Safran Federal Systems has launched the BroadSim Duo, its dual-frequency GNSS simulator designed specifically for testing military receivers in an unclassified environment.
The new product integrates dual-frequency capabilities within a single compact GPS military signal testing unit. The simulator has dual-frequency capability, which is essential for testing P-Code and AES-M-Code. It features a new software-defined radio in an M.2 form factor, offering robust and reliable performance. It also seamlessly integrates with the Skydel simulation environment for improved versatility and functionality.
Syntony GNSS has partnered with Keysight Technologies, an RF testing solutions manufacturer, to advance GNSS testing and simulation capabilities.
The collaboration centers on Keysight’s VXG advanced signal generator, which can generate thousands of simultaneous signals across all GNSS constellations and bands. It features time and phase synchronization for high fidelity and accuracy in simulation scenarios. This feature is particularly crucial for testing GNSS receivers under various conditions to ensure optimal performance in real-world scenarios.
The Syntony GNSS Simulator Constellator can mimic the complex dynamics of GNSS signals, providing a platform for testing and validating GNSS receivers. When combined with Keysight’s VXG, it serves as a comprehensive testing solution for all GNSS signals and scenarios.
The partnership aims to improve Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna (CRPA) testing. CRPA is pivotal in enhancing the resilience of GNSS receivers against interference and jamming to offer reliable operation even in adverse conditions. The combined solution from Syntony GNSS and Keysight offers a platform for testing CRPA systems to ensure they meet the stringent requirements of modern applications.
Telecommunications, among other sectors, relies heavily on precise timing information, typically derived from GNSS signals. The threat of jamming attacks, which can disrupt GPS time synchronization, poses a significant risk, potentially crippling communications and other dependent systems. The testing solutions emerging from this partnership provide a toolset for infrastructure managers to evaluate and enhance the resilience of their systems against such threats.
An exclusive interview with Mark Holbrow, VP of Product Development, Spirent Communications and Roger Hart, Sr. Director of Engineering, Spirent Federal Systems. For more exclusive interviews from this cover story, click here.
What are your roles?
MH: Our business is based in the UK. I am responsible for the vision and direction of the Technology portfolio required by Spirent’s Positioning Technology business unit.
RH: I am responsible for the U.S. add-on components to the simulator, the restricted signals, and support for the U.S. government labs and contractors.
How have the need for simulation or the requirements for it changed in the past five years, with the completion of the BeiDou and Galileo GNSS constellations, the rise in jamming and spoofing threats, the sharp increase in corrections services, and the advent of new LEO-based PNT services?
MH: I would say that the need for thorough and comprehensive testing has never been greater. That need is being driven on multiple fronts due to the understandable pressure on PNT systems needing to deliver enhanced accuracy, reliability and resilience, in the presence of emerging threat vectors and an expanding application space that’s utilizing ever more complex combinations of new and enhanced signals and sensors of opportunity. Underpinning Spirent’s leadership in ensuring the test needs for this evolving, challenging and increasingly diverse market are its team, its technology and its partners. That team is well-established, dedicated and highly experienced — their sole focus is designing, manufacturing and supporting PNT test solutions. The technology focuses around our pioneering dedicated SDR hardware platform and software simulation engine, which allied provide performance, scalability and flexibility, within an open accessible architecture. In addition, close collaboration with our selected partners ensures the opportunity to support and integrate new and emerging PNT technologies through their tools, applications and hardware.
You mention the advent of LEO. A key reason why Spirent was first to market and successfully supported an early LEO + GNSS receiver test-bed (through close and collaboration with Xona and NovAtel) was driven by team, technology and partners.
Two other important areas that have definitely continued to grow and evolve in importance and priority have to be increased realism and test automation. Both are areas in which Spirent continues to prioritize and invest R&D dollars.
Spirent’s integrated, software-defined wavefront simulation system for a 5-element controlled reception pattern antenna (CRPA). Spirent solutions support 16+ antenna elements. (Image: Spirent)
With all these additional signals, is it still a single simulator or do you have to somehow split it up into different modules?
MH: Good point. Again, a key element with the Spirent solution is that it is very scaleabale and flexible. Spirent has a generic SDR that can be re-purposed to simulate whatever signals are required. That way, we can compile different signals from either one radio or multiple radios coming from the same system. Together with being able to bring in multiple chassis to gradually grow the simulation solution, while also maintaining for each of those signals the fidelity, channel count, and accuracy that customers demand.
Including every signal currently available?
MH: Absolutely, sir. In fact, signals that are still on the drawing board as well. We can enable the user with effectively an arbitrary waveform simulator or ‘sandbox’ to experiment with different modulation schemes, different chipping rates, codes, bandwidths and navigation data content. So, in addition to using that architecture to generate the signals, we allow customers to experiment with it themselves. That’s certainly accelerated over these last five years, and there’s no sign of it stopping. We’re currently working with customers and partners all over the globe who are developing both brand new and emerging PNT systems, whilst also providing all the vital simulation tools to aid the R&D of existing and planned SIS evolutions.
RH: The increasing number of signals that we can support multiplies the permutations and combinations of test cases that users can do. There is a lot of emphasis also on the user interface side of things, so that from one interface you can also easily control all these interfaces with third-party tools, because proliferation of signals produces a huge possible test volume.
What are the specific challenges in realistically simulating new LEO-based signals and any new services being developed for which you don’t have any live sky signals to record yet, only ICDs and other documents?
MH: Again, great question. The key reason Spirent excels in this arena is that the core simulation engine and SDR are agnostic of the constellation and signal type that’s being generated. So, the underlying principles of accuracy, range rate, pseudo-range control, and delay, together with the RF fidelity from Spirent’s SDR+ Sim engine, can be readily manipulated to simulate the wealth of emerging signals, including LEO.
The other area that becomes very important is that if we do not have sight of the ICD, we can enable customers to use our tools to readily populate elements of that ICD themselves. That way, the best of both worlds is achieved, i.e. a turnkey SIS solution, or we can just enable the customer to do it themselves.
Are accuracy requirements or any other requirements for simulation increasing to enable emerging applications?
MH: They are. Both current and emerging test needs are continuing to drive the need for enhanced simulation realism. Always a tough nut to crack, but our hard-won experience and expertise, allied with continuing adoption of latest-generation technology, is allowing us to take some significant strides forward. Real-world testing has an incredibly important role to play and that’s why at Spirent we continue to invest in and develop the GSS6450 Record & Playback System (RPS). However, we are also on that quest for the ‘Holy Grail’ that has all the well understood and necessary advantages of lab-based testing but with the simulation environment being as true to the real world as possible.
A German Armed Forces test center, WTD-61, recently used Spirent’s new Field Simulator to conclusively demonstrate the susceptibility of some UAS to spoofing. (Image: Spirent)
A further area where both current and emerging test needs are demanding more and more from the test environment is resilience testing. Spirent now supports a multitude of vulnerability and corresponding mitigation/prevention test cases. Those test cases become increasingly complex as multiple combinations of the threat/mitigation surface evolve — including jamming, spoofing, cyber-attack and CRPA.
Many of these test cases are driving the state of the art and, especially in the case of CRPA testing, Spirent’s purpose-designed SDR comes into its own. Technology bakeoffs and corresponding customer adoption have shown that only through the use of that dedicated purpose-built technology, the simulator test bed can deliver the necessary carrier and code phase stability, very low levels of uncorrelated noise across antenna elements and high J/S that is demanded.
Again, with respect to flexibility, we also support ways to let customers generate their own IQ data. That data can be streamed into the Spirent simulator and combined sympathetically and coherently with the signals generated inside the platform. So, you can layer new signals on existing ones, or introduce a completely new dedicated IQ stream.Finally, hardware-in-the -loop (HIL) testing requirements continue to be a crucial aspect in test coverage. Whether that application is automotive, projectiles or autonomous vehicles, the need for lower latency and higher 6DOF sampling to capture as many trajectory nuances as possible continues to grow. Spirent’s 2KHz system achieves very high iteration rates (SIR) and <2msec latency.
What are the key differences between your simulators for use in the lab and those for use in the field? I assume that the latter are lighter, smaller, and less power hungry. Do they use modules so that users can pick the ones they need for a particular test?
MH: We do support in-the-field test use cases. Spirent has record-and-replay (RPS) systems to take soundings in a wide-band RF environment, record them, then bring them back into the lab for replay. They are sized to fit into a backpack, battery-powered, accessible, and easy to use.
Recently, we have also taken some of our signal generator IP and been able to create a smaller form factor portable simulator for outside use. Its footprint is considerably smaller than that of one of our lab-based simulators. It’s primarily a mechanism for testing the resilience in the field of devices under test. Armed with a Spirent simulator and the appropriate transmit licenses, a customer can put their DUT through an array of vulnerability test cases in a live real-world environment.
You mentioned licenses. As far as jamming, specifically, and maybe spoofing, I presume that you’ll need a license for a specific time and place and that you will have to be far away from, say, an airport.
Absolutely. Right. The details will vary depending on the jurisdiction, but you will need a license to transmit. And, as you rightly say, often those places will be very remote so as not to interfere with the public. We’ve had instances where we’ll work with a customer who has those appropriate licenses and then we can provide this equipment for them to be able to put it through a battery of tests.
You generate the spoofing in your simulator, of course. Do you also generate the jamming inside the same box or from a separate jammer nearby?
It could be either. We can use our simulators to generate internally wide range of interference signals supporting a wide bandwidth, high max o/p power and large dynamic range. This is especially important in instances of CRPA testing, in which it is vital to accurately reproducing a jamming wavefront commensurate with the arrival angle and delay incident at each antenna element. Correspondingly, we support turn-key solutions to connect, control and integrate 3rd party external signal generators into the test scenario.
Are you at liberty to describe any recent success stories?
We have a Xona simulator. So, this is back on the topic of LEO. We’ve recently released that in partnership with Xona. We are also working closely with Hexagon. All those things I mentioned earlier about enabling the customer to use the flexible features that we have, that is where it came into its own. That’s certainly a significant recent success.
We’re continuing to add many realism-related capabilities, including simulating the vibration and temperature effects of inertial systems. Working with a Swiss partner called Space PNT, we’ve recently introduced another LEO-based product, called SimORBIT. That tool enables us to generate incredibly representative and accurate LEO orbits that also include gravitational effects based upon the SV size. We recently introduced a new software tool to support “GNSS Assurance” requirements.
We have a newly patented cloud-based software application called GNSS Foresight that enables users to understand the GNSS coverage they would expect during a particular time, date location and trajectory inclusive of the 3D environment they would be experiencing. We continue to evolve the tool to support real-time operation to enable it to deliver aiding content to appropriately equipped systems.
We continue to be able to support more and more automation. Automation has always been important, but with ever increasing demands of test asset utilization and in a post-pandemic world of remote working, it’s more important than ever right now. The number of test cases and corner cases required and the amount of equipment, coverage, and efficiency required, which was being demanded by using our kit means that automation is vital. So, we’ve introduced several new automation tools to build up on top of our current SimREMOTE interface.
Spirent has also developed a simulation test solution for the Galileo Open Service Navigation Message Authentication (OSNMA) mechanism. SimOSNMA is designed to work with Spirent’s GNSS simulation platforms to test OSNMA signal conformance, which will bring new levels of robustness for both civilian and commercial GNSS uses. SimOSNMA provides developers with vital new simulation tools to test for OSNMA, the security protocol that enables GNSS receivers to verify the authenticity of signals distributed from the Galileo satellite constellation. Designed to combat spoofing, OSNMA ensures that the data received is authentic and has not been modified in any way. It is currently completing the test phase before its formal launch, and SimOSNMA enables developers to simulate and test OSNMA signals and features, allowing GNSS receiver manufacturers and application developers to accelerate and assure development programs.
An exclusive interview with Jürgen Pielmeier, managing director, IFEN. For more exclusive interviews from this cover story, click here.
In which markets and/or applications do you specialize?
IFEN is offering RF simulation solutions for all GNSS markets, except the defense market with encrypted signals. The major market in recent years was the ‘New Space’ market, mainly focused to design and test PNT navigation solutions as part of (primarily) LEO satellite constellations using existing GNSS systems. With the many new players around the world, there are many market opportunities. To be successful in this ‘New Space’ market requires simulation support of all GNSS systems and signals, modelling LEO dynamics and environment and providing multiple RF-outputs (enabling systems with several GNSS antennas located on the satellite). With our latest ‘NCS NOVA+’ RF simulator, support of up to 4 RF-antenna simulations is possible. From basic RF system up to integrated SIL and HIL systems, the level of required solutions is very diverse by the different applications. The IFEN RF simulator is also offering a full ‘radio occultation’ simulation capability specifically for this market.
The second important market is the automotive/maritime PNT market requiring fully integrated HIL simulation solutions. Excellent integration capability into external environment simulation systems with a rich set of interfaces and short latencies are keys for this market. To further penetrate this market, IFEN will implement some major enhancements during this and next year within its RF simulator products.
How has the need for simulation changed in the past five years, with the completion of the BeiDou and Galileo GNSS constellations, the rise in jamming and spoofing threats, the sharp increase in corrections services, and the advent of new LEO-based PNT services?
Today, supporting all existing GNSS systems with all related signal components on all frequencies is a must have for all high-end RF simulators. Keeping the RF simulators up-to-date with the new and continuously evolving GNSS signals is required to be sustainably competitive. Specifically, beyond the L-band signals, we are also fully supporting the S-band signals of the NavIC constellation. The continuously increasing number of available GNSS satellites and signals requires that the RF simulator capabilities are fully scalable to provide sufficient resources to simulate all signal channels. Our new NCS NOVA+ simulator is our first RF simulator with strong scalability capabilities, to be further extended in the coming years.
In recent years, adding support for the simulation of jamming and spoofing threats was a major driver for the market. Our latest RF simulator generation ‘NCS NOVA+’ is fully supporting all types of jamming and spoofing, fully integrated into our RF simulators to enable coherent signal generation. With the coming ‘DFMC’ (SBAS/GBAS dual-frequency multi-constellation) based safety-of-life and automated driving applications, the need to support advanced jamming and spoofing simulation solutions will be a continuous driver also for the future.
Adding the ‘High Accuracy Service’ (HAS) PPP-correction capability on Galileo E6-B signal in our coming V2.9 release is driven by the increased request for PPP corrections services. We expect further improvements here in the coming years, especially to cover the emerging PPP-RTK market needs.
With the coming age of LEO-PNT services, this is the most important driver for the next five years, extending the signal frequencies beyond the current L- and S-band signals, seeing new modulations, two-way transfer and many more topics. This will require strong development efforts on the RF simulator side, to provide suited RF test tools in time to LEO-PNT system designers and developers, but also the related user terminal developers. IFEN is currently preparing to take this next major step in its RF simulator capability portfolio.
In particular, regarding some of the new PNT services being developed, how do you simulate them realistically without the benefit of recordings of live sky signals?
Facing the lack of live sky signals when developing RF simulator capabilities is a continuous challenge. It requires to a certain signal simulation flexibility designed into the receiver, good and theoretical understanding of specific implications of new designed signals. As soon as real signals are then available, simulation and real signals will be compared and if required the simulation fidelity will be adjusted to meet the real signals.
Are accuracy requirements for simulation increasing, to enable emerging applications?
Concerning the core accuracy parameters requested in recent years, we saw no increase in required accuracy, as the typical requested accuracy are anyway far beyond the real signals accuracy.
Are all your simulators for use in the lab or are some for use in the field? If the latter, for what applications and how do they differ from the ones in the lab? (For starters, I assume that they are smaller, lighter, and less power-hungry…)
Currently all our simulators are designed for usage within the laboratory. However, we recognize an increased request for in-field capable RF simulators, specifically to perform spoofing of real SIS to test deployed GNSS receivers in the field. Offering a portable in-field solution is in the mid-term planning, but not a current driver for our developments.
What are some of your recent successes?
The most important recent success is the Galileo 2nd generation Test User Receiver contract from the European Space Agency. Within this contract, the ‘NCS NOVA+’ simulator as RF test tool will be upgraded to full G2G signal generation capability. The new already implemented G2G signals enabling shorter TTFF, improved acquisition performance but also higher updates rates (e.g. for PPP-RTK). Up to end of the year the G2G signal will be fully implemented in our RF simulator, including the next generation of advanced authentication solutions.
An exclusive interview with Julian Thomas, managing director, Racelogic. For more exclusive interviews from this cover story, click here.
In which markets and/or applications do you specialize?
We originally designed our LabSat simulator for ourselves, because we supply GPS equipment to the automotive market. Then, we decided to sell it into that market, which is our primary market, for other people to use. That’s where we started, but it has moved on since then. We supply many of the automotive companies who use it for testing their in-car GPS-based navigation systems.
However, we’ve moved on to our second biggest market, which is the companies that make deployment systems for internet satellites, which use it for end-of-life testing. Several of our customers use it. That’s because we do space simulations, so we can simulate the orbits of satellites. That’s very useful when they’re developing their satellites.
We supply many of the major GPS board manufacturers — such as NovAtel, Garmin, and Trimble — when they’re developing their boards and testing their devices. We supply many of the phone companies — such as Apple and Samsung — and many of the GPS chip manufacturers — such as Qualcomm, Broadcom, and Unicom. More or less any company that’s into GNSS.
How has the need for simulation changed in the past five years, with the completion of the BeiDou and Galileo GNSS constellations, the rise in jamming and spoofing threats, the sharp increase in corrections services, and the advent of new LEO-based PNT services?
It all started off very simple, with just GPS, which was one signal and one frequency. We got that up and working very well and it helped us a lot. Then we got into this market. In the last few years, we’ve had to suddenly invent 15 new signals. We do two systems, really: one is a record-and-replay system. You put a box in a car, on a bike, in a backpack, or on a rocket, and you record the raw GPS signals; then you can replay those on the bench. That requires greater bandwidth, greater bit depth, smaller size, battery power, all of that.
The other is pure signal simulation. We simulate the signals coming from the satellites from pure principles. So, we’ve had to dive into how those signals are structured, reproduce them mathematically, and then incorporate that in into our software. That’s been 15 times the original work we thought it would be, but as we add each signal it tends to get a bit simpler until they add new ways to encode signals, and then it gets complex again. We’ve had to increase our bandwidth, increase our bit depth for the recording to cover all of these new signals.
Because our systems record and replay, they’re used a lot to record real-world jamming. In many scenarios, our customers will take one of our boxes into the field and record either deliberate jamming or jamming that’s been carried out by a third party. Then they can replay that in the comfort of their lab.
With regards to spoofing, we’ve just improved our signal simulation. So, we can completely synchronize it with real time. We can do seamless takeover of a GNSS signal in real time. We can reproduce the current ephemeris and almanac. If we transmit a sufficiently powerful signal, we can completely take over that device. Then we can insert a new trajectory into it. That’s a very recent update we’ve done.
If the complexity and amount of your work has gone up so much in the last few years but you cannot increase your prices at the same rate, what does that do to your business model?
It’s the same people that produce the signals in the first place, so they still have a job. However, as we add more signals and capabilities, we tend to get more customers as well.
Oh, so, you’re expanding your market!
Right, right.
Regarding some of the new PNT services being developed, how do you simulate them realistically without the benefit of recordings of live sky signals?
It is all pure signals simulation. You go through the ICD line-by-line and work out the new schemes. Here’s an interesting anecdote. Our developer who does a lot of the signal development is Polish and is also fluent in Russian. When we were developing the GLONASS signals, he was working from the English version of the GLONASS ICD. He said that it didn’t make any sense. So, he looked at the Russian version and discovered that the English one had a typo. When he used the Russian version, everything worked perfectly. He told this to his contacts at GLONASS and they thanked him and updated the English translation of their document. So, you are very, very much reliant on every single word in that ICD.
Are there typically differences between the published ICD and the actual signal?
No, no. Apart from the Russian one, which had a typo, they’re very good. For example, we’ve recently implemented the latest GPS L1C signal. My developer spent six months recreating it and getting all the maths right and the only way you could test it was to connect it to a receiver and hit “go.” It just worked the first time. He almost fell off his chair. The ICD in that case was very, very accurate.
Hope that Xona’s ICD is just as good.
Yeah.
Are accuracy requirements for simulation increasing, to enable emerging applications?
Yes, absolutely. No one can have too much accuracy. Everyone’s chasing the goal of getting smaller, faster, and more accurate systems. They want greater precision and better accuracy from their simulators, as well as a faster response. We do real-time simulators and they want a smaller and smaller delay from when you input the trajectory to when you get the output. Luckily for us, Moore’s law is still in effect, so, as the complexity of the signals and the accuracy requirements increase, computers can churn through more data. Luckily, we’re able to keep up on the hardware side as well, because much of our processing is done using software. Some companies do it in hardware and some companies do it in software. We concentrate on the software side of things.
Here’s another interesting anecdote from my Polish guy. He noticed that the latest Intel chips contain an instruction that multiplies and divides at the same time but that it wasn’t available in Windows. So, he put in a request with Microsoft for that operational code and they incorporated it into the very latest version of dotnet, which has improved our simulation time by 7%. I see little improvements like that all the time.
Are all your simulators for use in the lab or are some for use in the field? If the latter, for what applications and how do they differ from the ones in the lab? (Well, for starters, I assume that they are smaller, lighter, and less power-hungry…)
All our systems are designed to be used inside and outside the lab. They can all be carried in a backpack, on a push bike, in a car. We do that deliberately, because we come from the automotive side of things, so we have to keep everything very small and compact.
Besides automotive, what are some field uses?
Some of our customers have put them in rockets, recording the signal as it goes up, or in boats. We have people walking around with an antenna on their wrist connected to one of our systems, so that they can simulate smartwatches. There are many portable applications. We have a very small battery-powered version, which makes it very independent.
Are there any recent success stories that you are at liberty to discuss?
Our most exciting one is a seamless transition for simulation that we developed to replace or augment GPS in tunnels. We’ve been talking to many cities around the world that are building new tunnels. Because modern cars automatically call emergency services when they crash or deploy their airbags, they need to know where they are, of course. Cities need to take this into account when they are building new tunnels, which can pass over each other or match the routes of surface streets. Therefore, accurate 3D positioning in the tunnels has become essential. It requires installing repeaters every 30 meters along each tunnel and software that runs on a server and seamlessly updates your position every 30 meters. As you enter a tunnel, your phone or car navigation system instantly switches to this system. It’s been received very well because it’s mainly software and the hardware is pretty simple. We’ve brought the cost down to a fifth of the cost of standard GPS simulators for tunnels. So, we’re talking to several cities about some very long tunnels, which is very exciting.
An exclusive interview with Tim Erbes, Technical Director, Safran Federal Systems (formerly Orolia Defense & Security). For more exclusive interviews from this cover story, click here.
What are currently the key challenges for simulation?
One of our big challenges is determining what performance requirements are necessary for our users. Often, they can’t determine what the specs need to be. All they know is that they need it to work. “I need this receiver from one company, this IMU from another company, and the simulator I got from you guys to work together and I need the performance to match reality.” It can be very challenging to say, “What are the requirements for the simulator? How accurate does it need to be? What types of things matter in this integration?”
Often, we’re left trying to figure that out. So, that’s an interesting, maybe unexpected challenge. It’s easy to look at the datasheet and see what some specs are, but it’s a much harder thing to say, “Well, what do you need the specs to be?” So, we’ve been working with our customers to try to nail down some of those specs, particularly with Wavefront. We have some specs on such things as phase alignment and phase stability. But how do you translate that into something like “Well, I just want the CRPA to work the same in the lab as it does in the real world?” There’s not a direct, easy way to do that. We’re in the middle of trying to figure that out. That’s definitely one of our challenges.
What about the increase in jamming and spoofing threats?
In the last five years, we’ve seen a lot more open talk about jamming and spoofing in the world. The receiver manufacturers must think about this a lot more. What’s interesting from a simulator point of view is that this is not actually new for us. We have the advantage that we’ve been designing to program requirements for years and they have included jamming and spoofing for years. So, in a way, simulation is ahead of this state of the world. Jamming and spoofing are not new or hard ideas for us. In fact, spoofing is similar to simulation. So, we already know how to do that.
Image: Safran Federal Systems (formerly Orolia Defense & Security)
However, jamming and spoofing are new to programs and integration labs. So, there might be platforms where they’re now testing against jamming or spoofing requirements where in the past, maybe they didn’t do that. They certainly can use our simulators to help them do that. However, we’re not seeing a lot of new requirements coming to us saying we need new jamming or spoofing capabilities, because we already have them. Luckily, we are future oriented regarding the jamming and spoofing requirements, so those really haven’t been a challenge for us yet.
That can always change, right? If new requirements come up, such as higher data rates or wider bandwidth waveforms or different types of waveforms, then we would have to adapt and add support for that kind of stuff. As of right now, however, we aren’t really seeing that. So, luckily, we’re prepared for that. As for the industry as a whole, there has definitely been a big movement in the last few years to understand the effects of jamming and spoofing. Simulation is a big part of that.
What about the completion of the BeiDou and Galileo constellations?
For a long time, we simulated four constellations. Then that began to get fuzzy. Do you consider SBAS a constellation or is that just an augmentation? Do you count EGNOS and other supplemental constellations for the other constellations? What about NavIC and QZSS? Before you know it, you start to lose track of exactly how many you have. We just released our 8th constellation, Xona.We’re going to be demonstrating it at JNC.
Tell me more about that.
We are trying to have all the constellations and that can be a fuzzy definition. Does that mean all that are up there right now or all that will be up there in the future? We’re trying to be forward looking and add everything that is going to be up there or might be up there so that lab users can develop and test. Multi-constellation simulation is a particularly challenging problem for groups that don’t have simulators. If you’re just doing research on, say, GPS, and want a new code, you might be able to do that in a lab on your own. But as soon as you say, “I want to do research on whether this LEO constellation helps navigation on a receiver that also uses Galileo and GPS,” suddenly, your research requires a full multi-constellation simulation.
There are two choices. One is to have a simulator do the constellations that already exist, and then you have some research to add constellations. That can be very challenging, especially with time alignment and things like that. The other is to have a simulator that can do all the constellations. That would be the easy choice, right? That presents a problem with such things as LEO navigation being on the rise and these constellations that are just emerging, that are still not even fully defined.
So, we’re trying to build those into our simulation products, to help researchers and decision makers determine whether these will be useful features to add to their receivers or their systems. We have the advantage of having a software-defined architecture. We designed the software so that it is easy to add new constellations to it. Basically, once we’re given a proper ICD, we’re only a couple of months away from a first draft implementation of that new signal. Then we iterate. There used to always be a government-driven, multi-year program to develop an ICD. Now, we have this new concept of the signal manufacturers. We’re seeing private companies release signal specs. That’s a very different way of creating a signal in a constellation. So, sometimes you don’t get much time between when the ICD is available and when simulator users want to use that constellation. Having a software-defined architecture really helps us move quickly. We can add such things as Xona very fast.
Xona told me a couple of days ago that they will soon put out an ICD. What’s the difference between actual signals that you can record and play versus something that’s only on paper?
That’s a great point. Probably many people don’t realize, when they first look at this, that what’s in the ICD and what’s on live sky are sometimes very different. Is the simulator supposed to match live sky? Or is it supposed to match the intended final state of the constellation, according to the ICD? This is a huge topic for M-Code, which is ever changing, and has a very large ICD that’s been released. Space Systems Command/Military Communications & Position, Navigation, & Timing (MCPNT) controls the features and releases them incrementally. We’re constantly having to make changes to the simulator to match those releases. The same is true for the other ICDs. At the Institute of Navigation Joint Navigation Conference (JNC), we will demonstrate an expanded PRN. I think this showed up in the ICD a couple of years ago, but it’s not used by any users yet. Some of the receiver manufacturers are starting to look at using PRNs beyond 32. So, we’re adding that to the simulator. This has already happened for BeiDou as well. I think their ICD goes up to more than 60 satellites. It’s an ever-changing race. The ICDs are constantly being updated and we’re trying to update the simulator.
Image: Safran Federal Systems (formerly Orolia Defense & Security)
Meanwhile, live sky is many years behind the paper, right? This creates an interesting challenge: when you design a system, are you designing it for today or for the future? We have users in both groups. We have users that only care about what is happening today, because they need a model. Maybe you want to model a specific mission and you want to make sure that everything’s going to go properly. Or maybe you’re designing a system that you want to release in three or four years, and you want to make sure that it’s going to work with the state of the system then.
A big challenge is to make sure that we’re keeping pace with all these ICDs. There are more constellations than ever and the technology makes it easier to change signal architectures. We’re seeing signals change faster than we’ve ever seen them change before. We go to conferences and hear about such things as on-orbit reprogramming and signals that might even change specs while they’re being transmitted. Maybe they don’t even have to have a fixed bandwidth or fixed bit rate. We’re going to start talking about signals that can reprogram on the fly. That’s going to make simulation more and more challenging. The technology exists to do this.
Software-defined waveforms is a very logical step. In the software world, we have this concept of version nightmare. When you have 20 different pieces of software that are interdependent, it can get very challenging. We’re going to start to see that in simulators. We’re going to see, “Hey, what version of navigation authentication are you using? We updated it six months ago. Are you using the new one or the old one? Which one should we use?” Well, it depends on what your receiver is using. It’s going to be interesting and challenging to keep all this straight in the next few years as things evolve. Certainly, however, our goal is to be there for all of it and to be as fast and as forward thinking as we can for our customers. That means that we also need to know what our customers need. So, we’re always looking for feedback and requests, what challenges our customers face and we’re responding to those requests.
Tell me more about the difference between simulators used by receiver manufacturers in their labs as they’re tweaking receivers or developing new ones vs. simulators used for mission planning.
The simulators are the same, but they’re used in very different ways. In most lab simulation, what the constellation looks like that day doesn’t matter very much. They can just run with a default constellation for a given day. They’ll run that scenario hundreds or thousands of times and never need to change it because they’re testing parts of the receiver that don’t care a whole lot about the specifics of what’s happening.
Whereas missions are time- and location-specific.
Yeah, exactly. They want to know which satellites will be overhead at an exact time and place. It’s not so much a problem anymore, but there used to be certain days and times when you would not get enough satellites in view, or you might have very bad dilution of precision, and your mission might actually fail. We’re past those days. There are now enough satellites up there. Most receivers will navigate within their specs most of the time in most places. However, for critical missions, such as military operations or rocket launches, you might not want to just assume that any day is a good day. So, if you’re about to launch a rocket, you might want to check. “What does the constellation look like right now?” The challenges that brings is that simulators have a default constellation, but the constellations are constantly changing.
When you’re doing real day mission planning, the big problem isn’t so much how to generate a signal, it’s how to find out what’s happening today. That’s really the nature of the problem because what’s out there today is different from what was happening yesterday or what will happen tomorrow. You might have unhealthy satellites. You need to know that if you want to model them. It becomes a big challenge to get all the right data into the simulator. Once all that data is in there, then it’s the same as any other simulation.
Are there good sources for current data on GLONASS, BeiDou and Galileo?
Image: Safran Federal Systems (formerly Orolia Defense & Security)
There are a couple of websites that provide information about where the satellites currently are. However, we’ve found that each one of those sites has its own challenges. Some are maybe 30 minutes out of date, which is pretty good, but puts the satellites in slightly different spots. Some of those sites only support some of the constellations. We’re talking about multiple countries and they don’t all agree on how this should be done. So, there’s not a single point that you can visit to get all the satellite data. There are a couple of companies that try to fix this. U-blox has AssistNow; Qualcomm has an assist for its cellular receivers; Trimble, NovAtel, and a couple of other companies have their error correction services to which you can subscribe to get some of that data.
If you want real-time up-to-date ephemeris for all the constellations, that is challenging. There are one or two options we have found that seem to work, but they each have their disadvantages. Maybe they don’t have all the satellites. Again, we’re talking about versioning issues. So, if you’ve designed your system with a certain version of an ICD and they’ve added more satellites since, those new SVs maybe aren’t so important for your users, so you don’t publish them. Other users want those satellites. So, we see versioning issues in these data streams. For example, we use the CORS network to get a lot of GPS data but that whole network, as far as I know, is only running the legacy data. As far as I know, no network is distributing the L1C modernized data that we will need at some point. So, as we launch new signals and constellations, we need the networks to provide this new data.
What are some other challenges?
For us, being a software-defined simulator on a platform dependent on software-defined radio (SDR), we’re constantly looking at what’s changing in the SDR technology community. There’s always some interesting stuff happening there that we try to incorporate. We don’t have any big announcements this year, as far as new architectures or anything like that. However, the SDR community is evolving. It’s still a rather new industry. A few years ago, we were an early adopter of SDR technology for mass deployment. Now, we’re seeing some more mature SDRs starting to push such things as channel count and coherency. We will probably take advantage of that in the future.
The other interesting thing technology-wise is that we’re also a GPU-dependent technology. So, as the GPU industry continues to evolve and makes bigger and faster GPUs, we get a relatively low-cost way to upgrade. We don’t have to do a lot of R&D to upgrade to a new GPU. For our users that means that the number of signals they can generate on their simulators is always increasing even using the same hardware from one generation to the next. Our first simulator did 75 signals; the next version did 150. We could build a system that did more than 1,000 signals, but our users don’t need it.
I assume that the growth curve for GPUs is steeper than that for signals.
I think that you’re right about that. I’m sure glad they do, because then something like Xona shows up and we don’t have to rearchitect our system to generate 300 signals, right? At JNC we will show expanded PRN, 300 Xona satellites in the constellation, and a 10 fold improvement on Wavefront performance specs.. We will continue to build simulators that meet our customers’ requirements. Besides GPUs, a lot of the technology involves software R&D and signals. The stuff that we do digitally inside of our system that allows us to do things like extremely precise phase alignment on Wavefront, for example. We spent a lot of time developing that stuff.
Image: Safran Federal Systems (formerly Orolia Defense & Security)
As the number of constellations, satellites, and signals has grown in recent years — especially in the past few years, with the completion of the BeiDou and Galileo constellations — simulator manufacturers have been challenged to keep up. Threats of jamming and spoofing also increased. Then, a few companies began to develop new positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) constellations in low-Earth orbit (LEO).
Due to the limited space available in print, I was able to use only used a small portion of the interviews I conducted for our August cover story. For full transcripts of them see below:
Full interview with Tim Erbes, Technical Director, Safran Federal Systems (formerly Orolia Defense & Security).
Full interview with JulianThomas, Managing Director, Racelogic.
Full interview with Jürgen Pielmeier, Managing Director, IFEN.
Full interview with Mark Holbrow, VP of Product Development, Spirent Communications and Roger Hart, Sr. Director of Engineering, Spirent Federal Systems.
Spirent’s GSS6450 record and playback system (RPS) used to record live-sky signals in an urban environment for testing in the lab.(Image: Spirent Federal Systems)
These are interesting and challenging times for the makers of GNSS signal simulators.
For decades, developers and manufacturers of GNSS receivers have needed to simulate the satellites’ signals to test receivers in their labs and in the field. Meanwhile, users of GNSS receivers for critical missions — such as military operations and rocket launches — have needed to simulate the exact conditions (the number of satellites in line of sight, the positional dilution of precision, etc.) at specific points in time and space.
As the number of constellations, satellites and signals grew — especially in the past few years, with the completion of the BeiDou and Galileo constellations — simulator manufacturers were challenged to keep up. Threats of jamming and spoofing also increased. Then, a few companies began to develop new positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) constellations in low-Earth orbit (LEO). Now, it is common for simulators to require several hundred channels.
I discussed these challenges and the prospect for the simulation industry with representatives of five companies:
Tim Erbes, Technical Director, Safran Federal Systems (formerly Orolia Defense & Security
For the full transcripts of my interviews, click here. If you like this article, you will love the interview transcripts, which cover much more than I had room for here.
Legacy Constellations and New Ones
Simulator manufacturers cite a variety of challenges. According to Erbes, a big one is determining users’ requirements. “Often,” he said, “they can’t determine what the specs need to be. All they know is that they need it to work.” This is particularly true when mixing and matching receivers, IMUs, and components from different manufacturers, he pointed out.
For decades, there were only two GNSS constellations (GPS and GLONASS). A couple of years ago, two more came online (BeiDou and Galileo). Meanwhile, several regional augmentation systems were developed (SBAS, EGNOS, NavIC, QZSS and KASS), some of which may later grow into global systems. Now, new LEO-based systems are being developed. For simulator manufacturers, what was once clear “began to get fuzzy,” Erbes said. “If you ask members of our team right now how many constellations we support, you will not get a quick answer. We’re trying to be forward-looking and add everything that might be up there so lab users can develop and test.”
Multi-constellation simulation is a particularly challenging problem for groups that don’t have simulators, Erbes pointed out. “We have the advantage of having a software-defined architecture. We designed the software so that it is easy to add new constellations to it. Basically, once we’re given a proper interface control document (ICD), we’re only a couple of months away from a first draft implementation of that new signal. Then we iterate.”
In the past few years, said Thomas, Racelogic “had to suddenly invent 15 new signals.” It makes a record-and-replay system — “You put a box in a car, on a bike, in a backpack, or on a rocket, and you record the raw GPS signals,” Thomas said — and another system in which it simulates the satellites’ signals “from pure principles.” The latter, he noted, has been “15 times the original work we thought it would be. However, as we add each signal it tends to get a bit simpler until they add new ways to encode signals, and then it gets complex again.”
Spirent Communications’ technology, Holbrow said, focuses around “its dedicated SDR hardware platform and software simulation engine, which provide performance, scalability and flexibility, within an open accessible architecture. Close collaboration with our selected partners ensures the opportunity to support and integrate new and emerging PNT technologies through their tools, applications and hardware.” Two other aspects that have continued to grow in importance have been “increased realism and test automation,” Holbrow said. “Both are areas in which Spirent continues to prioritize and invest R&D dollars.”
Spirent “can enable the user with effectively an arbitrary waveform simulator or ‘sandbox’ to experiment with different modulation schemes, different chipping rates, codes, bandwidths and navigation data content,” Holbrow said. “The increasing number of signals that we can support multiplies the permutations and combinations of test cases that users can do,” Hart added.
Not every simulator user is equally interested in simulating all the existing and emerging constellations. Those in the U.S. military market do not use foreign signals, pointed out Clark. However, they may want to understand how those signals could impact their vehicle, platform, or individual receiver.
LEO-based constellations “have become a buzzword in the last year or so,” Clark said. Because CAST Navigation’s simulators are modular and use an FPGA-based design, “we can add different satellite constellations or satellite protocols to our system,” he said. “However, we don’t offer anything commercially yet due to a lack of an official ICD, or any kind of documentation that defines any of these new LEO-based signals.”
Today, said Pielmeier, all high-end RF simulators must support “all existing GNSS systems with all related signal components on all frequencies.” Additionally, to remain competitive, they must be kept “up-to-date with the new and continuously evolving GNSS signals.” He added: “Beyond the L-band signals, we are also fully supporting the S-band signals of the NavIC constellation.”
The increased request for precise point positioning (PPP) corrections service, Pielmeier pointed out, was the driver for IFEN to add the High Accuracy Service (HAS) PPP-correction capability on Galileo’s E6-B signal to its next release. “We expect further improvements here during the next few years, especially to cover the emerging needs of the PPP-RTK market.” The advent of LEO-based PNT services, he said, makes this “the most important driver for the next five years, extending the signal frequencies beyond the current L- and S-band signals, seeing new modulations, two-way transfer and many more topics.”
Jamming and Spoofing
Concern about jamming and spoofing has increased significantly over the past several years. These, however, are not new concepts for simulator manufacturers. “In a way, simulation is ahead of this state of the world,” said Erbes. “Spoofing is similar to simulation. So, we already know how to do that.” That could change, however. “If new requirements come up, such as higher data rates or wider bandwidth waveforms or different types of waveforms, then we would have to adapt and add support for that kind of stuff.”
“Because our systems record and replay, they’re used a lot to record real-world jamming,” said Thomas. Regarding spoofing, Racelogic has just improved its signal simulation. “We can do seamless takeover of a GNSS signal in real time. We can reproduce the current ephemeris and almanac. If we transmit a sufficiently powerful signal, we can completely take over that device.”
Over the past five years, most of CAST Navigation’s customers have become much more interested in being able to simulate jamming and spoofing, Clark said. “If you’re doing anything of any importance in a contested environment, you’re going to come up against some type of spoofing and/or jamming interference.”
Pielmeier agreed that simulation of jamming and spoofing threats has been a major market driver in recent years. “Our latest RF simulator generation, NCS NOVA+,” he said, “fully supports all types of jamming and spoofing and is fully integrated into our RF simulators to enable coherent signal generation. With the coming safety-of-life and automated driving applications based on DFMC (SBAS/GBAS dual-frequency multi-constellation), the need to support advanced jamming and spoofing simulation solutions will remain a continuous driver.”
IFEN’s rf signal generator technology, based on a modular and highly flexible Software Defined Radio (SDR) platform. (Image: IFEN)
Simulating What Does Not Yet Exist
The current GNSS constellations broadcast signals that can be recorded, played back, and used to generate accurate simulations. For systems still being developed, however, simulator manufacturers must rely on each system’s ICD, if and when it is available. Even for established systems, the live sky signals may diverge from the ICD. “Is the simulator supposed to match live sky,” Erbes wondered, “or is it supposed to match the intended final state of the constellation, according to the ICD? This is a huge topic for M-code, which is ever changing, and has a very large ICD that is released incrementally. We’re constantly having to make changes to the simulator to match those releases.”
A big challenge for simulator manufacturers is to keep pace with new and evolving ICDs. “There are more constellations than ever, and the technology makes it easier to change signal architectures,” said Erbes. “We’re going to start talking about signals that can be reprogrammed on the fly. That’s going to make simulation more and more challenging.”
Simulating signals for new systems that are not yet deployed is a matter of “pure signals simulation,” said Thomas. “You go through the ICD line-by-line and work out the new schemes. You are very much reliant on every single word in that ICD.”
New LEO-based systems are not the only ones to present this challenge to simulator manufacturers. “L1C is another one of those problem child signals that we have developed,” said Clark. “All we can do is buy all the makes and models of L1C receivers available for sale and utilize our simulator, along with those receivers, to see whether things are good. We’ve asked the government for an L1C code sample, but it will not be available until the satellite manufacturers launch the satellites in their final configuration. Until then, we’ll develop to the ICD that’s been released and defined, then cross our fingers.”
Spirent’s core simulation engine and SDR “are agnostic of the constellation and signal type that’s being generated,” Holbrow said. “So, the underlying principles of accuracy, range rate, pseudo-range control, and delay, together with the RF fidelity from Spirent’s SDR+ Sim engine, can be readily manipulated to simulate the wealth of emerging signals, including LEO.” Additionally, when an ICD is not available, the company can enable its customers to use its tools “to readily populate elements of that ICD themselves.”
In the Lab vs. In the Field
“All our systems can be carried in a backpack, on a push bike, in a car,” said Thomas. “We do that deliberately, because we come from the automotive side of things, so we have to keep everything very small and compact. Some of our customers have put them in rockets, recording the signal as it goes up, or in boats. We have people walking around with an antenna on their wrist connected to one of our systems, so that they can simulate smartwatches.”
CAST Navigation has simulator packages that range “anywhere from shoebox size to nine-foot-tall racks,” said Clark. “They are all modular, so you can add options and capabilities over time. We have simulators that are used in the field. Some of the testing groups with the U.S. armed forces have used our simulators in the back of a Humvee along with other proprietary equipment to conduct their own field experiments.”
Spirent supports in-the-field use cases: its portable simulator can test PNT resilience while the DUT is receiving live-sky signals, and their record-and-playback system takes real-world soundings in a wideband RF environment for playback in the lab.
Currently, Pielmeier said, all IFEN simulators are designed for lab use. However, “we recognize an increased request for field-capable RF simulators, specifically to perform spoofing of real SIS to test deployed GNSS receivers in the field. Offering a portable in-field solution is in our mid-term planning, but not a current driver for our developments.”
Testing vs. Mission Planning
How do simulators used by receiver manufacturers in their labs and in the field to tweak existing receivers or develop new ones differ from those used for mission planning? “In most lab simulations, they can just run with a default constellation for a given day,” Erbes explained. “They’ll run that scenario hundreds or thousands of times and never need to change it because they’re testing parts of the receiver that don’t care a whole lot about the specifics of what’s happening.”
Missions, by contrast, are time- and location-specific. Planners need to know which satellites will be overhead at an exact time and place. “When you’re doing real day mission planning, the big problem isn’t so much how to generate a signal, it’s how to find out what’s happening today.”
Increasing Accuracy Requirements
Like those for receivers, accuracy requirements for simulators are increasing to match those of emerging applications. “Everyone’s chasing the goal of getting smaller, faster, and more accurate systems,” said Thomas. “We do real-time simulators, and they want a smaller and smaller delay from when you input the trajectory to when you get the output. Luckily, we’re able to keep up on the hardware side as well, because much of our processing is done using software.”
As accuracy requirements rise, “Real-world testing has an incredibly important role to play,” said Holbrow. Additionally, as resilience testing places increasing demands on test equipment, Spirent Communications now supports “a multitude of vulnerability and corresponding mitigation/prevention test cases” to deal with jamming, spoofing, cyber-attack and CRPA
CAST Navigation’s simulators meet or exceed accuracy requirements, Clark said. “We have pseudo-range accuracy down to a millimeter, our phase coherence doesn’t wander, and we’re able to achieve 2.5 ps to 3 ps synchronization coherence during multi-element, phased-array antenna simulations. We see our customers interested in a higher performing simulator, and that is our commitment.”
Pielmeier had a different perspective on this: “We saw no increase in the required accuracy, as the typical requested accuracies are far beyond the real accuracy of the signals anyway.”
Recent Success Stories
Racelogic has developed a system to replace or augment GPS in tunnels, which often pass over each other or match the routes of surface streets. “We’ve been talking to many cities around the world that are building new tunnels,” said Thomas. “It requires installing repeaters every 30 meters along each tunnel and software that runs on a server and seamlessly updates your position every 30 meters.”
Clark pointed out that CAST Navigation’s “bread-and-butter” for the past few years has been “larger systems that can drive phased array antennas, along with inertial units, and full high-dynamic aircraft, in real-time environments.” He added that “the smaller systems, which used to be popular, have mostly gone by the wayside.”
As a recent success, Holbrow cited Spirent Communications’ release of a Xona simulator, in partnership with Xona Space Systems, as well as the addition of “many realism-related capabilities, including simulating the vibration and temperature effects of inertial systems;” a cloud-based software application called Foresight that enables users to understand the GNSS coverage they would expect at a particular time, location and trajectory based upon accurate 3D scenes; and a simulation test solution for the Galileo Open Service Navigation Message Authentication (OSNMA) mechanism. Finally, he stressed Spirent’s increasing support for automation.
Pielmeier cited the Galileo second generation Test User Receiver contract that IFEN received from the European Space Agency as its most important recent success. “Within this contract, the NCS NOVA+ simulator as RF test tool will be upgraded to full G2G signal generation capability. The new already implemented G2G signals enable shorter time to first fix (TTFF) and improved acquisition performance but also higher updates rates (e.g., for PPP-RTK). Through the end of the year, the G2G signal will be fully implemented in our RF simulator, including the next generation of advanced authentication solutions.”
Orolia’s Skydel, its GNSS simulation software, can now generate more than 500 simulated satellite signals. This platform is suitable for GNSS users, experts and manufacturers, as well as users needing a low-Earth-orbit-capable simulation system.
Skydel contains a feature that includes multi-constellation and multi-frequency signal generation, remote control from user-defined scripts, and integrated interference generation.
“With more and more customers simulating multipath and jamming scenarios, and the need for more signals in more applications — even beyond traditional simulators — the need for high capacity has never been greater,” said Pierre-Marie Le Veel, Orolia’s simulation product director. “The Skydel engine opens the possibility for users to escalate to more than 1,000 signals and not be limited by hardware design.”
In addition to generating a high channel and satellite count, Skydel can also produce navigation warfare signals without any additional hardware.
R&S EVSD1000 has been designed to provide a mounting adaptor for installation onto medium-size drone types. (Image: Rohde & Schwarz)
Rohde & Schwarz has launched its EVSD1000 VHF/UHF nav/drone analyzer at Airspace World 2023 in Geneva March 8-10. The analyzer provides highly accurate drone inspection of terrestrial navigation and communications systems.
The EVSD1000 VHF/UHF nav/drone analyzer is a signal-level and modulation analyzer for medium-sized drones. It features measurements of instrument landing systems, ground-based augmentation systems and VHF omnirange ground stations. The mechanical and electrical design is optimized for drone-based, real-time measurements of terrestrial navigation systems with up to 100 measurement data sets per second.
The analyzer provides high-precision signal analysis in the frequency range from 70 MHz to 410 MHz. This also includes the needed measurement repeatability to ensure results from drone measurements can be compared to flight and to ground inspections in line with ICAO standards.
The EVSD1000 VHF/UHF nav/drone analyzer reduces runway blocking times, provides necessary measurement repeatability and offers measurement precision and GNSS time and location stamps. While streaming measurement data during a drone flight via the data link to a PC on the ground, the analyzer can also buffer data internally to ensure no results are lost if the data link is lost.
On Dec. 22, Hexagon AB announced its acquisition of LocLab, a German company that specializes in 3D digital twin content creation. LocLab will operate as a part of Hexagon’s Geosystems division.
This acquisition, which began as a partnership, strengthens Hexagon’s ability to make its Smart Digital Reality, a 3D hub for data management and information, more accessible to new and existing users while giving LocLab’s users a platform to host, share and keep 3D digital twins up to date.
LocLab’s toolchain leverages several data input formats such as terrestrial videogrammetry, survey data and point clouds, but only requires photos or videos. Hexagon is integrating LocLab’s 3D digital content with its HxDR cloud-based storage, visualization, and collaboration platform. This integration drives HxDR’s expansion as a digital reality platform into the transportation, construction and urban planning industries.
The integration of HxDR and LocLab’s capabilities strengthens Hexagon’s reality capture and software portfolio while offering LocLab global scalability opportunities through Hexagon’s sales and partner network.
SpirentCommunications has revealed its latest low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite solution software named SimORBIT, developed in partnership with space-borne receiver developer SpacePNT. The software is designed to aid developers in determining LEO orbits accurately for GNSS/PNT lab testing.
SimORBIT calculates LEO orbits as well as their environments and intricate characteristics to provide an accurate result to developers for testing. The software replicates LEO orbits so that simulations can provide the realistic environment of a LEO satellite, including gravitational and atmospheric impacts the satellite could encounter in space.
SimORBIT was created in partnership with spaceborne receiver developer SpacePNT. “Until now, PNT testing on LEO applications has been limited due to the lack of an integrated solution that could offer realistic LEO orbital data together with GNSS simulation capabilities,” explained Adam Price, Spirent’s vice president of PNT Simulation. “By working in close collaboration with SpacePNT, we have been able to develop the SimORBIT tool to bring a new level of accuracy and realism to LEO application testing by combining the simulation of precise LEO orbits and highly accurate GNSS signals.”
With Spirent’s release of SimORBIT, developers can create non-ICD signals via I/Q injection, or by the Spirent “Flex” feature, generating space-centered PNT signals to be developed in the lab as realistically as possible.
