Category: Opinions

ION GNSS+ a playground for high precision

Every year, some of the brightest minds and most influential people in the GNSS industry that guide the direction of global GNSS system deployments (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou) and design the most advanced GNSS receivers in the world, gather at the ION GNSS+ conference.

I almost always attend this conference, as it provides a look into what GNSS receiver researchers, designers and program managers are working on that will affect high-precision GNSS performance in the next few years and beyond. ION GNSS+ is a playground for someone like me, who’s knee-deep in high-precision GNSS.

The satellite constellations

GPS is what it is. It’s the most mature and reliable constellation of navigation satellites, period. All of the model IIFs have been launched. The U.S. Air Force launched the balance of them in 24-month flurry that ended in May 2016. The next-generation GPS III satellites aren’t going anywhere soon. It will be at least two years before the first GPS III is launched. Would sooner be better? Of course, but either way won’t have a major impact on high-precision GNSS performance since the constellation is capped at 31 satellites for the foreseeable future.

[View the presentation on GPS provided by the U.S. Air Force.]

GLONASS is in the same boat as GPS. It’s not as reliable as GPS (remember this?), but it has been a valuable service for high-precision GNSS users for many years. GLONASS sats don’t necessarily improve GNSS receiver precision, but they certainly improve productivity by allowing high-precision GNSS users to work in impaired environments where GPS-only receivers aren’t nearly as effective. The GLONASS constellation is mature at 24 satellites (You can monitor it here.) and that’s not changing anytime soon. Much like the U.S. with regards to GPS, Russia is in replenishment mode with GLONASS. It is not a growing constellation.

The following is where the magic starts to happen with high-precision GNSS receivers:

Galileo (Europe) is ramping up: currently nine healthy satellites. From my office in Portland, Oregon, Galileo adds up to four additional satellites using a 10-degree elevation cutoff. Four more Galileo satellites are scheduled to launch in a couple of months (Nov. 17). All four are being sent into orbit on a single Ariane-5 rocket from a spaceport in French Guyana. The European GNSS Agency (GSA) reported it is planning similar launches of four in 2017 and 2018.

BDS or BeiDou (China) is also ramping up. Currently there are 17 healthy satellites, with most flying regional orbits in Asia, as opposed to global orbits. While China generally keeps its BDS plans out of public eye, but I’ve heard BDS officials state, on separate occasions, that a full constellation of 30 satellites providing global coverage will be deployed by 2020.

Following is a satellite visibility chart showing the number of GPS (green), GLONASS (red), Galileo (Blue) and BDS (yellow) that are visible from my office in Portland with a 10-degree elevation cutoff.

As you can see above, a four constellation configuration is starting to become interesting with Galileo and BDS contributing up to 7 additional satellites. In a clear sky environment, this may not be substantial; however, in an impaired environment (e.g. around trees, buildings, terrain), a few additional satellites can make the difference between staying productive or work stoppage. Even further, imagine four years from now when Galileo and BDS constellations are fully operational. In that scenario, there will be upwards of 35 satellites in view. Even before then, like two months from now when four more Galileo satellites are launched, each new satellite in orbit will add a marginal increase in GNSS receiver performance if your receiver is designed to track and use Galileo satellites.

Is more better? Almost certainly. If nothing else, it gives the GNSS receiver more signals to choose from and a lot of redundancy. This is especially true with RTK (real-time centimeter positioning), which is a satellite-hungry technology. RTK is easy in the wide open sky. It’s not so easy in residential areas with lots of trees, areas of rugged terrain and urban areas. More satellites doesn’t mean you’ll enjoy ubiquitous RTK precision in all environments, but it will translate into greater productivity, at the centimeter level, than what is possible today. Will productivity increase 10 percent or 50 percent — or more? That’s the only question.

Another high-precision GNSS technology that was discussed at length, and during several sessions, was Precise Point Positioning (PPP). There were quite a few technical papers and discussion panels on this technology. Real-time PPP services are commercial satellite subscription services like StarFire (Deere), RTX (Trimble), Atlas (Hemisphere) and Terrastar (Veripos). These services rely on a very sparse network of GNSS base stations to compute precise clock/orbit values then deliver them to the user via satellite or internet. The upside is that a dense network of GNSS base stations is not needed like with RTK; however, the downside is that high-precision PPP requires quite a bit of time to convergence to the desired precision (e.g. 10 centimeters). This can be as little as five minutes or as long as 30 minutes or more. This is acceptable in industries like agriculture where there is a clear view of the sky and the farmer only needs to wait for convergence one time in the morning. But, in environments where there are trees, buildings and rugged terrain, PPP convergence gets interrupted many times per day and to a point where it kills productivity. More time is spent waiting for convergence than working.

RTK fares much better in this environment. Yes, it will lose initialization in those environments, but it only takes a few seconds to re-initialize. From a productivity standpoint, I don’t get it. Real-time PPP is a step backwards from RTK. But, who says it has to be one or the other?

RTK’s greatest weakness is the requirement for consistent data connection to an RTK base or network of RTK base stations. By consistent, I mean that every second counts, without a hiccup. Wireless connectivity (like a cell phone network) is the most common RTK communication technology. Everyone with a cell phone knows that cell coverage can be spotty in certain geographic areas — even densely-populated ones. This is the Achilles heel of RTK, and where real-time PPP, delivered by satellite, can help. Some of the commercial services like RTX, Starfire and Atlas offer a type of hybrid RTK/PPP solution to optimize productivity. When RTK quits working, real-time PPP takes over until RTK returns. Organizations love tools that increase productivity, and this is a powerful combination.

Lastly, I can’t leave you without mentioning a presentation from Broadcom that I attended. Broadcom makes the GNSS chipsets used by Apple and Samsung in their smartphones. It’s crazy to think that Apple and Samsung pay under US$1 for each powerful GNSS chip used in smartphones. The challenge for Broadcom is that GNSS chips have become a commodity, so it’s a race to the bottom when competition starts to separate based largely on price.

To that end, Broadcom is testing a dual frequency L1-E1/L5-E5 GNSS chipset. They aren’t talking RTK … yet. But, they did present some preliminary results showing an increase in accuracy (by four times) over the single frequency GNSS chips being used in smartphones today. Take a look at the following slide.

u-blox, a company based in Switzerland, has developed a similar product, and presented it in a technical session at ION: a consumer-grade chip that does L1 RTK. They are initially looking at UAV use, but this could have many other applications as well. For details and performance data, see the cover story of the October issue of GPS World magazine, out soon.

It’s pretty clear that it’s only a matter of time before high-precision GNSS technology makes it way into mainstream smartphones. It may be another ten years or less, but it will happen. Why?

The answer is the same reason that people dream of ascending Mt. Everest.

Because it’s there.

Follow me on Twitter.

September 22, 2016
What does ION GNSS+ reveal about the GNSS industry?

Back again in Portland, Oregon, the 2016 Institute of Navigation’s ION GNSS+ conference was a great opportunity for the GNSS community to catch up on what’s been cooking in the industry, and of course who’s been doing what in the research community.

The attendees eagerly took to a wide range of technical paper presentation sessions, and from time to time came to take a look at what industry had to offer on the exhibit floor. Lots of engaging research reports, from work undertaken over the last year by academia, again drew a significant number of attendees from around the world.

On the other hand, industry continued the trend to go to trade shows in application sectors and pull back somewhat from ION GNSS+ as a place to look for product sales. So the number of companies on the ION show floor remained around the same or maybe a little less than in the previous few years. Nevertheless, the quality of the companies exhibiting remained high and there were some interesting newcomers.

A number of major GNSS receiver manufactures have pulled back from ION, so there were only two established U.S. companies and two new U.S. entrants at the show. On the other hand, GNSS simulation companies were at ION in force — eight all told, or twice as many as the receiver manufacturers present who have been their historic customers. But the trend in GNSS simulation now appears to be to move down stream towards the needs of integrators and systems outfits — in segments such as automotive, UAV and agriculture — with lower cost, very capable simulators.

Receiver makers roll out new tech

As a consequence, the NovAtel and Septentrio booths got a lot of attendee traffic, while BDStar (Unicore receivers and Harxon antennas) and ComNav also had a number of visitors to their booths. As usual, NavTech, who represent almost all the manufacturers, also had a busy exhibit.

OEM7600 dual-frequency receiver.

NovAtel chose to launch its OEM-7 series of GNSS receivers and a newly designed VEXXIS high-precision antenna at ION GNSS+, which is a somewhat refreshing return to the ION GNSS+ launch platform we used to see in the past. A new highly integrated ASIC at the heart of this receiver now provides, amongst other features, 555 channels, L-band support, inertial SPAN capability and an intriguing “Interference Toolbox”. The toolbox enables integrators to localize interference effects over a wide band — especially helpful for densely packed electronics, which you might expect in a UAV, for instance.

Interference Toolbox Screenshot.

Septentrio didn’t have a whole lot of new product announcements, but as usual the company has been working hard at improving existing capabilities on its receivers. The AsteRx4 receiver that uses a new ASIC has been available for a while, but it too boasts 544 channels — perhaps too many to actually be used in practice — robust heading, centimeter-level RTK and decimeter-level PPP (with TerraStar and Veripos corrections) with dual L-band channels, and an improved suite of advanced interference mitigation (AIM+) capabilities. This helps detection and removal of the effects of “chirp jamming” from low-power “cigarette-lighter” jammers — using signal analysis and adjustment of adaptive notch filters.

Septentrio did announce a new PolaRx5TR packaged time-and-frequency transfer receiver and a contract with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for reference stations and timing. A report by UNAVCO also found its way into my inbox, which related comparative testing of the PolaRx5 and other manufacturers’ receivers in connection with a UNAVCO RFP – Septentrio did O.K. and was selected as a preferred vendor, which no doubt influenced the JPL award and added to an already good first half year for the company.

The Septentrio PolaRX5TR.

BDStar had a range of GPS, GLONASS, Beidou receivers from its subsidiary Unicorecomm, along with an impressive selection of antennas from Harxon, another of its Chinese subsidiaries. Both product lines have done very well in the Chinese market, and BDStar would like to sell more in North America.

ComNav also displayed a similar range of GNSS receivers and antennas, with new versions of both since last year, and a strong desire to break through into the US market.

Simulators a big presence

Simulator companies at ION included the more established Spirent, Spectracom, CAST, IFEN and Rohde & Schwarz — we could even now consider RaceLogic/LabSat as a record-and-playback fixture in the market. But in the wings and making lots of waves at the show were Syntony from France and Skydel from Montreal, Canada.

Spirent brought its usual large-scale GNSS simulators to ION, but also featured an interference detection and software analysis suite, a 16-bit high-fidelity record/playback unit, along with a new multi-frequency simulator aimed at downstream integrators. The GSS200D Detector finds interference effects and is able to relate them to the threats in the environment around a receiver. The object is to help debug an installation by finding internal interferers. The analysis tools can also help differentiate between regular equipment interference and potential external jammers.

Spirent’s new GSS200D detector.

Spirent also displayed a record/playback unit that has 16-bit playback capability, enabling a user to record and review a particular interference event, and then feed their new commercial simulator in order to replicate the interference. So a passing isolated jamming event can be analyzed in detail. Multiple reruns are possible to confirm the effect on the target system, and following equipment modifications, prove that the problem has indeed been neutralized.

Spirent analysis tools.

RaceLogic introduced its new wideband LabSat 3 record/playback system for GPS L1, GLONASS L1, Galileo E1, BeiDou B1, QZSS and SBAS. Recording live signals for any or all of these signals then allows later playback of a canned sample for equipment debugging on the bench. The LabSat product line has been around for some time, and this addition increases the debug capability for downstream users at an affordable price in a very portable format. When used with the RaceLogic SatGen software system, the user has access to a powerful toolset for testing new GNSS devices.

LabSat 3 and SatGen test set-up.

Spectrcom displayed its multi-frequency, multi-constellation simulator and also featured a GNSS vulnerability test system for interference detection and system debugging. The company’s approach requires two simulators, both synchronized by an atomic clock, allowing a PC-based Test Scenario Control to generate reproducible interference effects for debugging.

CAST Navigation is already moving downstream quite quickly with its CAST-SGX handheld GNSS simulator. With a touchscreen display, this simplified L1 GPS simulator (with P-code option) is ideal for test-bench debugging.

Rohde & Schwarz had its usual array of high-end test equipment, with a test set-up aimed at demonstrating testing of a Wi-Fi indoor location application on a smartphone.

IFEN showed up with a completely re-engineered simulator with huge frequency/channel capacity. The Titan GNSS Simulator houses up to 8 RFSIM modules, each of which carries 32 configurable satellite signals. A fully configured Titan chassis can therefore provide 256 channels of GPS L1/L2/L5, GLONASS G1/G2/G3, Galileo E1/E5/E6, Beidou B1/B2/B3, IRNSS L5 and S-band, QZSS L1/L2/L5/LEX and all current L1/L5 SBAS signals. Titan also has up to four independent RF outputs.

IFEN Titan GNSS Simulator.

Skydel is one of the newcomers in GNSS simulation, but has made significant inroads first appearing last year at ION. Skydel now boasts a full-up, reconfigurable GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Beidou “software” simulator which the company claims to sell at a 1/3 the price of a conventional hardware simulator. And during the year, Skydel teamed up with Talen-X in Ohio, who have embedded Skydel software-defined in a U.S.-sourced GPS/GLONASS/Galileo/Beidou simulator that can include GPS P/Y and M-code.

Broadsim from Talen-X powered by Skydel.

Syntony rises high by going under (the ground)

The noise in simulation at ION was, however, created by Syntony from Toulouse in France. Syntony recently won a 15-simulator order from OneWeb — the outfit that plans to launch a 640 internet connectivity satellite constellation through 2020. With funding secured from Virgin Group and Qualcomm in 2015, initial satellite build is underway at Airbus Defence and Space, launch services are contracted with Arianespace to provide 21 multi-sat launches on Soyuz beginning in 2017 with optional launch service with Virgin Galactic. So Syntony is likely going to be able to build, deliver and be paid for its 15 simulators, which will be used for testing GPS capability that is integrated into each comms satellite.

Syntony 128-channel GNSS Simulator “Constellator.”

Syntony’s simulator is also software-defined and is reconfigurable. The software-defined heart of this system comes from a Syntony GPS/Galileo receiver, and a version of this receiver has now been sold for use in the Airbus Adeline re-usable space module. This receiver is a “multi-antenna receiver” in order to avoid signal or tracking loss while switching between antennas during the Safran launcher rotation. The catch here is that Syntony must develop this receiver to Airbus critical airborne software=qualification standards — no mean feat! Syntony is also providing a version of its Constellator simulator for testing this multi-antenna input receiver.

An ECHO record/playback system is also available, which includes high-fidelity 16-bit RF outputs.

Finally, Syntony was able to capture a proof-of-concept location infrastructure project for Stockholm, Sweden’s, underground metro. The metro stations are pretty deep underground, as they have been dug under the sea in and around Stockholm, and no one had been able to come up with a system that would enable emergency 911 calls with associated essential localized position information to be carried from within the stations. Syntony was able to provide a GPS-like signal infrastructure at the stations which is compatible with GPS-enabled smartphones. It worked well, and Syntony verified that there was no radiation of the signal outside any of the entrances to the test station — so no GPS interference. It actually worked so well that Syntony got the contract to equip all 50 metro stations in Stockholm, and the Syntony is now working to spread its system around the metros of all major cities, worldwide.

Defining the Galileo PRS signal…

Then I came across Fraunhofer towards the end of the show, and their posters about a Galileo PRS (Public Regulated Service) receiver. Now, we know that there has been significant discussion between the different security services of countries across the European Union, and its taken a lot of time to get to a definition of the PRS signal and who has access. So it wasn’t surprising that there was no hardware on the Fraunhofer booth; what’s surprising is that there was any mention of such a receiver being available and telling attendees at a conference in the U.S. that it’s available.

I talked to a couple of people at their booth, and indeed there is such a receiver, but they really couldn’t tell me anything about it because telling is strictly verboten! Another strange anomaly of the Galileo program — the participants seem to want to let the U.S. know that they have the capability for a special access service, and a receiver is available to work with it, but they can’t tell us anything about it. I guess the idea may be to rattle the cage of the U.S. P-code/M-code guys, and let them know Galileo has caught up at last… But Fraunhofer has an idea of how to make things available to, well, err …. to somebody. They have a concept to have cellphone users who want PRS to connect with their cloud receiver, and they will decode and provide PRS position back over the internet. That solves the whole security thing…. OK, that should do it.

Where inertial stands

I also made the rounds of the inertial and inertial/GPS guys at the show, and there were quite a few. From Northrop Grumman and Systron Donner and their mil-spec high-end FOG and RLG and Quartz MEMS tube-shaped inertial units — could they be for shells or missiles? — to Silicon Sensing’s MEMS accels and gyros and their move out of automotive and towards high-precision performance, to Sensonor’s high-performance commercial MEMS/GNSS units, there were actually only a few of the inertial-aiding outfits present. Yet everything we hear is that for anything that moves, we really should use integrated inertial/GNSS, and UAVs especially want lots of that! So this part of the business looks to be quite healthy too…

Now another ION GNSS+ conference has come and gone — and I was reminded that maybe I’ve actually been to 95 percent of the ION September conferences over the last 30 years. And as I write, the last of the late Friday paper sessions are crawling to a close.

ION still remains a good place to come and learn, a place to meet industry colleagues and a place to see a little of what industry is up to. Definitely worth the trip, and don’t forget your business cards next year.

Tony Murfin
GNSS Aerospace

September 21, 2016
September budgeting surprises: Scarcity or surplus?

Halloween may occur in October for the civil and commercial population, but for the U.S. government (USG) all the craziness of the spooky season starts in earnest in September. The end of the USG’s fiscal year (FY) ends the last day of September, and Oct. 1 is a whole new ballgame from a monetary and budgeting perspective.

All the machinations begin: balancing budgets, ensuring monies have been fully allocated and spent, determining surplus funds and figuring out what programs need additional year-end funds.

Certainly the process begins far in advance of September, but the last 30 days of the FY are historically a circus. Anyone who has ever been through it, especially as a budgeteer or program director, knows the anguish and anxious moments involved. If you think this all sounds a bit more dramatic than necessary for simple funding and budgeting issues, then think again.

Budgeteers inside and outside the USG (prime contractors and small companies as well) are all vying for what is known as fallout money. These are funds that “fall out” because a program has failed to meet timelines, specifications or certifications; funds that fall out because a program came in early and under budget (a rarity); or funds that fall out just because of over-confidence in flying hours or lack of equipment availability. Regardless of the reason, the fact is that fallout funds at the end of the FY have significant impacts on all USG programs.

For example, as a PM or program manager, if your program is doing well and maybe even ahead of schedule, and the customer is chomping at the bit to put your hardware or software in place, then you might be allocated additional fallout funds as a sign of confidence and support from the government. This is what Program of Record (POR) PMs love to see happen, because it means there is faith in their program and in their ability to manage it and bring it home; this can include promotions and more responsibility on the horizon.

Conversely, if your program is in trouble, over budget and behind schedule, and the USG lacks faith in your ability to complete the POM (Program Objective Memorandum), then your funds may well be cannibalized to support other programs. This is something no PM likes to see happen. It is a downer for the USG, the POR and the career of the PM. Yes, for PMs, every September is a report card, and the grades are rarely ambiguous or subtle.

Of course, the organization that allocates and authorizes USG funding at the beginning of the FY, better known as the U.S. Congress, plays a role here as well; many take a vacation or flee to the hinterlands during this time of bureaucratic chaos and get out of town. For 2016 and the 114th Congress, the Senate is in session just 14 days of the month and the House of Representatives convenes for about 10 days on average.

As the former Legislative Director (LD) for Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), I actually had the honor to serve as the first LD for AFSPC. This worried me a great deal until I discovered that, fortunately, while a few congressional members were in recess or at home backslapping and politicking with constituents, the congressional staffs remained in D.C. and were hard at work. This is important because, during the craziness and bargaining of September fallouts, critical decisions are often made that determine the future of PORs and many smaller but critical efforts by small businesses as well. If you are a government contractor, small or large, prime or sub, September is not a time to take a vacation or lay on the beach, rather you need to be an active player in the fall flurry of hyperactivity.

This year Senator John McCain from Arizona and the SECDEF (Secretary of Defense) the honorable Ash Carter both have plans and are pushing for new acquisition strategies as well as separate schemes to revamp Department of Defense (DoD) Command and Control systems. Unfortunately, neither plan has a support system for small businesses.

Space Systems

SpaceX launch of an OrbComm satellite in December 2015. (Photo: SpaceX)

For space programs this coming year, obviously current and future launch activities are at the forefront. Congress must decide to either fund Russian engine procurement or say no to future Russian engine purchases, determine whether the United Launch Alliance (ULA) is a survivor and competitor, and decide where SpaceX plays in the whole scenario now that they have thrown a monkey wrench into the mix by experiencing another Falcon 9 failure on Sept. 9 after so many successes.

Interestingly, SpaceX actions in the main seem to be the right decisions. They are at the forefront of commercial launch and recovery technology, and other than Blue Origin, they are the only company recovering the initial stages of their launch vehicles for reuse. Of course that reuse can only occur if the launch is successful in the first place.

While SpaceX certainly cannot afford more launch failures, the conundrum concerning the latest Falcon 9 catastrophe is that it was not actually a launch failure; rather, it was an accident that occurred on the launch pad. Who knows? Future investigations, performed primarily by SpaceX and the FAA, may show SpaceX was not at fault.

The fueling explosion could easily have been caused by a ruptured refueling hose, a stray spark or ungrounded support equipment, we just don’t know. It is entirely too early to rush to judgment and blame it all on SpaceX. We should and, indeed, must take a wait and see attitude.

However, just so you know for comparison, ULA has performed more than 100 successful launches without a single failure. Many of those used the infamous Russian RD-180 engine as a core. So, to say that launch is a topic of national and Congressional concern during the September chaos is putting it mildly.

SV 01 in testing at Lockheed Martin’s Denver facility. (Photo: LMCO)

According to my sources, an omitted qualification test of a tiny capacitor in the GPS III payload will move the GPS III program’s availability for launch (AFL) from August to December 2016. My sources and my experience as a space operator tell me the qualification test — which over-stresses the capacitor’s integrity to survive multiple mission lives — is really not an issue. The satellite should be delivered before the end of the year, well ahead of the Air Force’s planned first GPS III launch date of March 2018.

My experience also tells me that it is much more likely that, rather than a tiny capacitor issue, the launch schedule for the first GPS III will be affected by the as-yet-unresolved SpaceX explosion on the launchpad at Cape Canaveral; the damage to the launchpad and nearby facilities; the launch slips due to the ripple effect of the subsequent accident investigations, along with new safety and fueling procedures that may need to be implemented and tested; the rescheduling of other missions, handled in the military by the USAF Current Launch Schedule Review Board or CLSRB; and the lack of an available MEO (Medium Earth Orbit)-capable launch vehicle.

And, of course, you need a ground control system (which I go into more below).

Position, navigation and timing (PNT) programs

Concerning PNT, Congress is debating when to award Lockheed Martin GPS III satellites 9 and 10, which by the way, will not carry an NDS (Nuclear Detonation Detection System) payload, a first for GPS space vehicles (SV) since the first NDS was launched on the sixth Block I SV on April 26, 1980. At the time, the NDS payload was known by the ungainly moniker IONDS, or the Integrated Operational Nuclear Detonation Detection System.

The new, redesigned NDS payload is simply not ready for prime time, and hence LMCO will delete that portion of the payload from GPS III SVs 9 and 10. So, although the GPS III family of GPS vehicles will be as similar as possible, in fact the last two, currently scheduled (which we hear may be awarded to LMCO this month), will be radically different in some respects, and in others be exactly the same.

This leads us to the question concerning exactly when the real competition for GPS III SV 11+ will truly get underway. Right now, the competition is in the formative and PowerPoint stages for some competitors, although a couple have bent hardware and are writing some software support programs. The USG has awarded each team, including LMCO, a few million dollars to keep them interested and to defray early non-recurring costs, but the competition has yet to truly heat up. Might some year-end fallout money be made available for the competitors? We shall have to wait and see.

OCX

OCX, the future ground control segment of GPS, is so far over budget and schedule that the end-point is not even visible on the event horizon. Most pundits put the completion date, if it is continued as the POR, at 2023 and beyond, seven years late and $3.5 billion over budget.

Certainly no fallout funds can cover such a Nunn-McCurdy breach, but fallout funds might become available for alternative courses of action (COA). There’s a thought to keep USG budgeteers and small company CEOs and CFOs awake at night.

What might the future hold? Large primes not withstanding, small businesses are a major player in all major USG programs. Karen Mills, former head of the Small Business Administration (SBA), wrote in the Harvard Business Review recently, “Half the people who work in this country [USA] either own or are employed by businesses with fewer than 500 employees.”

At the same time, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports that SBA statistics show these same small companies produce 46 percent of private economic output and 33 percent of the value of U.S. exports. Even so (paraphrasing the report), the [USG] is sometimes guilty of not paying sufficient attention to small firms. Is it time for the USG to look at proven small-company capabilities where OCX is concerned?

Just a thought, whose time may well be long overdue. As Nitin Nohria, dean of the Harvard Business School, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “I do hope that the question of how to create policies that support small companies gets more attention during the coming debates and the final few weeks of this presidential campaign.”

Research and development (R&D)

We could go on and on considering PNT or GPS military user equipment (MUE), the advantages of GNSS considerations and the R&D being conducted at AFRL (USAF Research Laboratories) and the other service labs where PNT is concerned. (Read my In defense of PNT: Multi-GNSS to the rescue, May 11, 2016, Defense PNT column)

Of course, let’s not forget DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). As experienced PMs know, you neglect DARPA at your program’s peril. DARPA waxes and wanes on the publicity scale, but they are always on the cutting edge where R&D is concerned. Many of our nation’s most noted scientific accomplishments began life as DARPA hard projects, way too many to mention. DARPA, like all R&D laboratories, have their hands out and are just hoping for and are ready to commit any fallout monies that become available in scary September.

If you are wondering why no one in Washington, D.C., is returning your calls and emails, or why they seem distracted or preoccupied when you are able to connect, just blame it on the most chaotic month of the USG budget year, September. It’s feast or famine, or you could say, early trick or treat.

ION GNSS+

Prevailing health issues prevent me from traveling to ION GNSS+ 2016, which takes place Sept. 12-16, at the Oregon Convention Center in Portland, Oregon. ION bills this event as “the world’s largest technical meeting and showcase of GNSS technology, products and services. This year’s conference brings together international leaders in GNSS and related positioning, navigation and timing fields to present new research, introduce new technologies, discuss current policy, demonstrate products and exchange ideas.”

This is a great event, which I normally look forward to every year. Not to worry, GPS World is well represented by editors, writers and contributors. Be sure and stop by the GPS World booth — chat, pick-up a magazine while you’re there, and subscribe to the free print and/or digital editions.

Until next time, happy navigating and remember: GPS is brought to you free of charge by the United States Air Force.

September 14, 2016
5G and IoT: Big winners of CTIA Super Mobility 2016

This year’s CTIA Super Mobility show, held Sept. 7-9 in Las Vegas, Nevada, shone the spotlight most brightly on 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT). The killer app use case for 5G is IoT and, symbiotically, IoT cannot be fully realized without the higher capacity of 5G.

IoT is the world of interconnected devices and includes smart cities, connected vehicles, smart homes, wearables, enterprise and healthcare solutions. The magnitude of growth forecast in connected devices is staggering; 23 billion in 2020 and increasing to 75 billion five years later, and will dwarf the number of smartphones, say analysts at Frost & Sullivan.

“Keep America Great Again” could have been the title of many talks with the patriotic rallying call to keep the United States at the forefront of wireless innovation. The U.S. has more than 99 percent of the population covered by LTE, more than any other country. We rule on apps, too, with 74 percent being based here. Whether this a good sign or not, Americans have more apps on their phones than anyone else —37 for each of us.

And we’ve led in the development of 3G and LTE. So the cry to arms from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and carriers alike is that we can and will lead 5G. Verizon is getting ahead of the pack and recently announced it launched LTE Advanced technology to bring 50 percent faster peak wireless data speeds to more than 288 million people in 561 cities who are using one of Verizon’s 39 LTE Advanced equipped devices.

Keynote speakers at the conference swooned about the truly revolutionary capabilities of speed and improved latency 5G brings, forecast to be in full deployment in 2020. More high spectrum is needed and an FCC auction underway.

Obtaining the small cell sites needed for required antennas was on many minds. “There are just over 200,000 cell towers in the U.S., but there may be millions of small cell sites in the 5G future,” worried Wheeler. “If siting for a small cell takes as long and costs as much as siting for a cell tower, few communities will ever have the benefits of 5G.”

Dana Tardelli, Mobilitie, stands in front of a model of Churchill Downs, a DAS (distributed antenna system) installation.
(Photo: Janice Partyka)

5G requires denser cell sites and every city has different rules and processes. The challenge, says Dana Tardelli of Mobilitie, is to get the cities to see the benefits. For instance, the city of Palo Alto, the epicenter of Silicon Valley, has poor cell service because the citizens and town resist having antennas installed. Reportedly, Steve Jobs had to go out in his yard to make a call. The future is smaller cells with distributed antennas, but unlimited data plans are on their way back and will create a large infrastructure load.

For Telit and other enablers of IoT, the sweet spot of the market is enterprise, an industry sector that is making money and can easily quantify savings from technology investments. “In five years, half of the show will be IoT, and it isn’t about technology, but about things that will be connected,” predicted Jack Indekeu of Telit. “There is also a strong market for devices that allow people to connect socially around issues of personal health and fitness.” Telit was highlighting its bundled platform, services and solutions, including data plans.

Jack Indekeu of Telit gives a presentation at the Telit booth. (Photo: Janice Partyka)

Comtech Telecommunications announced the availability of Location Studio, a developer’s platform to build cloud-based embedded and hybrid applications using location-based tools. Location Studio connects assets using AGPS and sensor positioning for location and integrates with a host of geolocation applications, taking advantage of the previous acquisition of Networks in Motion capabilities for mapping, messaging and navigation.

“There is great advantage of our approach over Google or Apple in which free access is bartered for data,” said Sameer Vuyyuru of Comtech. “Our approach eases clients’ concerns about security of data.” Last year, TeleCommunication Systems (TCS) was acquired by Comtech. Perhaps in the future, Comtech’s satellite products will be added to TCS’ public safety and LBS offerings.

CalAmp announced the availability of the MDT-7P, an Android-based tablet suited to deliver and support value-added applications for industries such as long-haul trucking, fleet management, asset delivery and mobile workforce management. The MDT-7P leverages CalAmp’s management and maintenance system, PULS, for autonomous over-the-air installation of applications and firmware directly to the tablet while in service.

U-blox announced plans to launch modules supporting Category M1 LTE networks. The first SARA R4 module developed by u-blox will be available later this year and targets mobile network operators in the U.S. market. With the recently launched SARA N2, a cellular NB IoT module, the new LTE Cat M1 complements u-blox’s product offering for the IoT.

Qualcomm Technologies and Verizon announced Verizon will pre-integrate its ThingSpace IoT platform-as-a-service within Qualcomm Technologies’ MDM9206 Category M LTE modem. The initiative also utilizes Verizon’s 4G LTE network as the gateway for simplifying the process of building, deploying and managing IoT applications customized for a wide-range of use cases.

The Teradata team at the Ford Developers Hackathon. (Photo: Janice Partyka)

Quite different from years ago when CTIA was chock full of carmakers, Ford was the only participant, and hosted the Ford Developer Hackathon on the exhibit floor. The event presented a two-way street for developers to learn how to use car data to build apps, and for Ford to see what interests the developer community. SmartDeviceLink is an open-source platform that enables creation of brought-in applications that appear integrated onto a car’s head unit.

I spoke to a team from Teradata who was working on creating an app that would compare fuel usage on the same route over time. For instance, I could compare my gas usage over each day of my commute and also compete against my co-workers who drive the same route. This team stayed until 3 a.m. at the convention center and were there the following morning to resume work. If they win the hackathon competition, team Teradata will take home all-expenses-paid trips to CES or share a Mustang car lease.

The Car Connectivity Consortium with its MirrorLink platform has a different approach to in-vehicle apps. The Ford platform requires that developers use templates for the interface. With MirrorLink, developers encounter more complexity but added freedom as they create the user interface. Alan Ewing of the Car Connectivity Consortium provided perspective on the industry’s current focus.

“We are polishing technology and working to refine the user experience,” Ewing said. “There will be wireless connectivity with no cabling and in the future, we may be able to distinguish among the phones in the car as to which belongs to driver.” He reports there is quite a bit of interest in in-vehicle streaming video.

Iridium showed an early sample of Edge, an M2M/IoT rugged transceiver scheduled to launch later this year. The Edge can be added onto existing products to enable satellite communications and used for tracking mobile or fixed assets. Many will use it alongside terrestrial communication. “IoT has opened up M2M markets and created standards and integration,” reported Tim Last of Iridium. ”We are also looking at consumer products, working with Garmin, wearables and handheld devices.”

InterDrone, an international drone show concurrently held in Las Vegas and partnered with CTIA, featured both low and high-end commercial products. The low-end (less than $1,200) serves advanced hobbyist and some professional uses.

Janice in KITT, the talking car from “Knight Rider”. (Photo: Janice Partyka)

“The high-end commercial markets include precision agriculture, construction and infrastructure inspection, mining, surveying and mapping, and top-shelf drone cinematography,” said Ted Bahr of BZ Media and InterDrone. “This segment gets all of the attention of U.S. drone makers, and the innovation and competition is intense.”

The CTIA show has changed through the years in an attempt to recapture its former luster and has come to an end. Most recently, CTIA consolidated its two shows per year into one. Next year, look for a replacement event, GSMA Mobile World Congress Americas, in partnership with CTIA, which will debut in San Francisco Sept. 12-14, 2017. The CTIA show is gone, but I’ll see you next September in San Francisco.

September 12, 2016
GNSS coordinates as survey evidence — friend or foe?
In my last column in July, I shared the situation with U.S. federal lands in Alaska being surveyed with GNSS and subdivided by coordinates, instead of subdivided by traditional methods of setting monuments.

The topic drew a varied range of responses and opinions. While some felt the article was on point with setting bad precedents, others added that it was time for technology to take over and not put so much priority on physical monuments.

I do believe there is room for everyone at the table and would like to use this article as a follow up to more conversation. Let’s start with a comparison of monuments versus theoretical/published positions for parcel corners and land ownership.

On the technical side

Space – the final frontier. Everything these days has a spatial address and/or relationship. Thanks to the U.S. Department of Defense (and taxpayer’s money), the global positioning system was created. While originally designed for military use, the civilian application has opened up a new world of spatial technology.

From Google Earth and municipal GIS to vehicular navigation and Pokemon Go, spatial data has expanded and tracked almost everything in our lives. Where’s the package from Amazon Prime? Let me check the app on my phone and it will show me where my wife’s shipment of make-up is via RFID chips on the box. Where are my buddies tonight? The “Find Friends” app tells me in seconds. All things spatial and right at your fingertips.

So that brings us to surveying and how technology has influenced its historical methods. Coordinates aren’t new; the introduction to State Plane Coordinate Systems was developed and publicized by the U.S. Coastal & Geodetic Survey almost 100 years ago.

First-order horizontal monument, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1931.

This allowed for the creation of large networks to begin the framework of today’s GIS but not without its flaws. Instruments used for these measurements were very accurate but human error always played into the final computation. Positions established by observing Polaris and/or sun shots were somewhat accurate but often were too complicated for everyday surveying projects. For decades, the only projects in which state plane coordinates were utilized took place during larger state and federally funded surveys. Because of these limitations, use of state plane coordinates and networks didn’t have many followers.

Forward a few decades and the invent of the electronic distance meter (EDM). Now there was technology available (albeit expensive) to measure large distances but it brought its own issues. Up to this point, surveyors didn’t need to worry about the earth’s curvature and atmospheric corrections but the EDM changed that.

With the Eisenhower interstate highway system, more federally funded surveys were performed and surveyors were embracing state plane coordinates more than ever. Primitive GIS systems were starting to form but state and federal cartographers were the stewards of this data. Another big step was needed and the late 1970s/early 1980s didn’t disappoint.

As mentioned earlier, the Department of Defense began implementation of the GPS network by sending a new breed of timing satellites into orbit beginning in the late 1970s. When decisions were made to allow civilians to receive GPS signals for positional use, a new era opened up for surveying. But just like route surveys, EDM’s and control networks, only large projects could sustain the funds necessary to utilize early GPS receivers. Over time, GPS equipment, like computers and software, became more advanced, user friendly and cost effective. Cost of entry to GPS technology became more affordable to most surveyors and expanded the capability of the profession to embrace state plane coordinates. For the surveyor community, the thought of an entire profession working within one large coordinate system was almost nirvana. It could help solve many of our ambiguity issues in comparing similar survey data. With today’s options of GPS networks, this dream is much closer to reality.

In one of my previous articles, I shared my belief that the GNSS RTK network has been the single greatest improvement to the profession of surveying. The hard work put in by the National Geodetic Survey team in establishing and maintaining the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) provides a thorough network that is confidently used nationwide and beyond. Additional Continuous Positional Reference Stations (CORS) are being installed nationwide and providing more surveyors with the network capability to perpetuate state plane coordinate systems literally anywhere. I, for one, like the idea of being able to share data with some certainty that most of my fellow surveyors are on the same datum.

While the autonomous car may be several years out, the surveying community now has the tools to put all surveys and property corners on the same coordinate datum. Or do we?

Every man’s house is his castle

As a surveyor, the measurement of land has been the primary focus of my career and the biggest part of it has been the search and recovery of monuments. Other than family, a person’s home and/or real estate is their most prized and valued possession. Knowing where the limits of their ownership is very important; this is where the surveyor comes in and provides that knowledge. Establishing boundary limits with monuments is a critical role the surveyor performs; how do they get there?

Monuments mean different things to everybody. Ask the person on the street what they define as a monument and they will most likely name the Washington Monument, Mt. Rushmore or another historical statue or building. History has a way with things and places being “monumental”. Here is Webster’s definition:

Full definition of monument
1. (obsolete): a burial vault: see sepulchre
2. : a written legal document or record: see treatise
3. a (1): a lasting evidence, reminder, or example of someone or something notable or great (2): a distinguished person
  b: a memorial stone or a building erected in remembrance of a person or event
4. (archaic): an identifying mark: evidence; also: portent, sign
5. (obsolete): a carved statue: see effigy
6. a boundary or position marker (as a stone)
7. see: national monument
8. a written tribute
Depending on what part of the world you are in, monuments of different sizes, shapes and materials are used for marking boundaries. Surveyors working westward after 1800 were setting hedge posts, large stones with pointed tops and stone mounds. It wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution with mass production of steel mills were iron bars and pipes used for setting section and property corners. The invention of the metal detector further increased the use of ferrous materials for corners and monuments by increasing the ability to recover the points at a later date. Over time, additional materials were introduced; brass tablets, steel reinforced rods, and stainless steel masonry nails being the most common.

Typical property corner: 5/8-inch steel rod with ID cap (Illinois).

No matter what the material, points are set at appropriate locations to physically mark the intended corner. It is also the duty of the surveyor to inform the property owner of the results of the survey in order for parties being affected by the placed points to know where their boundaries are located.

Trouble in paradise

Surveyors have been measuring for centuries using a plethora of instruments and methods; how could introducing GNSS coordinates to everyday projects create issues? It once again comes down to training, understanding of the equipment and technology and how to relate vintage survey data to newfangled data collection and measurement. Here are a few of the potential problem areas:
1. Working in Ground or Grid Coordinates? What geoid model are you working with? You mean there’s a difference? It’s amazing to me the amount of surveyors that don’t know that there truly is a difference. If you are using GNSS/GPS and don’t know the difference, put the receiver down now and pull out your total station. Same goes for the geoid model; if you don’t know the difference between orthometric heights and ellipsoid heights, look it up and learn ASAP. Your data will thank you.
2. Relating survey data based upon conventional plane geometry versus GNSS data based upon spherical geometry. Depending on the age of the survey data, it could have been collected by several different method, (chaining, EDM, triangulation,etc.) and will vary from GNSS data collection. Just because your data collector coordinates reads to ten decimal places doesn’t make it more accurate that old measurements. Get to know what is acceptable variations in measurements from old work and when real trouble is lurking, not just the occasional tenth or two.
3. Varying correction signals from RTN network providers. While any network being used for GNSS RTK data collection worth its salt is being monitored for anomolies, things happen and signals can get compromised. Check your data, then check it again. Just because the data collector says the horizontal and vertical precisions are within tolerances, they can and will lie. Check periodically to make sure everything is in good working order. Watch your satellite counts and constellations as well for good geometry. Just like any other measuring technique, proper procedures must be followed.
These are just the highlights of potential issues and not intended to be a comprehensive list.

Can’t we all just get along?

On one side of the fence is Old Joe Surveyor with his trusty metal detector, shovel, total station and sidekick for a prism holder. He’s the one finding irons and shooting fences, looking for signs of occupation because “that’s the way he was taught; follow in the footsteps of the original surveyor.” He doesn’t like technology and would prefer if those who have it would just stay away and leave him be. For him, 2 + 2 = 4, but it might need to be prorated down to 3.95 depending on the monuments.

On the other side of the fence is Kyle the New Surveyor/Geomatics Professional. He’s talked his boss into the latest toys; GNSS on an RTN network, robotic total station with scanning capability, and working on the getting the UAV flying soon with his Part 107 certification. He sees the world as one big GIS database and everything is spatial. Utilities, property corners, and improvements have coordinates with physical addresses just waiting to be collected and stored in the “cloud”. Everything is mathematics, equations and algorithms; numbers don’t lie. For Kyle, 2 + 2 = 4 because the professor said so and completed the proof during lab time.

While I know these two gentlemen are the extreme opposites of most surveyors, they epitimize a great deal of what is seen in every day business. When these two cross paths, there will always be differences until we can work out common ground for both. For instance, my last article included the “Rule of Construction” for analyzing survey data:

Priority of Evidence Rules
1. Possessory Evidence
2. Seniority of Title
3. Documentary Evidence
a. Call for a survey

b. Call for monuments

i. Natural

ii. Artificial

iii. Record

c. Distance (or Direction)

d. Direction (or Distance)

e. Area

f. Coordinates

Kyle loves his coordinates. See where coordinates fall? This is because case law has established the higher weight of survey information. Distances and bearing are above them simply based upon how things have been establish and marked for many generations. Of course, Joe sticks to the monuments. Notice on top of the list is “Possessory Evidence”; fancy words for monuments or other features depicting occupation and/or possession. These are tangible, real items that are observed, locations recorded and relied upon by both the land owner and the surveyor to define boundary lines.

This goes back to the section above about a “man and his castle” and he wants to know where his kingdom lies. It may be iron rods, fences, shoreline, creek, etc., but he can see it and know what he owns. Because these landowners are the clients of the surveyor, we provide them what they want; tangible boundary limits physically defined.

But monuments can be a divisive as well. Here is another reason I don’t want to see coordinates take a higher priority:

As a young surveyor, the term I was taught was “pin farm” and they grow like weeds. Most surveyors feel their corner will be superior to the others and therefore set another rod right beside the others. Jeff Lucas, surveyor and attorney from Alabama, wrote an entire book on “The Pincushion Effect” because of situations like this. When several different surveyors using different GNSS on the same theoretical coordinate system stake a corner based upon varying evidence, this is what we get.

Also, GNSS might not be involved at all and is simply based upon conventional survey data collection. Or some mix of all of the above. Either way, I count five (5) iron pins and the fence corner; which one fits the data best? Better yet, which one is right?

The big difference with these examples versus last article’s concern about surveying tens of thousands of acres in Alaska that no one will ever inhabit is simple; it is setting a bad precedent. The surveys in Alaska are to be performed by the BLM and follow their specific guidelines for original surveys, so they are unique in that respect.

However, by not setting corners per their own standards and utilizing a coordinate-based plat for subdividing townships will send an unintended message to surveyors throughout the states. That message will be that setting corners for government lines will no longer be necessary and simply file a plat with coordinates at your local recorder’s office. If you don’t think it will happen, just check out the multitude of surveyors who use the BLM manual for recreating sections by original surveyor instructions instead of retracement methods. Bottom line is they simply don’t know better.

As I’ve stated in past columns, I enjoy technology almost as much as I enjoy surveying and hope the innovations continue. I want to continue to push the limits of what we can do with the equipment, software and data but also not forget who we are working for. The clients are the ones who rely on our expertise to show them what they own and how they can work with their property. Spatial data is here to stay and look forward to utilizing it more in all aspects of surveying and engineering. However, existing laws and court cases are going to have to catch up to the technology before we can start placing higher priorities on coordinates and digital data. I do utilize it as much as the next surveyor but try to use it wisely. After all, just like any other professional, aren’t we “practicing” surveyors?
September 7, 2016
Multi-GNSS, multi-PNT testing: Q&A from our signal simulation webinar

The “Signal Simulation and Testing: Fundamentals and New Frontiers” webinar, held March 10, generated in-depth Q&A, printed in part here. Inertial positioning can be tested with GNSS. Download full webinar free.

Question: What is the toughest multi-constellation performance parameter to meet?

John Fischer, Spectracom. In the multi-constellation environment, having to test for synchronization between the different constellation presents a challenge. The timing references GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou use are all slightly different. Each has a different time base, and they do different things to control them. It’s a challenge for receiver designers to make sure that they are synchronizing correctly.

There are a couple of classes of multi-constellation receivers. Some are multi-constellation but they’re only doing one constellation at a time. Others create a larger navigation solution using satellites from different constellations all into one solution. That’s a more challenging set-up. There’s more of an accuracy dilution problem in the second case, because depending on a couple of factors you might be making it less accurate by having more constellations because you’re having more availability. You can, if you’re really clever in doing these very large matrix solutions, combine satellites from different constellations, but that’s a very big challenge.

The third challenge is multi-frequency. As you do these added things, your receivers are getting L1, L2, and L5, even further away. Wideband receivers have issues of flatness and frequency response, group delay and so on: big challenges for receiver designers

John Pottle, Spirent/Spirent Federal. In a simulator you have to set up the scenario, the test conditions. If you’re doing a GPS test, you have to set up the GPS constellation parameters. Then you have propagation of the signals, atmospheric and other effects including blockages around the simulated antenna. The antenna position position could be open sky or surrounded by buildings, foliage and so on.

At the most basic level, adding another constellation to a test is really not difficult. You would simply add a GLONASS constellation, for example. The GLONASS signals would then be generated however you’ve set them up, either default or with other effects. At the receiver end, the antenna would not be changed, because you’ve just added a constellation; you’d keep the environment around the antenna exactly the same. You’ve just added another constellation or one, or two, or three, or other signals, which we simulator manufacturers aim to make straightforward.

Julian Thomas, RaceLogic. One of the challenges of multi-constellation testing is when a constellation isn’t yet full; it is in its early phase of development. How do you simulate the satellites that are coming up in the future? That is especially true for BeiDou and Galileo. We have generated artificial almanacs that contain the future satellites that do allow you to test what will happen when there’s a larger number in the sky.

Question: There is increasing interest in incorporating data from other sensors in a positioning solution. How can a multi-PNT solution be tested?

John Fischer: A lot of simulators can accommodate that data. For inertial, whatever the accelerometers or gyroscopes may output, a lot of simulators including ours can output that data as well, to match whatever scenario you’re doing. We are looking at the idea of doing crowd-sourced navigation. Say I’m a device that’s on a network, a node on a network, which most things are nowadays. Even though I don’t know exactly where I am — or I want to supplement my GNSS signal — over the network I can talk to other nodes that may know where they are, and then measure my distance to them. That can help my solution. That’s an interesting advanced area we’re working in. Network delays measuring that and synchronizing that, is a new area being tested.

John Pottle: It’s really important to write down what the test objective is, if you are testing these other sensors. An example: If you take a device that’s got GPS and inertial, in the real world it will be receiving GPS signals and the inertial sensor will be putting out data consistent with the movement of the platform. How do you simulate that? One way is to know what the output data of the inertial sensors is under different conditions, and simulate those. In that case, in the test you don’t actually simulate the inertial sensors themselves, but you provide the output of those sensors to your sensor fusion engine.

That works well for high-grade IMUs, but for noisy MEMS-type sensors, it tends to be not a very satisfactory approach. Another approach is you can actually physically move the device in the lab, consistent with the motion that you’re simulating. That’s easier for some sensors than for others. You can put a magnetometer or a digital compass on a turntable fairly readily. But for accelerometers, it’s extremely difficult to simulate ongoing accelerations in a lab environment, consistent with a long real-world journey.

Finally, GNSS are broadcast systems. Inertial sensor outputs are broadcast as well. There’s no handshaking. When you get into WiFi signals or data provided over a vehicle CAN bus, it’s no good just recording the data and playing it back later. The test system must take account of the handshaking and the system message protocols.

Julian Thomas. Our main expertise in this area is recording the real-world signal and then playing it back on the bench. Our LabSat can record lots of other data from the vehicle, and then when it’s replayed on the bench, you get all of those signals synchronized. Luckily, the other side of our business is very heavily automotive data-logging based. We have vast experience interfacing with cars, with the CAN bus of cars, and reading out information and transmitting on the CAN bus. You get that sort of experience free, really. Other signals you can get are wheel-speed data, lots of times that’s incorporated in the Kalman filter routines to vastly improve accuracy in tunnels, for example.

September 6, 2016
GNSS, radars assist in all-weather vehicle positioning

Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it — right?

Our lead authors this month are doing something about it.

The July cover story of GPS World magazine was titled “See into the Smoke with Inertial.” This month’s feature could have been called “See into the Fog with CDGNSS,” but we just didn’t have room in the already extensive article to go into that angle. So here it is.

Precise carrier-phase differential GNSS positioning will in the near future become a must-have complement to cameras and lidar for all-weather automated driving. Positioning will be furnished, as the article explains, by a dense reference network broadcasting to low-cost antennas for precise (10 centimeter) performance.

Here’s the kicker, not included in your cover-story package, although hinted at by the orange and green trapezoids on the cover, and replicated in the fog-bound version above.

Such vehicle positioning would enable new driver-assistance systems. With precise knowledge of a vehicle’s position and orientation, intuitive driving directions can be rendered on the windshield in luminous paths that appear to be painted on the roadway. These paths will guide the driver along the fastest route to destination. Other symbols will suggest lane changes for safety or efficiency, and highlight the presence of vehicles dangerously close ahead. Because satellite navigation signals are not affected by rain, snow or fog, they can be combined with radar sensors to safely guide a driver or an automated vehicle in all weather.

As author Todd Humphreys explains it, “Imagine how relaxing it would be to follow a yellow brick road safely home! I envisioned this augmented-reality heads-up display during a recent road trip. Driving on unfamiliar roads, I was trying to interpret various route options on my wife’s smartphone while simultaneously fielding questions (in Spanish!) from my in-laws, and more questions from my nine-year old son. It was too much to ask of one driver!”

Not any more. That is, soon, in our brave new future, no longer.

September 6, 2016
Expert Opinions: Buyers’ need for GNSS receiver testing, certification

Q: Buyers get little guidance as to how specific receivers react to interference, particularly in critical infrastructure. Is there a need for receiver testing and certification along the lines of Underwriters Laboratories to guide purchase and acquisition?

Logan Scott, President, LSC

A: Exhaustive “seven-nines” testing and verification is expensive, takes a long time and stymies innovation. Yet simple and pragmatic testing can reveal faults very quickly. Numerous receivers fail to recognize that interference is occurring and/or produce hazardously misleading position with no warning to the user. Simple algorithms can detect problems quickly, and receivers should implement them. UL-style testing would reveal gross deficiencies in receivers and would provide a basis for selecting receivers.

Dana Goward, President, Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation

A: Whether it’s a circular saw or a GNSS receiver, safe use of a tool requires understanding its capabilities and how to use it. I have heard all kinds of reports of the wrong type of receiver being used for critical applications. An authoritative process that clarifies receiver capabilities and appropriate use would greatly help buyers educate themselves. Ultimately, it would make us all safer.

Tony Murfin, Contributing Editor, Professional OEM & UAV, GPS World

A: Most high-end receiver manufacturers have worked for many years on GNSS interference resilience. Jamming incidents have pushed manufacturers harder for solutions because customers demand more. We don’t need legislation; market pressure alone continues to bring about better interference solutions. If you’re using a low-end receiver, it’s probably somewhat processor- and memory-constrained, so it’s hard to build in better signal processing. Time will inevitably fix this problem; in the meantime buy a better receiver.

August 29, 2016
GPS anti-jam increasingly big business
It’s getting bigger all the time, GPS/GNSS business. And coming along in its wake, starting to grow like a sproutly little brother, is GPS anti-jamming, to safeguard the signal in various scenarios.

The anti-jamming market for GPS is expected to reach US$4.8 billion in value and 309.2 thousand units in volume by 2022, according to a newly released report by Research and Markets, a Dublin, Ireland-based market research “store.”

Anti-jam technology sales revenue will increase at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.0 percent between 2016 and 2022, while volume goes up 10.1 percent. Major drivers at the moment lie in the military sector, but that could well change in the next decade. The proliferation of low-cost GPS jammers is seeing to that.

Meanwhile, any armed force that puts its faith in guided missiles now feels the acute need for a secured weapons system, something not easy to accomplish. Flight-control applications are especially vulnerable.

North America is the largest and most dynamic sector of the anti-jamming market, given its powerful military and the presence of three top players in the anti-jamming market for GPS: Rockwell Collins Inc. (U.S.), The Raytheon Company (U.S.) and NovAtel Inc. (Canada).

Other companies cited by the report, and given each their own subsection, are Cobham, Mayflower Communications, BAE Systems, Furuno Electric Company, Harris Corporation, Lockheed Martin, Thales Group, Boeing and u-blox.

Breaking down by receiver type, the report studies two major categories: military and government grade, and commercial transportation grade. The market is also analyzed geographically, with sub-sub-subsections devoted to “Threat From North Korea and Disputes With China,” “Dispute in the South China Sea,” and “The Crisis in Syria and Isis.”

Aside from looking — or deriving, more often — numbers according to Anti-Jamming Technique (nulling systems, beam-steering systems and civilian systems), the report does not concern itself overly with technical details. These usually are of little interest to investors, the report’s main target. Thus it will have little of interest for engineers, except for those practicing business development.

A market breakdown by application lists:
- flight control
- surveillance and reconnaissance
- position, navigation and timing
- targeting
- casualty evacuation
- timing installations
- logistics tracking
- law enforcement
From the Executive Summary:

“The nulling systems type of anti-jamming techniques accounted for a share of 70.0% in 2015; the market was valued at USD 2,180.3 million in the same year and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 6.7% between 2016 and 2022. The market for beam steering systems was valued at USD 662.8 million in 2015 and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 6.9% during the forecast period. A major reason for beam steering systems holding such a low market share is that they are comparatively new in the market since the last decades and hence are not widely used. They are very expensive and are used only on high-end military vehicles such as strike aircrafts. For a long time nulling systems was the only known type of GPS anti-jamming technique. However, with the development of beam steering systems and the civilian anti jamming systems, the market for GPS anti-jamming is expected to increase.”

In July, GPS World asked the experts, “What percent of a GNSS designer or manufacturer’s R&D budget should be devoted to mitigation of jamming?”

Here are their responses.

MIchael Ritter, President & CEO, Novatel Inc.

“Solving for jamming, intentional or unintentional, in the design of any GNSS technology platform is no longer an option. How much any one company spends is largely a function of how much is spent on engineering overall and of how much has already been invested upfront on jamming mitigation. The required level of jamming resistance of any PNT solution also depends very much on the particular application, which in turn influences the budget allocated.”

Jeff Martin, Director GPS/GNSS Sales,
Spirent Federal

“GNSS jamming is a growing concern, and an assessment of risks and an element of testing against the most applicable real world threats should be included as part of every developer’s engineering process. Spirent has decades of experience in providing test equipment and services to engineers working to understand and mitigate jamming threats. We have seen increased investment by designers and integrators of PNT systems that are driven to provide robust/resilient solutions to their customers.”

Andrey Soloviev, Principal, Qunav

“While some receivers already incorporate jamming protection (e.g., CW excision), more sophisticated methods (for example, against broad-band jamming and spoofing) should be incorporated into perspective products. The percentage of R&D budget depends on a line of business. For manufactures pursuing applications such as military and critical infrastructure, the number can be as high as 50 percent. For many civilian applications a potential impact of jamming is less damaging. Yet, from 10 percent to 20 percent should be still allocated.”
August 29, 2016
High-precision positioning to improve as next-gen GNSS begins

A four-satellite dispenser for Galileo’s Ariane 5 is shown during shaker testing at Airbus Defence and Space near Bordeaux, France. The dispenser has had four Galileo engineering models attached to it for test purposes. (Photo: ESA)

In Geospatial Solutions’ sister publication, GPS World magazine, I’ve written quite a bit about how high-precision GNSS is going to significantly improve over the next few years.

Most GNSS users have receivers capable of using GPS (31 satellites) and Glonass (about 24 satellites). That generally equates to between 13 and 20 satellites in view with a clear sky and average terrain. However, add in variable terrain, some trees and perhaps a nearby building or two, and it can be a challenge to find enough solid satellites to track to obtain a high-precision GNSS position (less than a meter).

As the demand for high-precision GNSS positioning continues to grow, users are going to want to work in increasingly more difficult environments where high-precision GNSS struggles. More satellites will help, but they won’t come from GPS, nor GLONASS.

The GPS constellation is currently full, and is not going to grow any larger than 31 satellites (due to limitation in current GPS ground control software) in the foreseeable future. Even if GPS could fly more satellites, the orbit design accommodates only 27 satellites. GLONASS appears happy at 24 satellites and is not expanding anytime soon.

The answer lies in Europe, with China following.

After two decades of start, stop, restart, retool, regroup and start again, Europe’s Galileo constellation is real — very real. It’s all fun and games until Galileo starts launching four satellites at a time, which it is scheduled to start doing in a couple of months. Those four new satellites, added to the 12 in orbit (plus two in odd orbits), should be enough for Galileo to begin initial operation in Q4 of this year. Then, each new launch of four additional Galileo satellites will only improve the reliability and robustness of high-precision positioning. That’s a big deal for high-precision GNSS users.

Get ready for another jump in performance in high-precision GNSS positioning.

Do you remember the value that GLONASS added to GPS-only receivers 10-plus years ago? It was a premium feature on high-precision GNSS receivers in those days. Now, GLONASS is a standard feature on your smartphone.

Not very long from now, we’ll be making similar comments about Galileo. Satellite positioning in general, and high-precision GNSS positioning specifically, are satellite-hungry. As high-precision GNSS technology continues to embed itself deeper into a wide variety of industries, users will expect the technology to work. Some of those expectations, maybe many expectations, will be unreasonable. In dense urban environments? Under heavy tree canopy? In rugged terrain?

Unreasonable expectations are O.K. — that’s what pushes GNSS product managers and GNSS engineers to think outside of the box. More satellites will help meet some of the unreasonable user expectations.

What’s even better is that China’s global BeiDou system isn’t far behind Galileo. China’s regional BeiDou system (16 satellites in regional orbits over China) already makes China the best place in the world for high-precision GNSS positioning. Like Galileo, China’s global constellation is said to consist of 30 satellites.

That means in the not-too-distant future (about 2018 for Galileo and 2020 for BeiDou):

31 x GPS
24 x GLONASS
30 x Galileo
30 x BeiDou
Total: 115

This translates into more than double the satellites in view that we have at this point in time. But, you don’t have to wait. Galileo satellites are usable this year if your receiver has been designed to use them. With each new Galileo launch, you’ll have access to four more satellites until the constellation reaches 30. The same goes for BeiDou.

Don’t take this wrong, GPS isn’t done. Not by a long shot. However, historically speaking, at one satellite per rocket launch, it’s only averaging about one launch every six months. To complicate things, the U.S. Air Force has launched all of the current GPS model (IIF) satellites and aren’t ready to launch GPS III satellites yet. See Don Jewell’s August column in GPS World magazine for details.

The good news is that the user community doesn’t have to rely on an expanded GPS constellation to improve performance any more than the “gold standard” it has become. The difference-makers are going to be Galileo beginning this year and BeiDou beginning in 2018. So, get ready folks, and fasten your seatbelt. The next generation of GNSS is about ready to begin, and your geodatabase is about ready to get a double-shot of Vitamin B.

Follow me on Twitter @GPSGIS_Eric.

August 24, 2016
Rio Olympics reflected technology advances

The Olympics are great for technology. Yes, the competition held every four years highlights amazing athletes. But its vast support network relies on numerous technologies, including GNSS.

GNSS technology helped fans follow the canoe sprint and rowing events in Rio in more detail than before. With GPS devices attached to every vessel, spectators were able to see key data such as speed and direction — information that helps when following a lengthy race taking place offshore.

For the first time, Olympic athletes used high-tech wearables to give them an edge. Solos Smart Eyewear was designed for the USA’s Cycling team with features that allowed cyclists to see key metrics such as speed, power, distance, cadence and heart rate, plus more data from any number of connected sensors.

Drones Aloft. Drone technology has exploded since the London 2012 Olympics. In Rio, broadcasters experimented with hovering cameras. The BBC worked with Open Broadcast Service to provide international broadcasters with drone coverage of the rowing.

As for hobbyists, drone-maker DJI updated its firmware with Olympic geofences, preventing drones from flying over events. Not every drone manufacturer implements geofences, so the Brazilian military was equipped with new devices to jam drone-control signals mid-flight. The IACT DroneBlockers blast incoming drones with radio signals, effectively jamming the signal from the controller.

Beware Zika. Meanwhile, mapping technology is helping to track the spread of the Zika virus. Before the games, the World Health Organization launched a Zika app to provide information about the disease.

After the Olympics, IBM will provide local authorities with ways to track weather, social media data and travel patterns. Esri is supporting local authorities and coordinating field workers to track and contain the disease in Brazil and elsewhere.

What’s next? We’ll find out in Tokyo in 2020.

August 22, 2016
Unmanned update: Government and industry join to resolve issues

The White House has joined in to support continued growth of the emerging unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) industry. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) technologies are powering a revolution in unmanned flight.

Already used by government, by research organizations, and by industry for more efficient and safe applications, drones are now becoming a developing part of the United States economy. A new initiative by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) brought together 150 UAS community leaders for a recent workshop at the White House. The event was held to find out more about the UAS industry, where it’s headed, and to seek ideas for how government might contribute.

Given that the current administration has only limited time remaining, the group proposed some significant issues that could be launched, or at least where there should be focus. The only short-term goal that could be achieved by the end of the year is the release by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for UAV operations over people.

One principle objective should be for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop rules in concert with industry for licensing allocated frequency spectrum. While the FAA has yet to develop rules for higher altitude, larger-UAV operations, the UAS industry requires spectrum for command and control of aircraft at high altitudes and for beyond visual line of sight operations. The FAA and FCC regulations should be developed in parallel.

The group felt another problem that should be tackled is UAS Traffic Management (UTM). While NASA has been investigating prototype UTM options and various industry leaders have been advocating a number of different approaches, the group seemed to indicate that unless government took some form of leadership role, a number of different, incompatible solutions might be developed.

Finally, there was discussion about how a number of states are implementing local UAS regulations, while the FAA believes it has responsibility for all U.S. airspace. However, large numbers of small UAS (sUAS) are expected to operate at lower altitudes, so local authorities believe they should assert more control, even though they were comfortable in the past ceding control of manned aviation to the FAA. However, nationwide, uniform safety regulations appear to be just as critical for UAS as for manned aircraft, which seems to imply that the FAA should lead the effort.

So, some good issues were identified that need serious work to enable UAS operations, but it’s always a problem when someone else gets stuck with the responsibility to find solutions — which will be the case when the administration changes. Hopefully the new guys will also believe how beneficial UAS will be for the economy and will chase down and help overcome these barriers.

Package Delivery

Meanwhile, on the package delivery front, Google’s Project Wing has been approved by FAA to begin testing, albeit within the confines of Northern Plains UAS test site in North Dakota. The heavier Google delivery drones will be tested from the ground up to 29,000 feet with external loads, and efforts will be made to fly them beyond line of sight without chase aircraft. Google will also prototype a low-altitude airspace management system for the tests that uses inexpensive comms and data technologies.

While authorization in the U.S. was still pending, Google went looking for somewhere to test its prototype drone delivery system, and in August 2014 undertook testing in Queensland, Australia. At that time Google was using a vertical take-off UAV system — they delivered portable radios and water bottles to farmers.

Google tests delivery drones in Australia.

Word is that Google is now looking at fixed-wing UAVs and cargo slung from them — maybe for transporting heavier packages.

Google’s new delivery drone?

And further North in Ontario, Canada, Drone Delivery Canada (DDC) is moving forward with the development and implementation of a commercial drone delivery platform for retailers, service organizations and government agencies. In remote parts of Canada, access to some communities can be difficult to impossible for conventional means. DDC expects to add additional sites later this year for beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) testing, working with the Canadian government towards obtaining its operator status. DDC also just announced an agreement with a Canadian retailer to test and integrate its drone system with the retailer’s existing depot-to-depot delivery logistics.

DDC prototype drone delivery system.

And not to be left out of this picture, 7-Eleven has been working with drone manufacturer Flirtey to test autonomous delivery of convenience store items. Dispatched from a Nevada 7 Eleven store, two deliveries were completed to a local customer’s house using precision GPS, where the Flirtey drone hovered and gently lowered each package of goodies.

Flirtey drone delivers 7-Eleven goodies.

So, while the White House now seems to be actively engaged in supporting the introduction of UAS into commercial operations in the U.S., we still have many significant obstacles to overcome — not least are access to control frequencies, the development and introduction of drone traffic-control systems, and the coordination of federal and state rule-making. But this apparently has not deterred several organizations, including Google, DDC, Flirtey/7-Eleven, Amazon, Walmart and others, to trial drone package delivery. U.S. states have also recognized the promise of everything connected with UAVs and their operations, and are collaborating with the FAA to establish large swaths of the airspace for UAV testing.

What with the White House and states already on the UAV bandwagon, surely it won’t be long before we crack the nut and get significant commercial operations approved and underway.

Tony Murfin
GNSS Aerospace

August 17, 2016