Galileo-supported E112 will result in faster response times and more lives saved. (Image: EUSPA)
As of March 17, all smartphones sold in the European Union must be leveraging Galileo signals in addition to other GNSS for calls to the European 112 (E112) emergency number.
Using Galileo enhances pinpointing locations of 112 calls in Europe, resulting in faster response times and more lives saved, according to the EU Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA).
The 112 emergency number is operational in nearly all EU Member States, as well as other countries. People in danger can call it 24/7 to reach the fire brigade, medical assistance and the police.
Most calls to the 112 emergency number are placed from mobile phones. These calls already support the sending of location information to emergency services. However, this information was not based on GNSS capabilities until recently.
Three years ago, the Commission Delegated Regulation anticipated measures to take advantage of GNSS and Wi-Fi location capabilities in smartphones placed on the European Union market, starting March 17.
GNSS versus cell-ID
Until now, the 112 caller’s location information was established through identification technology based on the coverage area of a cellular network tower (cell-ID). The average accuracy of this information varies from two to 10 kilometers, which can lead to significant search errors following emergency calls.
By contrast, GNSS location information pinpoints the call within a few meters. This level of accuracy will have a major impact in terms of response times, ultimately allowing for quicker intervention in emergency situations.
Galileo 112 rollout
The ability for 112 to communicate a caller’s location to emergency services automatically is already being rolled out. The protocol — Advanced Mobile Location (AML) — is being deployed across the European Union. When a caller dials 112 from their smartphone, AML uses the phone’s integrated functionalities and data from Galileo to accurately pinpoint the caller’s location and transmit it to a dedicated endpoint, usually a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), which makes the caller location available to emergency responders in real time.
According to the European Emergency Number Association (EENA), at least 18 EU Member States have already completed AML deployment, while others are in the process of doing so. This implementation is because of EU initiatives and projects such as the Help 112 project, which was set up to evaluate the merits of handset-based technologies in improving the location of emergency callers.
ADVA has released new software that extends its Oscilloquartz timing assurance technology to synchronization networks using Network Time Protocol (NTP).
ADVA’s Ensemble Sync Director management system provides assurance control, helping mission-critical services across many industries that depend on reliable and accurate NTP timing.
The new NTP capabilities are extended from ADVA’s robust Oscilloquartz Precision Time Protocol (PTP) product range and supported by Syncjack GNSS monitoring. They also leverage multiple form factors with redundant synchronization devices, multiple holdover options and versatile multi-technology gateways between GNSS, PTP and NTP, ensuring robust, scalable and highly resilient NTP timing architectures.
“Despite the availability of PTP, NTP remains the most widely used time synchronization protocol,” said Gil Biran, GM of Oscilloquartz, ADVA. “It’s applied in many legacy networks as well as new IoT (internet of things) applications. What’s more, the sophistication of NTP timing is increasing, while the NTP protocol itself remains unchanged. Now we’re enabling our customer to deploy robust, reliable and secure NTP implementations built on our unique expertise and experience in delivering assured synchronization.”
ADVA uses a combination of NTP architecture and highly accurate GNSS timing backed up with PTP timing domains.
Because ADVA’s products now support assured NTP technology, they offer customers virtually unlimited scale, Biran said. “With hardware-implemented NTP functionality, even the smallest SFP (small-form factor pluggable) NTP server can support up to 500,000 transactions per second.”
To ensure NTP delivery is able to withstand a broad range of risk scenarios, ADVA’s resilient synchronization solution is engineered for both device and network redundancy. It features multiple backup options such as PTP- and GNSS-delivered time, as well as a variety of oscillator solutions that allow different levels of holdover.
Comprehensive monitoring by ADVA’s Ensemble Sync Director management system helps guarantee the levels of performance required for time-critical network applications. Designed from the bottom up to support continuous assessment and assured timing precision, it automatically responds to any issues before applications can be disturbed by timing inaccuracies.
ADVA’s solutions also offer centralized GNSS monitoring and assurance, protecting timing networks from vulnerabilities, including jamming and spoofing attacks.
Customers can build NTP-based networks today and switch to PTP with one click, commented Nir Laufer, vice president of product line management at Oscilloquartz, ADVA. “Our customers no longer need to hope for the best from their NTP servers,” Laufer said. “With real-time GNSS monitoring and comprehensive probing and analysis of timing quality, they can rest assured that their synchronization services have the highest levels of accuracy, integrity, availability and scale.”
U.S. forces have detected Russian jamming of GPS signals in the Ukraine region, according to Breaking Defense. But Pentagon officials say the jamming has not affected U.S. support operations.
U.S. reconnaissance aircraft have detected jamming over the Black Sea, but when asked about Russian jamming, a U.S. Space Command spokesperson told Breaking Defense, “There are no impacts to U.S. and Allied forces in Europe at this time.”
Ensures safe operations through reliable, robust and continuous positioning with GNSS+INS integration
Hexagon | Veripos has expanded its inertial solution SPAN GNSS+INS technology from NovAtel, also part of Hexagon, to dynamic positioning (DP) applications and vessels.
SPAN technology delivers a deeply coupled GNSS and inertial navigation system (INS) that provides robust, reliable and continuous centimeter-level positioning for operators to maintain safety and maximize uptime.
With a GNSS+INS solution, DP vessels can bridge outages in GNSS tracking and through short periods of radio-frequency interference, jamming or spoofing.
Veripos is a leader in offshore high-precision positioning, delivering reliable and trustworthy GNSS solutions such as the LD900 receiver, PPP correction services and positioning visualization software. This expertise is demonstrated through SPAN technology’s deep coupling of GNSS and inertial measurements.
Deep coupling describes how inertial measurements enhance the signal tracking for GNSS solutions, leading to improved resiliency against GNSS outages and enabling rapid reacquisition in case of interruptions. SPAN technology builds system robustness against potential signal outages, interference or disruptions while optimizing operational efficiency.
“The robust positioning, heading, velocity and attitude measurements generated from a deeply coupled GNSS and inertial solution like SPAN technology is a game-changer to dynamic positioning operations,” said David Russell, marine segment portfolio manager at Hexagon’s Autonomy & Positioning division. “SPAN technology has a proven track record of bridging outages, enabling rapid reacquisition of signals, and building a reliable and robust positioning system. It’s the best option for vessels to ensure an added layer of resiliency and achieve continuous centimeter-level accuracy across all conditions.”
SPAN GNSS+INS technology is compatible with commercial inertial measurement units (IMUs) and scalable with the LD900 GNSS receiver, Quantum visualization software and APEX correction services.
The surveying profession is intrinsically involved with many functions of today’s communities and environment. When we take a closer look at the roles we play, the surveyor is usually found in the middle. Here are a few examples.
For new developments and infrastructure, surveying takes place after a client decides to begin a project. Site data must be collected, drafted and presented to the client, engineers and architects for design.
Upon completion of the engineering design, the surveyor provides layout services for the construction company to build the structure.
Once the improvements are completed, the surveyor provides surveys as well as record drawings for confirmation of construction to satisfy government agencies and financial backers.
In a property dispute, the surveyor becomes the center of attention — our professional opinion determines the correct location of the subject boundary.
This responsibility also extends to the geospatial sectors within the surveying profession. Data collection is a critical step to creating and maintaining efficient geographic information system (GIS) databases that correctly depict existing infrastructure and parcel boundary layers. With the surveyor at the center of many of these duties and tasks, no wonder that we sometimes feel we have a bullseye on our backs.
Knowing how to compute the center is an important aspect of the surveyor’s duty.
However, the word center takes on a different connotation when it comes to data and objects. Properly identifying the center of specific sets of data or objects is important when working with construction information and geospatial data. Properly measuring and marking the center of an installation has its challenges, so knowing how to compute the center is an important aspect of the surveyor’s duty.
Why is the center of an object important?
Every object that is definable in a two-dimensional space has a physical center. Whether the object is a regular or irregular polygon in plane geometry, there are various methods for determining its center.
Figure: Tim Burch
These figures are easy to understand and simple to solve. More complex figures require more calculations, including coordinate geometry.
Figure: Tim Burch
These examples of regular and irregular polygons have something in common: all are based upon two-dimensional space, which is flat. But what happens if we need to determine the center of a shape that does not fall on a 2D surface? What if the data being reviewed for a center resides on a spherical surface and contains diverging axes?
As surveyors, we break our work down to smaller coordinate systems to work around the fact that our data resides on a spherical surface, but some datasets require the information to remain as latitude and longitude. One dataset is population counts, otherwise known as the census.
The U.S. Census and the ‘center of population’
The U.S. Census Bureau has been at work since early colonial times. This excerpt from the bureau website explains its purpose and foundation.
The U.S. Constitution requires only that the decennial census be a population count. Since the first census in 1790, however, the need for useful information about the United States’ population and economy became increasingly evident.
The decennial census steadily expanded throughout the nineteenth century. By the turn of the century, the demographic, agricultural, and economic segments of the decennial census collected information on hundreds of topics. The work of processing these data kept the temporary Census Office open for almost all the decades following the 1880 and 1890 censuses.
Recognizing the growing complexity of the decennial census, Congress enacted legislation creating a permanent Census Office within the Department of the Interior on March 6, 1902. On July 1, 1902, the U.S. Census Bureau officially “opened its doors” under the leadership of William Rush Merriam.
Counting the citizens of the United States was one thing, but mapping them was another. Once the final count was completed and mapped, the information was used to determine a unique location: the center of population. Here is more from the Census Bureau on the calculation basis:
The concept of the center of population as used by the U.S. Census Bureau is that of a balance point. The center of population is the point at which an imaginary, weightless, rigid, and flat (no elevation effects) surface representation of the 50 states (or 48 conterminous states for calculations made prior to 1960) and the District of Columbia would balance if weights of identical size were placed on it so that each weight represented the location of one person.
More specifically, this calculation is called the mean center of population.
This sounds like an easy exercise for a room of mathematicians and mappers, right? On the contrary, my fellow geospatialists!
How do they determine the center of population?
Computing the center of population for the United States would be much easier if we existed on a two-dimensional plane, as previously discussed. Since we don’t, however, it requires a much more difficult method of calculation to get us closer to a real-world solution:
To avoid unduly complex factors in the computations, the mathematical formulae used were those that would be precise for a true sphere. On such a sphere, the north-south distances between parallels of latitude are identical and distances in degrees may be used as units of distance. On the other hand, distances between meridians on longitude lines are not constant but decrease from the equator toward the poles. However, if the length of one degree along the equator is used as the unit of measurement, then the length in degrees of an east-west line at any other latitude can be adjusted to the measurement standard by multiplying by the cosine of the latitude.
The center of population computed by the Census Bureau is the point whose latitude (𝜙) and longitude (λ) satisfy the equations:
where 𝜙𝑖, 𝜆𝑖 and 𝑤𝑖 are the latitude, longitude and population attached to the basic small units of area used in the computation.
Stated in less mathematical form, the latitude of the center of population was determined by multiplying the population of each unit of area by the latitude of its population center, then adding all these products and dividing this total by the total population of the United States. The result is the latitude of the population center.
East-west distances were measured, or computed, in substantially the same manner, but with the inclusion of a correction for latitude. For these distances, a degree of longitude at the equator was the unit of measurement. East-west distances along the equator could be measured in degrees, but any east-west degree distance north of the equator — where all the United States is located — had to be adjusted to recognize the convergence of meridians toward the poles. This adjustment required that each east-west distance, stated in degrees of longitude, be multiplied by the cosine of the latitude. This mathematical relationship is precise for a sphere and a very close approximation for the earth.
The computation required that the longitude of each of the thousands of selected points be multiplied by the cosine of the latitude of the point and by the population associated with the point. These products were added and divided by the sum of the products for the same thousands of points, each of which was obtained by multiplying the cosine of the latitude of a point by the appropriate population figure. The result was the longitude of the center of population.
(Courtesy of the Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, published November 2021)
Here is a graphic from the U.S. Census identifying significant historical events along with the westward movement of the center of population:
Image: U.S. Census Bureau
Here are the locations with corresponding latitude/longitude for the centers from 1790 to 2020:
Mean Center of Population of the United States, 1790–2020
Census year
North latitude
West longitude
Approximate location
United States
2020
37.415725
92.346525
Wright County, MO, 14.6 miles northeast of Hartville.
2010
37.517534
92.173096
Texas County, MO, 2.7 miles northeast of Plato.
2000
37.69699
91.80957
Phelps County, MO, 2.8 miles east of Edgar Springs.
1990
37.87222
91.21528
Crawford County, MO, 9.7 miles southeast of Steelville.
1980
38.13694
90.57389
Jefferson County, MO, 1/4 mile west of DeSoto.
1970
38.46306
89.70611
St. Clair County, IL, 5 miles east-southeast of Mascoutah.
1960
38.59944
89.20972
Clinton County, IL, 6-1/2 miles northwest of Centralia.
1950
38.80417
88.36889
Clay County, IL, 3 miles northeast of Louisville.
Conterminous United States
1950
38.83917
88.15917
Richland County, IL, 8 miles north-northwest of Olney.
1940
38.94833
87.37639
Sullivan County, IN, 2 miles southeast by east of Carlisle.
1930
39.06250
87.13500
Greene County, IN, 3 miles northeast of Linton.
1920
39.17250
86.72083
Owen County, IN, 8 miles south-southeast of Spencer.
1910
39.17000
86.53889
Monroe County, IN, in the city of Bloomington.
1900
39.16000
85.81500
Bartholomew County, IN, 6 miles southeast of Columbus.
1890
39.19889
85.54806
Decatur County, IN, 20 miles east of Columbus.
1880
39.06889
84.66111
Boone County, KY, 8 miles west by south of Cincinnati, OH.
1870
39.20000
83.59500
Highland County, OH, 48 miles east by north of Cincinnati.
1860
39.00667
82.81333
Pike County, OH, 20 miles south by east of Chillicothe.
1850
38.98333
81.31667
Wirt County, WV, 23 miles southeast of Parkersburg.
1840
39.03333
80.30000
Upshur County, WV, 16 miles south of Clarksburg. Upshur County was formed from parts of Barbour, Lewis, and Randolph Counties in 1851.
1830
38.96500
79.28167
Grant County, WV, 19 miles west-southwest of Morefield. Grant County was formed from part of Hardy County in 1866.
1820
39.09500
78.55000
Hardy County, WV, 16 miles east of Moorefield.
1810
39.19167
77.62000
Loudoun County, VA, 40 miles northwest by west of Washington, DC.
1800
39.26833
76.94167
Howard County, MD, 18 miles west of Baltimore. Howard County was formed from part of Anne Arundel County in 1851.
1790
39.27500
76.18667
Kent County, MD, 23 miles east of Baltimore.
Data: U.S. Census Bureau
Not to be confused with the geographic center…
The geographic center of area is the point at which the surface of the United States would balance if it were a plane of uniform weight per unit of area. That point, approximately 44.967° north latitude and 103.767° west longitude, is located west of Castle Rock in Butte County, South Dakota, as it has been since Alaska and Hawaii became states.
The geographic center of the conterminous United States (48 states and the District of Columbia) is located near Lebanon in Smith County, Kansas, at approximately 39.833º north latitude and 98.583º west longitude.
The center of population as geospatial data
The plotting of the center of population makes for an interesting study of westward expansion in early U.S. history. Once the contiguous 48 states were founded, plotting the center shifts to regional changes . The truly interesting part of these calculations and plotting for the past several centuries falls into an area of expertise called geospatial data.
While some liberties were taken early on using large, populated areas as one data point, we now can count literally every person and their geospatial location. However, it needs to be recognized that early efforts to count our population and track its center every 10 years meets the criteria for being called geospatial data. They just didn’t yet know what that meant.
Speaking of surveyors…
Here are several events and initiatives happening this month, an important month for surveyors.
2022 National Surveyors Week
National Surveyors Week was established by the National Society of Professional Surveyors as an annual event to bring public recognition to the surveying profession and the vital services surveyors provide to the advancement and betterment of human welfare.
During this week, thousands of professional surveyors throughout the country will take part in local activities designed to introduce a new generation to the profession and highlight the use of technology in their day-to-day work.
Global Surveyors’ Day 2022 will be held Monday, March 21. This annual event is a way to globally recognize groundbreakers, pioneers, individuals and the industry that has shaped our history and continues to be of great value to our communities.
2022 Global Surveyor of the Year
Image: NSPS
As part of the Global Survey Day and National Surveyors Week, every year on March 21 a professional surveying association is tasked with choosing a Global Surveyor of the Year. For 2022, the National Society of Professional Surveyors has been selected to choose a person with a historical surveying background for this prestigious honor. After thorough consideration, NSPS has chosen Benjamin Banneker (1731–1806) for 2022 Global Surveyor of the Year.
The selection was brought before the NSPS Board of Directors during our Spring 2021 meeting and passed by a majority vote. While Banneker’s career as a surveyor was limited in time and experience, his additional contributions to math, science, astronomy and publication of a groundbreaking almanac have earned him a significant place in American history.
We also selected Banneker because of his ability to overcome the adversity of being a free Black man in early colonial America. Through much self-teaching, he was able to excel at the contributions previously listed in a period when Blacks were not accepted for their educational abilities.
The selection committee chose Banneker over the three presidents who are famously chiseled on Mount Rushmore and Henry David Thoreau, an author who also surveyed to fund his writing career. The committee felt that Banneker’s contributions not just to the surveying profession made him deserving of this honor, but considered his total body of work created when Black men were not generally accepted as capable human beings. Our world needs more people like Benjamin Banneker and would be a better place because of them.
No time like the present to promote our geospatial professions
Surveying and geospatial careers are more important than ever, so examples like the center of population help depict applications that us these skills. Please consider promoting our wonderful professions during these events and throughout the year. The profession you promote may provide an opportunity to bring new faces and ideas to our ranks very soon.
Partnership to bring integrated precision GNSS solutions to automotive and industrial customers
Swift Navigation, a San Francisco-based GNSS firm, and Taoglas, a provider of internet of things (IoT) solutions, have announced a strategic partnership to integrate their technologies to deliver pre-tested, low-risk, high-precision GNSS solutions to a broad customer base.
The Taoglas EDGE RTK Starter Kit has high-precision GNSS with U.S. 4G/3G cellular connectivity. (Photo: Taoglas)
The partnership will provide positioning solutions for automotive, micromobility, delivery, robotic and industrial customers. Specifically, the Taoglas EDGE Locate IoT platform and EDGE RTK Starter Kit now come pre-integrated with Swift’s Skylark precise positioning service.
Bringing pre-integrated, high-accuracy positioning products to these industries in an easy-to-implement solution will greatly improve the accuracy of the positioning data delivered, the companies state.
Together, Swift and Taoglas deliver high-precision GNSS solutions to customers around the globe by utilizing Taoglas’ IoT platforms and Swift’s Skylark seamless, cloud-based corrections — available in advanced SSR (state space representation) or industry-standard formats. The pre-integration allows customers to bypass module-level validation, integration and engineering efforts with an out-of-the-box solution.
“Swift Navigation is excited to begin this partnership with Taoglas and align our visions of making accurate positioning easily accessible across industries,” said Swift CEO Timothy Harris. “We look forward to offering our products as an integrated solution to make it easier for customers across the globe to benefit from affordable and accurate positioning.”
“We are delighted to be partnering with Swift Navigation to enable companies to overcome the challenges of delivering their high-precision positioning-based IoT solutions.,” said Ronan Quinlan, co-founder and joint CEO of Taoglas. “Our worldwide team of design, development, test and manufacturing engineers is dedicated to delivering IoT software and hardware solutions on time, the first time, for leading technology enterprises.”
Additional products will soon be available from Swift, Taoglas and their channel partners. Customers have the ability to pre-order now by contacting [email protected] or [email protected].
As a new member of the DIFI Consortium, WORK Microwave will help advance the digitization of satellite communication ground technologies
WORK Microwave, a leading European manufacturer of advanced satellite communications equipment, today announced that it has joined the Digital Intermediate Frequency Interoperability (DIFI) Consortium, an independent space-industry group that formed to advance interoperability in satellite and ground-system networks.
As a new member of DIFI Consortium, WORK Microwave joins a growing roster of leading organizations in the space industry committed to bringing innovation to the digital transformation of space, satellite and related technologies.
“With the new space boom and LEO constellations emerging, digitization of the ground segment plays a key role in scalability and sustainability,” said Jörg Rockstroh, director of business development and digital products at WORK Microwave. “Being a prime supplier of satellite communications equipment, WORK Microwave actively supports standardization and other industry-wide efforts to simplify the ecosystem. Joining the DIFI Consortium is an excellent opportunity to help shape the future digitization of the satellite communication ground segment.”
WORK Microwave is an early adopter of new technologies, including digital signal processing, modem infrastructures, optical communication and Q-/V-band equipment. As a long-term contributor to industry standardization, the company has a history of helping advance satellite communication ground technology.
“The DIFI Consortium’s goal is to provide a simple, open, interoperable digital IF/RF standard that replaces the natural interoperability of analog IF signals and helps prevent vendor lock-in,” said Stuart Daughtridge, chair of DIFI Consortium. “We welcome WORK Microwave to the group and look forward to seeing how they will contribute to moving interoperability forward across space networks.”
An off-the-shelf PC provides the computing power for complex GNSS driving simulations. (Photo: Racelogic)
By Julian Thomas Managing Director, Racelogic
Driving simulators are commonly used by vehicle manufacturers to expedite the test and development process of their many electronic systems. This not only saves the considerable time and expense of using a real car on a test track, but it is, of course, significantly more environmentally friendly.
LabSat simulators are used by many leading technology companies and car manufacturers to develop and verify the performance of their new products containing GNSS receivers. These tests are performed using either a pre-recorded or an artificially generated RF signal. This RF signal contains the combination of multiple satellite signals, which are decoded by the GNSS engine, tracking the artificial satellites as though they were real. Static or moving scenarios can be generated, and the user can select parameters to suit their own application, such as time, date and available constellations.
Julian Thomas Managing Director Racelogic
Recently, an automotive LabSat customer had a specific requirement to synchronize a GNSS receiver with the real-time trajectory data generated by one of their driving simulators. This was for a hardware-in-the-loop test rig where a human driver would navigate a route around a virtual test track, while the normal electronic systems reacted as if the vehicle were being driven around a real environment.
The challenge in this customer’s application was that the time delay between the trajectory coming from the simulator and the generation of the corresponding GNSS signals had to be less than 100 ms. This low latency was necessary to achieve realistic synchronization between the driver’s inputs and the resulting output from the GNSS-based device under test.
Traditionally, low-latency real-time simulators use bulky expensive hardware that relies on power-hungry field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) to create the necessary satellite signals. However, due to the inevitable tick of Moore’s Law, and with some clever optimizations, your entry-level desktop PC now packs more than enough punch to simulate multiple constellations and signals with very low latency.
Using a standard PC to do the heavy lifting means that the hardware required to output the simulated signal is much easier to obtain, can be a lot simpler, and is considerably more cost effective. For example, an 8-core, 3-Ghz Intel i7 processor can generate the signals from 20 satellites in real-time, which normally is sufficient to simulate all but the most complex scenarios.
Our LabSat SatGen software has been continuously developed and optimized during the past 15 years, so it did not take us long to enable the reception of an NMEA trajectory stream with a latency of less than 100 ms. We then streamed this simulated data via USB to our LabSat Real-Time, which generated a corresponding RF signal that can be connected directly to the RF input of any modern GNSS engine.
Using a PC to generate the signals does not mean a loss of fidelity, with the resulting output achieving a repeatable position of less than 10 cm, while the trajectory data can be received at up to 100 Hz.
The resulting solution can take trajectory data from any kind of simulator that has an API to obtain real-time data, such as many popular off-the-shelf driving and flight software simulators, and use this to provide a real-time signal that can be utilized by the GNSS device under test.
Our future development roadmap includes synthesizing external signals, such as CAN-based sensors or inertial measurement units, and then synchronizing these signals with the incoming trajectory. With the amazing power of a modern PC, we are finding that this kind of complex simulation is now much more cost effective and easier to achieve.
Russia’s space agency Roscosmos is suspending cooperation with Europe on space launches from the Kourou spaceport in French Guiana, including future Galileo satellite launches.
As reported by Rueters, Roscosmos chief Dmitry Rogozin said Saturday the action is in response to Western sanctions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“In response to EU sanctions against our companies, Roscosmos is suspending cooperation with European partners on space launches from Kourou, and is withdrawing its technical staff…from French Guiana,” Rogozin said in a post on his Telegram channel.
Russia’s decision will have “no consequences on the continuity and quality of Galileo and Copernicus services,” EU Commissioner Thierry Breton said in a statement. “This decision does not call into question the continuity of the development of these infrastructures either.”
“We are also ready to act with determination, together with the Member States, to protect these critical infrastructures in the event of an attack.”
“We will, in due course, take all the necessary decisions in response and resolutely pursue the development of the second generation of these two sovereign space infrastructures of the Union,” Breton said. “We are also prepared to act determinedly together with the member states to protect these critical infrastructures in case of an attack, and to continue the development of Ariane 6 and VegaC to guarantee the strategic autonomy with regard to carrier rockets.”
The Galileo program had already planned to shift to using Ariane 6 rockets for satellite launches. The launcher is undergoing the final stages of development, led by prime contractor ArianeGroup.
From 2023 onward, the remaining Galileo Batch 3 satellites will be launched with the new Ariane 62 launch vehicle, a variant of Ariane 6 with two strap-on solid boosters.
The most recent Galileo satellite launch took place on Dec. 5, 2021, using Soyuz launcher VS-26 to carry the first pair of Galileo Batch 3 satellites into orbit. The announcement will delay a Soyuz launch of two more Galileo satellites scheduled for April from French Guiana; a third pair of Galileo satellites was scheduled to launch in autumn on another Soyuz.
Galileo launch 11 from Europe’s spaceport in French Guyana. (Photo: ESA/CNES/Arianespace)
Taoglas announced its smallest 9-in-1 combination antenna with dual-band GNSS and high-performance 5G/4G, the Taoglas MA990 Guardian.
Taoglas made the announcement at Mobile World Congress (MWC) Barcelona 2022, which takes place Feb. 28–March 3; Taoglas is exhibiting at booth #5E32.
The Taoglas MA990 Guardian antenna is a small 9-in-1 combination antenna with dual-band GNSS (L1/L2) and globally supported cellular (5G/4G). It has been designed to support emerging market demand for modules that cover specific 5G/4G bands.
For example, two of its eight cellular MIMO antennas cover from 600 to 6,000 MHz, while another two are optimized for 3,000 to 6,000 MHz to cover high-band 5G and C-band/CBRS applications. The product is designed to operate on all carrier networks globally and is future-proofed to work with latest 5G routers in the market.
Housed in a low-profile, robust, IP67-rated waterproof, adhesive-mount external enclosure, the MA990 is designed for space-constrained, mission-critical applications, including asset and vehicle tracking, first- responder vehicles and high-definition video sources such as surveillance cameras.
The Taoglas MA990 also is highly customizable, including for any variation of antennas below 9-in-1 and the addition of Wi-Fi/single-band GNSS.
Surveyors used ComNav equipment to construct a hospital in Burkina Faso. (Photo: ComNav)
Line of sight to GNSS satellites is sometimes obscured by buildings and trees, which also cause multipath, as does nearby water. These conditions require an RTK receiver with multipath mitigation. Often, surveying must occur on property corners or on uneven ground, where it is hard to place surveying equipment. For these reasons, reliability and accuracy are essential, especially in harsh environments. Ground control points require 1-2mm accuracy and topo surveys 1-2cm accuracy. Surveying for AEC also requires software that processes digital files.
ComNav has focused on GNSS core technology innovation and applications for 10 years. The Quantum III technology includes algorithms to suppress multipath and supports all GNSS constellations, allowing the users to acquire and keep RTK centimeter accuracy even in harsh environments. The built-in tilt IMU will help where the exact location to be surveyed is hard to reach. For example, the T300 Plus and N Series GNSS receivers support a maximum pole tilt of 60° and keep the compensation accuracy within 2.5cm, making the field work more efficient, convenient and reliable.
With the Survey Master software’s stake-out points, users can import DXF or DWG files directly and the software can stake out the point, line and surface in CAD.
In April 2021, the government of Burkina Faso used ComNav GNSS T300Plus to provide ground control points survey for the construction of a hospital.
The land security and topographic surveying were completed within only six days, less than half the time that had been scheduled for those tasks. This greatly expedited the construction of the hospital and helped with the fight against infectious diseases, including COVID-19.
In recent years, the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry has benefited greatly from growing GNSS accuracy, smaller laser scanners, UAVs, and more efficient management, collaboration and visualization software. We asked five companies operating in this space to address three questions:
What are the key challenges of surveying for the AEC industry today, compared with traditional boundary surveying and other types of surveying?
Which of your products are particularly relevant for this kind of surveying?
What was a recent AEC surveying success story?
In the following articles, five companies briefly describe their experience with the AEC industry:
