A pair of Galileo satellites are now fully fueled and mated together atop the upper stage that will haul them most of the way up to their final orbit. The launch is planned for the evening of October 12, reports the European Space Agency.
Technicians donned protective suits to fill the two satellites’ tanks with hydrazine fuel, used to maintain the satellites’ attitude and orbital position during their planned 12-year lifetime.
Rather than carry a significant amount of extra fuel to insert themselves into their planned orbits – like typical telecommunications satellites or Galileo’s US GPS equivalents – the Galileo satellites are transported to medium orbit by the Fregat fourth stage of their Soyuz ST-B launcher.
Doing without this extra fuel and orbital thrusters means that Galileo satellites are small enough to be launched in pairs aboard the Soyuz – or in fours by the new Ariane 5 variant currently being prepared.
The Galileo satellites are attached to a special dispenser that holds them securely in position during launch, before pyrotechnic mechanisms release them sideways in opposite directions once their set 23 222 km altitude is reached.
The aluminum plates on each side of the satellites are temporary additions to protect their delicate solar panels; these will be removed later.
Galileo’s fit-check with dispenser (credit: ESA).
The combined satellites, dispenser and Fregat upper stage will now be carefully checked ahead of the next major milestone, the fitting of the protective launch fairing on Thursday.
The mission’s satellite launch readiness review will begin at the start of the following week. If that goes well, the combined ‘Upper Composite’ will be moved from the Fregat Integration Building to the launch pad, where it will be attached to the Soyuz launcher.
Completing Galileo’s validation phase
The launch will see these two new Galileo In-Orbit Validation satellites joining the first two that have been orbiting since October 2011.
This is a significant milestone for Europe’s Galileo programme because four is the minimum number required for navigational fixes, enabling full system testing whenever they are all visible in the sky.
This validation phase will be followed by the deployment of more satellites and ground segment components to achieve ‘Full Operational Capability’. After that, users on the ground can exploit the services.
The first four Galileo satellites were built by a consortium led by EADS Astrium, Germany, with Astrium producing the platforms and Astrium UK responsible for the payloads. They were assembled and tested in Rome by Thales Alenia Space.
Galileo IOV in orbit (artist’s rendering, courtesy of ESA.)
The two BeiDou-2/Compass satellites launched on 18 September are now in their circular medium Earth orbits and have started transmitting navigation signals. Several stations participating in the International GNSS Service’s Multi-GNSS Experiment as well as some in the Cooperative Network for GNSS Observation started tracking the satellites on 26 September.
From NORAD/JSpOC, we have the following orbits for the new satellites:
Satellite M5 is using PRN code 13 and M6 is using PRN code 14.
A plot showing the argument of latitude vs. longitude of ascending node for the BeiDou-2/Compass MEO satellites, including the M1/C30 test satellite, can be downloaded.
The plane spacing for the operational satellites is about 120 degrees. The slot spacings seem to be about 45 degrees.
By Ruizhi Chen, Yiwu Wang, Ling Pei, Yuwei Chen, and Kirsi Virrantaus.
A simple and flexible smartphone-based 3D navigation solution uses geocoded images that require neither 3D modeling nor real-time rendering of 3D scenes, making it energy-efficient and cost-effective. Real-world images can be also replaced with screen snapshots of the 3D scenes rendered from existing 3D models. Field tests demonstrate energy efficiency, consuming roughly half the power of a model-based solution with real-time rendering of 3D scenes.
The article “Drone Hack” in the August issue of GPS World and Todd Humphreys’ testimony before a House Subcommittee overseeing the Department of Homeland Security cited results of a spoofing experiment Humphreys conducted with University of Texas colleagues, demonstrating that a drone helicopter, navigating principally on the civil GPS signal, could have its vertical channel spoofed, causing it to descend. Reaction, quite strong from some directions, prompted one observer to investigate whether a “sky-is-falling” perception is fully warranted. Partly for that reason, emails started circulating among various individuals, including some directly involved in the design. When first brought into the group I was not expecting to be the one to summarize, but, as events unfolded, I’m called on to act as techno-sleuth.
Let me first state the conclusion: the sky is not falling. That’s not intended to discourage corrective measures — and it is immediately acknowledged that definitive answers remain unresolved (detailed configuration of the Kalman filter, state estimates, weighting of the baro altimeter). But this much is clear: conditions weren’t 100 percent normal. From here I’ll cover the supporting facts, followed by possible corrective measures. Discussion will be technical, without any hint of administrative authority or approval.
Key revelations came to light in discussion with the chief scientist of Adaptive Flight, who designed the drone’s nav system software and operator interface.
“The reason Todd and his team were able to modify the vertical position of the aircraft even though altitude aiding is actually coming from the pressure sensor,” he stated, “is that the GPS vertical velocity was being used. The spoofed GPS position (altitude error) was actually being ignored.”
We might call that a hybrid mode, using one part of GPS and ignoring another. Selectivity isn’t intrinsically unwise — we need options to reject some data without automatically rejecting other information — but, with GPS-derived altitude ignored for any reason, why not reject all vertical-channel influence from GPS? In fact that’s consistent with normal operation; disabling (again a quote) “GPS vertical velocity as an aid … can be done with a command from the control station (and saved as default for the aircraft).”
Well, then, the demo doesn’t reflect 100 percent normal procedure. Relief: our drones aren’t as vulnerable as we thought, and the fear expressed in various publications can be reduced.
For further support of that conclusion, additional major information from that same designer includes a quote that “The baro altimeter is used to provide a vertical position discrete update to the Kalman filter. This is true for both normal and GPS-denied modes. There are no (automatic) divergence tests in this system. There is some outlier detection/rejection on the GPS (which probably was not triggered in the spoofing tests, but I haven’t seen the data). There is nothing on the baro altimeter.” Finally, he says “it is a trivial change from the control station to make the vertical channel ignore GPS in normal mode by turning off the down GPS velocity measurement update; it would still fly fine.”
The combined weight of all that can justifiably reduce the level of concern — but not all the way down to zero. Now that all this happened, the subject of prevention needs to be addressed.
As Todd Humphreys correctly noted, without spoofing but with existing errors, GPS position updating cannot adequately mitigate low-cost IMU drift.
High-end IMUs bring budget issues (and their motion-sensitive errors limit performance anyway). Spectrum and signal quality is seen by many as an important consideration; residual monitoring is another. For the latter to be effective, the existing (loose) coupling needs upgrading (loose coupling wastes information content; the loss is greatest when GPS coverage is marginal). Extent of refinement (tight/ultratight/deep) and usage of carrier phase (while sidestepping its usual traps) open up a subject with much wider scope: cross-checking. I offer just a few fundamentals here.
Known data-edit capabilities available with existing provisions (for example, baro altimeter cross-checking), rather than something that “can be done” can always automatically disallow any partial influence from GPS instantly upon spoof detection, regardless of its genesis (Kalman filter bias state traceable to past history or any other source).
The step just noted generalizes to include all sensor data extant onboard, including carrier phase. The specter of huge expense for this particular step is nonessential; some receivers output raw measurements that can be put into public domain algorithms.
With access to all the raw data, every solution combination — federated and integrated — can be generated for cross-checking. In all cases, thresholds for residual testing are set with conservative assessments of sensor error statistics; this overbounding enables integrity testing to err on the side of caution (sacrificing some valid data to better ensure rejection of bad). Integrity test algorithms are likewise public domain.
I close by paraphrasing an observation offered by Mitch Narins in a LinkedIn discussion: Deter threats before they happen. With a robust non-GNSS PNT alternative, spoofing will have no affect on safety or security.
— James L. Farrell President, VIGIL, Inc. Severna Park, Maryland
GPS III SATELLITE, artist’s rendering, courtesy Lockheed Martin.
Raytheon Company and Lockheed Martin successfully completed the first launch readiness exercise for the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation GPS III satellites. The exercise is a key milestone demonstrating the team remains on schedule to achieve launch availability in 2014, the companies said.
The Lockheed Martin-built GPS III satellites and the Raytheon-developed next generation GPS operational control system, known as OCX, are critical elements of the U.S. Air Force’s effort to affordably replace aging GPS satellites while improving capability to meet the evolving demands of military, commercial and civilian users worldwide. This is the first space and ground enterprise successfully building the ground control and space vehicles by two independent prime contractors.
The launch readiness exercise, completed over a three-day period by mission operations personnel, validated the basic satellite command and control functions, tested the software and hardware interfaces and demonstrated basic on-console procedures required for space vehicle contacts during the launch and early orbit mission. The event sets the stage for the first GPS III satellite’s mission readiness timeline, which includes five short-duration exercises and six, five-day mission rehearsals leading up tolaunch.
To achieve first launch availability in the 2014 timeframe, the U.S. Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin and Raytheon contracts in January of this year to provide a Launch and Checkout Capability (LCC) for launch and early on-orbit testing of all GPS III satellites. At the heart of the LCC is Raytheon’s Launch and Checkout System that will provide satellite command and control capability, an integral part of OCX’s support of the first GPS III launch.
Rockets on the Pad
As this magazine goes to press on September 17, several GNSS satellite launches are pending, and may have already occurred by the time you read this. Launch dates this fall for GNSS satellites in the coming season are as follows, according to various, not always official, sources. Compilation courtesy of CANSPACE.
Compass M2 and M5. September 18, 18:12 UTC (speculative).
GSAT-10. Carrying a satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS) transponder for the GPS-aided geo-augmented navigation system (GAGAN), a planned implementation of a regional SBAS by the Indian government: September 21.
Compass G6. No earlier than October 1.
GPS IIF-3. October 4. Launch window: 12:10-12:29 UTC.
Galileo IOV FM3 and FM4. October 10, 18:31 UTC.
Luch-5B. For the Russian SBAS. Originally scheduled for October 15, launch has slipped to no earlier than November 1 due to an issue with the Briz-M upper stage, which caused the loss of the Telkom-3 and Ekspress-MD2 communication satellites during their launch on August 6.
GLONASS-K1 (block K2s). November 14.
The fourth Galileo flight model satellite is unloaded at Cayenne Airport in French Guiana August 17. (ESA/EADS Astrium, Raoul Kieffer)
Javad Ashjaee, founder and CEO of JAVAD GNSS, filed a September 7 letter with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concerning his company’s development of technical possibilities in GNSS filter designs and components. He stated “I hope this will be helpful in establishing realistic guidelines for the characteristics of high-precision GNSS receivers that will be used in critical applications.”
The letter reads, in part:
“We have improved our previous L1 filter and have extended the design to include all commercial GNSS bands.”
“Our filter . . . protects GPS L1, Galileo L1 and GLONASS L1 bands. It brings in all the useful signals intact and rejects out of band signals with the slope of about 12 dB/Mhz. Similarly . . . our filter . . . . protects GPS L2, GPS L5, GLONASS L2 and Galileo L5 and has slope of about 9 dB/Mhz.
“These filters not only protect GNSS signals against all LightSquared signals (10L, 10H and 10R handsets) but also from all similar signals that may appear near all commercial GNSS bands in the future. We are proud that our filters help allow better usage of these precious bands, in particular for broadband wireless communication that our country desperately needs.
“These filters apply to wideband high precision GNSS receivers and the cost is even less than earlier conventional filters. The case of narrow-band low precision receivers (e.g. Garmin) is much simpler, as has been demonstrated by GPS receivers in more than 300 million cell phones and mobile devices which are not affected by LightSquared signals. The low precision receivers (L1 C/A code only) require filter slopes 10 times less steep than those presented here and do not necessitate additional costs.”
Galileo Headquarters Moves to Prague
On September 6, the European GNSS Agency (GSA) inaugurated its new premises in Prague, Czech Republic. Previously headquartered in Brussels, the headquarters of the Galileo program moved its seat to Prague this summer, as agreed by the EU heads of state and government in December 2010.
Galileo is expected to be partly operational by the end of 2014. Two in-orbit validation (IOV) satellites will be launched in October, bringing the total in space to four, sufficient for initial check-outs. Beginning in 2013, four more Galileo satellites will be launched every six months until the network of 30 is completed in 2020.
GSA ensures security of satellites and prepares ground for new GNSS products. The agency is responsible for a number of implementation tasks for the European Satellite Navigation programmes Galileo and the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), which are managed by the European Commission. Its two main tasks are:
Security accreditation of satellites, launchers, and sites, and the operation of the Galileo Security Monitoring Centre, and
Market development for the European satellite navigation systems, such as new products and services possible using Internet access to satellite navigation data, among others.
Future Role. A European Commission (EC) proposal for revising the GNSS Regulation foresees that operational responsibility for the GNSS programmes will be gradually transferred from the EC to the GSA over the next multi-annual financial framework (2014-2020). This represents a reversal of an earlier move, or a restoration of a previous state; after delays and budget disputes with manufacturers during the tentative public-private partnership (PPP) phase, the European Commission took direct control of the Galileo program, effectively sidelining the GSA.
The transfer of responsibility will start with EGNOS in 2014, and already a number of preparatory tasks have been allocated to the GSA, including the procurement for the future operations of EGNOS.
To carry out these new functions, the GSA’s staff is expected to increase from about 60 today to more than 180 by the end of next financial framework in 2020.
Budget. The GSA has an annual budget of about €12.75 million ($16.75 million) in 2012, plus €34.4 million ($45 million) for exploitation activities.
According to European Commission calculations, a total budget of € 7 billion ($9.2 billion) is necessary to complete the deployment phase of the Galileo programmes and finance the exploitation phase of the GNSS programmes over the 2014-2020 period.
Compass Energizes China’s Economy
China’s Beidou/Compass system will spur the country’s economic development in the satellite-navigation industry, geoinformation, and location-based services, according to an article in China Daily. China’s civil navigation providers are likely to experience rapid growth during the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-15) period.
The deputy director-general of the National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation said the government is likely to introduce policies to help the geoinformation industry grow.
“In addition, the nation’s self-developed satellite navigation network, the Beidou Navigation System, will come into commercial use by the end of this year, a move that may stimulate the development of the geoinformation industry in China.”
Aviation NextGen May Show Slow ROI
An inspector from the U.S. Department of Transportation testified in Congress that benefits from the GPS-based air traffic control system Next Gen may take longer to realize than had been expected. Although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has improved its management of the modernization program, years of delays and cost over-runs have left airlines dragging their feet in turn over multibillion-dollar equipment upgrades needed for the new system to work.
The inspector stated the investment will be worth the taxpayer cost in the long run, and will produce significant safety and scheduling benefits. U.S. air travel is expected to nearly double over the next two decades, bringing an unbearable burden onto the current air traffic control system, if not significantly upgraded.
By 2020, the new system is expected to reduce delays by 38 percent compared with the current system; airlines, passengers, and taxpayers are estimated tosave $24 billion.
The FAA plans to spend $2.4 billion over the next five years on a collection of six programs evolving from an outdated, radar-based system to one that uses GPS and telecommunications advances for precision tracking, making routes more direct, eliminating many weather delays, and enabling planes to fly safely at closer distances. Once fully in place, the modernization program will save 1.4 billion gallons of fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 14 million metric tons, the FAA says.
However, planes must be equipped with new equipment at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per aircraft. NextGen doesn’t start yielding full benefits until a critical mass of planes have the new technology.
Position, navigation, and time (PNT) are essential enablers for warfighter capabilities. They are used in virtually every weapons system of the Department of Defense. The GPS system has become the ubiquitous provider of this military service. In addition, GPS is the backbone of scores of civil applications that have provided startling improvements in safety, productivity, and convenience.
Credit for this achievement should go to the thousands of developers, researchers, and operators. In particular, Air Force Space Command under the leadership of Gen. Willie Shelton has consistently recognized its global stewardship for GPS, the stealth utility.
That said, the job is far from over. New threats, needs, and challenges must be met. The essential overarching goal is PNT Assurance. While GPS is an outstanding system, there are still areas for improvement. In providing PNT assurance, what should be the highest priorities for those improvements? Of course an answer to this question could involve many aspects or dimensions. The GPS Independent Review Team (IRT) focused on a number of attributes it designated as The Big Five.
Instead of the Big Five, for the purpose of this discussion, I would like to examine three key attributes. These could be applied to GPS or any other, alternative, PNT system.
I call these three essential attributes the Three As. They are:
Availability
Affordability
Accuracy
I will discuss each briefly and then add some improvement goals for each attribute. I call these improvements my personal Druthers.
Availability of Position, Navigation and Time
Without assured PNT availability, the warfighter cannot depend on the effectiveness of his weapon systems. Neither can civilian users count on their attendant benefits. To achieve GPS availability, the first requirement is adequate satellite geometry. Fewer than four satellites in view implies that the user will not have a PNT solution. A military user in the middle of a desert does not stress this geometry problem. More difficult is warrior support in mountainous or urban terrain. The steep mountains of Afghanistan can cause availability outages exceeding 10 hours per day for the currently specified 24-satellite constellation. The Department of Homeland Security has similar challenges in urban areas. Many effects-based studies have shown that 30 active satellites plus three spares are the knee in the availability curve.
A 30-satellite constellation plus three spares (optimally distributed) greatly increases availability for the sky-challenged user. Special Operation Forces in mountainous areas or Army forces in villages have precision location and can promptly designate fleeting targets of opportunity. A 30-satellite constellation assures civilian emergency service providers that they can meet their obligations in domestic urban canyons.
There are two new GNSS programs being developed that emulate GPS, named Galileo and Compass. They have made similar availability calculations and both are nominally sized at 30 satellites or more.
To maintain GPS as the gold standard, I therefore propose my first druther:
Druther One. The Department of Defense (DoD) should define the GPS constellation to be 30 satellites plus 3 spares distributed in an optimal manner.
The second aspect of availability is that the user must be able to receive the signal. Independent advisory groups have repeatedly called for increased interference-resistant solutions for the last 14 years. The technical solutions to produce virtually jam-impervious receivers are well-known. More than 33 years ago, the GPS Joint Program Office, allied with a creative program at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, demonstrated over 100 DB of J/S or anti-jam (AJ) resistance. This is enough resistance to defeat any jammer less than 1 kW in effective power. The techniques included deep integration with inertial units, controlled reception pattern antennas (CRPA), and averaging using low-phase noise clocks. To counter the problem of blinking jammers, the CRPA should be beam steering rather than null steering. This leads us to:
Druther Two. The installed GPS user equipment in both commercial and military aircraft should be able to fly directly over a 1 kW jamming source with no effect.
This is readily achievable with technology we understand. We need not employ high anti-jam techniques in all receivers; however, both the DoD and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) need to focus on GPS jamming resistance as a requirement. That said, the developers and manufacturers still must focus on affordability for these AJ solutions (see below).
To ensure availability, and to discourage the use of enemy jammers, the U.S. government should deploy augmentation, that is, backup systems. Recently, psuedolites (ground-based transmitters of GPS ranging signals) have become a focus for augmentation. I remain deeply skeptical concerning psuedolites in a fluid battlefield situation. Psuedolites do not perform well for attributes two and three: affordability (including operational complexity and support structure) and accuracy.
Alternatively, low-cost or navigation-grade inertial units are potentially viable augmentations, and the FAA is investigating enhanced versions of distance-measuring equipment (DME) and tactical area navigation systems (TACANs). In addition, a recent study highlighted the value of an enhanced long-range navigation (eLoran) system with its high-power, low-frequency signal. These augmentation alternatives deserve further study.
Spectrum Threats. Federal Communications Commission- (FCC-) licensed jammers are an emerging threat to GPS. Somehow, a myth has grown up that the GPS band is underutilized, and that additional services should be licensed in adjacent frequency bands. With well over a billion users, the GPS spectrum is definitely not underutilized.
An example of the licensing threat is the FCC tentative approval for high-powered, terrestrial, communication transmitters in the band immediately adjacent to GPS. This band had previously been reserved for quiet communication signals from satellites (including GPS corrections). Extensive independent testing has shown that high-powered terrestrial transmitters would have an immediate and devastating effect on military receivers, aviation and commercial receivers, including those used for precision applications such as farming. Fortunately this threat has been, at least temporarily, postponed. Many inquire why GPS is so fragile that it cannot tolerate high-powered transmitters in adjacent bands. Unfortunately, because the proposed 15 kW transmitters/jammers are not those of an enemy, we cannot bomb them. An enemy jammer of such magnitude would not get off so lightly. This leads to:
Druther Three. Ensure the Federal government, particularly the FCC, maintains the frequency bands adjacent to GPS as a quiet neighborhood as they are now.
Affordability of the PNT System
All Federal discretionary programs are under enormous budget pressure. With the threat of sequestration, the DoD is particularly susceptible. The doomsday budget may be rapidly approaching.
For GPS, the most visible segment is spacecraft. Many advocate dual-launch capability, for GPS launches. Launch costs are roughly half the cost of a satellite on orbit. Thus, dual launch could eliminate 25 percent of the cost for this capability. Of course, the real issue is the total cost of a satellite operationally deployed on orbit. A triple-launch capability, or satellite size reductions compatible with more affordable space launch vehicles, will help reduce this total on-orbit cost. This leads us to:
Druther Four. Total on-orbit GPS satellite cost should be less than $175 million.
The GPS program office recently initiated an affordable satellite design study to reduce satellite cost. The affordable satellite should broadcast all GPS signals, with no extra payloads except a laser reflector (a small passive device, added for accuracy).
Additionally, the radio frequency (RF) chain should be improved to create greater efficiency with either gallium nitride power amplifiers or traveling wave tube amplifiers (TWTAs). With the 30+3 orbital configuration, military power should be specified at a 15° Earth mask angle (rather than the standard 5°), which would significantly reduce the amount of RF power required. With an affordable 30+3 SV constellation, users should easily lock on to four, full-power satellites above a 15 degree elevation mask. No flex-power capability need be included since the advantages of the few DB that flex power offers are more easily obtained with user equipment modifications. The net result of these modifications could produce a reduction of approximately 75 percent in the power needs of an operational GPS satellite. Such reductions generate significant savings in satellite weight and cost, as well as making dual or triple launch much more easily achievable.
The military GPS user equipment (UE) program has come under considerable and warranted criticism because military UE does not afford the user the flexibility nor ease-of-use found in less-expensive commercial and/or civil GPS receivers. The current UE program office initiative to demonstrate the advanced design of front-end chips seems a good initial step. In addition to demonstrating representative military applications, the JPO should develop a simple, intuitive, GUI interface similar to existing commercial handheld devices such as Apple, Magellan, Trimble, Garmin, or TomTom. Further, to attain affordable jam resistance, the CRPA costs must be reduced using digital electronics and commercial practices.
This background leads to:
Druther Five. The military GPS user equipment (UE) program should include front-end interfaces conversant with the best commercial devices including small handheld receivers.
Druther Six. The AJ program should leverage modern advances in commercial digital electronics, producing more affordable CRPAs and using the state-of-the-art micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS).
Additionally, the GPS Control Segment should re-examine current and future requirements, particularly those related to training the relatively inexperienced military cadre. A shift to a more permanent, technically-sophisticated, civilian cadre is probably warranted, retaining a military operational commander to direct the essential warfighter capabilities.
Accuracy
In this discussion, accuracy includes bounded inaccuracy: limiting the probability of errant weapons and inaccurate positioning.
For the military, weapons delivery accuracy is usually parsed into three contributors:
target location error (TLE),
weapon location error (WLE), and
weapon guidance error (WGE).
All three components can be affected by GPS accuracy. Focusing on the Special Operations, Army, and Marine operators, the TLE today is limited by the ability of the target designator to determine azimuth. To ensure weapon delivery accuracy is 5 meters or better, we need:
Druther Seven. The DoD should develop and deploy an affordable azimuth-determination device for forward observers with an accuracy that is better than one milliradian.
For GPS, accuracy and bounded inaccuracy is a combination of geometry and user ranging error for all users. Druther One assures the geometry for virtually all users, but it bears repeating here:
Druther Eight. The GPS operational on-orbit constellation size requirement should be set at 30 satellites plus 3 spares. This repeat of Druther One greatly improves both accuracy and availability for many users.
Further improvements can be made in the inherent GPS ranging error through more accurate and sustainable atomic reference systems (clocks) and more accurate measurement of GPS satellite positions (ephemeris) by the user segment. This leads to:
Druther Nine. The GPS program office should pursue a vigorous effort to improve spacecraft atomic reference systems (clocks) and provide retroreflectors onboard all operational GPS satellites.
This will prove particularly beneficial to all users because long-range ephemeris accuracy and clock predictions will improve significantly.
As a longtime participant and observer of the GPS program, I would like to submit this wish list (see sidebar) of druthers to government decision-makers. In particular, if the Department of Defense were to act on these requests, I would regard it as a wonderful Christmas present for all users. Hopefully it will be for an immediate Christmas rather than a Christmas in the indefinite future, which I may not be around to see.
Thank you for your attention.
Brad Parkinson’s Wish List
Availability of PNT
1. The DOD should define the GPS constellation to be 30 satellites plus 3 spares distributed in an optimal manner.
2. The installed GPS user equipment in both commercial and military aircraft should be able to fly directly over a 1 kW jamming source with no effect.
3. Ensure that the federal government, particularly the FCC, maintains the frequency bands adjacent to GPS as a quiet neighborhood.
Affordability of PNT
4. Total on-orbit cost of a GPS satellite should be less than $175 million.
5. The user equipment program must include front end interfaces conversant with the best commercial devices including small handheld receivers
6. The AJ program should leverage modern advances in commercial digital electronics, producing more affordable CRPA’s and using the state-of-the-art MEMS.
Accuracy, Bounded Inaccuracy
7. DoD should develop and deploy an affordable azimuth determination device for forward observers with an accuracy that is better than one milliradian.
8. The GPS operational constellation requirement should be set at 30 satellites plus 3 spares.
9. The GPS program office should pursue a vigorous effort to improve spacecraft atomic reference systems (clocks) and provide retroreflectors on all operational GPS satellites.
Bradford w. Parkinson was the original chief architect, advocate and Program Director for GPS. His numerous awards include the Draper Prize, sometimes considered the Nobel for engineering.
He adds, “All thoughts are mine, and should not be assumed to be the views of the GPS Independent Review Team, the Department of Defense, or any GPS manufacturer.”
We have heard it before, in various fora and in various forms: the GPS program is a victim of its own success. Because the satellites are living so long, launches of new, modernized space vehicles get deferred. And deferred. And deferred. The U.S. Congress meanwhile, for whom “defer” is a code to live by, happily pounces on this as an excuse to cut the GPS budget. And cut again the next year. And cut again.
As my colleague Eric Gakstatter reported from the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee (CGSIC) States and Local Government Subcommittee meeting, August 17, in Seattle:
“Of the 12 Block IIF GPS satellites being built, two are in orbit with the first being launched in 2010 and the second one last year. A third is scheduled to launch later this year [On October 4, in fact, perhaps by the time you read this column —Ed]. That equates to one launch per year.
“Clearly, this pace cannot continue or it would be 2022 before all 12 IIFs were in orbit. What’s the problem?
“Part of the problem is that the legacy Block IIA model satellites have performed so well. In fact, one has been operational for 22 years. That’s an incrediblefeat for a satellite that was designed with an expected life of 7.5 years. Unfortunately for the IIF program — and for the high-precision user community — it means that Congress can defer a few hundred million dollars per year by delaying the IIF launches. In these budget-conscious economic times, it’s not difficult to understand the reasoning that if there are 31 operational GPS satellites in orbit, why spend $150–200 million to launch each GPS satellite when we don’t need it yet? But that won’t last for long. The many legacy GPS satellites are one component failure away from being unusable. That said, the word at the CGSIC meeting is that three IIF satellites will be launched in 2013.”
An energetic online discussion sprang out of this column, with one reader exclaiming, “Finally someone stops arguing that the launch segment is the bottleneck. The budget segment is the actual bottleneck!”
The point is well taken. Since inception of the system, the standard text is that GPS consists of three inter-related segments: space, ground, and user equipment. Actually, there is a fourth segment, every bit as important as the other three: the budget segment.
It takes all four to deliver a PNT solution.
Engineers across the GNSS community industriously modernize the space vehicles, the ground control systems, and make leaps and bounds in überupgradesof receivers, chips, antennas, software, and just about everything else you can think of. And this is not just for GPS, but for GLONASS, Galileo, Compass, and QZSS too.
Meanwhile funding bodies grind along with the same ol’ same ol’.
The Indian Space Research Organisation’s GSAT-10 geostationary communications satellite was launched from the European spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, on 28 September at 21:18 UTC. The dual-satellite launch also carried the Astra 2F direct-to-home broadcast satellite into orbit for Luxembourg-based operator SES.
GSAT-10 contains a payload to support the Indian GPS and GEO Augmented Navigation (GAGAN) satellite-based augmentation system. The satellite will likely use PRN code 128 from its orbital slot at 83 degrees east longitude.
NORAD/JSpOC is tracking four objects from the launch, all in geostationary transfer orbits:
The two satellites are accompanied by the Sylda 5 dual-payload adapter and the ESC-A upper stage of the Ariane 5 launch vehicle. It’s not yet known which objects are which.
Once GSAT-10’s GAGAN L-band payload is activated, the satellite will be tracked by stations of the International GNSS Service’s Multi-GNSS Experiment in addition to those of the official GAGAN monitoring and control network.
The following is from a press release issued by ISRO:
“ISRO’s Master Control Facility (MCF) took over the command and control of the GSAT-10 immediately after the injection. Preliminary health checks on the various subsystems of the satellite, namely, Power, Thermal, Command, Sensors, Controls, etc., were performed and all the parameters were found satisfactory. Following this, the satellite was oriented towards the Earth and the Sun using the onboard propulsion system. The satellite is in good health.
“In the coming five days, orbit raising maneuvers will be performed to place the satellite in the Geostationary Orbit with required inclination with reference to the equator. The satellite will be moved to the Geostationary Orbit (36,000 km above the equator) by using the satellite propulsion system in a three step approach.
“After the completion of orbit raising operations, the two solar panels and both the dual gridded antenna reflectors of GSAT-10 will be deployed for further tests and operations. It is planned to experimentally turn on the communication payloads in the second week of October 2012.
“After the successful completion of all in-orbit tests, GSAT-10 will be ready for operational use by November 2012. GSAT-10 will be positioned at 83deg East orbital location along with INSAT-4A and GSAT-12. The operational life of GSAT-10 is expected to be 15 years nominal.
“GSAT-10 Satellite has 30 Communication Transponders [12 in Ku-band, 12 in C-band and 6 in Extended C-Band]. Besides, it has a Navigation payload “GAGAN” that would provide GPS signals of improved accuracy (of better than 7 meters) to be used by the Airports Authority of India for Civil Aviation requirements. GSAT-10 is the second satellite in INSAT/GSAT constellation with GAGAN payload after GSAT-8, launched in May 2011.”
Satellite Navigation Using Doppler and Partial Pseudorange Measurements
By Nicholas Othieno and Scott Gleason
INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley
BEFORE GPS, THERE WAS TRANSIT. Also known as the U.S. Navy Navigation Satellite System, Transit was the world’s first satellite-based positioning system. It was declared operational in 1968 although it had been in continuous use for the previous five years. The system evolved from the efforts to track the Soviet Union’s Sputnik I, the first artificial Earth-orbiting satellite. By measuring the Doppler frequency shift of the 20-MHz radio signals received from the satellite at a known location, the orbit of the satellite could be worked out. It was then quickly realized that if the orbit of the satellite were known instead, received Doppler data could be used to determine the position of the receiver. Plans for a dedicated satellite navigation system were subsequently drawn up and the first successful test satellite launch occurred in 1960.
Transit navigation required the measurements of the satellite signal’s Doppler shift for a complete pass that could take up to about 18 minutes from horizon to horizon. At the conclusion of the pass, the latitude and longitude of the receiver, the position fix, could be determined. With five operational satellites, the mean time between fixes at a mid-latitude site was around one hour. Eventually, as the orbits of the satellites became better determined, two-dimensional position fix accuracies of several tens of meters were possible from a single satellite pass. By recording data from a number of passes over a few days from a fixed site on land, three-dimensional accuracies better than one meter were possible and Doppler-based control points for mapping were established in many countries and the Canadian north, in particular, saw significant use of Transit for geodetic purposes.
With the advent of GPS and its superior performance, Transit was decommissioned at the end of 1996. And the equivalent Russian satellite Doppler systems have essentially been replaced by GLONASS. However, this hasn’t meant the end of Doppler measurements in satellite navigation. When GPS was being developed, it was determined that Doppler measurements could provide much more accurate receiver velocities than those obtained by simply differencing pseudorange-based position fixes. But what about using Doppler measurements for the position fixes themselves? While they might be good for velocity determination, research in the early 1980s showed that the geometric weakness of GPS Doppler measurement would result in position accuracies at least a couple of orders of magnitude worse than those provided by pseudorange measurements.
So, have we outgrown the use of Doppler measurements for position fixing? Well, it seems not. In this month’s column, we’ll take a look at a GNSS positioning technique that uses admittedly inaccurate Doppler-based position fixes as a first step in producing an accurate fix using just a snapshot of recorded Doppler frequency and code-phase data with no need to decode the navigation message. Old dog, new tricks.
“Innovation” is a regular feature that discusses advances in GPS technology andits applications as well as the fundamentals of GPS positioning. The column is coordinated by Richard Langley of the Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick. He welcomes comments and topic ideas. To contact him, email [email protected].
Satellite navigation techniques are evolving to the point where smaller and smaller amounts of data are sufficient to estimate the time and position of the receiver. However, these new processing algorithms require innovative methods to overcome the information that is lost due to a limited duration data set. The field of assisted GNSS (A-GNSS) has boomed in recent years, proposing ways to provide navigation receivers with additional aiding information without the receiver itself having to extract it from the data contained in the off-air signals. These techniques have been wildly successful in advancing the state of the art in satellite navigation. By using nearly omnipresent, real-time Internet connections and propagating on-board ephemeris and clock models, it is possible for many navigation applications to bypass the decoding of the almanac and ephemeris data in the signals themselves. See Further Reading for more information on assisted GNSS.
However, even when using assistance, there are still obstacles that need to be overcome. For example, the shorter the off-air data set that the receiver has to work with, the greater the amount of information normally obtained from the signal that has to be obtained using a different route. In many assisted-GNSS techniques, the satellite ephemeris and clock information is obtained over an external interface. In this case, the receiver needs only to obtain the signal time of transmission from the GNSS signals, which could take between 6 and 12 seconds. For most assisted-GNSS applications, this is not a problem. However, to reduce further the data required, we will need to find an alternative method, which eliminates the need for the signal time of transmission. The first reason for wanting to do this is to reduce to a bare minimum the amount of data the receiver is required to process. The second is to allow the receiver to process limited amounts of data in stand-alone chunks, without decoding the in-signal navigation data in any way. This in turn will allow the receiver to intermittently sample the incoming data stream and process the data and estimate its time and position off-line using a self-contained short-duration snapshot of data.
It has been demonstrated that a receiver position can be estimated using only sub-millisecond code-phase (for the case of GPS L1 C/A-code) measurements and satellite ephemeris and clock data for at least five satellites. This technique is known as time-free or snapshot positioning and reduces the data needed by the receiver to the amount required for the acquisition and tracking loops to converge to a usable code-phase estimate. In this article, we propose a technique whereby the receiver initially estimates its position using Doppler frequency measurements alone and uses this coarse position estimate to satisfy the a priori position requirement needed to perform a time-free estimate. Additionally, as Doppler measurements are influenced by the receiver dynamics, a thorough examination of the errors in Doppler estimation as a function of the receiver velocity is explored.
Technique Overview
The basic processing blocks of a GNSS receiver are well known. In our research, a couple of assumptions are made regarding the overall configuration and availability of assistance data. In our operational configuration, we assume that
An external interface is used to import satellite ephemeris and clock information for the entire GNSS constellation.
The receiver acquisition and tracking algorithms are able to acquire the required number of satellites for this technique to work, thus providing the raw code-phase and Doppler measurements.
The receiver clock is initialized to an accuracy of approximately 20 seconds with respect to GPS System Time.
Notably, the method proposed here does not require the receiver to synchronize and decode the navigation message data in any way, and specifically, it does not need to recover the signal transmission time. In the proposed method, the receiver can start estimating its position as soon as the signal tracking loops have settled to an acceptable accuracy. Importantly, this technique does not require any a priori knowledge of the receiver position.
The combined Doppler/time-free navigation receiver performs the processing steps indicated in Figure 1. Several important differences with regard to traditional GNSS signal processing are important. First, the processing does not assume a continuous data stream as a standard receiver would, but requires only Doppler and code-phase measurements from the tracking loops at a single epoch. Second, the time-free algorithm, like the conventional pseudorange least-squares algorithm, is performed iteratively but with an additional variable of time which causes the estimates of the GNSS satellite positions to change as the time estimate converges.
FIGURE 1. A Doppler/time-free GNSS receiver block diagram.
Doppler Positioning
The method for estimating a GNSS receiver position using Doppler measurements is well known and was first proposed decades ago. This technique never gained much traction in the research and user communities because it was apparent that the accuracy obtained using Doppler measurements was not sufficient for nearly all existing applications. As will be shown below, under good conditions, this technique is capable of estimating the receiver position to within approximately one kilometer. Although estimating a position without range measurements is of interest to some theoretically, practically this level of accuracy was deemed not useful. However, it was observed that this level of accuracy was within the initialization requirements of the time-free position algorithm, thus renewing interest in the technique, not as a useful product itself, but as initialization assistance to the time-free navigation technique discussed below.
The concept of overlapping iso-Doppler lines for the case of two different satellite measurements is shown in Figure 2. The frequency value around the lines of constant Doppler are the frequencies the receiver tracking loops have converged to for each satellite. With at least four satellites (an extra one is needed to solve for the receiver clock drift error), the position of the receiver can be coarsely estimated.
FIGURE 2. Illustration of the isolines of constant Doppler for one and two GNSS satellites. Sv and Uv are the satellite and receiver velocity vectors, respectively. ϴ is the angle between the velocity difference vector and the vector pointing from the satellite to the receiver. The figure on the right shows the intersection of Doppler ellipses for the two satellites.
Briefly, the algorithm for determining the receiver position from the Doppler measurements starts by projecting the difference between the satellite and receiver velocity vectors along the normalized view vector, which is in fact the range rate. The range rate is then linked to the tracked Doppler frequencies for each satellite. However, GNSS measurements are notoriously corrupted by the imperfect receiver clocks, which in this case will introduce a bias into the measured range rate. In other words, the range rate is actually the pseudorange rate. We can now form a measurement equation for an individual satellite that includes the pseudorange-rate measurement, the receiver position estimate, the satellite position, the receiver and satellite velocities, and the receiver clock rate error.
As in the case of the traditional pseudorange least-squares position estimation, this equation can be linearized around an initial guess and a series of corrections to that initial guess solved for iteratively. Importantly, the requirements for the initial guess in Doppler positioning (as in the case of pseudorange positioning) are very generous. For receivers below the GNSS constellation, the initial guess for the receiver position can be the center of the Earth. In practice, this effectively eliminates any burden on the receiver to have any a priori knowledge as to its position.
A minimal system of four equations, one for each observed satellite, can be formed and solved recursively to provide estimates of the three position coordinates plus the receiver clock frequency or rate error. As in the case of pseudorange-based position estimation, the overdetermined case of more than four measurements can be readily solved. Note that the solution only contains a receiver clock frequency error, and not a time bias as in the traditional pseudorange solution. The next section demonstrates this technique and assesses the achievable accuracy under different receiver dynamics.
Off-Air Signal Demonstration. The Doppler positioning algorithm was first tested using live off-air signals. These signals were captured using a USB front-end sampler for about 1 minute. This raw sampled data was logged to a file and subsequently processed by our fastGPS software receiver. To act as a truth reference, the sampled data is first processed using the traditional pseudorange least-squares position-estimation technique. This position is then chosen as the true position and the file is once again processed in fastGPS but using the Doppler positioning algorithm described above. Note that the C/A-code pseudorange positioning technique is known to be accurate to the order of several meters. However, achieving high accuracy using the Doppler method is not of large concern as the goal of this initial estimation is to initialize the time-free algorithm and not act as a result in itself. So for the case of this demonstration, it is not useful to compare the Doppler positioning results to those of a pseudorange position estimation. We are principally interested in demonstrating that the errors in Doppler position estimation are within acceptable limits for initializing time-free positioning.
The off-air data was captured in Parc Mont Royal in Montreal, Canada. This data was processed normally and the pseudorange position obtained was used as the reference position for the Doppler positioning results shown in Figure 3. This position was also coarsely verified using a handheld GPS unit.
FIGURE 3. Doppler position estimation with off-air signals. East-north position for a stationary receiver at 18:04 UTC, October 28, 2010.
From Figure 3, it can be seen that the errors are consistently less that 1 kilometer over the duration of the data set. A total of 173 Doppler solutions were performed by the fastGPS receiver as it processed the entire sampled data file. As will be shown later, this error magnitude is well within the limits needed to initialize the time-free algorithm. The errors tend to be largest when the number of tracked satellites is low and the geometric dilution of precision is unfavorable as would be expected. The position error under normal geometries is generally on the order of a kilometer. In this scenario, GPS Time was initialized to within 20 seconds of the true time for each Doppler positioning attempt.
Dynamic Receiver Performance Evaluation. This algorithm was also tested using simulated data to assess its sensitivity to receiver dynamics. The velocity of the receiver directly influences the Doppler positioning solution estimation. This Doppler contribution will directly contribute to the estimation error and needs to be properly assessed. The impact of the receiver velocity on the accuracy of the solution was investigated using a simulated receiver under a range of dynamics conditions. As will be shown below, the accuracy of the Doppler position estimate will limit when it can be used to initialize the time-free position estimate. This is demonstrated by simulating the Doppler position estimation accuracy for a receiver gradually increasing in velocity.
The simulation was performed using our GNSS measurement simulator. This simulator was configured to generate measurements as would be received from a dynamic receiver over several hours. The simulator is initialized using two-line satellite orbital elements provided by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) / Joint Space Operations Center and collected on four separate days.
The simulation duration was chosen to provide realistic viewing geometries at an arbitrary receiver location. The simulations were repeated at different times over a period of four days. This insures that the simulated receiver experiences a good representation of measurements under both good and bad satellite geometries. This allows for the best case, worst case, and average performance of the algorithm to be evaluated.
To simulate a receiver with increasing velocity, the receiver was set to move in one specific compass point direction (north, south, east, and west) over the duration of the simulation. The velocity of the receiver was then increased from 5 meters per second up to 40 meters per second in steps of 5 meters per second. Each velocity is maintained for 20 minutes. The receiver simulations ran for 2 hours and 40 minutes. This is sufficient to investigate the effect of velocity on the algorithm, in that four different test cases with different GPS constellation configurations provided sufficient randomness in satellite geometry.
From Figure 4, it can be seen that the error magnitude increases with the increasing velocity of the receiver. This is because the algorithm used for position determination is dependent on the tracked Doppler frequency of the received satellite signals, which are directly influenced by the receiver velocity. From the data generated for all four test cases, it can be shown that the errors in the Doppler position estimation start to exceed the initialization requirements of the time-free position technique at approximately 80 to 100 kilometers per hour. This limitation and how to mitigate it is discussed in more detail later in the article.
FIGURE 4. Doppler positioning solution error for a receiver with increasing velocity moving southwards at 09:16 UTC, April 19, 2011.
Time-Free Position Estimation
As discussed earlier, one of the main goals of this work is to reduce the amount of data that needs to be processed to obtain a position solution. Normally, even in the case of assisted GNSS, the receiver must decode navigation data provided by the transmitted satellite signal. This processing is needed to estimate the GPS Time and signal time of transmission and is critical to the standard pseudorange position-estimation algorithm. The Doppler positioning algorithm does not require the signal transmission time to be decoded from the signal, but it also does not produce results accurate enough to be useful in themselves. However, we use a method that produces a usable estimation accuracy and yet does not need to retrieve the GPS Time from the transmitted signal. This positioning technique is often called time-free or snapshot positioning. The technique is described in the references provided in Further Reading.
In time-free positioning, the position of a receiver is estimated without having to know the precise time of transmission of a GPS signal. This automatically removes the need to extract the time of week (TOW) from the navigation message. This is done by providing an initial guess of position to within a relatively demanding requirement, a fraction of the pseudorandom-noise-ranging-code repeat period. Also affecting the algorithm is the a priori knowledge of time at the receiver. The required accuracy of both of these quantities together is evaluated below. The a priori knowledge of the receiver position presents the more difficult limitation in an assisted-GNSS configuration. For modern receivers with access to the Internet, the time at the receiver can normally be determined to an accuracy of at least tens of seconds.
Assessment of Time-Free a Priori Requirements. Monte-Carlo simulations were run to investigate the behavior of the algorithm with varied a priori receiver position and time errors. These initialization error limits will determine under which conditions the Doppler algorithm position estimation will be suitable.
When the algorithm converges, the position estimates are on the order of what could be expected for a traditional pseudorange solution.
However, the conditions under which the time-free algorithm does not converge need to be properly understood. To accomplish this, a series of Monte-Carlo simulations were run over a wide range of a priori time and position errors. At the start of each time-free positioning attempt, the initial knowledge of the receiver position and time was corrupted by a random amount. After a reasonable number of iterations, the algorithm either converged to a reasonable solution or diverged wildly. The results indicating under what conditions the algorithm converged are plotted to illustrate the convergence region for the time-free algorithm for GPS C/A-code signals. Figure 5 shows that, as expected, the algorithm performs well when the apriori position and time knowledge are good. As these initial errors increase, the solution is more prone to diverge. The area of interest is the robust convergence zone making up a triangle towards the lower left. The Doppler position estimation must provide a solution within this range for the combined technique to work robustly.
In Figure 5, it can be noted that the solution often converges with larger than expected initialization errors (this is being investigated in more detail). However, the region of most interest is that in which the algorithm always converges. The results show that the time-free positioning algorithm will converge reliably with an a priori receiver position that is in error within the neighborhood of 100 kilometers, as long as the receiver time is kept accurate to within a few seconds. Alternatively, the algorithm will converge with a time error of over one minute, with a lessening of the position initialization tolerance down to about 50 kilometers.
FIGURE 5. Monte-Carlo simulation results for time-free failure cases over a range of a priori position and time errors.
Depending on the application and receiver capabilities, a compromise must be chosen to achieve the a priori initialization limits. From the results in Figure 5, it can be seen that for many applications, a Doppler position estimate will be more than sufficient for the a priori position initialization, thus eliminating the need for any a priori position knowledge for many applications with moderate receiver dynamics.
Combined Doppler and Time-Free Positioning
We have shown that Doppler positioning can estimate a receiver position to within about 100 kilometers for receivers in low and medium dynamics environments (at and below approximately 100 kilometers per hour). Importantly, the Doppler positioning algorithm can be performed using an initial estimate of the receiver position at the center of the Earth.
Subsequently, it was shown that time-free positioning requires an a priori position estimate that is accurate to within about 100 kilometers of the true position and a receiver time that is accurate to within a few seconds to assure algorithm convergence. If the a priori position estimate goes beyond 100 kilometers, there is a probability of divergence of the algorithm even with accurate receiver time. A coarse time accuracy threshold of 10 seconds is selected in this case as it is believed that GNSS receivers with assisted-GNSS capability will not have a lot of difficulty syncing their clocks to this accuracy.
The next step is to update the receiver processing steps to allow for the Doppler and time-free algorithms to be integrated together. In the combination algorithm, the Doppler estimation is performed first and then simply fed into the time-free algorithm as shown in Figure 1 and in more detail in Figure 6.
FIGURE 6. Processing stages in time-free positioning initialized by Doppler positioning.
From Figure 6, it can be seen that three inputs are required for the Doppler positioning algorithm: the initialization time estimate, satellite Doppler measurements, and satellite ephemeris and clock information. The time estimate is obtained from the receiver’s clock whose accuracy should be within 10 seconds of the true GPS Time. The satellite Doppler measurements (a minimum of four) are provided by the tracking functions of the receiver. The ephemeris is assumed to be locally stored at the receiver using an assisted-GNSS external data link.
Subsequently, the time-free positioning algorithm then inputs the Doppler estimate as its initial a priori estimate of the receiver position. The existing assisted-GNSS satellite ephemeris and clock information as well as the coarse estimate of the GPS Time kept by the receiver are also available for the time-free estimation.
The code-phase measurements from at least five GNSS satellites form the last piece of the puzzle. They are obtained as a direct output of the receiver delay lock loop. In the case of GPS C/A-code signals, these will be up to 1 millisecond in length, with longer durations possible with other GNSS signals as discussed below.
Operationally, the Doppler positioning module can be run once, tested for convergence, and then the resulting position estimate fed back into the time-free position estimation. However, for our test cases, the Doppler algorithm was used repeatedly to initialize the time-free algorithm to more thoroughly exercise the process.
What proved to be a robust test on the convergence of the time-free algorithm was a simple comparison of the final output to the initial Doppler-determined input. When this difference was below a single code-sequence repeat period, the algorithm had in all cases converged.
The divergent cases regularly produced differences of significantly larger magnitudes.
Comparison to Traditional Estimation. The combined algorithm was tested on multiple sets of off-air data from the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. The root-mean-square error of the horizontal position estimates and the mean geometric dilution of precision during the observations for each of the tested off-air data sets are shown in Table 1. The error magnitudes of the resulting position solutions are on the same order for both the standard pseudorange least-squares and time-free position estimates. This is to be expected, for if the time-free algorithm computes the correct integer milliseconds, the algorithm will converge to nearly the same solution as the traditionally determined pseudoranges since the code-phase measurements are identical. In this comparison, both the pseudorange and combined Doppler/time-free algorithms were started assuming an initial receiver position at the center of the Earth. As a final check that this method provides comparable results to those from the traditional pseudorange case, we directly compared the error magnitudes of the two methods over a stretch of the same data. This will also prove to illustrate how time-free positioning is capable of more quickly estimating the position than other methods since it does not need to decode the satellite signal’s navigation message.
TABLE 1. Root-mean-square (R.M.S.) error and geometrical dilution of precision (GDOP) for off-air GPS data sets used with the fastGPS software receiver.
Table 1. Root-mean-square (R.M.S.) error and geometrical dilution of precision (GDOP) for off-air GPS data sets used with the fastGPS software receiver.
Figure 7 shows the performance for the combined Doppler/time-free and traditional pseudorange methods together for a period of 34 seconds. As shown, the combined Doppler/time-free positioning algorithm provides receiver position estimates that are comparable in error magnitude to the traditional method. Similar results were obtained for all of the other off-air data sets at our disposal.
FIGURE 7 Comparison of position estimation error magnitudes for time-free and traditional pseudorange-based position estimations. Error magnitudes for both methods tested on the Montreal off-air data set.
Concluding Remarks
In this article, we have demonstrated that that a GNSS receiver can estimate its position using a snapshot of sampled data and no knowledge of the position of the receiver in low and medium dynamics environments. This addresses an existing limitation of the time-free GNSS navigation technique and facilitates new receiver designs based on limited sampled data sets, notably those using software-based processing techniques. It has been shown that by roughly estimating the receiver position using Doppler measurements with no knowledge of the receiver position, a time-free position estimation can be robustly performed. The limitations on this combined method are due mainly to the dynamic environment of the receiver, which will degrade the rough Doppler position estimate. Nevertheless, this technique will work for a wide range of GNSS applications. Additionally, Monte-Carlo simulations have been performed that show that this combined technique is robust within the stated dynamics limitations and initialization requirements of the time-free method for GPS C/A-code signals.
Overcoming the Velocity Limitation. The degradation of the Doppler estimation for receivers at higher velocity can be addressed in a number of ways. The most direct correction to this problem is the inclusion of a simple inertial device on the receiver. This will provide a coarse estimate of the receiver velocity that then can be included in the Doppler estimation and would result in position accuracies using Doppler on the order of 1 kilometer in nearly all dynamic receiver cases (limited only by the capability of the inertial sensor).
The second possibility is to wait for the next generation of GNSS signals to solve the problem for us. Several new GNSS signals (some of which are already being transmitted by active satellites) have been designed with code repeat periods of significantly longer than 1 millisecond (see FIGURE 8). The 1-millisecond code repeat period effectively limits the Doppler estimation error to what was shown above.
FIGURE 8. Comparison of code-phase repeat period ambiguities for various GNSS signals.
Longer repeat periods will correspondingly increase the tolerance of the time-free a priori initialization. Some of the next generation GNSS signals and their respective code repeat periods will be significantly longer than GPS L1 C/A-code. For example, the 20-millisecond code repeat period of the new GPS L2 civil signal corresponds to approximately a 6,000-kilometer repeat length, and an integer 20-millisecond ambiguity of normally only three or four. This will make the construction of the full pseudorange from a 20-millisecond tracking-loop measurement much easier in the presence of larger errors in the a priori position knowledge.
Discussion. Our work provides a useful method to greatly reduce the processing load in a GNSS receiver, and eliminates the task of decoding GNSS navigation data and the need to have coarse position information. These two advantages together provide a useful step in the development of a dramatically different approach in GNSS signal processing and position estimation. As opposed to existing GNSS receivers, which continually process the incoming signals, this technique allows for strict management of the incoming data and position estimation outputs. This management is well suited for applications that are required to remain off or in a low-power state for long and intermittent periods. Using this technique, any platform can estimate its position by operating the GNSS receiver for a short (snapshot) period of time. The logged data captured during this brief time can then be processed in real time or archived and processed later as the application demands. Applications such as animal tracking or long-duration vehicle tracking, where a position needs to be tracked over a long period using extremely challenging power resources, will benefit notable from this new technique.
Software demonstrating the algorithms discussed above can be downloaded free of charge from http://gnssapplications.org/, including Chapter 3 (on the GNSS simulator) and Chapter 5 (on the fastGPS receiver).
Acknowledgments
This article is based on the paper “Combined Doppler and Time Free Positioning Technique for Low Dynamics Receivers” presented at PLANS 2012, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers / Institute of Navigation Position, Location and Navigation Symposium held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, April 23–26, 2012.
Manufacturer
Tests were conducted using a SparkFun (www.sparkfun.com ) SiGe GN3S USB front end.
NICHOLAS OTHIENO was an M.A.Sc. student in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. His research was in the area of software-based GNSS techniques and applications.
SCOTT GLEASON has been an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Concordia University since 2010. He received his B.S. degree in electrical and computer engineering from the State University of New York at Buffalo, an M.S. in engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. from the University of Surrey in England. He has worked in the areas of astronautics, remote sensing, and GNSS for more than 15 years, including time at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and Stanford’s GPS Laboratory, and the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, England.
FURTHER READING
• Authors’ Publications
“Combined Doppler and Time Free Positioning Technique for Low Dynamics Receivers” by N. Othieno and S. Gleason in Proceedings of PLANS 2012, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers / Institute of Navigation Position, Location and Navigation Symposium held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, April 23–26, 2012, pp. 60–65.
“New Navigation Signals and Future Systems in Evolution” by A.R. Pratt, Chapter 17 in GNSS Applications and Methods, eds. S. Gleason and D. Gebre-Egziabher, Artech House, Boston, Massachusetts, 2009.
Digital Satellite Navigation and Geophysics: A Practical Guide with GNSS Signal Simulator and Receiver Laboratory by I.G. Petrovski and T. Tsujii with foreward by R.B. Langley, published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2012.
“GNSS Navigation: Estimating Position, Velocity, and Time” by S. Gleason and D. Gebre-Egziabher, Chapter 3 in GNSS Applications and Methods, eds. S. Gleason and D. Gebre-Egziabher, Artech House, Boston, Massachusetts, 2009.
“A GPS Software Receiver” by S. Gleason, M. Quigley, and P. Abbeel, Chapter 5 in GNSS Applications and Methods, eds. S. Gleason and D. Gebre-Egziabher, Artech House, Boston, Massachusetts, 2009.
“A Real-Time Software Receiver for the GPS and Galileo L1 Signals” by B.M. Ledvina, M.L. Psiaki, T.E. Humphreys, S.P. Powell, and P.M. Kintner Jr. 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. 2321–2333.
“Architecture of a Reconfigurable Software Receiver” by G.W. Heckler and J.L. Garrison in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2004, the 17th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Long Beach, California, September 21–24, 2004, pp. 947–955.
• Use of Doppler Measurements in GNSS Positioning and Navigation
“Instantaneous Real-Time Cycle-Slip Correction for Quality Control of GPS Carrier-Phase Measurements” by D. Kim and R.B. Langley in Navigation, Vol. 49, No. 4, Winter, 2002–2003, pp. 205-222.
“The Principle of a Snapshot Navigation Solution Based on Doppler Shift” by J. Hill in Proceedings of ION GPS 2001, the 14th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 11–14, 2001, pp. 3044–3051.
“Geometrical Aspects of Differential GPS Positioning” by P. Vaníček, R.B. Langley, D.E. Wells, and D. Delikaraoglou in Bulletin Géodésique, Vol. 58, No. 1, 1984, pp. 37–52, doi: 10.1007/BF02521755.
Now that the London Olympics are completed, I can write about one geospatial tool that enhanced security. That effort was the creation of an extensive 3D model used by London security personnel to track activities and serve as a collaboration environment. The very detailed geospatial model was built by a team of people working for Aegis Technologies in Huntsville, Alabama. This was not a new effort for Aegis. It was in fact the third time AEgis was contracted to develop a high resolution 3D databases including cultural features of interest for use in operational planning and situational awareness in both preparation for and execution of the games. Previous projects include the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics and Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
AEgis Technologies is a privately held small business of about 250 professionals headquartered in Huntsville, Alabama, that provides advanced technology and consulting services to industries throughout the world. AEgis specializes in modeling & simulation and micro/nanoscale technology development. As a third time selectee, Aegis was understandably pleased as related by David King, VP of Simulation Development “AEgis is proud to continue our support of the Olympic Games by providing our geospatial solutions to this global event. We look forward to the excitement of the London Olympics and are pleased to have again been selected for this project.”
Staffers of the Geospatial Programs Division of the AEgis Simulation Development Group like to refer to their effort as art meeting science and technology. That’s because the model creation process is not just a rote mechanical process. They believe that it takes a sophisticated blend of mathematics and critical artistic eyes to create models that are accurate, detailed and visually appealing. Aegis has built 3D models simulating reality for years supporting the Department of Defense, the intelligence community and commercial customers.
Development of London 2012 was a significant effort that required multiple 3D modelers, texture artists and geographic information system (GIS) analysts. Using satellite imagery and open source data, the team produced accurate and detailed models of the London metropolitan area, including landmarks such as Buckingham Palace, Parliament, Westminster Abby and the Tower of London. Also part of the virtual environment were new structures such as the Westfield Mall and train station which served as the entrance to Olympic Park. The historic architecture and dense urban landscape made the project especially challenging.
The project took over 4 months to complete using commercial 3D modeling software, GIS, CAD with a significant degree of manual artistic and technical efforts. Modelers were able to obtain about 65% of the needed data directly off the internet. They also used textures, cloned imagery and some ground level photographs to produce the models.
Few people realize how much manual intervention is required to produce top notch 3D models. Most of you know that digital elevation models are needed to accurately display ortho imagery to account for the angular displacement of objects from the camera lens that are not on a flat plane. But that correction when applied to bridges passing over ravines can result in some bizarre distortions. The problem is even worse when constructing 3D models using automated 3D creation tools and if there are anomalies in the elevation data. This was especially evident in the recent release of the IPhone 5 and Apple Maps which I’m guessing used automated tools to build their oblique views. This was spectacular priaulx that also included numerous misplaced data point and spelling errors. Although this will take a while to live down, Apple is big enough to survive. This clearly demonstrated the need for trained human eyes to do quality control.
Screenshot from Apple Maps.Screenshot from Apple Maps.
For the London model, Aegis built approximately 300 high and medium fidelity 3D models populated the database of more than 2,600 square kilometers. As part of the final project delivery, AEgis also provided several days of hands-on training for London personnel as well as ongoing support. The training was primarily in the use of their viewing software, LightINT used with the database they created.
LightINT was developed in-house by Aegis to take full advantage of their detailed models. The Open Scene Graph (OSG) format is very efficient at managing memory and resources so navigation is quick and seamless. Unlike early 3D viewing software that was cumbersome because entire models had to be loaded into memory, OSG is “pageable”, taking away size and fidelity limitations. With the LightINT viewing tool, AEgis provided high fidelity, smooth navigation with very robust tools.
Although I didn’t get a chance to play with the system the list of tools and capabilities is quite impressive including:
A 3D view of the area of interest
2D map correlation with the 3D view
Multiple measurement tools such as length, width, height including slant ranges between objects in the 3D model
The ability to import/drag and drop Shapefiles and extrude the 2D data into 3D space
Falconview integration
Integration and display of observer locations
Creation of routes
Time of day lighting including weather conditions
Line-of-sight tools and analysis including separate viewpoints and red line/green line intersections
Geo-marker placement including go-to/fly-to markers
Route creation for video creation/playback
Terrain database formats – Terra Page(.txp), OSG (.ive), OpenFlight (.flt)
3D model formats – OSG and OpenFlight
Multiple coordinate systems
Although Aegis’ 3D models are not the most sophisticated in method of creation or photorealistic detail, they have built a strong history of quality execution and delivery. As I wrote in a previous column you only get one chance to make good first impression when it comes to data quality and I believe that’s been the key to Aegis’ success and selection for multiple Olympics. That’s good lesson for all businesses to remember, it’s easier/cheaper to keep good customers than it is to grow new ones.
After the September 12 launch of the Apple iPhone 5, which comes equipped with Apple’s own Maps application, users soon found their efforts to navigate thwarted by mislabeled cities, misplaced landmarks, lack of’ transit directions, and strange satellite imagery.
Today, Apple Inc. Chief Executive Tim Cook apologized to customers for the flaws in the Maps app in a letter posted on Apple’s website. The Maps app replaced Google Maps as the standard iPhone mapping application, but Cook is now suggesting customers use the online Google Maps or download other mapping applications while Apple works to fix its application. Google Maps was standard on previous versions of the iPhone. Apple’s newest mobile operating system, iOS 6 doesn’t support Google Maps, so users would have to use that application through the Internet.
Here is the text of Cook’s letter:
To our customers,
At Apple, we strive to make world-class products that deliver the best experience possible to our customers. With the launch of our new Maps last week, we fell short on this commitment. We are extremely sorry for the frustration this has caused our customers and we are doing everything we can to make Maps better.
We launched Maps initially with the first version of iOS. As time progressed, we wanted to provide our customers with even better Maps including features such as turn-by-turn directions, voice integration, Flyover and vector-based maps. In order to do this, we had to create a new version of Maps from the ground up.
There are already more than 100 million iOS devices using the new Apple Maps, with more and more joining us every day. In just over a week, iOS users with the new Maps have already searched for nearly half a billion locations. The more our customers use our Maps the better it will get and we greatly appreciate all of the feedback we have received from you.
While we’re improving Maps, you can try alternatives by downloading map apps from the App Store like Bing, MapQuest and Waze, or use Google or Nokia maps by going to their websites and creating an icon on your home screen to their web app.
Everything we do at Apple is aimed at making our products the best in the world. We know that you expect that from us, and we will keep working non-stop until Maps lives up to the same incredibly high standard.