At 25 years old, GPS Satellite Vehicle No. 27 completed its time in orbit on April 18. With the satellite’s final duty completed, the 2nd Space Operations Squadron (2 SOPS) said goodbye via final command and disposal from Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado.
SVN 27 was launched in 1992, meaning it performed more than triple its design life of 7.5 years.
“The most interesting thing about this process for me was the ability to do some experimentation and advance training prior to the disposal,” said 1st Lt. Cameron Smith, 2 SOPS bus subsystem analyst. “Experimentation started in mid-March, which consisted of advance training opportunities and vehicle component validation. This was very exciting and new to a lot of people in 2 SOPS.”
Smith explained underperforming satellites, such as SVN 27, are removed from the GPS constellation to make room for satellites with increased capability.
Since GPS satellites do not carry the amount of fuel required for de-orbit maneuvers, they are instead pushed to a higher orbit, roughly 1,000 kilometers above the operational GPS orbit.
During the final contact with the vehicle, the satellite is commanded into the safest, lowest energy state possible. This means all fuel has been depleted from the fuel tanks, the batteries are unable to hold a charge, and the vehicle is in a spin-stabilized configuration.
Bus component degradations and navigational issues, among other reasons, usually kill a satellite. Fortunately for SVN 27, there were no major flaws throughout its life span.
“SVN 27 was disposed of because its navigation payload could no longer perform up to the GPS standards,” said 1st Lt. Shannon Sewell, 2 SOPS subsystem analysis chief. “In 1993, a year after it launched, it had a suspect component we never tested out until we disposed of it. The decoder wasn’t fully powered. Since it was a backup, we made a decision to leave it in the same configuration. However, this did not cause any major effects during its life span.”
In the last two years, the unit conducted six disposal operations. For Sewell, even though she has witnessed final commands given during past disposal operations, this marked the first time she sent the kill command.
“It’s a rite of passage to send out the last command to vehicles,” said Sewell. “This was my sixth and final disposal in the shop before I move on, but the first kill command I sent. It was a great way to end my tenure here and was a unique opportunity.”
So far, there have been 28 disposal operations in 2 SOPS history, which support the Air Force’s GPS modernization efforts.
A technique developed by researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign distinguishes a reflected non-line-of-sight (NLOS) signal of a particular satellite from the LOS signal and characterizes the NLOS signal as coming from a virtual mirror-image satellite in the direction of the signal reflection point. By using information on the position and orientation of the reflector, the NLOS signal can be treated as an additional LOS signal.
By Yuting Ng and Grace Xingxin Gao
INNOVATION INSIGHTS with Richard Langley
THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT VIRTUAL SATELLITES. No, we don’t mean physical objects that are almost satellites. That’s the common everyday meaning of the word virtual. We mean it in the sense used in computing to describe something that is not physically present but made to appear so by software (and perhaps aided by hardware). The word was first used in this sense by computer scientists in the 1950s in the term virtual memory to describe a memory management technique. It is now widely used in computing, most commonly as virtual reality. But what is a virtual satellite then?
As we all know, GPS satellite signals are quite weak. The antenna of a standard GPS receiver needs to have a clear line-of-sight (LOS) view to the satellites for successful signal tracking and position determination. Buildings and other structures will block signals coming from certain directions. In built-up areas, this can result in fewer LOS signals than the minimum of four needed for unaided positioning. Even with four or more LOS signals, the receiver-satellite geometry may be poor resulting in a large dilution of precision and poor positioning accuracy as a result. It is true that augmentations such as wheel sensors and inertial measurement units coupled with dead reckoning may permit an acceptable level of positioning accuracy for some kinematic applications, but the accuracy will degrade over time if satellite blockage continues unabated. And yes, multi-GNSS can help in these situations with receivers availing themselves of additional LOS signals from the GLONASS, Galileo, and BeiDou systems and in Japan, QZSS. But Galileo, BeiDou and QZSS are still in development with a variable number of satellites available at a given location during the day. Is there anything else that can be done to improve the availability of GPS signals?
In fact, there are often more GPS signals arriving at a receiver’s antenna than just the LOS signals. These are non-line-of-sight (NLOS) signals that bounce off nearby structures before arriving at the antenna. We call the phenomenon multipath and, as we have discussed before in this column, multipath typically reduces positioning performance when the NLOS signals from a particular satellite combine with the LOS signal to distort a receiver’s standard correlator outputs thereby biasing pseudorange and carrier-phase measurements. Various techniques have been developed to reject multipath signals at the antenna or in the receiver while others have been developed to lessen the effect of these signals and so minimize their impact on position solutions. On the other hand, non-positioning GPS applications have been developed to use reflections from the Earth’s surface to measure snow depth, ground moisture content, and ocean-surface roughness. But could we somehow use multipath signals to improve positioning applications rather than degrade them?
In this month’s column, we look at a technique developed by researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign that distinguishes a reflected NLOS signal of a particular satellite from the LOS signal and characterizes the NLOS signal as coming from a virtual mirror-image satellite in the direction of the signal reflection point. By using information on the position and orientation of the reflector, the NLOS signal can be treated as an additional LOS signal, albeit from a ghost satellite. The authors have demonstrated that the technique works well in practice and in one difficult positioning environment, obtained an improvement in horizontal position accuracy of 40 meters — a reflected blessing indeed.
Building obstructions and reflections present serious challenges to GPS receivers operating in urban environments. In such environments, buildings may obstruct GPS signals, leading to reduced GPS signal availability. In addition, buildings may reflect GPS signals, resulting in reception of non-line-of-sight (NLOS) signals. NLOS GPS signals are delayed versions of the line-of-sight (LOS) signals. As such, they lead to pseudorange errors, resulting in positioning errors. Conventional approaches treat NLOS GPS signals as unwanted interference to be rejected or mitigated.
Conventional approaches reject NLOS GPS signals at multiple stages of GPS signal processing. Antenna-based approaches include the use of right-hand-circularly-polarized (RHCP) antennas and controlled reception pattern antennas (CRPA). Correlator-based approaches include the use of the narrow correlator, the double-delta correlator, the multipath estimating delay lock loop (MEDLL) and the vision correlator by various receiver manufacturers. In addition, receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) approaches reject pseudoranges with inconsistent positioning residuals.
Besides rejecting NLOS GPS signals, conventional approaches also make use of robust filtering and joint signal tracking techniques to mitigate the effects of these signals. Robust filtering techniques include the use of Bayesian filters such as Kalman filters and particle filters. Joint signal tracking techniques include vector tracking and direct position estimation (DPE). A list of existing approaches addressing NLOS GPS signals is provided in TABLE 1.
TABLE 1. Approaches for rejecting and mitigating NLOS GPS signals.
In contrast to conventional approaches that reject or mitigate the effects of NLOS GPS signals, we propose transforming NLOS GPS signals from being unwanted interference to becoming additional useful navigation signals. In addition, we provide a navigation solution under reduced GPS signal availability.
RELATED WORK
In our approach to using NLOS GPS signals, we make use of DPE and 3D map-aided positioning. The following sections provide an overview of these techniques.
Direct Position Estimation. DPE is an unconventional joint signal tracking and navigation technique that directly estimates the GPS receiver’s navigation parameters from the GPS raw signal. It does so by directly comparing the expected signal reception of multiple potential navigation candidates against the actual received signal. The navigation solution is then estimated as the navigation candidate with the highest overall correlation between the expected and the actual received signal. This overall correlation is an accumulation of signal correlations across all available satellites, with replica signal parameters aligned to the candidate navigation parameters. In this manner, DPE jointly uses signal correlations from all available satellites to produce a robust navigation solution.
3D Map-Aided Positioning Techniques. State-of-the-art approaches use available 3D maps to predict NLOS signal reception. Apart from rejecting and/or mitigating the effects of NLOS pseudoranges, state-of-the-art approaches leverage the benefits of NLOS pseudoranges, constructively using the affected pseudorange measurements through special treatment of NLOS paths during trilateration. Using 3D building models, they model NLOS paths as LOS paths from satellites to virtual receivers located at receiver mirror-image positions. However, these approaches are limited by the issue of reduced signal availability due to multipath fading in addition to building obstruction. Under reduced signal availability, the navigation solution obtained via trilateration is degraded. With further reduction in signal availability — the number of available pseudorange measurements reduced to fewer than four — conventional calculation of the GPS navigation solution via trilateration with four unknowns is not possible.
In contrast to state-of-the-art approaches addressing NLOS signal reception at the GPS pseudorange measurement level, we directly address and constructively use NLOS signals at the GPS signal level via DPE using NLOS signals.
OUR APPROACH: DPE USING NLOS SIGNALS
We first model NLOS signals as LOS signals to virtual satellites at satellite mirror-image positions, as shown in FIGURE 1. This approach is similar to using virtual transmitters for multipath-assisted wireless indoor positioning. We calculate these satellite mirror-image positions and velocities using knowledge of building reflection surfaces estimated from available 3D maps.
FIGURE 1. NLOS signal transformed from being (top) an unwanted interference to becoming (bottom) an additional LOS signal to a virtual satellite at the satellite mirror-image position.
We then integrate these NLOS signals into GPS positioning via DPE. We modify the expected signal reception used in DPE to include NLOS signal information, as shown in FIGURE 2. Our approach deeply integrates this information and accurately describes the actual received signal.
FIGURE 2. Overall correlation in DPE, with the NLOS signal treated as an additional LOS signal to a virtual satellite at the satellite mirror-image position.
In addition, our approach provides a navigation solution under reduced signal availability. FIGURE 3 shows a block diagram of our approach.
FIGURE 3. Block diagram of DPE using NLOS signals and involving calculation of satellite position, velocity and time (PVT) and batch correlation using a fast Fourier transform (FFT).
IMPLEMENTATION AND EXPERIMENT RESULTS
We implemented DPE using NLOS signals with commercial front-end components and our software platform, PyGNSS. We conducted an experiment in front of the 53 meters by 40 meters wind tunnel located at NASA’s Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California (see FIGURE 4).
FIGURE 4. Experiment setup in front of the 53 meters by 40 meters wind tunnel located at NASA’s Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California. (a) data collection equipment; (b) wide-angle photograph of the wind tunnel’s air-intake port.
The material of the vertical surface of the wind tunnel’s air-intake port is a metal wire mesh with a grid spacing of 1.8 centimeters by 1.8 centimeters, as shown in FIGURE 5. This grid spacing is approximately one tenth of the carrier wavelength of the GPS L1 signal; the mesh wire radius is much less than the grid spacing. Thus, the vertical surface of the air-intake port acts as a reflector of GPS L1 signals.
FIGURE 5. Metal wire mesh on the vertical surface of the wind tunnel’s air-intake port. (Left) close-up photograph showing the grid spacing of 1.8 centimeters by 1.8 centimeters; (right) photograph from another perspective showing wire mesh covering the entire vertical surface of the air-intake port.
We estimated the normal vector and a point on the wind tunnel’s reflection surface using a geo-referenced 3D point cloud available on line through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Data Access Viewer tool. We refined the estimate using iterative closest point map-matching with a lidar scan (FIGURE 6).
FIGURE 6. Building reflection surface estimated from NOAA Data Access Viewer (DAV) point cloud, refined using map-matching with a lidar scan.
We then determined possible LOS and NLOS paths from satellite elevation-azimuth plots. Plotted in FIGURE 7 are the satellite positions, the satellite mirror-image positions and the building reflection surface. An NLOS path to a satellite exists if the corresponding LOS path to the satellite mirror-image intersects the building reflection surface. In our experiment, LOS paths exist to satellite PRNs 5, 7, 27 and 28 and an NLOS path exists to satellite PRN 5. Thus, both LOS and NLOS signals from satellite PRN 5 are present. This is verified by examining the amplitude of the in-phase prompt correlations over time. Only the in-phase prompt correlations of satellite PRN 5 exhibit a sinusoidal behavior characteristic of having both LOS and NLOS signals, as shown in FIGURE 8.
FIGURE 7. Elevation-azimuth plot with satellites highlighted using green boxes and satellite mirror-images highlighted using red boxes. The 3D point cloud of the wind tunnel’s air-intake port is plotted using grey dots. The path to the mirror-image of satellite PRN 5 passes through the surface of the wind tunnel. Thus, an NLOS path to satellite PRN 5 exists. In addition, LOS paths exist to satellite PRNs 5, 7, 27 and 28.FIGURE 8. Only the in-phase prompt correlation of satellite PRN 5 exhibits a sinusoidal behavior characteristic of having both LOS and NLOS signal components.
We then performed DPE, including the signal correlation contribution from the NLOS path to satellite PRN 5, where the NLOS path is represented as a LOS path to the satellite mirror-image. The overall correlation result, including the signal correlation from the NLOS path to satellite PRN 5, is shown in FIGURE 9. The color of the position markers, plotted using Google Maps, represents the overall correlation amplitude. Red indicates a high overall correlation amplitude and blue indicates a low overall correlation amplitude. The navigation solution is directly estimated as a correlation-weighted mean of the navigation candidates.
FIGURE 9. Normalized overall correlation with contributions from all satellites, including the satellite mirror-image of PRN 5.
The result, as compared to that estimated using pseudoranges from scalar tracking followed by trilateration, is shown in FIGURE 10. DPE using NLOS GPS signals demonstrated improved horizontal positioning accuracy by 40 meters.
FIGURE 10. DPE using NLOS GPS signals demonstrates improved horizontal positioning accuracy by 40 meters. This is in comparison to the navigation result obtained using pseudoranges estimated from conventional scalar tracking followed by trilateration.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we proposed DPE using NLOS signals to mitigate the issues of NLOS GPS signal reception and reduced GPS signal availability in urban navigation. We modeled NLOS signals as LOS signals to virtual satellites at satellite mirror-image positions. In this manner, NLOS signals are transformed from being unwanted interference to becoming additional useful navigation signals. We then created expected signal receptions to include NLOS GPS signal information at multiple potential navigation candidates and use DPE for positioning. Finally, we experimentally demonstrated a reduction in horizontal positioning error by 40 meters. This is in comparison to the navigation result obtained using pseudoranges estimated from conventional scalar tracking followed by trilateration.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Safe Autonomous Flight Environment (SAFE50) and the Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management teams at NASA’s Ames Research Center, where the lead author was hosted for the summer of 2016, for their equipment support. The authors also thank Akshay Shetty for collecting and map-matching the lidar scan to the geo-referenced 3D point cloud.
This article is based on the paper “Direct Position Estimation Utilizing Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) GPS Signals” presented at ION GNSS+ 2016, the 29th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, held Sept. 12–16, 2016, in Portland, Oregon.
YUTING NG received her B.S. degree in electrical engineering and her M.S. degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in 2014 and 2016, respectively. Her research interests are advanced signal processing, satellite navigation systems and radar.
GRACE XINGXIN GAO is an assistant professor in the Aerospace Engineering Department at UIUC. She obtained her Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the GPS Laboratory at Stanford University in 2008. Before joining UIUC in 2012, she was a research associate at Stanford University.
FURTHER READING
• Authors’ Conference Paper
“Direct Position Estimation Utilizing Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) GPS Signals” by Y. Ng and G.X. Gao in Proceedings of ION GNSS+ 2016, the 29th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Portland, Oregon, Sept. 12–16, 2016, pp. 1279–1284.
“Mitigating Jamming and Meaconing Attacks Using Direct GPS Positioning” by Y. Ng and G.X. Gao in Proceedings of IEEE/ION PLANS 2016, the Position, Location, and Navigation Symposium, Savannah, Georgia, April 11–14, 2016, pp. 1021–1026, doi: 10.1109/PLANS.2016.7479804.
“Evaluation of GNSS Direct Position Estimation in Realistic Multipath Channels” by P. Closas, C. Fernández-Prades, J. Fernández-Rubio, M. Wis, G. Vecchione, F. Zanier, J.A. Garcia-Molina and M. Crisci in Proceedings of ION GNSS+ 2015, the 28th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Tampa, Florida, Sept. 14–18, 2015, pp. 3693–3701.
“On the Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Position” by P. Closas, C. Fernández-Prades and J. Fernández-Rubio in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2006, the 19th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Fort Worth, Texas, Sept. 26–29, 2006, pp. 1800–1810.
“NLOS Correction/Exclusion for GNSS Measurement Using RAIM and City Building Models” by L.-T. Hsu, Y. Gu and S. Kamijo in Sensors, Vol. 15, No. 7, 2015, pp. 17329–17349, doi: 10.3390/s150717329.
“GPS Multipath Detection and Rectification Using 3D Maps” by S. Miura, S. Hisaka and S. Kamijo in Proceedings of ITSC 2013, the 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, The Hague, The Netherlands, Oct. 6–9, 2013, pp. 1528–1534, doi: 10.1109/ITSC.2013.6728447.
“Urban Multipath Detection and Mitigation with Dynamic 3D Maps for Reliable Land Vehicle Localization” by M. Obst, S. Bauer and G. Wanielik in Proceedings of IEEE/ION PLANS 2012, the Position, Location, and Navigation Symposium, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, April 23–26, 2012, pp. 685–691, doi: 10.1109/PLANS.2012.6236944.
• Virtual Transmitters
“Simultaneous Localization and Mapping in Multipath Environments” by C. Gentner, B. Ma, M. Ulmschneider, T. Jost and A. Dammann in Proceedings of IEEE/ION PLANS 2016, the Position, Location, and Navigation Symposium, Savannah, Georgia, April 11–14, 2016, pp. 807–815, doi: 10.1109/PLANS.2016.7479776.
I’ve absorbed the basics of how GPS works in the decade since I joined the staff of GPS World magazine, when I barely gave the positioning system a thought. But in those first few months, this is the book I wish I’d had.
Terms I needed to learn back then included pseudorange (nothing to do with juicy fruit), geodesy (not an undiscovered work by Homer) and multipath (not a forking trail in a park).
All of these and more are described in the new book GPS for Everyone: You Are Here by Pratap Misra. Pratap is Professor of the Practice, Department of Mechanical Engineering at Tufts University, and he sent me his new book for review. As a non-engineer, I have found it a great resource — Pratap explains complex subjects in an entertaining, highly readable narrative, accompanied by photos, illustrations and even a few cartoons.
Even if I’m not looking for a little background, I find myself engaged in the story of GPS: its history, its uses today (location-based services, defense, UAVs), privacy concerns and more.
For instance, I hadn’t given much thought to how general relativity had to be taken into account in designing the clocks for GPS satellites. If the clocks hadn’t been designed with an offset, GPS would lose 38 milliseconds a day. So much for an accurate timing reference.
Aother interesting story was the rescue of U.S. pilot Captain O’Grady, downed during the Bosnian conflict in the 1990s and quickly rescued because he was able to provide his coordinates from his handheld Flightmate GPS receiver. Today, of course, military receivers would automatically provide the location, and rescue would be even faster.
Pratap also co-authored with Per Enge of Stanford a graduate-level engineering textbook on GNSS. But for the rest of us, GPS for Everyone: You Are Here is available through bookstores everywhere.
On Feb. 3, the Air Force plans to launch the 12th, and last, satellite in the Block IIF series of modernized GPS spacecraft. The Air Force has produced 12 IIF satellites, featuring new clocks, new civil and military signals, and other upgrades for enhanced accuracy and robustness.
Currently, 31 GPS satellites are in operational service, including 11 Block IIF satellites and 20 spacecraft from previous generations.
The Air Force Second Space Operations Squadron (2SOPS) indicates that IIF-12 (SVN-70/PRN-32) will replace SVN-41/PRN-14 in the F plane, slot F1. SVN-41 will be re-phased from the F1 location to a newly defined F7 node (GLAN = 45°) once SVN-70 is set healthy.
Meanwhile, SVN-23/PRN-32 (IIA-10) will be taken out of the operational constellation before IIF-12’s launch and sent to Launch, Anomaly, Resolution, and Disposal Operations (LADO).
“SVN-23, launched on Nov. 26, 1990, has been an ‘Iron Bird’ workhorse in the E-plane and has successfully served the world’s GPS users for over 25 years,” said Rick Hamilton, CGSIC Executive Secretariat, in an email. “This is over 18 years past its designed service life, having operationally outlasted (and, in many cases, outperformed) its peers on-orbit due to the diligent efforts of the men and women of the U.S. Air Force.”
PRN-04 is tentatively scheduled for assignment to the first of the new generation of GPS-III satellites, available for launch sometime in 2017.
Date/Site/Launch Time: Wednesday, Feb. 03, 2016, from Space Launch Complex-41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. 18 minute launch window opens at 1347Z, 0847 EST.
Rocket/Payload: A United Launch Alliance Atlas V 401 will launch the GPS IIF-12 mission for the U.S. Air Force.
Major General David Thompson announces a 24-hour delay for the launch of the eleventh GPS-IIF satellite.
Major General David Thompson, Vice Commander, U.S. Air Force Space Command, announced this morning that the GPS IIF launch scheduled for today will be delayed for 24 hours due to a water deluge suppression system at the launch site. Launch should only be delayed for 24 hours.
The water deluge suppression system is a launch site safety issue. Officials made the call on Thursday evening to postpone the launch to correct a leak discovered in a ground support equipment valve for the launch pad water suppression system. The valve will require repair or replacement.
The 19-minute launch window on Saturday extends from 12:13 to 12:32 p.m. EDT (1613-1632 GMT).
A United Launch Alliance Atlas V 401 will launch the GPS IIF-11 mission for the U.S. Air Force on Saturday, Oct. 31, from Space Launch Complex-41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.
GPS IIF-11 is the second to last of the Block IIF satellites, incorporating improvements to provide greater accuracy, increased signals, and enhanced performance for users.
The GPS IIF satellites deliver second civil signal (L2C) for dual-frequency equipment, and a new third civil signal (L5) to support commercial aviation and safety-of-life applications. The next generation of GPS satellites is GPS III.
GPS IIF-11 will be the third GPS mission ULA launches in 2015. GPS IIF-9 launched on a Delta IV in March, and GPS IIF-10 launched in July. This mission will be ULA’s 11th in 2015 and 102nd since the company was founded in 2006.
On Wednesday, the GPS Directorate said further data analysis shows that a technical error affecting some Boeing GPS IIF satellites first appeared in 2011, two years earlier than originally stated, according to a Reuters report.
The error first appeared one year after the GPS IIF satellites became operational. The error affects the way the ground control system builds and uploads messages transmitted by the satellites, but does not affect the accuracy of GPS signals. It involves the ground-based software used to index messages.
Lockheed Martin runs the GPS ground control segment, which enables Air Force officials to operate all GPS satellites, including the IIF satellites built by Boeing.
The U.S. Air Force is working to resolve a technical error that affected some Boeing GPS satellites, according to a report by Reuters.
The error does not affect the accuracy of GPS signals. It involves the ground-based software used to index some messages transmitted by GPS IIF satellites built by Boeing, Air Force Space Command said according to Reuters. Still, officials are investigating other possible causes.
Lockheed Martin runs the GPS ground control segment, which enables Air Force officials to operate all GPS satellites, including the IIF satellites built by Boeing.
Air Force Space Command Public Affairs released the following statement:
“A GPS message indexing issue was recently identified that affects a limited number of active GPS IIF satellites, but does not degrade the accuracy of the GPS signal received by users around the globe. The result is an occasional broadcast not in accordance with U.S. technical specifications. The issue appears to be related to the ground software that builds and uploads messages transmitted by the GPS constellation during regular system operations, although the Air Force continues to investigate all possible causes.
“Although the issue was brought to light in the last few days, a close examination of archived GPS message data reveals that the message indexing error has gone unnoticed since 2013. Air Force Space Command has implemented a workaround to prevent further message indexing violations and is taking steps to permanently correct the error.”
A Close Look at GPS SVN62 Triple-Frequency Signal Combinations Finds Carrier-Phase Variations on the New L5
By Oliver Montenbruck, André Hauschild (DLR/German Space Operations Center), Peter Steigenberger (Technische Universität München), and Richard B. Langley (University of New Brunswick)
The recently launched Block IIF satellite (SVN62/PRN25) is the first of a new generation of GPS satellites designed to transmit ranging signals for civil users on three frequencies: the C/A-code on L1 at 1575.42 MHz, the L2C-code on L2 at 1227.60 MHz, and the I5/IQ codes on L5 at 1176.45 MHz. Unlike L2, the L5 signal is located inside the protected Aeronautical Radionavigation Services (ARNS) band, which makes it specifically useful for safety critical aviation applications. In combination with the legacy L1 signal, civil aviation users can now perform ionospheric corrections without referring to the L2C signal. Compared to L2C, the new L5 signal offers a much higher chipping rate (the same as the encrypted P-code signal) of 10.23 MHz, which promises a lower ranging noise and better multipath resistance. L5 signals have already been transmitted for some time by the geostationary satellites of the United States’ Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and are now about to become an integral part of the GPS constellation.
Following a short test transmission on June 17, 2010, the L5 signal was continuously activated on the morning of June 28. According to GPS officials, the checkout of the satellite is proceeding nominally and all signals have been found to fully comply with specifications. This will allow the satellite to be set healthy as soon as all commissioning tasks have been completed.
Scientists have long discussed the potential of new signals for multi-frequency, multi-GNSS applications, and expresed a great interest in signal combinations, particularly those of carrier-phase measurements, involving all three frequencies simultaneously. The use of triple-frequency combinations has, for example, been demonstrated to be of great interest for ambiguity resolution in precise carrier-phase-based positioning, for receiver autonomous integrity monitoring, and for ionospheric research (see the articles in Further Reading).
In consideration of the multitude of proposed applications for triple-frequency combinations, we took a close look at the quality of the new GPS L5 carrier-phase signal. For this purpose, we made use of measurements from the COoperative Network for GIOVE Observation (CONGO), jointly established by the German Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy (BKG) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). CONGO is the first network of multi-constellation, multi-frequency GNSS receivers offering worldwide tracking of the SVN62 space vehicle on all frequencies (see Table 1).
Table 1. Subset of CONGO stations used for triple-frequency tracking of the new Block IIF satellite.
As suggested by Andrew Simsky (see Further Reading), the availability of carrier-phase measurements on three frequencies offers a particularly simple way to assess carrier-phase quality and multipath effects. By forming a linear combination
(1)
of the L1, L2, and L5 carrier-phase ranges with the additional conditions ,
a geometry- and ionosphere-free measurement is obtained, which reflects a weighted sum of the carrier-phase multipath and measurement noise on the individual frequencies. Here λ i with i = 1, 2, and 5, denotes the wavelength of the L1, L2, and L5 signals, respectively. Since the above conditions determine the factors α, β, and γ only up to an arbitrary scaling factor, we furthermore impose the normalizing conditions.
The latter condition ensures that the noise of the tri-carrier combination will match that of the individual carrier phases if the measurement noise is equal on all frequencies. As a result, we obtain the coefficients
with .
Introducing the carrier wavelengths of the L1, L2, and L5 signals, the coefficients attain the values (2)
It can be recognized that the tri-carrier combination is dominated by the L2 and L5 signals due to the proximity of their respective frequencies. Noise and multipath errors of L2 and L5 measurements are thus most prominently seen in the resulting combination, whereas any L1 phase errors are strongly attenuated.
A long pass of L1, L2, and L5 code and phase measurements from the new Block IIF satellite was recorded by the O’Higgins station of the CONGO network shortly after the activation of the L5 signal generator on June 28. The SVN62 satellite was tracked for more than 6 hours and achieved a peak elevation angle of more than 75° on this date.
Figure 1 shows the resulting multipath combination computed from carrier-phase measurements of L1 C/A-code tracking, semi-codeless L2 P(Y) tracking (rather than L2C), and L5 I/Q tracking. The data have been leveled to a zero mean over the entire pass to remove the impact of the unknown carrier-phase ambiguities. Except at low elevation angles, near rise and set of the satellite where signal strengths are low, the tri-carrier combination shows a very low noise level that is consistent with the expected carrier-phase noise on all three frequencies. However, a pronounced long-term variation with a peak-to-peak amplitude of almost 20 centimeters may be recognized, which certainly comes as a big surprise and cannot be explained by local multipath. Frequency-dependent differences of the effective phase centers of the receiving or transmitting antennas can likewise be excluded, since these would result in a purely elevation-angle-dependent variation.
FIGURE 1. Triple-frequency (M=0.142·L1-0.767·L2+0.626·L5) carrier-phase multipath combination for SVN62/PRN25 tracking from the OHIX0 station on June 28.
Looking at the entire set of measurements from all available CONGO stations, we could rapidly recognize that the variation of the tri-carrier combination with time is essentially the same for all stations with a common visibility of the SVN62 space vehicle, irrespective of the employed receiver and antenna. This suggests the presence of time-varying inter-frequency biases in the L1, L2, and L5 carriers transmitted by SVN62.
Thanks to the global distribution of the CONGO stations, the SVN62 space vehicle is always tracked by one or more stations, which enables a continuous monitoring of the L1/L2/L5 carrier-phase consistency. By adjusting the unknown offset of the tri-carrier combination for individual tracking arcs in such a way as to obtain a best match of consecutive and overlapping arcs, the variation can be traced over multiple days as shown in Figure 2. The graph shows a distinct orbital (that is, 12-hour) periodicity with a superimposed twice-per-revolution harmonic. In addition, a pronounced drift can be recognized for up to one day after activation of the L5 signal generator. Both observations suggest a temperature-dependent line bias in one or more carriers as a likely cause of the observed variation in the tri-carrier combination. (A line bias is a circuitry delay common in all observed satellites and is usually absorbed in the estimated clock offset.) However, an independent analysis of SVN62 temperature data from the onboard telemetry will be required to confirm the validity of this assumption. The space vehicle is in a deep eclipse orbit right now and therefore experiences substantial changes in its thermal conditions. However, the extreme points of the carrier-phase variation in Figure 2 are slightly shifted with respect to the local space vehicle noon (at 01:30 and 13:30 UTC) and the eclipse intervals (07:00–08:00 and 19:00–20:00 UTC).
FIGURE 2. Triple-frequency carrier-phase combination (M=0.142·L1-0.767·L2+0.626·L5) for the first five days of L5 activation on SVN62. The curve has arbitrarily been shifted to obtain a near-zero mean during the final days of the entire arc.
While the tri-carrier combination provides a very sensitive measurement for the analysis of differential delays between the individual carriers, it does not allow us to uniquely attribute the observed variations to one of the three signals. We therefore made use of code measurements (pseudoranges) to further investigate the consistency of specific sets of measurements. Since the observed variation of the tri-carrier combination exhibits an amplitude comparable to the noise level of the code measurements, a suitably chosen code-carrier combination can indeed help to identify which signal or signals are affected by line-bias variations. To this end, we consider a generalized form
of the well-known code-multipath combination, in which we difference the code measurement Pi at frequency i with an ionosphere-corrected combination of carrier-phase ranges Lj and Lk at frequencies j and k. In so doing, we remove geometric contributions along with clock and atmospheric variations, leaving primarily code multipath, receiver noise, and any signal perturbation that is not coherent on the involved frequencies. In the traditional case of dual-frequency tracking, the frequency of one of the involved carrier-phase measurements is necessarily identical to that of the code measurements. With triple-frequency tracking, in contrast, we are free to consider a larger variety of combinations. For the analysis of the SVN62 signals, we have specifically evaluated the L5 code-multipath combination using (a) the L5 and L1 carrier phases
and (b) the L2 and L1 carrier-phase measurements
The results shown in FIGURE 3 reveal a dramatic difference, which clearly hints at the L5 carrier as the main source of the observed carrier-phase variations.
FIGURE 3. L5 code-multipath combination formed with L1/L5 carrier-phase measurements (top) and with L1/L2 carrier-phase measurements (bottom). The figure is based on SVN62 tracking from the O’Higgins station and covers the same arc as considered in FIGURE 1.
In the first case, a variation close to that of Figure 1 is obtained, albeit with a 5–6 times larger amplitude that reflects the different weighting of the L5 carrier phase in the corresponding measurement combinations. A good consistency, in contrast, is obtained for the L5 code measurements when differenced against the ionosphere-corrected combination of L1 and L2 carrier-phase measurements.
Overall, we may conclude that the L5 carrier of the SVN62 space vehicle exhibits quasi-periodic line-bias variations with an amplitude of about 10 centimeters in relation to the L1 and L2 carriers. The L5 code measurements, in contrast, appear to be consistent with both the code and phase measurements on L1 and L2 at the respective noise levels. Further observations at a later time will be required to see whether the observed amplitude of the L5 phase variation is specific to the current eclipse orbit and whether it will possibly become lower when a higher angle of the Sun with respect to the orbital plane (the so-called beta-angle) is achieved.
What are the possible consequences of the L5 phase-bias variations for users of the new L5 signal? Evidently, new positioning services building on the L5 code measurements (and possible combinations) will not at all be affected! Even in the case of carrier-phase smoothing, the smoothing time scale will be much shorter than the periodicity of the carrier-phase bias variation. The L5 code measurement quality itself is well within the system specification and no concerns exist that would prevent the satellite from soon being declared healthy.
With respect to carrier-phase-based positioning applications, it is important to note that the L5 line bias acts like an additional frequency-specific satellite-clock offset. This has, for example, been confirmed in preliminary tests of SVN62 orbit determination conducted by the Technische Universität München. Orbit solutions using L1 and L5 measurements from the CONGO network differed by typically 15 centimeters (3D root-mean-square error) from reference orbits obtained by the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe analysis center using the IGS L1/L2 receiver network. At the same time, however, the L1/L5-based clock solutions showed a periodic offset from the L1/L2-based values that reflects the same variations as the tri-carrier combination discussed above.
As a common error for all receivers, the L5 line bias fully cancels in differential processing. Care must be taken though, that satellite clock offsets derived from L1/L2 carrier-phase observations cannot be employed for precise point positioning using L1/L5 measurements without explicit consideration of the inter-frequency carrier-phase bias. Likewise, efforts to correct second order ionospheric effects through the use of triple-frequency measurements are likely to suffer from an imperfect knowledge of the L5 bias and its variation with time.
Whereas some of the proposed ideas for triple-frequency processing may be difficult to materialize at present, a better characterization of the SVN62 L5 signal will certainly help to exploit the available benefits of the new signal and to establish refined processing schemes for scientific and other demanding applications. A continued monitoring of the L5 line bias and its variation with time is therefore deemed necessary and should be supported by a large number of suitably equipped tri-band GNSS monitoring stations.
— Oliver Montenbruck, Andre Hauschild (DLR/German Space Operations Center), Peter Steigenberger (Technische Universität München)
Richard B. Langley (University of New Brunswick)
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to Tom Stansell and Col. David Goldstein from the GPS Wing for early discussions and their independent assessment and interpretation of the SVN62 triple-frequency carrier-phase data.
Equipment
The CONGO network makes use of JavadTriumph Delta-G2T/G3TH and LeicaGRX1200+GNSS GNSS receivers for tracking GPS signals on the L1, L2, and L5 frequencies. The stations are equipped with TrimbleZephyr Geodetic II or LeicaAX1203+GNSS and AR25R3 antennas.
Further Reading
“The WAAS L5 Signal: An Assessment of Its Behavior and Potential End Use,” by H. Rho and R.B. Langley in GPS World, Vol. 20, No. 5, May 2009, pp. 42–50.
“Using Multi-Frequency for GPS Positioning and Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring” by Y.-H. Tsai, F.-R. Chang, W.-C. Yang, and C.-L. Ma in Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, Taipei, Taiwan, September 2–4, 2004, pp. 205–210.
“Triple Frequency Ambiguity Resolution Using GPS/Galileo” by O. Julien, M.E. Cannon, P. Alves, and G. Lachapelle in European Journal of Navigation, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2004, pp. 51–57.
“Three’s the Charm — Triple Frequency Combinations in Future GNSS” by A. Simsky in Inside GNSS, Vol. 1, No. 5, July/August 2006, pp. 38–41.
“Total Electron Content Monitoring Using Triple Frequency GNSS Data: A Three-Step Approach” by J. Spits and R. Warnant in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vo. 70, No. 15, December 2008, pp. 1885–1893, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2008.03.007.
By Richard Langleuy, with an additional note by Oliver Montenbruck
The GPS Wing and its contractors have traced the cause of pseudorange errors on L1 and L2 broadcast by the newest GPS satellite, SVN-49, to the manner in which the L5 signal demonstration payload was added to the satellite. Signal leakage between the two input ports of the antenna coupler network for the satellite’s array of 12 helical antenna elements, reflected from the L5 filter and then transmitted, creates a second signal with a delay of approximately 30 nanoseconds, and the appearance of a multipath component.
While testing an adjustment to the signal-in-space to minimize the effect of the problem on receiver navigation solutions on Earth, the GPS Wing is interested in hearing from manufacturers and the user community concerning the different impacts of SVN-49 signals on the wide range products and applications in operation, before reaching a final decision on what to do with the satellite prior to setting it healthy.
The seventh modernized GPS Block IIR satellite was launched on March 24, 2009. Called SVN-49, its sequence number in the long line of GPS satellites, or PRN01, after its pseudorandom noise code identifier, this satellite is special. In addition to the equipment required to transmit the legacy GPS C/A-code and P(Y)-code signals and the new civil L2C-code and military M-code signals on the standard L1 (1575.42 MHz) and L2 (1227.6 MHz) frequencies, SVN-49 carries an L5 demonstration payload. L5 is the new civil signal to be transmitted on 1176.45 MHz by Block IIF and succeeding generations of GPS satellites.
The demo payload was included to claim the frequency, which was allocated by the International Telecommunication Union before the August 26, 2009, deadline. The deadline had been imposed seven years earlier when the GPS Joint Program Office (the forerunner of the GPS Wing) applied for the frequency. The Block IIF program schedule had slipped a bit and as a safeguard (and one which eventually saved the day), the demo payload was developed and assigned to SVN-49.
Shortly after the L1/L2 system on SVN-49 was activated on March 28, it became clear that the satellite had a small problem. The pseudorange data obtained by U.S. Air Force Space Command’s 2nd Space Operations Squadron (2 SOPS) monitor stations had larger than normal errors. Typically, the errors have a random characteristic, with a mean of zero and a peak-to-peak variation of two meters or so. But the SVN-49 ionosphere-corrected errors reached a level of about four meters and when they were plotted against the elevation angle of the satellite as viewed at each monitor station, a clear trend emerged (see Figure 1).
FIGURE 1. Ionospheric-refraction-corrected SVN4-9 pseudorange residuals from data collected at 2 SOPS monitor stations (courtesy GPS Wing).
Although larger than normal, the errors still fell within the accuracy tolerances specified for GPS signals. Nevertheless, the anomalous behavior of SVN-49’s signals was a cause of concern, and the GPS Wing and its contractors mounted efforts to find the cause.
Payload Source. They traced the source of the problem to the manner in which the L5 demo payload was added to the satellite. To understand the problem, we need to examine how the L1 and L2 signals are transmitted by a GPS satellite.
A primary and defining characteristic of GPS signals is that the received signal power should be approximately the same at any location on the Earth’s surface within view of the satellite. In other words, we should receive about the same signal power when a GPS satellite is overhead (and closer to us) as when it is low on the horizon (and further away). Any major variation in signal level seen by a receiver is typically due to the gain pattern of the receiver’s antenna.
To achieve a uniform power density at the Earth’s surface, a GPS satellite uses an array of 12 helical antenna elements, with an inner ring of four elements and an outer ring of eight, fed by an antenna coupler network (see Figure 2). The L1 and L2 signals are fed into the coupler through one of its two input ports: port J1. The inner ring of elements transmits most of the L1 and L2 power from J1 with a broad pattern, while the outer ring transmits a sharper pattern but with a weaker signal and a different phase. The net effect of this arrangement is to reduce the radiated power from the inner ring as seen at high elevation angles and boost it for lower elevation angles thereby achieving an almost uniform power density.
FIGURE 2. L-band antenna element locations (courtesy GPS Wing).
The antenna coupler’s other input port, J2, is used on SVN-49 to feed the L5 signal to the antenna array after first passing through a filter and a 162-inch (411-centimeter) cable. Most of the power from J2 goes to the outer ring, with less going to the inner ring — the inverse of the power distribution from J1. This is why initial reports of L5 signal acquisition noted its high directivity with much weaker signals at low elevation angles compared with the L1 and L2 signals. But this behavior was expected.
Not expected was the effect of the L5 filter and its associated cable run on the L1 and L2 signals. It turns out that some of the L1 and L2 signal from J1 exits the J2 port, is reflected from the L5 filter, and then is transmitted from the J2 port with a delay of approximately 30 nanoseconds. With hindsight, the J1 to J2 signal leakage and reflection from the L5 filter should have been prevented.
On the ground, a receiver sees both the direct signal and the weaker reflected signal, which looks like a multipath component. The GPS Wing and its contractors have attempted to model the effect of the reflected signal on GPS receiver measurements. According to their models, if the direct and reflected L1 signals are in phase at the zenith, then 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, due to the drop in power level of the reflected signal, reaching zero at an elevation angle of about 42 degrees, corresponding to a null in the antenna pattern and then rising slightly as the elevation angle drops to zero (see Figure 3).
FIGURE 3. Model of the differences between the SVN-49 L1 delayed (multipath) and direct signals (courtesy GPS Wing).
P(Y), L2, and L2C. The same error behavior is expected for L1 P(Y)-code pseudoranges. Maximum L2 P(Y)-code pseudorange errors are modeled to be zero if the direct and reflected L2 signals are in quadrature, or to have maximum values of about plus 0.95 meters if the direct and reflected signals have the same phase, and minus 1.1 meters if they have the opposite phase. Ground tests should confirm which of the three possibilities describes the actual signals. The L2C signal is expected to behave in a similar manner to the L2 P(Y) signal.
If ionosphere-free pseudoranges are computed from the L1 and L2 pseudoranges, the maximum errors are predicted to be 4.14, 2.66, and 5.84 meters for the quadrature, in-phase, and opposite-phase L2 direct and reflected signal possibilities.
The models also predict an effect on carrier-phase measurements, but these are very much smaller: a maximum error of 6.8 millimeters on L1 and 4.8 millimeters on L2.
It is not possible to fully fix the problem. The GPS Wing and its contractors are looking at ways to minimize the effect of the problem on receiver navigation solutions. One
experiment under assessment is to adjust the broadcast navigation message ephemeris of the satellite by placing the antenna phase center about 152 meters above the actual position of the satellite, while compensating with a satellite clock offset. Such navigation message adjustments reduce the peak-to-peak variation of the error by about a half; they do not eliminate it.
Status Quo? Another possibility is to broadcast the signal as is, without attempts to compensate for the error. It would then be up to the user to determine how best to use the signals. Initial indications show that certain receivers with advanced multipath mitigation correlators can essentially filter out much of the multipath component (see Narrow Correlators Screen Error section below). Receivers with standard correlators could use the SNV-49 signals but assign a higher uncertainty to the measurements when they are combined with those from other satellites.
The GPS Wing is interested in hearing from manufacturers and the user community concerning the impact of SVN-49 signals on products and applications before coming to a final decision on what to do with the satellite before setting it healthy, and a briefing and interview process has begun to obtain that information. The decision is expect by mid-September.
— Richard B. Langley, University of New Brunswick
Narrow Correlators Screen Error
The typical variation of SVN-49 multipath errors over time is illustrated in Figure 4 for semi-codeless P(Y)-code measurements on the L1 and L2 frequency from a commercial test receiver near Munich, Germany. SVN-49 was visible for roughly 6 hours at this site and reached a peak elevation angle of 80 degrees. The errors are most pronounced on L1 where they vary between –0.5 meters near the horizon and +1 meter near the center of the pass. L2, in contrast, is notably less affected. Here, multipath errors caused by signal reflections in the satellite are well below 0.5 meters in amplitude and cannot be clearly distinguished from local multipath at the receiver site.
FIGURE 4. Typical SNV-49 multipath errors for semi-codeless P(Y)-code tracking on L1 (top) and L2 (bottom) from a conventional correlator (using JAVAD GNSS Triumph receivers.)
While the example shown in Figure 4 is representative for many receivers currently tracking the new GPS satellite, a few receivers are able to filter out the satellite multipath component due to the use of special multipath-mitigation techniques. While implementation details are mostly proprietary, it is commonly known that strobe or double-delta correlators can effectively counteract short-range multipath when using an extremely narrow correlator spacing. The effectiveness of such techniques is shown in Figure 5 for C/A-code and L2C-code tracking by the same test receiver. Obviously, multipath errors are well below the thermal noise in this case and the measurement errors can hardly be distinguished from those of other GPS satellites.
FIGURE 5. SVN49 multipath errors for C/A-code (top) and L2C-code (bottom) tracking using special multipath-mitigation techniques with 20-nanosecond correlator spacing (using JAVAD GNSS Triumph receivers.)
From a practical point of view, users will probably have to decide on their own whether to employ receivers with advanced multipath-mitigation capabilities, whether to apply elevation-angle-dependent measurement corrections (primarily for L1 code measurements), or whether to simply accept the moderate degradation of the SVN-49 measurements. In view of the wide variety of receivers in use and considering their varied applications, a unique solution to the SVN-49 problem is probably not feasible, and care should be taken before applying a priori “corrections” that might cause more harm than good.
(Editor’s Note: The data used to track the anomalies of SVN-49 were gathered using JAVAD GNSS Triumph receivers.)
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.
