the system have a positional accuracy of 5-15 meters, but post processing can result in accuracies in the 30-60 centimeter range.

    Now that the Pictometry patents have expired, many companies are entering the oblique image market. I expect that improvements and new capabilities will follow regularly; however, from my view at this time, no one comes close to the vast oblique image library built by Pictometry (now over 4 Petabytes and 150,000,000 images) and no one seems to have the technical expertise that Idan has developed to exploit oblique imagery.

    For more information, visit the following websites: