The next-generation GPS ground-control system, known as OCX.
Officials from the Space and Missile Systems Center’s Global Positioning Systems Wing announced today the award of the Next-Generation GPS Control Segment (OCX) contract to Raytheon Company, Intelligence and Information Systems, Aurora, Colorado.
The OCX development contract will be 73 months in duration and with option years for sustainment worth $1,535,147,916. The contract will include development and installation of hardware and software at GPS control stations at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado and Vandenberg AFB in California, deployment of advanced monitor stations at remote sites, and initial contractor support with sustainment options for five years.
OCX will replace the current GPS Operational Control System, maintaining backwards compatibility with the Block IIR and IIR-M constellation, providing command and control of the new GPS IIF and GPS III families of satellites, and enabling new modernized signal capabilities.
“OCX is urgently needed not only to enable new warfighter capabilities but also to put the new GPS III space vehicles into mission operations,” said Col. Dave Madden, commander, GPSW. “OCX will have a flexible architecture that can rapidly adapt to the changing needs of today’s warfighter and will connect to the Global Information Grid so that warfighters around the globe have immediate access to GPS data and constellation status.”
“OCX will allow AFSPC to effectively and efficiently plan and control full-spectrum precision position, navigation and timing information for all GPS user communities,” Madden said. “OCX will achieve this vision by implementing an incremental development approach that supports the evolving military operational environment, while enabling civil and international users who are employing GPS in innovative applications like transportation.”
The Air Force Space Command’s Space and Missile Systems Center, located at Los Angeles Air Force Base, California, is the U.S. Air Force’s center of acquisition excellence for acquiring and developing military space systems including six wings and three groups responsible for GPS, military satellite communications, defense meteorological satellites, space launch and range systems, satellite control network, space-based infrared systems, intercontinental ballistic missile systems, and space situational awareness capabilities.
Four Galileo in-orbit validation (IOV) satellites scheduled to launch next year have already missed their first pad date.The European version of Russia’s Soyuz rocket is now scheduled to carry the four IOV satellites into orbit in two launches in November 2010 and early 2011, as announced by European Space Agency (ESA) Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain on October 9.
Both launches had been set for earlier in 2010, but ESA has encountered difficulties with the satellites, built by a consortium led by Astrium Satellites and Thales Alenia Space. Introduction of Russia’s Soyuz rocket at Europe’s Guiana Space Center in French Guiana, on the north coast of South America, has also been repeatedly delayed.
The European Union and ESA plan to select a builder for the remaining 28 satellites late this year. Final bids from 11 companies bidding for on six Galileo work packages are expected by November 11.
Experimental Satellite Moved. In July and August, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd (SSTL) repositioned GIOVE-A, the first Galileo test satellite, to an orbit 113 kilometers above the orbit that the operational Galileo navigation satellites will occupy.
Since its December 2005 launch, GIOVE-A has achieved all of its mission objectives and remains in excellent condition well beyond its design life of two years, SSTL stated.
The test satellite secured the Galileo frequency filings with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), collected data to characterise the medium-Earth Orbit (MEO) environment, and flight-proved technologies such as highly accurate atomic clocks.
GIOVE-A remains fully operational, and has sufficient propellant remaining for further maneuvers. A further repositioning exercise may be performed to raise the orbit higher still before GIOVE-A is finally decommissioned.
SSTL and its new owner, OHB of Germany, jointly form one of the two consortia now bidding for the development and construction of 28 satellites for the operational Galileo service.
EGNOS. The European Commission (EC) declared on October 1 the official start of operations by the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Servic (EGNOS), with its Open Service available free of charge to businesses and consumers. EGNOS is Europe’s first contribution to satellite navigation and a precursor of Galileo, the global satellite navigation system in development.
EGNOS is a satellite-based augmentation system that improves the accuracy of satellite navigation signals over Europe. The system is composed of transponders aboard three geostationary satellites hovering high above the Eastern Atlantic and the European continent, linked to a ground network of about 40 positioning stations and four control centers, all interconnected. The EGNOS ground stations receive signals sent out by GPS satellites. Information on the accuracy and reliability of these signals is relayed to users via the geostationary satellite transponders. This allows them to determine their position to within two meters in real-time, according to EC spokespersons.
The EGNOS coverage area includes most European states and has the built-in capability to be extended to other regions, such as North Africa and European Union neighboring countries.
The commission seeks to support new applications in sectors such as agriculture (high-precision spraying of fertilizers) and transport (for example, automatic road-tolling or pay-per-use insurance schemes). EGNOS can also support much more precise personal navigation services, both for general and specific uses, such as systems to guide blind people and to improve signal reception in urban areas.
EGNOS will be certified for use in aviation and other safety-critical areas in compliance with the Single European Sky regulation. Through EGNOS a safety-of-life service is expected to be in place by mid 2010. This service will provide a valuable warning message informing the user within six seconds in case of a malfunction of the system. A commercial service is under test and will also be made available in 2010.
EGNOS operations are managed by the European Satellite Services Provider, ESSP SaS, a company based in Toulouse, France, founded by seven air navigation services providers. A contract between the EC and ESSP SaS covers management of the EGNOS operations and maintenance until the end of 2013.
The EGNOS Open Service is accessible, without service guarantee or resulting liability, to any user equipped with a GPS/SBAS compatible receiver within the EGNOS coverage area. Most receivers sold today in Europe meet that requirement. No authorization or receiver-specific certification is required.
GLONASS Signal Generates Slip
A planned late-September launch of a three new GLONASS-M satellites from the Baikonur space center was postponed due to a problem with signals emanating from a previously launched GLONASS-M satellites, now on orbit. Initially, a new launch date of October 29 was set by Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, but no word had yet come at press time regarding investigation of a problem with the signal generator aboard the orbiting satellite, detected in late August. The spacecraft was taken out of service on August 31.
GPS Wiggles: SVN49, CNAV
The GPS Wing held an extraordinary session at ION GNSS in Savannah, Georgia, September 23, frankly explaining the SVN 49 satellite’s problem and probable solutions.
SVN49, the IIR-M) + L5 civil-signal satellite, will be set healthy in the coming months and it will be useable, the GPS Wing said. Its L1 an L2 signals contain a pseudorange error that remains within specifications for compliant GPS user equipment.
On the ground, a receiver sees from this satellite both a direct signal and a weaker reflected signal, which looks like a multipath component. According to models, if the direct and reflected L1 signals are in phase at zenith, a standard code-correlating receiver will measure a C/A-code pseudorange that is 1.62 meters too long. The error becomes smaller as the elevation angle drops, reaching zero at an elevation angle of about 42 degrees, and then rising slightly as the elevation angle drops to zero.
During audience input following the Savannah panel presentations, Javad Ashjaee of JAVAD GNSS proposed simply turning the satellite on as is and using it as an opportunity, given the “defined multipath” that it effectively transmits, to study multipath and other phenomena. JAVAD GNSS Triumph receivers have demonstrated the ability to remove almost all anomalies and satellite multipath from the SVN49 signal.
An as-yet-unconfirmed report has it that U.S. Air Force representatives and others, in an informal meeting after the session, came to a provisional agreement as to the best course. However, this has not yet worked its way through channels nor been announced.
New Message. The first test of the CNAV navigation message format to be used in the future on Block IIR-M and IIF satellites was announced at the September CGSIC meeting in Savannah, and will begin soon. A Type 0 message will be broadcast on the L2C signal by SVN49. By the end of the year, this message is to be switched on, on all IIR-M satellites. However, this initial message type will not contain useful information for end users.
Message Type 0 consists of a 12-second, 300-bit long message including the preamble, satellite pseudorandom noise (PRN) number, message type ID (=0), GPS time of week, a sequence of alternating 1s and 0s, and a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) parity block. The GPS time of week will change every 12 seconds, as will the CRC bits.
Penny Axelrad Honored
Penina Axelrad, professor of aerospace engineering sciences at the University of Colorado, received the Institute of Navigation’s 2009 Kepler Award for her “contributions in the field of satellite navigation and dedication to the education of future generations of navigation engineers.”
Axelrad has done advanced research in topics including receiver autonomous GPS integrity monitoring (RAIM), GPS bistatic radar, satellite formation flying using GPS, GPS-based orbit and satellite attitude determination, and multipath characterization, modeling, and mitigation.
She received a Ph.D. in aeronautics and astronautics from Stanford University and S.B. and S.M. degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She has taught for 17 years at the University of Colorado.
A Preliminary Analysis of SVN49’s Demonstration Signal
By Michael Meurer, Stefan Erker, Steffen Thölert, Oliver Montenbruck, André Hauschild, and Richard B. Langley
Great excitement surrounds the activation of a new transmitter from a satellite — an occasion dubbed first light. Research groups around the globe joined the GPS Wing in monitoring and analyzing the first L5 signals from space. We describe the equipment and procedures used to capture and analyze SVN49’s signals and give an assessment of their characteristics.
INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley
ON APRIL 10, a new type of radio signal was transmitted from space. I am referring, of course, to the L5 demonstration signal from the Block IIR-M satellite SVN49, launched on March 24. The L5 signal, the second of two new civil GPS signals, will be standard on the next generation of GPS satellites — the Block IIFs — and its frequency band was duly registered with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) back in 2002. But satellite operators only have seven years after filing a frequency application to start transmitting signals from the designated orbit, and delays in launching the first Block IIF satellite meant that GPS could lose the allocation. The GPS Wing and its contractors determined that the best way to secure the L5 frequency was to add an L5 demonstration payload to one of the remaining modernized Block IIR satellites. And so SVN49 made history with the inaugural broadcast of L5 with just a few months to spare before the clock ran out on the ITU filing.
Great excitement always surrounds the first photons captured by a new telescope or other detectors of electromagnetic signals. Or when a transmitter is activated for the first time. Just as we do for the dawning of a new day, we call this occasion first light. Research groups around the globe joined the GPS Wing in monitoring and analyzing the first L5 signals from space, including a group of scientists and engineers from Germany and Canada. This month the group describes the equipment and procedures used to capture and analyze SVN49’s signals and gives an assessment of their characteristics.
“Innovation” features discussions about advances in GPS technology and applications as well as fundamentals of GPS positioning. The column is coordinated by Richard Langley of the Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick. To contact him, see “Contributing Editors.”
A key feature of GPS modernization is the addition of the L5 civil signal to the suite of signals transmitted by the satellites. The introduction of such a signal on a different carrier frequency than that used by the legacy L1 GPS signal was proposed in the 1995 reports by the U.S. National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration on the future of GPS. The reports argued that an unencrypted signal on a second frequency would offer civil users the benefit of ionospheric delay correction, wide-lane carrier-phase ambiguity resolution, improved interference rejection, and faster accuracy recovery in multipath environments.
Studies showed that it would be possible to add a civil signal on the L2 frequency without compromising the military signal. High-precision (and accuracy) civil users had been using the L2 frequency — initially designated for military use only — ever since the first GPS satellites were launched, and through clever (though suboptimum) tracking techniques even after the L2 signals were encrypted. An unencrypted signal on L2 would bring these users a more robust signal as well as affording all civil users the benefits of a second frequency. But unlike the L1 signal, the L2 signal is situated in a part of the radio spectrum not officially protected from interference by other users of the spectrum. So such a second civil signal could not be used for safety-of-life applications such as navigating aircraft.
So, in Vice President Al Gore’s statement of March 30, 1998, on the enhancement of GPS for civil users, the decision to deploy two new civil signals was announced: the civil signal on L2, now known as L2C, and a signal on a new frequency, which became known as L5. Some readers might wonder why this new signal was not designated L3 or L4. Those designations had already been assigned to signals associated with other payloads on the GPS satellites.
Although the Gore announcement proposed to introduce both of the new civil signals with the launch of the Block IIF satellites, the addition of the L2C signal to the legacy signals was deemed a relatively straightforward task and the decision was made to modify the last eight Block IIR satellites for the provision of L2C. The first modernized Block IIR satellite was launched on September 26, 2005, and seven of these satellites are now in orbit.
The frequency selected for the L5 signal, 1176.45 MHz, is in a protected aeronautical radionavigation services (ARNS) band. This frequency, as with frequencies used by all satellite operators, had to be coordinated with the International Telecommunication Union-Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R). The ITU-R registers frequencies essentially on a first-come, first-served basis, but a user must actually transmit signals on the assigned frequency from the designated satellite orbit type within seven years from the date of filing with ITU-R. This meant that L5 signals had to be transmitted before August 26, 2009, to avoid the potential claim of the frequency by a different country. A decision was made to modify an existing Block IIR-M satellite to carry an L5 demonstration payload. The L5 demo payload, which was developed by Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, was added to space vehicle number (SVN) 49. SVN49 was launched on March 24, 2009, the seventh modernized Block IIR satellite to be placed in orbit. Also known as PRN1, from the primary pseudorandom noise (PRN) codes assigned to the satellite, the satellite began L5 transmissions on April 10, at 11:58 UTC, and so satisfied the ITU-R filing requirement with a few months to spare.
The L5 Signal Structure
The structure of the future full L5 signal will differ significantly from the legacy L1 signal or even the modernized L2C signal. It is fully described in the Navstar GPS L5 interface document, IS-GPS-705. We present just a brief overview of the signal here.
Two-Component Signal. The full L5 signal will offer two signal components: one with and one without a superimposed navigation data message. The two signal components — in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) — have equal power. Both will have a minimum received power of –157 dBW. Each component is modulated with a different, but synchronized, L5 PRN code. The in-phase component (the I- or data channel) is further modulated with a 100-symbol per second (sps) symbol stream carrying the navigation message data, and the quadrature component (the Q- or data-free channel, also called the pilot channel) is modulated only with a PRN code. Different, nearly orthogonal PRN codes (referred to as I5 and Q5) are used in the two components to prevent tracking biases by making each component completely independent of the other, except for the underlying carrier phase.
Another novel aspect of the L5 signal design is the use of Neuman-Hoffman (NH) synchronization codes.
Code Structure. As previously mentioned, the I5 and Q5 channels are modulated with different PRN codes. These codes differ significantly from the C/A-, P-, and L2C-codes used on L1 and L2 both in length and chipping rate.
The natural code chipping-rate frequency of 10.23 MHz as provided by the SV atomic frequency standards satisfies a number of requirements for a modernized signal within the bandwidth constraints — increased bandwidth efficiency, improved signal accuracy, immunity to waveform distortion, and improved rejection of narrowband interference. The bandwidth constraints include rejection of out-of-band interference. Accordingly, a 10.23 megachip per second (Mcps) chipping rate, 10 times that of the C/A- and L2C-codes, was adopted for the L5 PRN codes.
Improved Cross-Correlation. There is a trade off between code period and the capability to do direct acquisition. A longer code period provides better cross-correlation properties, but takes longer to search. However, one can speed up an acquisition to some extent with lower code cross-correlation levels.
The L1 C/A-code period is 1023 chips, or 1 millisecond. The desire to maintain that epoch rate of 1 kHz with the 10.23 Mcps chipping rate results in a code period of 10,230 chips. For both the I5 and Q5 ranging codes, the 1-millisecond sequences are the modulo-2 sum of two sub-sequences referred to as XA and XB with lengths of 8,190 and 8,191 chips, respectively. The same XA sequence is used for both I5 and IQ, whereas the XB sequence for I5 is different from that for Q5. The XB sequences are selectively advanced to produce different 1-millisecond-long code sequences. In this way, a large number of unique codes can be generated. Thirty-seven primary code pairs have been designated, of which 32 are reserved for use by GPS satellites (PRNs 1–32). An additional 173 pairs have been defined (PRNs 38–210). PRN sequences 38 through 63 are reserved for satellites.
Demo Signal Verification
The L5 signal transmitted by SVN49 contains only the dataless quadrature component modulated with the PRN63 Q5 sequence. Furthermore, the transmitted L5 signal power and the satellite antenna radiation pattern are different from those expected for the L5 signals to be transmitted by the Block IIF satellites as described in the L5 interface specification.
Over the past few weeks, the German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt or DLR) has monitored SVN49 using its GNSS verification and analysis facility. The core element of the facility is a 30-meter dish antenna at Weilheim, near Munich, Germany, and is shown in FIGURE 1. The antenna, which is based on a shaped Cassegrain system, has a 30-meter-diameter parabolic reflector and a hyperbolic sub-reflector with a diameter of 4 meters. The L-Band gain of this high-gain antenna is around 50 dB, with a beam width of less than 0.5°. The position accuracy in both azimuth and elevation directions is 0.001°. The antenna’s maximum slewing speeds are 1.5° per second in azimuth and 1.0° per second in elevation angle, allowing it to easily track MEO satellites.
FIGURE 1. GNSS verification and analysis facility with 30-meter high-gain antenna at Weilheim, Germany.
In September 2005, DLR’s Institute of Communications and Navigation established an independent monitoring station for the analysis of GNSS signals using this powerful instrument. For the new challenge, the antenna was adapted to the requirements in the navigation field. A newly developed broadband circularly polarized feed and a new receiving chain including an online calibration system were installed at the antenna during preparations for the GIOVE-B in-orbit test campaign in the spring of 2008.
During this time, intensive work on the system calibration was performed using well-known signals from radio “stars” and EGNOS satellites for the antenna gain determination, and sophisticated calibration methods for the receiving system. The calibration provides an absolute measurement uncertainty significantly less than 1 dB.
Due to the distance of the antenna location from the institute at Oberpfaffenhofen (around 40 kilometers), it was necessary to perform all measurement and calibration procedures during the measurement campaigns under remote control. A software tool was developed that can control any component of the setup remotely. In addition, this tool is able to perform a completely autonomous operation of the whole system by a pre-definable sequence over any period of time. Additional details about the GNSS verification and analysis facility and the calibration techniques used can be found in the literature cited in Further Reading.
A detailed signal-in-space (SIS) analysis of the new L5 signal transmitted by SVN49 was conducted by recording several passes with the GNSS verification and analysis facility. A high elevation-angle transit of SVN49 every night allows a long observation time for each satellite pass. To ensure precise tracking of the satellite with the high-gain antenna, we used the latest two-line element sets from the U.S. Air Force Space Command.
The first signals transmitted by the satellite on the L5 frequency were captured during the pass on April 10. Compared to later measurements, the power of the L5 payload signal was measured with a lower output level on this first pass. This points to a power “fade in,” which is a common procedure in commissioning a new satellite payload. A controlled and slow heating of the payload elements avoids possible damage caused by the out-gassing of the power amplifiers, for example.
The SIS analyses that we performed using the high-gain antenna will be described for one example satellite pass recorded on April 29. During this pass, the satellite reached an elevation angle of around 80° and was visible for about seven hours (see FIGURE 2). A set of spectral snapshots as well as time sample records for the L1, L2, and L5 signals were processed and adjusted with the corresponding calibration values during a post-processing stage.
FIGURE 2. Skyplot of SVN49 pass at Weilheim, Germany, on April 29, 2009.
Time and Frequency. A first view of the captured spectrum snapshot in FIGURE 3 shows the L5 signal and its typical binary phase-shift-keyed (BPSK) spectral shape. The signal is significantly band limited by the used front-end filters of the satellite’s L5 payload. This ensures the required spectral separation from the adjacent L2 signal of the satellite, as the L5 signal must not interfere with the operational L2 frequency. Overlaying the theoretical spectral mask of the L5 BPSK signal, we note a slight asymmetry of the spectral shape. The two side lobes differ around 2.5 dB in their peak power level (see Figure 3). Spectral asymmetries of that kind typically result from frequency selectivity in the RF transmitter chains in satellite payloads, including the amplifiers and antennas.
FIGURE 3. L5 spectrum plot from data recorded on April 29.
FIGURE 4 shows a temporal snapshot of the L5 signal after wiping off the Doppler frequency shift due to satellite orbital motion. Figure 4 (left) depicts a snapshot of 10 microseconds for the I and Q channels. It can be seen, that in compliance with the requirements of the L5 signal explained in the introduction of this article, the signal is a bi-level signal with a chipping rate of 10.23 Mcps. Plotting the normalized histogram of the L5 signal, one obtains the normalized I/Q probability density function (PDF) diagram of the L5 signal shown in Figure 4 (right). The constellation diagram shows a remaining deformation of the Q component after Doppler removal. Although the L5 signal transmitted by the test payload only contains the dataless Q5 component, a non-negligible contribution can be seen in the I channel. This slight distortion may stem from a nonlinear and frequency-dependent amplification of the Q baseband signal leading to crosstalk between the Q and I channels.
FIGURE 4. (left) L5 I and Q time samples; (right) L5 I/Q probability density function (PDF).
Signal Code Sequence. With the use of the high-gain antenna, it is possible to look in detail at the transmitted L5 code chips. The signal is raised high above the noise floor and, after Doppler wipe off, allows us to compare the received code sequence with the theoretical code sequence for the PRN63 Q channel. FIGURE 5 shows an example for the first 10 microseconds of the code — both for the measured L5 signal and the expected theoretical code. The analysis performed also for several full code periods shows that the demo payload’s Q5 code structure is in full compliance with the “theoretical” code described in the official signal interface document.
FIGURE 5. Comparison of measured and theoretical code sequences.
Power of Received Signals. The GNSS verification and analysis facility is fully calibrated, allowing highly accurate absolute measurements of GNSS signal power levels. We have used the system to evaluate the SVN49 signal power levels as received on the ground. FIGURE 6 shows the different signals transmitted in the L1, L2, and L5 frequency bands in terms of the received power per square meter versus elevation angle of the SV during its pass. It can be seen that there is a significant elevation-angle dependency of the L5 received power (about 18 dB between low and high elevation angles) compared to L1 and L2 (with a variation of about 3 dB). In this measurement, the combined power of the I and Q channels is plotted for the signals. So this means that the L1 and L2 signal measurements include the power of the C/A-, P(Y)-, and M-codes. Such a strong elevation-angle dependency is not typical of signals radiated by GPS satellites. However, the L5 signal is radiated using the legacy L1/L2 Block IIR-M satellite antenna, which is to the authors’ knowledge not optimized for the L5 frequency.
FIGURE 6. Absolute received power for SVN49 L1, L2, and L5 signals on April 29, 2009.
In the spectrogram plot of FIGURE 7, which was generated by plotting all recorded L5 spectra versus elevation angle, the impact of this elevation-angle dependency of the received power can be detailed for the complete frequency range. The side lobes of the BPSK signal are only clearly visible in the spectrogram at higher elevation angles.
FIGURE 7. Spectrogram for L5 signal received on April 29, 2009.
Signal Tracking
In parallel with the detailed signal validation using the high-gain antenna and vector signal analyzer, an effort has also been made to track the new GPS L5 signal using conventional correlating GNSS receivers. Given the relevance of L5/E5 signals for future aeronautical applications and the ongoing transmission of such signals from the GIOVE satellites, a growing number of commercial receiver manufacturers have announced receivers supporting this frequency band. However, due to the special nature of the SVN49 test signal (pilot only, with different PRN code designations on L1 and L5) some modifications to receiver software are required to properly track the first GPS L5 signal. In particular, the use of different PRN code designations employed for L1/L2 (PRN1) and L5 (PRN63) is clearly non-standard and requires suitably adapted receiver software, which was provided by the makers of the two receiver types we selected for our test campaign.
Receiver type N is a highly configurable test receiver for L1 and L5/E5a signals developed as part of the Galileo program. It offers a total of 16 tracking channels, which are implemented in a field-programmable gate array and can thus be flexibly adapted for tracking of civil GPS, satellite-based augmentation systems, and the GIOVE-A and -B signals in their respective frequency bands. Receiver type J, in contrast, represents the latest generation of geodetic grade multi-constellation receivers. It uses an advanced application-specific integrated circuit with 216 tracking channels supporting all types of non-military navigation signals in the L1/E1, L2, and L5/E5a bands. Both receivers have been used for some time prior to the launch of SVN49 to track GPS and GIOVE satellites from stations at the University of New Brunswick (UNB) in Canada and at DLR in Germany.
The first measurements of GPS L5 were successfully collected on April 10 with a type N receiver at UNB. While these measurements confirmed the capability to properly track SVN49 in the L5 band, they already revealed a distinct aspect of the GPS L5 test signal that potential users must be aware of. The signal is much weaker at low elevation angles than the L1 signal. Normal carrier-to-noise-density ratios (C/N0) are only achieved at elevation angles of about 60° and higher. On the other hand, the measured C/N0 near zenith may even outperform that of L1 and L2 tracking with sufficient L5 antenna gain. For illustration, FIGURE 8 compares the measured C/N0 values of GPS and GIOVE-A/B signals as obtained with receiver type J and a geodetic antenna at DLR, Oberpfaffenhofen.
FIGURE 8. Comparison of the relative signals strength (expressed as carrier-to-noise-density ratio, C/N0) for GPS (left) and GIOVE-A/B signals (right). The signals are described by their respective RINEX 3.00 data format identifiers, which reflect the type of measurement (S=signal strength), the frequency band (1=L1/E1, 2=L2, 5=L5/E5a) and the signal attribute (C=C/A or L2C, W=P(Y) semicodeless, X=pilot and data).
While not officially confirmed so far, the abnormal variation of the L5 signal strength can best be attributed to a non-standard gain pattern of the satellite transmitter antenna. Apparently, the existing Block IIR-M satellite antenna “farm” has been used to transmit the L5 signal, which results in more directivity than that of the L1 and L2 signals. This results in a weaker signal for receivers further away from the antenna boresight axis, or, equivalently, stations observing the satellite at low elevation angles. Even though the achieved C/N0 of the GPS L5 test signal is lower than that of the direct L1 C/A-code and L2 L2C-code tracking for most of a tracking arc, the signal quality still exceeds that of the semicodeless P(Y)-code tracking on L1 and L2. This makes the signal a valuable basis for experimentation in aviation applications or triple-frequency processing.
To assess the quality of the raw GPS measurements, we made use of the so-called multipath combination of pseudorange and carrier-phase measurements:
The combination is essentially the difference between the pseudorange (PC5) and carrier-phase measurement (ΦL5) on the L5 frequency, and therefore measures the sum of the pseudorange multipath (M) and noise (ε). Due to the opposite sign of ionospheric path delays on code and phase measurements, an ionospheric correction is used in the multipath combination, which requires phase measurements on a second frequency (in this case L1). The individual carrier-phase biases are, furthermore, aggregated into a common bias (b). Other than in a traditional zero-baseline test, the multipath combination neither requires a second receiver nor a second satellite transmitting the same signal in space. It is therefore best suited for studying the tracking performance of the new GPS L5 test signal.
Results for receiver types N and J obtained at DLR, Oberpfaffenhofen, are shown in FIGURE 9 for a sample, high-elevation angle tracking pass. Despite obvious differences that can be related to the specific multipath environment and code-smoothing strategies for the two receivers, a high quality is obtained in both cases. For the central three-hour interval, during which the L5 signal was received with normal signal strength, the achieved tracking accuracy clearly outperforms that of the L1 C/A-code signal for the given receivers. For further comparison, FIGURE 10 shows sample results of GIOVE-B E5a tracking with receiver type J. Again, the GPS L5 signal at medium- to high-elevation angles is fully competitive and a notable degradation is only evident when the signal strength is well below the values to be expected in the future operational system.
FIGURE 9. Pseudorange multipath and receiver noise of SVN49 (PRN G01) L5 tracking for a selected pass over Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, on April 29-30, 2009. Top: receiver type J with geodetic antenna. Bottom: receiver type N with a Galileo antenna. The satellite exceeded an elevation angle of 50° between 20:30 and 23:30 with a peak elevation angle of 80° near 22:00.FIGURE 10. Pseudorange multipath and receiver noise of GIOVE-B L5 tracking for a high pass over Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, on April 17, 2009, using receiver type J.
Legacy Signal Anomaly. While the GPS L5 signal transmission by SVN49 is clearly designated as experimental, the legacy signals (that is, the C/A- and P(Y)-code on L1 as well as L2C- and P(Y)-code on L2) were expected to achieve the same level of performance as observed on other satellites of the existing constellation. This is not the case, however, in the L1 band where both the C/A-code measurements and the semicodeless P(Y)-code pseudoranges exhibit a systematic, elevation-angle-dependent bias. This bias is not specific to any of our test receivers and can be similarly observed in heritage receivers employed at the stations of the International GNSS Service (IGS). As an example, FIGURE 11 illustrates the variation of the C/A-code error for high-elevation angle passes of SVN49 over western Canada and Germany. The bias varies between approximately -0.5 meters near the horizon and 1meter near zenith.
The cause of the bias is unclear but resides apparently in the design of the transmitter antenna or signal generation chain. It is exclusively seen on SVN49 and not on other GPS (or GIOVE) satellites, which excludes a possible problem of the receiver antenna or environment. Furthermore, data collected at UNB using the UNBJ IGS station a few days after launch clearly demonstrate that the elevation-angle-dependent L1 bias existed well before L5 signal activation and therefore might not be related to the signal generator. It is unclear to what extent the L1 signal bias can be corrected on the spacecraft and how it will affect the declaration of SVN49 as a fully healthy satellite.
FIGURE 11. Pseudorange errors of SVN49 L1 C/A code tracking for high-elevation-angle passes using a type A receiver at IGS station DRAO in Penticton, Canada (top), and a type J receiver at Oberpfaffenhofen (bottom). The satellite achieved peak elevation angles of about 70° and 80°, respectively, at the two sites.
Conclusions
Tracking and analysis of SVN49’s L5 signal using both the 30-meter dish and code-correlating receivers reveals that it possesses improved signal characteristics with respect to the legacy signals, in particular with regard to its bandwidth, and therefore will allow even more accurate and reliable positioning when the signal is deployed on the future Block IIF constellation.
Acknowledgments
We thank NovAtel and JAVAD GNSS for supplying special firmware, Sébastien Carcanague at UNB, and DLR colleagues at Weilheim for their help. The L5 signal description comes from the Innovation article by A.J. Van Dierendonck and C. Hegarty, September 2000 issue of GPS World.
Manufacturers
Receiver N is the NovAtel (www.novatel.com) EuroPak-15a. Receiver J is the JAVAD GNSS (www.javad.com) Triumph Delta-G2T. Receiver A is an Allen Osborne Associates (AOA) Benchmark ACT (www.itt.com). Space Engineering (www.space.it) Galileo Experimental Sensor Station antenna, Trimble (www.trimble.com) Zephyr Geodetic II antenna, and AOA D/MT antennas were used.
MICHAEL MEURER received a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany. He is director of the Department for Navigation in the Institute for Communications and Navigation of the German Aerospace Center (DLR).
STEFAN ERKER received his diploma degree in information technology from the Technical University of Kaiserslautern and works at DLR’s Institute for Communications and Navigation.
STEFFEN THÖLERT received his diploma degree in electrical engineering from the University of Magdeburg and works at DLR.
OLIVER MONTENBRUCK works at DLR’s German Space Operations Center, Oberpfaffenhofen, where he is head of the GPS Technology and Navigation Group. He holds a Dr.rer.nat degree in physics.
ANDRÉ HAUSCHILD received his diploma degree in mechanical engineering from the Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany, and is a Ph.D. candidate at DLR’s German Space Operations Center.
Further Reading
L5 Signal Details
Interface Specification, IS-GPS-705 (IRN-705-003), Navstar GPS Space Segment/User Segment L5 Interfaces, ARINC Engineering Services, LLC, El Segundo, California, September 22, 2005.
“The New L5 Civil GPS Signal” by A.J. Van Dierendonck and C. Hegarty in GPS World, Vol. 11, No.9, September 2000, pp. 64–72.
DLR’s GNSS Verification and Analysis Facility
“GNSS Signal Verification: Spectral and Temporal Analysis of GIOVE B and BEIDOU Signals” by S. Thölert, S. Erker, M. Cuntz, M. Meurer, U. Grunert, and J. Furthner, presented at Navitec 2008, the 4th ESA Workshop on Satellite Navigation User Equipment Technologies, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, December 10–12, 2008.
“GNSS Signal Verification with a High Gain Antenna – Calibration Strategies and High Quality Signal Assessment” by S. Thölert, S. Erker, and M. Meurer in Proceedings of ITM 2009, the 2009 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Anaheim, California, January 26–28, 2009, pp. 289-300.
Nonlinearities in Microwave Signal Components
“Frequency-independent and Frequency Dependent Nonlinear Models of TWT Amplifiers” by A. Saleh in IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 29, November 1981, pp. 1715–1720.
“Analysis of GIOVE-A L1-Signals” by S. Graf and C. Günther in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2006, the 19th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Fort Worth, Texas, September 26-29, 2006, pp. 1560–1566.
Commercial GNSS Receivers Used for L5 Signal Acquisition
“Triumph Technology” by J. Ashjaee presented at the 5th Allsat Open Conference, Hannover, Germany, June 19, 2008.
“A Dual-frequency L1/E5a Galileo Test Receiver” by N. Gerein, M. Olynik, M. Clayton, J. Auld, and T. Murfin in Proceedings of the European Navigation Conference – GNSS 2005, Munich, Germany, July 19-22, 2005.
The Multipath Observable
“TEQC: The Multi-Purpose Toolkit for GPS/GLONASS Data” by L.H. Estey and C.M. Meertens in GPSSolutions, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1999, pp. 42–49.
1995 Reports on the Future of GPS
The Global Positioning System: Charting the Future: Charting the Future by a panel of the National Academy of Public Administration and by a committee of the National Research Council, National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, D.C., 1995, ISBN 0-9646874-1-0.
The Global Positioning System: A Shared National Asset, Recommendations for Technical Improvements and Enhancements by the National Research Council Committee on the Future of the Global Positioning System, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995, ISBN 0-309-05283-1.
The Seminal Article on the Benefits of Three GPS Signal Frequencies
“The Promise of a Third Frequency” by R.R. Hatch in GPS World, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 1996, pp. 55–58.
Brad Parkinson, the first GPS Program Office Director, chief architect and advocate for GPS, submitted written testimony to Congress on mitigation options for possible GPS brownouts. His presentation comes in reference to the recent GAO report highlighting the risk that the GPS constellation may fall below the minimum level of 24 satellites required for full operational capability. In his opening, Parkinson states that “GAO correctly points out the possibility that the GPS constellation will be reduced to less than the current number of 30 to 32 satellites. In fact, it is possible that the constellation will be at a level of less than 24 satellites. I would like to focus on the options that would help reduce this risk.”
Parkinson chides those who may not have been paying attention over the last two years, at least. “It should be noted that the risk of brownouts has been repeatedly pointed out by the independent review teams,” he states, referencing the the Defense Science Board, the GPS Independent Review Team, and the Pos-Nav Timing Advisory Board, who have all stated all that “30 satellites is the correct number.” He points out that the European Galileo program and the Chinese Compass system have also arrived at that number.
“Although brownouts would only be ‘officially’ declared at levels below 24, anything below the current level of 30 satellites is a cause for concern. The potential economic impact if the number were below 24 may be quite serious.”
To rectify the situation, Parkinson first gives a history lesson. The first GPS satellite went from contract award to launch in 44 months. “The keys to success were a streamlined approval chain (all the way up the OSD chain), severe restrictions on any contract changes, and an integrated product team.” He believes that GPS IIIA can achieve the same — given the same playing conditions.
Spartan. He does throw in one twist not currently in the plans: “To develop a simplified GPS IIIA based design, Spartan satellite (IIIS) that would not include the extra payloads, and, once designed, could be built quickly and launched into space with two satellites on a booster. This would be done in parallel with the current program.”
Parkinson appears to advocate complete abandonment of the IIF line. “The reason is simply that the satellite design is old and relies on parts that are no longer available. In addition, the satellite, while providing the older signals, does not meet current requirements.”
He closes with a final admonition. “Above all, the senior decision making chain has to become a part of the solution. This means that they do everything in their power to help the program office achieve the needed schedule.”
The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued on May 7 an alarming report on the future of GPS, characterizing ongoing modernization efforts as shaky. The agency appears to single out the IIF program as the weak link between current stability and ensured future capability, calling into doubt “whether the Air Force will be able to acquire new satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without interruption.” It asserts the very real possibility that “in 2010, as old satellites begin to fail, the overall GPS constellation will fall below the number of satellites required to provide the level of GPS service that the U.S. government commits to.”
Prepared at the request of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and titled “Global Positioning System: Significant Challenges in Sustaining and Upgrading Widely Used Capabilities,” the report concludes that “it is uncertain whether the Air Force will be able to acquire new satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without interruption. If not, some military operations and some civilian users could be adversely affected.”
“In addition,” the report summary continues, “military users will experience a delay in utilizing new GPS capabilities, including improved resistance to jamming of GPS signals, because of poor synchronization of the acquisition and development of the satellites with the ground control and user equipment. Finally, there are challenges in ensuring civilian requirements for GPS can be met and that GPS is compatible with other new, potentially competing global space-based positioning, navigation, and timing systems.”
Among the report’s principal recommendations is a proposal often made in past years by a range of experts, but never implemented: the Secretary of Defense should appoint “a single authority to oversee the development of GPS, including space, ground control, and user equipment assets, to ensure these assets are synchronized and well executed, and potential disruptions are minimized.”
While the Department of Defense (DoD) concurred with this recommendation, and while quite possibly it might effectuate the streamlined decision-making and corollary processes to remedy the highlighted deficiencies, it would run counter to the integral “dual-use” principle of GPS as dedicated to both civil and military users. Such a move could thus conceivably and adversely affect the interests of civil users.
Testimony from invited GPS providers and users before a related National Security Subcommittee hearing (“GPS: Can We Avoid a Gap in Service?”), some of which is briefly encapsulated within this news story, can be downloaded.
Why GAO Did This Study. A highlights document attached to the GAO report asserts that GPS “has become essential to U.S. national security.” The GAO conducted its own analysis of Air Force satellite data, in addition to interviewing key officials and analyzing program documentation. Specifically, the agency assessed progress in:
acquiring GPS satellites
acquiring the ground control and user equipment necessary to leverage GPS satellite capabilities
coordinating efforts among federal agencies and other organizations to ensure GPS missions can be accomplished.
Gloomy Outcomes. Based on the most recent satellite reliability and launch schedule data from March of this year, the estimated long-term probability of maintaining a constellation of at least 24 operational satellites falls below 95 percent during fiscal year 2010 and remains below 95 percent until the end of fiscal year 2014, at times falling to about 80 percent. Program officials provided no evidence to suggest that the current mean life expectancy for satellites is overly conservative, the GAO stated.
The results of fewer than 24 operational satellites could include:
Intercontinental commercial air carriers may have to delay, cancel, or reroute flights.
Enhanced-911 response to emergency calls could lose accuracy, particularly operating in urban and mountainous environments — exactly where emergencies tend to be most dire and hardest to locate.
Accuracy of precision-guided munitions could decrease, forcing the military to use larger munitions or use more munitions on the same target to achieve the same level of mission success, and increasing the risks of collateral damage. The urgent desire to decrease or eliminate collateral damage to civilians in or near conflict zones has often been cited by the founders of GPS as one of their key motivations in envisioning the program.
Both standard positioning service and precise positioning service could suffer, impacting large numbers of civil users, both professional (for example, surveyors) and casual (users of location-based services via cell phones) in moderately mountainous areas, in large cities, and under forest foliage.
Block IIF at the Crux. Cristina T. Chaplain of the GAO presented the report to Congress, stating, “In recent years, the Air Force has struggled to successfully build GPS satellites within cost and schedule goals; it encountered significant technical problems that still threaten its delivery schedule; and it struggled with a different contractor. As a result, the current IIF satellite program has overrun its original cost estimate by about $870 million and the launch of its first satellite has been delayed to November 2009 — almost three years late.”
The GAO reports cites specific problems with the IIF satellites contracted to Boeing. During the first phase of thermal vacuum testing in 2008, one of the test payload’s transmitters failed; consequently, the program suspended testing in August 2008 to identify the causes and take corrective action. Other hang-ups include maintaining the proper propellant fuel-line temperature, delaying final integration testing, and re-design of the satellite’s reaction wheels, used for pointing accuracy, because of on-orbit failures on similar reaction wheels on other satellite programs. Overall, about $10 million additional have accrued to program, according to the GAO.
“Further, while the Air Force is structuring the new GPS IIIA program to prevent mistakes made on the IIF program, the Air Force is aiming to deploy the next generation of GPS satellites three years faster than the IIF satellites. GAO’s analysis found that this schedule is optimistic, given the program’s late start, past trends in space acquisitions, and challenges facing the new contractor.
“Of particular concern is leadership for GPS acquisition, as GAO and other studies have found the lack of a single point of authority for space programs and frequent turnover in program managers have hampered requirements setting, funding stability, and resource allocation.
“If the Air Force does not meet its schedule goals for development of GPS IIIA satellites, there will be an increased likelihood that in 2010, as old satellites begin to fail, the overall GPS constellation will fall below the number of satellites required to provide the level of GPS service that the U.S. government commits to. Such a gap in capability could have wide-ranging impacts on all GPS users, though there are measures the Air Force and others can take to plan for and minimize these impacts.
“In addition to risks facing the acquisition of new GPS satellites, the Air Force has not been fully successful in synchronizing the acquisition and development of the next generation of GPS satellites with the ground control and user equipment, thereby delaying the ability of military users to fully utilize new GPS satellite capabilities.
“Diffuse leadership has been a contributing factor, given that there is no single authority responsible for synchronizing all procurements and fielding related to GPS, and funding has been diverted from ground programs to pay for problems in the space segment. DoD and others involved in ensuring GPS can serve communities beyond the military have taken prudent steps to manage requirements and coordinate among the many organizations involved with GPS. However, GAO identified challenges in the areas of ensuring civilian requirements can be met and ensuring GPS compatibility with other new, potentially competing global space-based positioning, navigation, and timing systems.”
Staving Off Disaster. In the course of its interviews with key officials, the GAO learned of and reports on some alternatives that have been examined. The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board considered the use of smaller GPS satellites in 2007. These could be developed more quickly and at lower cost. The board concluded that while small satellites could at some point serve to augment GPS capabilities, they would require a different and much more extensive ground control segment, program development would take too long, and necessary changes to user equipment would render the whole scheme cumbersome.
The effects of satellite power loss over time, due to harsh space conditions, could be mitigated by shutting down satellite subsystems when not needed, reducing power consumption, also by shutting off a secondary (unnamed) GPS payload. DoD has long been reluctant to take either measure absolutely, particularly the second one, but according to testimony (see below) has been implementing both practices on an intermittent basis.
Day in Congress. Other GPS community representatives testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform’s subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, alongside GAO spokesperson Chaplain.
According to Lt. Gen. Larry D. James, Commander, 14th Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Space, U.S. Strategic Command, the Space Command maintains the required minimum of at least 24 GPS satellites in orbit, and the current level of 30 operational satellites, by keeping a “ghost fleet” of older, partially mission-capable satellites in backup mode. “Currently, three vehicles are held in residual status and are returned to the constellation every six months to ensure operational capability.” He stated that added life also is being squeezed from the satellites by reducing power to or turning off equipment for secondary missions aboard the satellites.
Karen Van Dyke, acting director for Positioning, Navigation and Timing in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), told the Congressional committee that “GPS is vulnerable to interference that can be reduced, but not eliminated.” Citing the 2001 Volpe Report for which she was a key author, she stated that there has long been “an awareness within the transportation community of risks associated with use of GPS as a primary means for position determination and precision timing. Due to the reliance of transportation on GPS signals, it is essential that threats be mitigated and alternative back-ups be available, and the system be hardened for critical applications. DOT has determined that sufficient alternative navigation aids currently exist in the event of a loss of GPS-based services.”
Nearly simultaneously with the GAO report and congressional hearings, the long-withheld Independent Assessment Team report on eLoran as a GPS backup has just been released.
F. Michael Swiek, Executive Director, U.S. GPS Industry Council and a member of GPS World’s Editorial Advisory Board, reminded Congress of the dual-use nature of the system, saying “The U.S. Government has promoted and encouraged [GPS] development by establishing, maintaining and reinforcing a stable policy framework that has consistently received farsighted and bipartisan support. It has been a true partnership of shared visions, discussions and debates, cooperation, and coordination. This has been possible through the open dialogue that has taken place since the early days of GPS, some 25-plus years ago, between civilian and military, industry, and government on technical and policy issues as the technology, system, and applications have evolved.”
Swiek made his recommendation that “successful adoption of modernized civilian GPS signals will occur if the installed user base can continue to trust the consistent and stable policy framework that the U.S. government has provided for GPS for two decades. The new signals will need to sustain the legacy of accuracy, availability, and reliability established over the past 20 years.”
Chet Huber, president of OnStar, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, and at nearly 6 million active subscribers probably the largest single group of civil GPS users, offered three recommendations:
“First, we must address the health of the current constellation. We are concerned that a recent report shows eight of the current satellites are one component from total failure. Loss of signal will likely immediately affect GPS accuracy and availability (geographic coverage).
“Second, as the GPS system is modernized, it is imperative that the U.S. government formally commit to preserving the L1C/A signal and to ensuring backward compatibility for legacy applications with no loss of performance from current levels. . . . Any modernization initiative that degrades backward compatible performance — such as reducing the number of satellites making up the constellation — would likely adversely impact the provision of services by OnStar, including the quality of location information we provide to public safety, thereby potentially increasing the response time of public safety personnel to crash victims and others in need of emergency services.
“Our third recommendation — and this is also important to legacy applications — is that we commit to maintaining the current PRN code (or satellite signature structure) for the primary orbital slots, as satellites in those slots are replaced. Legacy hardware is not capable of being expanded to accommodate more than 32 slots so renumbering above 32 will likely affect performance of legacy applications.”
The Lockheed Martin team developing GPS III, the next-generation GPS spacecraft, is progressing on-schedule, achieving key milestones in the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) phase with the U.S. Air Force, according to Lockheed Martin.
GPS III will improve position, navigation and timing services and provide advanced anti-jam capabilities yielding superior system security, accuracy and reliability. The first block of the new generation satellites, known as GPS IIIA, will deliver significant enhancements over current GPS space vehicles, including a new international civil signal (L1C), and increased M-Code anti-jam power with full earth coverage for military users.
GPS IIIA also incorporates an aggressive capability insertion program that lowers technology and integration risks associated with the capabilities planned for future GPS III satellites. The capability insertion program will ensure a graceful growth path, minimizing re-design of the GPS IIIA satellites that are necessary to reach the full set of GPS III warfighter capabilities in future increments.
“The joint government-industry team is off to a robust start validating our requirements for this important program,” said Lt. Col. Donald Frew, the U.S. Air Force GPS III program manager. “Our back-to-basics approach in the execution of GPS III is already yielding excellent results and we look forward to achieving a successful segment-level review in May.”
Lockheed Martin Space Systems (Newtown, Pennsylvania), along with industry partners ITT (Clifton, New Jersey) and General Dynamics (Gilbert, Arizona), have successfully completed 19 out of 71 PDRs for key GPS III spacecraft subsystems and assemblies. These include L-Band transmitters, antennas, solar arrays, power regulation unit, all attitude control assemblies, as well as the Tracking Telemetry and Command (TT&C) subsystem and all TT&C assemblies. This effort will culminate in an overall GPS III Segment PDR in May to ensure the preliminary design meets warfighter and civil requirements prior to advancing into the Critical Design Review phase.
“Our progress in the preliminary design review stage is the result of an integrated government-industry team focused on achieving operational excellence and mission success,” said Dave Podlesney, Lockheed Martin’s GPS III program director. “We look forward to completing a comprehensive and efficient PDR phase to ensure a seamless transition to the critical design review phase for the vitally important program.”
The team is working under a $1.4 billion Development and Production contract awarded in May 2008 by the Global Positioning Systems Wing, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California, to produce the first two GPS IIIA satellites, with first launch projected for 2014. The contract also includes options for up to 10 additional spacecraft.
The GPS constellation provides critical situational awareness and precision weapon guidance for the military and supports a wide range of civil, scientific and commercial functions — from air traffic control to the Internet — with precision location and timing information. Air Force Space Command’s 2nd Space Operations Squadron (2SOPS), based at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, manages and operates the GPS constellation for both civil and military users.
The U.S. Air Force finally made it official and confirmed the rumor mill: Lockheed Martin has beat out rival satellite contractor Boeing for the contract to build the first eight GPS III satellites.
Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Global Positioning Systems Wing, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif. made the announcement regarding the GPS III development and production contract late Thursday, May 15. In retrospect it was not exactly a well-kept secret; rumors had swirled for at least a month if not longer that Lockheed would get the nod, and two days earlier on May 13 the Wall Street Journal reported as fact that Lockheed had won, citing unnamed sources.
Under the $1.4 billion contract, the team of Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., ITT Corp., and General Dynamics will produce eight GPS IIIA satellites, with the first launch projected for 2014, Lockheed said. The development contract will result in approximately 500 new jobs for Lockheed Martin.
Eight GPS IIIB and 16 GPS IIIC satellites are planned for later increments, with each increment including additional capabilities based on technical maturity. Taken as a whole, all of the GPS III contracts could be worth more than approximately $3.5 billion. When fully deployed, the GPS III constellation will feature a cross-linked command and control architecture, allowing the entire GPS constellation to be updated simultaneously from a single ground station, according to Lockheed. Additionally, a new spot beam capability for enhanced military (M-Code) coverage and increased resistance to hostile jamming, as well as new civilian signals, will be incorporated.
Lockheed Martin of course isn’t new to the GPS program; it designed and built 21 GPS IIR satellites for the Air Force and subsequently modernized eight of those spacecraft, designated GPS IIR-M. For GPS III, Lockheed Martin’s program management and spacecraft development effort will occur at its facilities in Newtown, Penn., with final assembly, integration and test located in Denver, according to the company. Its Sunnyvale, Calif., operations will provide various spacecraft components and a launch support team will be based at Cape Canaveral, Fla. Lockheed Martin’s flight-proven A2100 bus will serve as the GPS III spacecraft platform.
ITT, based in Clifton, N.J. will provide the navigation payload, and General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Gilbert, Ariz., will provide the Network Communications Element (NCE) which includes the UHF Crosslink and Tracking Telemetry & Command (TT&C) subsystems.
ITT Corporation has been awarded a contract for the next-generation GPS Command and Control Systems designated OCX by the U.S. Air Force. ITT is part of a team, led by Raytheon Company, that will develop a system design and prototype of the OCX system. A system design review and prototype demonstration is scheduled for early 2009.
“This is a significant achievement for ITT,” said Chris Young, president of ITT Space Systems Division. “OCX represents our first, strong push into the GPS control segment.”
OCX is intended to improve command and control of the GPS constellation, improve mission capabilities, and provide a more user-oriented environment. Once implemented, Air Force Space Command can improve operational services for civil and military customers worldwide. The first phase of the contract will focus on defining the long-range architecture, technical requirements, concepts of operations, and fielding capabilities incrementally. Issues related to the introduction of future GPS III satellite blocks into the constellation also will be part of the OCX’s first contract phase.
“The cornerstone of our solution is a versatile, service oriented architecture,” said Young. “Our design will enable the government to implement low-cost, targeted software upgrades that won’t ripple undesirably throughout the system.”
Four Galileo in-orbit validation (IOV) satellites scheduled to launch next year have already missed their first pad date.The European version of Russia’s Soyuz rocket is now scheduled to carry the four IOV satellites into orbit in two launches in November 2010 and early 2011, as announced by European Space Agency (ESA) Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain on October 9.
