The location industry is evolving. In the near future we won’t be discussing navigation and mapping as a way of finding the nearest Starbucks. Contextual location driven advertising will start delivering solid revenues, as soon as the market becomes better organized. The value of location information will be magnified as it shifts to the cloud. Vehicle manufacturers will be creating their own rich contextual location information. Near field communication, NFC, with its seat between consumers and cash registers, will provide some of the most valuable location data. These are points all made at last week’s LocNav conference by The Where Business.
Tipping Point. Half of Americans are not using smartphones. Location becomes more interesting when everyone has a smartphone and it reaches a tipping point. Social proximity and location has big benefits. “When everyone has a smartphone, you can connect via wireless mesh,” says Michael Metcalf of Yahoo. “If I’m in a line at JFK for a cab, I can let others know my destination and I can reduce the line and wait by half.” Geo-fencing has been stymied by the battery drain caused by frequent GPS pinging. Wireless mesh technology solves this issue. Another winner in location is near field communications, which works in short range proximity to enable purchases and other activities via smartphones. It creates a valuable database that includes precise location tracking data.
Power to the Automotive OEMs. Unlike the rest of the industry, automotive OEMS won’t need to rely on location integrators or cellular providers to provide them with a driver’s location. With integrated GPS and communications, they are well equipped to understand the context of where drivers are located, what they may be doing, and where they may go next. “In the past, the automotive industry didn’t get a share of the advertising revenue generated in the vehicle by radio, which was usually even installed as OEM equipment. “That will change,” says Lou Brugman of Pioneer Automotive. “In-vehicle infotainment will be adding location-based social networking, which might include automatically sharing your location or estimated time of arrival with specific contacts. The excuse for being stuck in traffic might not work as easily when you’ve actually been lingering over lunch.
Contextual Advertising Road Block. Everyone is talking about contextual location-based advertising, but it is being held back by a complicated eco-system. “There is little conformity. There are open standards and closed standards,” says Chris Peralta of Nokia. “Contextual advertising offerings are operating as separate silos.” Peralta feels that MirrorLink, previously called Terminal Mode, is getting traction. The MirrorLink Consortium is dedicated to cross-industry collaboration in developing global standards and solutions for smartphone and in-vehicle connectivity.
Heard in the Hallways:
“Sensors that use location will change more people’s lives than giving turn-by-turn directions faster. In the future location conferences will have nothing to do with navigation and mapping.”
“Apple required us to add a navigation application for the iPad. We hadn’t even considered that the iPad would be used in a vehicle for navigation.”
“People will accept dirtier data that is cheaper. Mapping that is from a user-generated community will be good enough. There will be some mapping that will sell for a premium for some uses, but map data will be commoditized.”
“In the future, all mobile advertising will be opt-in. It won’t continue an upward trajectory if it doesn’t do otherwise.”
Intelligence in the Cloud. The shift of information to the cloud will have a significant impact to our industry. “The cloud moves localization to a global context,” says Kanwar Chadha of CSR. “In the cloud, it becomes intelligent context and simplifies information that can feed sensors that work on low energy.” It is important to provide the right level of location accuracy for different contexts. For privacy concerns, social networking users don’t want location that is too precise; yet for mobile promotions, the closer the better. Weather can be regional for most common uses although agriculture requires precision. Having the location intelligence in the cloud enables more sensor usage.
Smartphones and Shopping. It sounds redundant, but Google’s research indicates a heavy reliance on smartphones while shopping in brick and mortar stores. A whopping 70 percent of smartphoners use their phones as a shopping aid while inside of a store. Almost 25 percent report researching purchases on a phone, visiting a store to view merchandise, but then buying online. The benefits of mobile advertising are significant. “Hyperlocal advertising has an ROI of about 800 percent,” said Surojit Chatterjee, of Google, “Mobile ad campaigns are seeing 40 percent more calls compared to desktop.”
I will host a free GPS World webinar on Thursday, December 1, with interesting guests. Details will be provided in November’s Wireless Pulse.
The first pair of satellites for Europe’s Galileo global navigation satellite system has been lofted into orbit by the first Russian Soyuz vehicle ever launched from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana in a milestone mission, reports the European Space Agency.
The launch occurred one day after initially scheduled to resolve a problem with the ground-support fueling system.
The Soyuz VS01 flight, operated by Arianespace, started with liftoff from the new launch complex in French Guiana at 10:30 GMT on October 21. All of the Soyuz stages performed as expected and the Fregat-MT upper stage released the Galileo satellites into their target orbit at 23,222 km altitude, 3 hours 49 minutes after liftoff. A launch replay is available. A look inside the IOV satellite is available on the BBC website.
The two Galileo satellites riding the Soyuz are part of the In-Orbit Validation (IOV) phase that will see the Galileo system’s space, ground and user segments extensively tested. The satellites are now being controlled by a joint ESA and CNES French space agency team in Toulouse, France. After these initial operations, they will be handed over to SpaceOpal, a joint company of the DLR German Aerospace Center and Italy’s Telespazio, to undergo 90 days of testing before being commissioned for the IOV phase.
The next two Galileo satellites, completing the IOV quartet, are scheduled for launch in summer 2012.
“This launch represents a lot for Europe: we have placed in orbit the first two satellites of Galileo, a system that will position our continent as a world-class player in the strategic domain of satellite navigation, a domain with huge economic perspectives,” said Jean-Jacques Dordain, director General of ESA. “Moreover, this historic first launch of a genuine European system like Galileo was performed by the legendary Russian launcher that was used for Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin, a launcher that will, from now on, lift off from Europe’s Spaceport.
“These two historical events are also symbols of cooperation: cooperation between ESA and Russia, with a strong essential contribution of France; and cooperation between ESA and the European Union, in a joint initiative with the EU. This launch consolidates Europe’s pivotal role in space cooperation at the global level. All that has been possible thanks to the vision and commitment of ESA member states.”
This was also the first Soyuz to be launched from a site outside of Baikonur in Kazakhstan or Plesetsk in Russia. A new site for Soyuz in French Guiana, operated by Arianespace, adds to the flexibility and competitiveness of Europe’s fleet of launchers.
Soyuz is a medium-size vehicle, complementing ESA’s launchers: Ariane 5 handles large payloads, and the new Vega, planned to debut in 2012, will lift smaller satellites.
Launching from close to the equator allows the European Soyuz to offer improved performance. From French Guiana, Soyuz can carry up to 3 tonnes into the ‘geostationary transfer orbit’ typically required by commercial telecommunications satellites, compared to the 1.7 tonnes that can be delivered from Baikonur.
We published a news story recently suggesting that Albert Einstein, the Mighty Hip Einie, got one thing wrong, or at least not quite totally right: the universal upper limit constituted by the speed of light. Precise-timing GPS receivers in a Geneva lab helped indicate that subatomic neutrinos can travel at a velocity just a smidge faster than the speed of light. Someone at a burning idea factory in the Netherlands riposted that the scientists erred in their conclusion because they failed to take into account the relative movement of the GPS clocks in space and thus miscalculated the neutrinos’ time of flight. We hereby refute that assertion with our heavy-lifting Innovation columnist, Richard B. Langley.
The original news story, derived from a breathless announcement out of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland, reported that Septentrio’s precise-timing GPS receivers PolaRx2eTR synchronize the time bases at CERN and Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy, 730 kilometers away, for the OPERA experiment. Researchers at the two labs synchronized to an accuracy of a couple of nanoseconds and then measured transit speeds of 15,000 neutrino events in a neutrino beam between the two sites.
Light moves at 299,792,458 meters per second. Let’s see, doing the math, that’s 299,792.5 kilometers per second, divide into the distance from Geneva to Gran Sasso, carry the one, cross the fingers, spit downwind, gives 0.002435017553808 seconds. Two-and-a-half thousandths of a second. 24,350 nanoseconds. If the neutrinos got to sunny Abruzzo any sooner, well then, they were the new universe record-holders.
It turns out, the little buggers made the trip 60 nanoseconds faster than that. Killing it. Just killing it. And poking a hole in the Mighty Hip Einie’s Special Theory of Relativity.
“This result comes as a complete surprise,” said Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA) spokesperson Antonio Ereditato.
Then Ronald van Elburg of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands climbed into the ring. The OPERA project researchers did not take into account the relative movement of GPS clocks in space and thus miscalculated the distance, he said. “From the perspective of the clock, the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter.”
Thus, according to van Elburg, the travel time measured by the GPS was shorter than the travel time measured in the reference frame on the ground. Accounting for the changing distances between the GPS clocks and the neutrino detectors would lengthen the observed time of flight by 32 nanoseconds on each end of the experiment, making for a total time delay of 64 nanoseconds — close to the interval that OPERA observed using the difference between the speed of neutrinos and that of light. Case dismissed. Einstein restored.
Unable to parse this myself, I asked Richard Langley of the University of New Brunswick whether it seemed reasonable.
“No, I don’t think so,” Langley replied. “Special Relativity is already taken into account whenever GPS is used, whether for timing or positioning, which amounts to the same thing, since 1 nanosecond of timing error equals about 30 centimeters of distance error (simply using the speed of light). Of course, anyone can use GPS incorrectly or infer something incorrectly. There is an error (likely) somewhere but I don’t think it is in the “standard way” that clocks are synchronized using GPS. The error is either a timing error (unrelated to Special Relativity but perhaps related to the electronics and associated delays) or a neutrino-path-length measurement error. The OPERA folks have put online their internal reports on the calibration of the GPS time link between the neutrino emitter and detector:
I haven’t had time to read these reports yet but it appears, at face value, that the work was quite thorough.
“By the way,” Richard said, “there have been a number of relevant articles in GPS World over the years. And we do apologize that some of these are no longer available digitally, due to a trashing of this site by its former owner, Questex Media Group.
GPS time transfer: Using precise point positioning for clock comparisons
Time and frequency dissemination: Advances in GPS transfer techniques
New IGS clock products: A global time transfer assessment
Richard adds an interesting fact: “How many physicists does it take to time a neutrino: at least 174. That’s the number of authors on the OPERA paper! The names of the authors and their affiliations takes up the first two pages of the paper!”
LightSquared’s been in the news quite a bit since my last Survey Scene newsletter a month ago, but very little of it has actual consequence. A lot of the “news” is just noise. LightSquared pumped up its propaganda campaign nationwide to try to build a consensus in their favor and put pressure on the FCC, and is threatening a lawsuit if the FCC doesn’t do what LightSquared wants. No surprises there. However, other things have happened that I think you might be interested in hearing about.
Most interesting was the partnership announced between JAVAD GNSS and LightSquared to develop a solution for LightSquared’s GPS-jamming problem. I had the opportunity to sit down briefly with Dr. Javad Ashjaee at the INTERGEO conference in Germany after he announced his company’s partnership with LightSquared. He’s a sharp engineer and well-worth listening to. Essentially, he made three points:
1. This is a spectrum issue that isn’t going away even if LightSquared isn’t allowed to proceed, so it’s in the best interest of the GPS industry to work on a solution no matter what the FCC’s decision is.
I’ve written about this issue before and I agree that the MSS spectrum has got a bull’s-eye on it. It’s a big piece of spectrum when not a lot of wireless spectrum is left to be developed. One could argue that it has its purpose as an MSS band, but the counter to that argument is that it’s under-performing. There’s only so much one can do with MSS spectrum.
That leaves two choices: the first is to keep it allocated as low-power MSS (satellite-to-earth communications) as it has historically been used. It could also be officially established and recognized as a guard band for GPS so this problem doesn’t crop up again. GPS is an important enough national asset to make this a reasonable discussion. The LightSquared debate has done a fantastic job of raising awareness of the importance of GPS technology in our everyday lives as well as the commercial and military markets. GPS has and will continue to contribute more jobs, revenue, and growth to the U.S. and world economy than LightSquared could ever dream of. You can quickly dismiss anyone who claims otherwise.
2.Secondly, Dr. Ashjaee opines that 4G LTE is something that the GPS industry needs. I don’t disagree with that statement. More and more you see the latest high-precision GPS receivers designed with integrated communications, primarily GSM modems to enable internet connectivity in the field. Connectivity in the field has always been a weak point of GPS systems. If one wireless technology could replace UHF/VHF/Spreadspectrum/GSM/MSS, that would be a good thing.
I’m skeptical, though. I don’t believe LightSquared will be available where many GPS users need wireless communications even when it’s fully deployed — namely rural areas. They are going to chase after the money. The money is in the urban areas where the population is dense. Who in their right mind would spend money to establish and maintain infrastructure in areas with a very sparse potential customer base? I wouldn’t.
So, that still leaves us with needing UHF/VHF/Spreadspectrum/GSM/MSS communications technology. It doesn’t solve the problem. But, I’m not against trying as long as LightSquared’s system has no affect on the performance of high-precision GPS/GNSS receivers.
Incidentally, JAVAD GNSS intends to integrate a LightSquared mobile device into their product to manage potential interference from the uplink band (1626.50-1660.5MHz). However, this still doesn’t prevent interference from LightSquared mobile devices in the vicinity of JAVAD receivers. To this, Dr. Ashjaee says (I’m paraphrasing) “interference already exists today. Our mobile phones of today already create interference. If that happens, we simply move it away.”
3. Lastly, Dr. Ashjaee states that with GPS modernization in full swing and with new GPS signals being deployed, GPS users are going to need to upgrade their equipment to keep up with the latest technology in order to stay productive.
This is a point that he and I disagree on.
There is no reason your GPS L1 receiver will become obsolete in the foreseeable future, whether it’s a high-performance sub-meter receiver or a cm-level surveying receiver (L1-only). There is no plan by the U.S. Government to change or obsolete the L1 C/A signal.
For legacy L1/L2 GPS receivers that aren’t designed to utilize L2C or L5, it’s a different story. If you recall, back in 2008 the U.S. government floated the idea that it wanted to discontinue supporting the legacy semicodeless technique used by every L1/L2 GPS receiver in existence. Literally, several hundred thousand high-precision dual frequency GPS receivers would be rendered obsolete. At the end of the public comment period, the U.S. Air Force and Department of Commerce established a date of December 31, 2020 for this to happen. I wrote about this extensively at the time. My point is that there’s certain high-precision equipment that’s going to become obsolete at that time. However, that’s nearly ten years from now.
Should those users be forced to upgrade earlier to accommodate LightSquared?
Another point, and more serious, are the users who already upgraded in the past few years to equipment that was advertised as “future-proof”. In other words, they paid a premium for GNSS equipment that could track “all current and planned signals” such as L2C, L5, Galileo, GLONASS, etc. There is absolutely no reason those users would be required to upgrade their equipment for any imaginable reason. In fact, I’d be rather miffed if someone suggested I needed to spend money to do so.
How much money are we talking about?
That’s an interesting question.
Dr. Ashjaee guarantees that he will upgrade all JAVAD GNSS receivers for between US$300 and US$800. If you think about it, that’s similar to what you might pay in annual maintenance fees on many receivers. The issue is that JAVAD receivers aren’t that common in the U.S. Realistically, there’s a wide variety of high-precision GPS receivers in the U.S. market. Many of them are not the latest models, but still working perfectly fine. Manufacturers are not going to re-open those product designs and try to implement LightSquared-hardened antenna and circuitry. At that point, the user’s only choice is to purchase new equipment. I think that would be a step backwards. Many small organizations were able to purchase GPS technology with a one-time grant or specific project funds. Faced with the prospect of spending thousands of dollars on a new high-precision GPS receiver, I think many would opt not to use GPS.
To its credit, LightSquared has offered up $50 million to help retrofit or otherwise upgrade receivers owned by Federal government agencies. I think it will cost a lot more than that. I don’t believe $50 million would come close to covering the hard costs, not to mention the amount of time and effort that would be required to facilitate such a trade-in.
Let’s talk about “the fix”
JAVAD GNSS has a lot on the line, so it’s hard to imagine that the company hasn’t come up with something that works. That said, the conversation about retrofitting is meaningless until the design concept is proven, and empirical data demonstrates that it isn’t affected by LightSquared’s downlink (1526-1536MHz) or uplink (1626.5-1660.5MHz) signals, and that GPS receiver performance doesn’t pay a penalty.
Of course, LightSquared is talking like this is a done deal and predicting FCC approval by the end of the year. This is just noise, like back in August when it predicted an FCC decision within a month. Do not put any credibility in LightSquared statements. Its track record is poor, as few of their claims have materialized.
There’s no way the FCC is going to announce a decision by the end of the year. Mark my words. There’s not enough time to confirm a fix, how it might be implemented across multiple manufacturer’s receivers, and what the impact is. Believe me, there are many more hearings and information requests that are going to take place before any decisions are made by the FCC.
The “fix”, as I understand it, includes a new antenna design as well as new circuitry (filter). If you understand the high-precision GPS industry, you know this includes a substantial number of handheld units such as the Trimble Geo series, Ashtech (formerly Magellan) Mobile Mapper and ProMark series to name a few. Replacing antennas and changing circuit design is not a minor effort in a handheld unit that’s already packed tight with electronics. Which models do you support? Which models don’t you support? Which models can’t be upgraded? There are many questions to answer.
New antennas also mean new antenna calibrations by the NGS if you’re an OPUS user. Manufacturer software needs to be updated to reflect any change in antenna phase center. All of this will take time to investigate and understand. It should not be rushed just because LightSquared is in a hurry. Its “end of year” decision prediction, I’m sure, is directly correlated to an agreement with Sprint, which says the deal is off if FCC approval isn’t granted by the end of the year. Take a look at the Sprint presentation here.
Don’t let LightSquared over-simplify this “fix.” LightSquared Executive VP and lawyer Jeff Carlisle likes to play “engineer” like he did last week at a congressional hearing looking at the LightSquared GPS-jamming impact on small business. I couldn’t believe it when he pulled out a massive GPS receiver head and demonstrated how he would retrofit it with a $6 component to solve the problem, even going so far as showing where he would place it on a circuit board. The sad part is that there was not an engineer in sight to call him on it. Take a look at the 4:50 mark in this video:
Whoever put that panel together really did a disservice to this entire debate. LightSquared clearly came out on top, not because they should have, but because the witness list was not informed/prepared and the witness list wasn’t represented by the largest users of GPS in small business, surveying/engineering/construction/GIS.
The epitome of this trainwreck was when Rep. Steve King asked the guy representing the agricultural community about delineation of spectrum.
The grilling starts at the 1:49 minute mark and ends at the 4:20 minute mark.
Somehow, the witness doesn’t know or doesn’t know how to communicate that LightSquared/Skyterra sells satellite communications services to the high-precision GPS user community (via OmniSTAR) and therefore has encouraged GPS receiver manufacturers to design receivers to look into the MSS spectrum. LightSquared/Skyterra has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue from agriculture and other high-precision GPS users, and now it is whining about the very people who are paying for its satellite communications data services? Are you kidding me?
Look, if LightSquared doesn’t want to sell satellite data communication services to the high-precision GPS industry anymore, that’s its decision, but don’t make this ridiculous claim that somehow GPS receiver designers are abusing LightSquared-licensed spectrum when LightSquared has been cashing in on it.
By the way, if you watch the grilling video, the “first-come, first-served” argument is really weak. Someone needs to brief the witness better than that. Even I don’t believe in squatter’s rights, and that argument will never fly with the FCC.
ACSM Radio Show Last Monday on LightSquared
I spent an hour talking with ACSM Executive Director Curt Sumner about the latest on LightSquared. We also touched a bit on the exciting Galileo satellite launch scheduled for this week, Oct. 20, that ended up being postponed for a day. You can listen to the radio broadcast here or download and listen to it on your MP3 player.
UPDATE: Following the work performed on the Soyuz launch facility and the associated additional checks, Arianespace has decided to restart the countdown operations for the launch VS01, Soyuz STB – Galileo IOV-1. Liftoff of the Soyuz ST-B launcher is now set for Friday, October 21, at
exactly:
10:30:26 a.m. (UTC) Friday, October 21
07:30:26 a.m. (French Guiana time)
12:30:26 p.m. (Paris time)
06:30:26 a.m. (Washington, D.C., time)
02:30:26 p.m. (Moscow time)
Galileo's Soyuz awaits it's flight.
A problem with the ground-support fueling system for the rocket carrying two Galileo in-orbit validation (IOV) satellites has delayed their launch either until Friday, October 21, or perhaps indefinitely.
A statement from launch operator Arianespace said, “A ground support system leak during third-stage fueling of the Soyuz launcher was the cause of today’s delay for this medium-lift vehicle’s inaugural flight from French Guiana. Arianespace Chairman & CEO Jean-Yves Le Gall said the leak was in a launch pad pneumatic system that activates the pre-planned disconnection of fueling lines to Soyuz’ third stage before the vehicle lifts off."
“During the final phase of third-stage fueling, there apparently was a change in pressure in this pneumatic system, and we observed the unplanned disconnection of the two connectors that enable the fueling of Soyuz’ third stage with liquid oxygen and kerosene,” Le Gall told reporters during a briefing at the Kourou Spaceport’s Jupiter mission control room. “The problem apparently is due to a valve leak in this pneumatic system, and we have taken the decision to empty the launcher and replace the valve.”
Le Gall underscored that the identified anomaly is in the ground-based pneumatic system, not on the launch vehicle. Fueling of the Soyuz is performed inside the mobile service gantry, which continues to remain in place on the launch pad. The launcher and its payload of two Galileo IOV satellites are in a safe mode, as is the ELS launch site.
Le Gall said a decision is to be made later today on whether to reschedule the liftoff for tomorrow. “We will confirm this once the valve is replaced; the decision also will take into account the launch team members — who worked all night during the original countdown.” If the launch is approved for tomorrow, October 21, the lift-off time would be four minutes earlier — at 7:30 a.m. local time.
One scientist who is following the situation from afar commented that possibly lyrics by the rock group Queen would be appropriate for the launch watch:
"Open your eyes. Look up to the skies and see
Thunderbolt and lightning, very, very fright'ning me
(Galileo) Galileo (Galileo) Galileo
Galileo figaro – magnifico"
Artist's depiction of a Galileo satellites being ejected from the dispenser.
During various presentations over the years, I’ve mentioned how precision GPS is going to change the future of automobile transportation and that collisions will eventually be a something of the past. The ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) World Congress, held in Orlando, Florida, October 16-20, gives one a glimpse of the future.
BMW, Toyota, Honda on one side; Garmin and TomTom on the other.
The goal?
Making automobile travel safer and more efficient. The following photos I shot in the BMW booth begin to describe what I mean.
Following is a 30-second Youtube video showing a demonstration of BMW’s lateral collision avoidance technology.
On the in-dash navigation systems, Garmin and TomTom are trying to hold their own by forming relationships with carmakers.
Garmin “in-dash” Connected Nav Unit Suzuki Trip
TomTom “in-dash” Connected Nav Unit Renault
“Connected” is the name of the game and where the research effort is being spent. I don’t mean connected as in internet-connected, but connection between vehicles with a Wi-Fi-like wireless technology called Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DRSC). In 1999, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allocated 75 MHz of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band specifically for this purpose, intelligent transportation systems (ITS). Europe allocated 30 MHz of spectrum in the same band for ITS.
I attended the connected vehicle demonstration that was conducted at the Walt Disney World Speedway. It was a fantastic demonstration of connected vehicle technology that really demonstrated how much more safe driving is going to be in the future. The situational awareness was amazing. We could “see” when a car was in our blind spot. We got a warning if a car was stopped in the distance in front of us that was ahead of the car directly in front of us. The system would warn you if you try to pass and it detected an oncoming car. At an intersection, it warned us of a car approaching the intersection at a rate of speed where it couldn’t stop. It’s called Intersection Movement Assist (IMA) technology.
I shot several videos during the demonstration. Following is one of a demonstration of the IMA technology.
Another hot topic at ITS that was unrelated to vehicle safety, in a way, was infrastructureless tolling. Where I’m from, we don’t have any road toll booths. My wife is from Chicago. I HATE the toll booths in Chicago. Orlando and Houston, two other places I traveled during this trip, also have road tolls. Let me be clear, I’m not against user fees for roads. I think users should pay to use roads. However, toll booths are a hazard and a waste of money because of their high overhead. There are many infrastructure-less tolling systems in use today, especially in Europe. During the conference, TransCore introduced a small device that you plug into the OBD port on your car (the “check engine” plug underneath your dashboard). This device supports automatic tolling based on GPS/GNSS technology. It has lower infrastructure costs than even SunPass or iPass or whatever radio device you buy for the system you use. Since it uses GPS/GNSS technology, it doesn’t need an RF-ID reader on the tollway. It needs nothing that you would see on the road unless the transportation department wanted to post signage to make you aware. Cool stuff.
This unusual view from underneath the launch table at French Guiana highlights the nozzle clusters of Soyuz’ four first-stage boosters and its central-core second stage.
The first Soyuz to take off from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana was moved to the launch pad October 14. The rocket that will carry the first two Galileo navigation satellites into orbit is on track for liftoff on October 20, reports the European Space Agency (ESA). Video of the transfer is available here.
Launch of the first two Galileo IOV satellites is scheduled for October 20 at 10:34:28 UTC.
The three-stage Soyuz ST-B was rolled out horizontally on its erector from the preparation building using the 600 m-long railway that leads to the pad. The vehicle was then raised into its launch position.
Earlier this week, the two Galileo In-Orbit Validation satellites, attached to their dispenser, were mated to the Fregat-MT upper stage and then enclosed in the fairing. This ‘Upper Composite’ was also transferred October 14 and added onto the vehicle from above, completing the very first Soyuz on its launch pad at Europe’s Spaceport. The new mobile launch gantry, built specifically for the rocket’s operations in French Guiana, also protects the satellites and the vehicle from the humid tropical environment.
The Soyuz and Upper Composite will undergo a full launch dress rehearsal in the next few days, including preparations for fuelling the vehicle, which will begin four and a half hours before liftoff.
According to ESA, October’s launch will be doubly historic: the first Soyuz from a spaceport outside of Baikonur in Kazakhstan or Plesetsk in Russia and the start of building Europe’s Galileo satnav constellation.In 2012 the second pair of satellites will arrive in orbit, ready to prove the design of the Galileo system in advance of the other 26 satellites. This quartet of satellites, built by a consortium led by EADS Astrium Germany, will form the operational nucleus of the full Galileo constellation.
More images and details are available at ESA’s website.
To watch the launch live, visit one of these sites:
Many press reports recently said that the Federal Communications Commission plans to require GPS in all mobiles by 2018, including LBS Insider (October 12, 2011). However, the FCC said that isn’t quite so, saying that “not before 2019, on a date still to be determined, carriers will have to meet the more stringent location accuracy standards that now apply to those carriers using a handset solution for [enhanced 911], and they may choose which solution to use.”
FCC spokeswoman Lauren Kravetz said that these technology solutions may be GPS chipsets, network-based, or a hybrid. The FCC said, after the conclusion of an eight-year period that ends in early 2019, it will sunset the existing network-based rule and require all wireless carriers to meet “the more stringent location accuracy standards in the handset-based rule. The FCC will then set a specific sunset date for a network-based standard — after further notice and comments.”
An announcement completely overshadowed by the Apple iPhone 4S rollout may have a major impact on the location-based services industry. The FCC has said that all wireless carriers, including voice-over-IP service and landline providers, are required to integrate GPS into phones by 2018. In other news, Intel bought Telmap, which has made inroads into the LBS market with its partnerships with carriers.
In a move designed to allow first responders to locate 911 emergency calls, the Federal Communications Commission will require all wireless operators, including voice-over-IP service and landline providers, to integrate GPS in phones by 2018.
The FCC says the majority of mobile phone users will have GPS-installed devices by the 2018 deadline. The FCC did not set a deadline for phones that do not use GPS-based technology. In addition, VoIP is going toward more mobile applications, rather than its original substitute for landline service.
Most industry experts agree that the rise of location-based services occurred when the FCC mandated that carriers have location capability during its enhanced 911 rulemaking. Wireless carriers chafed at the deadlines and accuracy requirements. However, the rulemaking did bring market awareness to the carriers to the benefits, and potential new markets, coming from this mandated location requirement.
While it is too early to tell how much this will help drive LBS markets, the FCC said the decision, which was overshadowed as it was announced the same week as the rollout of the Apple iPhone 4S, was spurred by the desire to modernize 911. This means locating emergency callers quickly, particularly from smartphones and other mobile devices.
But have the wireless carriers lost their grip on LBS? In 2009, the surge in the number of GPS-enabled smartphones, proliferation of handset and mobile OS application stores, and increased availability and consumer demand for free or low-priced LBS applications has had a huge impact on the traditionally carrier-controlled LBS market, said Dan Gilmartin, Where vice president of marketing.
“The decreased costs and barriers to entry into the market place and ability to reach consumers through low- or no-cost viral social marketing channels is enabling small application developers to compete with the established LBS developers. The result is a highly competitive landscape that beforehand was dominated by only a few major players,” he said.
Gilmartin said that Google’s decision to offer free turn-by-turn navigation and acquisition of ADMob for $750 million reinforced the expectation that the viable business models for LBS in 2010 and beyond will include offering free or “freemium” services to consumers through ad-supported and other non-traditional funding models. “That said, the carriers’ subscription model still appears viable, at least for the short term, and consumers are proving to be willing to pay for what they perceive to be high-quality applications both on- and off-deck, navigation being the most prominent category,” he said.
Go Ask Apple?
The rollout of the Apple iPhone 4S may not be the biggest thing for the LBS market, but it does open it further to another tier-one carrier in Sprint. Like other iPhone models, the 4S has GPS embedded, but offers Siri voice-recognition that integrates with its navigation capability.
When LBS Insider contacted Sprint for comments on the new iPhone 4S and the FCC decision that GPS be installed in all smartphones, we got the public relations brush off to “Go ask Apple.” Ask Apple about GPS and LBS? This is an interesting response, as Sprint was one of the first major LBS market players, particularly their Nextel folks who were very innovative with location technology in the early days.
Intel Buys Telmap
At least one company in the LBS market is doing something right when a big company like Intel buys it. As GPS World reported, Intel bought Telmap, the Israel-based LBS company. The deal was announced at the recent Intel AppUp Elements developer conference in Seattle.
Motti Kushnir, Telmap chief marketing officer, said that since Telmap is a private company, financial details cannot be disclosed. He said the deal will take effect by the end of the year. “Telmap will be a wholly owned subsidiary and will maintain its independence as well as its brand,” Kushnir said in a prepared statement.
Kushnir said no layoffs are expected, nor will facilities close or be moved by Intel. “On the contrary, we are expected to grow in order to support the growth of our business both in existing and new territories,” he said.
One of the reasons Intel bought the company is that it is sees mobility as one of its growth engines — and location is a key component, Kushnir said.
Telmap says it has 6 million users for its IP portfolio that includes mapping, local search, and navigation. This includes a new restaurant LBS initiative in Israel. The company is working with Rest, a large Israel restaurant guide to provide location-based coupons to customers.
In other LBS industry news:
Fierce Wireless made an admittedly subjective list of the worst cell phones of all time. Garmin’s ill-fated Nuvifone G60 made the list. The phone, a partnership between Garmin and Asustek Computer, featured LBS — and had a $5.95 monthly charge for premium service. Fierce Wireless says that it was a failure in part because of Google’s free location services.
Nokia will be closing down its operations in Bonn, Germany, and Malvern, Pennsylvania, with an expected loss of more than 1,300 jobs in the Location and Commerce divisions. According to published reports, operations will consolidate in the Berlin, Boston, and Chicago offices. Another 2,200 layoffs will come from its European manufacturing operations.
This column has admittedly neglected traffic markets lately, but will be running more stories and interviews soon. With that, some big news has come out of that market, namely Google’s recent deal with INRIX to power its navigation and mapping applications. INRIX traffic information will be integrated in Google’s online products and services and on mobile phones.
Meanwhile, INRIX competitor TomTom is launching a Traffic Foundation that brings together stakeholders from academia, industry, and policy-making to help reduce traffic congestions. The company also rolled out its Custom Probe Counts at the ITS World Congress, that allows government and business markets to assess traffic density. The company also expanded its coverage from 14 to 18 countries.
Like many who had the pleasure of interacting with the genius that was Steven Paul “Steve” Jobs, I have been reflecting recently concerning his incredible impact on our lives. Indeed his impact on every aspect of our lives including GPS is almost beyond description.
For example, our warfighters are increasingly using iPads and iPhones in theater for multiple functions, including some dedicated and warfighter-developed GPS applications that far outshine any GPS application provided by the government. When will we learn that we must provide our warfighters what they need or they will go elsewhere to find it because lives are at stake? Today many of our warriors are developing their own applications on their individual iPads and iPhones, exactly as Steve Jobs intended.
NeXT, PIXAR, and USG
My first interaction with Steve was after he had been summarily fired from Apple (the company he cofounded) in 1985 and began a new computer company called NeXT. All I can really say in this venue about that initial interaction is that the U.S. military bought a great many NeXTstation integrated/networked computers, and many of them are in still use today. Indeed, in many circles Steve Jobs credited the U.S. government (USG) with helping NeXT computer get its start. The hardware was definitely better than anything else on the market at the time, but the selling point was the incredibly powerful and user-friendly interface and software, known as NeXTSTEP, which proved to be an early version of the next step in the sequence leading to the modern-day Mac operating system that hundreds of millions of us use today.
To put the power of the NeXT computer and Steve Jobs’ genius in the right context, think PIXAR Animation Studios. PIXAR was another of Steve’s successful collaborations (Steve was co-founder and CEO) when computer-intensive animation required powerful computers that artists as well as business people could understand and use — user-friendly, in other words — and few computers or software applications in the mid-1980s were up to the task. The U.S. government was not into animation but was into high-fidelity simulations and knew an excellent product when they saw it, hence the early supporting partnership. Those little black cubes were among the most powerful and user-friendly computers of their era, and many are still churning away today in settings befitting their hue.
This comes to mind because recently I visited a secure government facility where NeXT computers and NeXTSTEP software are still being utilized, and the users think they have no equal. I have no idea what version of the operating system they are using, but regardless, this is quite a testament to the genius and foresight of Steve Jobs and the company that helped save Apple when Apple bought NeXT and Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1996. The rest, as they say, is history.
No Competition
Every time I use a new application on my iPhone, iTouch, iPad, or iMac, I think about the clueless CEO of one of the world’s major phone companies who was interviewed about his views concerning the iPhone just before it was released. He foolishly said and probably really believed, “We are not worried about Apple and the iPhone, because they are not a recognized phone company.” Obviously underestimating the brilliance of Steve Jobs caught a great many companies and CEOs by surprise. As I wrote concerning a PC World magazine article listing the world’s best products a few years ago, “If Apple had a product in the category, it was always number one, without fail.” I know of no other company that can make that claim.
“How has Apple managed to stay so successful over 35 years? …no one can dispute that the company is the dominant American corporate brand, period. The hard numbers prove this, with Apple’s market capitalization recently surpassing Exxon-Mobile, making it the most valuable company in the world. Of course, the news always breathlessly captures Apple’s characteristics: Legendary CEO. Masterful marketing. Amazing stagecraft. Sexy products. Industry renegades. Tradition breakers. Cult-like devotion.”
Even as I totally agree with this description of the Steve Jobs-led-Apple, I feel there is a glaring omission. Apple gives the consumer what they want and need, and they do it in such an intuitive way that consumers have come to expect only the best as well as the next great product from Apple. The fact that companies worldwide then attempt to emulate the latest Apple product or service is ample evidence that this is a working and successful strategy for Apple. Remember: “Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.”
GPS on a Train
I was thinking about this recently during the 30-plus-minute train ride from the greater Portland Airport to the Oregon Convention Center where I had the pleasure of attending ION GNSS 2011 September 17-23 (Institute of Navigation, Global Navigation Satellite Systems). During that train ride I was monitoring my GPS application on my iPhone and iPad, comparing the two and trying to determine the closet stop to my hotel. I originally thought my fellow passengers might consider my activities strange or excessive, being as I was on a train, until I noticed that actually most of the people in my train car were monitoring their travel with iPhones, iPads, or smartphones. A young couple across from me wanted to know what GPS application I was using. So even on a train I experienced the extra and sometimes comforting situational awareness that GPS can provide. I knew that on a long straight stretch we once hit a top speed of 68 miles per hour, the entire trip was going to take ~35 minutes, and I was sure I exited at the nearest stop to my hotel and then found my way there on foot without any wrong turns. So, you see, a GPS application on an iPhone or an iPad while traveling on a train does make sense, because when tunnels and buildings obstruct the sky view you still have Wi-Fi, telephone (3G), and SkyHook wireless applications to keep you oriented, and in a strange location it will give you peace of mind. That is indeed priceless, and I think Steve Jobs knew that. He thought about what was needed and what could be. He made our lives better.
So when I think of Steve Jobs I will always remember the outside-the-box thinker that was never afraid to take on any challenge and who usually won simply because he gave us what we needed, sometimes even before we knew it.
ION and CGSIC
This was the second year for ION GNSS in Portland, Oregon and as with most ION events it was better this year than last. More than 1400 attended this year, which is a ten percent increase over last year and in this economic environment that is quite a feat and speaks well of the value that ION events bring to companies bottom lines. There were also more exhibitors this year; so many it was difficult to get by and visit them all because the paper presentations were so interesting.
The whole international GNSS event actually began on September 19 with the 51st Civil GPS Service Interface Committee (CGSIC) meeting held in conjunction with ION GNSS. This is always a great venue for an exchange of ideas and an opportunity for the various federal and state agencies that deal with GNSS on a daily basis to present their latest projects and innovations. It is always an uplifting session for me because it demonstrates that even federal and state bureaucracies’ can be innovative when the people involved are passionate about what they do. If you ever have an opportunity to attend the CGSIC sessions I highly recommend them.
You can become a member of the CGSIC, it is totally free of charge, by visiting the NAVCEN website registration page. In fact many people will erroneously but understandably tell you the CG stands for US Coast Guard because as a Service they are so heavily involved in the CGSIC. The NAVCEN CO (Commanding Officer) manages the committee, maintains membership roles, coordinates committee meetings, represents the committee chair at GPS related meetings, and coordinates responses to submitted issues, however the CG still stands for Civil GPS. However, just a reminder if you do have a question about the civil GPS signal or experience interference or outages then the place to call is the NAVCEN or U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center at (703) 313-5900, or visit the very informative NAVCEN website.
ION GNSS
As much as I would like to highlight individual papers at ION GNSS, it is impossible. There are hundreds of papers and presenters, and whether or not you find them interesting depends on your area of interest, but I can say there is something for everyone. Name a GNSS topic and there is most likely a paper being presented at ION GNSS that addresses your specific interest in a cutting-edge manner.
The exhibitors and their products were as always very informative, and I will be highlighting a few of those in the months to come. As a former marketing executive, I can tell you that if you have a cutting-edge GNSS product, hardware or software, and you aren’t exhibiting at ION GNSS, then you are missing the boat.
As usual this event is extremely well organized, and it runs like clockwork. My hat is off to ION President Dr. Todd Walter and Executive Director, Lisa Beaty along with her fine staff, for another outstanding and informative GNSS event.
LightSquared
For the past year almost every meeting of GPS professionals has been dominated by the LightSquared (LSQ) fiasco; ION GNSS and CGSIC were no exceptions. The best-attended meetings at both events concerned the current status of the LSQ fiasco. There were LSQ updates from the Pentagon, the 50SW, SMC, and finally there was a forum with an invited LSQ executive moderated by Tom Stansell titled: “Can LightSquared and GPS Coexist? Current Status and Ongoing Activities.” An excellent question that, in my opinion, was answered firmly and clearly in the negative. In my opinion, shared by many, the first three presentations, including the presentation by the LSQ exec, were of dubious value and only the Trimble, Garmin, and John Deere presentations addressed the actual issues. My hat is off to Tom Stansell and ION for making the effort, and to the extent that a great many people are now more informed about the LSQ fiasco the session was a success, and it was the best attended individual session, standing room only, of the entire ION event.
My Favorite and Most Unique Presentation
My favorite and most entertaining presentation was by none other than Alan Cameron, the editor-in-chief of GPS World magazine. Alan’s presentation, “Out in Front: C’mon, People Now” was, now don’t be shocked, on the LightSquared fiasco, and was presented to the music and words of Sonny and Cher. The highlight, however, was when Alan actually sang the chorus and the audience joined in. Leave it to Alan to do the unexpected. Most importantly, he more than made his point. This whole fiasco long along ceased to be about the laws of physics, no matter how hard LightSquared tries to change them. It is now unfortunately a sad tale full of sound and fury but not much else. It is all about politics, an embarrassed administration that attempts to tamper with congressional testimony, and a clueless FCC chairman trying to save face, his job, or both.
GPS World Dinner
To wrap up the conference’s after hours activities on Thursday night, GPS World magazine held its annual GPS gala and exclusive dinner. The GPS literati, dare I say cognoscenti, were present in all their finery, yours truly included, and a good time was had by all. Of course the LightSquared fiasco was again the main topic of discussion, and where I actually heard LightSquared used as a verb. As in, “You’ve been LightSquared!” A vision of a common fastening device comes to mind. It’s amazing but not even a couple glasses of vino rosso make that bitter LSQ pill any easier to swallow. Fortunately, the camaraderie and food were excellent as always. And once again there was record attendance.
Personally, I can’t wait until we do this all again next year in Nashville, Tennessee. I hope to see you there September 17-21, 2012, at the Nashville Convention Center.
There’s been a tremendous push in the past three decades to map what is outdoors. While there is still a long way to go, the path to a complete, accuracy outdoor GIS seems clear. On the other hand, mapping the unseen and indoors is in its infancy, and the path to a complete and accurate GIS of unseen infrastructure (eg. underground) and indoors (eg. building infrastructure) is not clear.
Cost-effective and efficient methods of data collection are the primary reasons for the proliferation of outdoor GIS. Remote sensing (satellite/aerial imagery, lidar, etc.), GPS, and other sensors have become common technologies for populating an outdoor GIS. If one studies the data sources in a typical GIS, they can be sourced to one of the technologies mentioned above.
The challenge of populating a GIS with spatial details of hidden infrastructure and indoor features is purely a function of efficient and cost-effective sensors. Satellite/aerial imagery doesn’t help and GPS doesn’t help in either case. Therefore, new sensor technologies must be adopted that make data collection efficient and affordable. The good news is that there are many
The first two Galileo navigation satellites are both now fueled and checked for their launch by Soyuz from French Guiana on October 20, reports the European Space Agency.
The two Galileo In-Orbit Validation satellites reached Europe’s Spaceport in September. Galileo’s second flight model, FM2, touched down on September 7 on an Antonov-124, and the Galileo Protoflight Model followed it seven days later on an Ilyushin 76. Both satellites are now fueled and ready to be mated this week onto the dispenser that will hold them in place during launch before deploying them into their final 23 222 km orbit.
The combined payload stack — the dispenser and both satellites — will then be transported from the fueling facility to the Upper Composite Integration Facility S3B for integration with their Fregat-MT upper stage and subsequent encapsulation.
By Roland Bauernfeind, Thomas Kraus, Dominik Dötterböck, Bernd Eissfeller, Erwin Loehnert, and Elmar Wittmann
Open-field tests of jamming signals from widely available in-car jammers, measured with an experimental software receiver that records the intermediate frequency (IF) samples, enable a detailed analysis of interference effects from these looming threats.
In-car GNSS jammers, openly advertised online as personal protection devices, constitute the most serious threat of all the GNSS interference sources. Such jammers are relatively easy to purchase from abroad over the Internet and to operate by plugging into the cigarette lighter of a vehicle.
Their usage may be motivated by criminal intention such as disabling a vehicle theft-protection system, a fraud attempt against a distance-based road-user charging system or distance-based vehicle insurance, or by privacy concerns, to escape monitoring by a fleet-management or other tracking system. Since most current GNSS receivers carry a communication link, it is difficult to keep full control of the data flow. Further concerns arise from reports of companies storing user location data, as was the case with Apple. Concerns about privacy issues will grow with the widespread introduction of intelligent transport systems (ITSs), vehicles and transport infrastructure that apply information and communications technology to improve transportation efficiency, sustainability, and safety. The primary information source is GNSS for location enabled applications like eCall, a pan-European location based emergency call, which shall be in place and installed in every new car from 2015 on.
Cooperative ITSs, which are currently undergoing standardization, are transport systems that communicate their positions such that each vehicle has a virtual picture of the real world in its vicinity. The cooperative ITS network connects the vehicles with the transportation infrastructure. Vehicles establish a wireless vehicular ad-hoc network (VANET), based on their geographical position. In a VANET the position is communicated to be used at the application layer but is also required at the physical layer to enable geographical routing and addressing. This emerging vehicular communication is an enabling technology many novel and innovative driver assistance systems and location-based services. The result of using an in-car jammer is the complete destruction of GNSS signals not only in the vehicle it is operated in, but also within vehicles in the vicinity. This creates a serious threat to ITS’ future.
To counter the interference threat by in-car jammers, the University of Federal Armed Forces (FAF) Munich purchased some jammers offered online, for analysis in a laboratory environment and in open-field tests in the GAlileo TEst range (GATE). Measurements were taken with an experimental software receiver developed at the Institute of Space Technology and Space Applications. This receiver enables recording of intermediate frequency (IF) samples and detailed analysis of the interference effects on the receiver.
Jammer Interference Signals
First, we analyzed the purchased jammers shown in the Opening Photo. It is always better to understand the signal structure of undesired signals well, before starting development of applicable countermeasures and mitigation technologies. Therefore, the jammers were analyzed in the frequency domain with a spectrum analyzer, and the analyses were extended by a time-domain analysis by recording the signal with a software radio-defined card.
The first results showed that the majority of low-cost in-car jammers transmit a chirp signal with a bandwidth between 9.4 to 44.9 MHz in the E1/L1 band (other frequency bands haven’t been considered yet). The others are sine-wave oscillators with a 3-dB bandwidth of around 0.92 kHz and have a temperature-dependent center frequency around the Galileo/GPS center frequency, but they are not considered further in this article. Both jammer types belong to the category of narrowband interference, however the chirp jammers are much more effective in jamming the signal within the GNSS receivers.
The construction of an in-car jammer chirp signal is usually done by a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) with an input voltage of a saw-tooth function. In general, it is a sine function with a frequency change over time, which can be described by
(1)
For a unidirectional linear chirp signal the instantaneous frequency f(t) varies linearly over time as
(2)
where f0 is the starting frequency and k is the chirp rate. The amplitude a(t) is usually constant. The corresponding time domain function for a sinusoidal unidirectional linear chirp is
. (3)
All in-car chirp jammers are linear with a positive uni- or bidirectional sweep. The negative slope is so high that we can neglect them for modeling and can describe jammer 1 with the equation (3)
. (4)
Tsw = sweep time.
The frequency spectrum of jammer 1 and jammer 3 is given in Figure 1 and Figure 4, respectively, where we can extract the bandwidth and the peak power from the graph. For measuring the peak power of the jammer it is important to take the max-function mode of the spectrum analyzer, because the internal sweep of the jammer and the spectrum analyzer is never synchronized. Table 1 shows the important parameters of the jammers.
Table 1. Chirp jammer parameters.Figure 1. Power spectrum of jammer No. 1.
To get the timing information of the signal, the analysis must be done in the time-domain. Therefore, we converted the jammer signal into an intermediate frequency and recorded the signal with a SDR card. The further processing has been done with Matlab, where we could extract the frequency change over time for jammers 1, 2, and 3, given in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 5, respectively. Finally, these functions are exactly the same, which were generated for the VCO within the jammers.
Figure 2. Frequency over time at jammer No. 1.Figure 3. Frequency over time at jammer No. 2.Figure 4. Power spectrum of jammer No. 3.Figure 5. Frequency over time at jammer No. 3.
If we compare the jammers, we can see how the complexity increases from one to the other. For jammer 1, a standard saw-tooth generator with a rising slope has been used only for the input of the VCO. Jammer 2 uses two generators. Compared to jammer 1, a second saw-tooth generator with a falling slope and a four-times longer sweep time is added. In the most complex case, jammer 3, we find four generators in total. Jammer 3 causes a frequency burst every 1.12, 1.35, or 2.28 milliseconds. These frequency bursts can be seen also in the power spectrum in Figure 6.
Interference Tests in GATE
Various static and dynamic interference tests were performed in the Galileo Test Range (GATE) in Berchtes-gaden, Germany, where the impact of the jammer signals on both GPS and Galileo RF signals could be evaluated in a realistic manner. GATE is a unique outdoor test and development environment for Galileo and GPS satellite navigation. Consisting of eight virtual Galileo satellites located atop several mountains around the test area in Berchtesgaden, GATE provides a topology to support different testing scenarios. The Galileo signals are transmitted simultaneously on all three frequencies. E1, E5ab, and E6, compliant to the Galileo OS ICD specification. GATE’s virtual-satellite mode simulates a realistic moving Galileo satellite constellation and supports commercial Galileo receivers without any modification. Two monitoring stations within the test area receive and process these signals. A central processing facility steers and controls the signals transmitted.
Figure 6 gives an overview of the test range with its transmit and monitoring stations as well as the GATE central point. The interference tests with the GNSS jammers were performed in the area close to this central point.
With respect to the testing of RF jamming scenarios including GPS as well as real over-the-air Galileo signals in the GATE test area, some requirements have to be taken into account.
Transmission of any interference signals on the GPS and Galileo frequency bands requires an official license from the responsible authority in Germany (Bundesnetzagentur). An appropriate permission for trial radio transmission was available in the framework of the jamming tests. The disturbance of other GPS receivers in the vicinity has to be minimized in any case. Therefore the transmission power of the jammers must be limited so that a distinct impact on the GPS L1 signal reception is restricted to a radius of a few hundred meters at the most. Furthermore, the interference signal source must be placed at an adequate distance from the GATE monitoring station antennas in order not to affect the processing and steering process for the GATE signals.
Finally, in the case of performing GATE tests with a dynamic test user receiver, a severe degradation of the user reference position must be avoided. As the steering of GATE signals in the virtual-satellite mode is based on accurate and reliable user position information transferred in near-real-time to the GATE processing facility. a combined GPS-RTK and inertial measurement unit (IMU) solution is applied. Thanks to the use of the IMU, a GPS signal outage can be well compensated for a certain time period. In order to meet the GATE accuracy requirements, the jammer transmission was restricted to time intervals of about 30 seconds.
Ipex Software Receiver
The Institute of Space Technology and Applications PC-based Experimental Software Receiver (ipexSR) is a multi-frequency GNSS receiver realized completely in software (Visual C++/assembler), capable of tracking GPS and other GNSS signals in real time or post-processing.
For signal analysis, IF samples were recorded and analyzed in post-processing, using two front ends that can be operated in different modes depending on required frequency bands. For the interference analysis, only L1 was recorded with the front end parameters summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Front-end parameters.
The front-end gain is set once for the measurement in the receiver’s configuration menu. The front end uses no automatic gain control. All the tracking loops settings can be set in the receiver’s configuration menu. For the phase lock loop (PLL), we used a non-coherent (Costas) dot-product discriminator and for the delay lock loop (DLL) an early-minus-late discriminator with the settings in Table 3.
Table 3. Tracking loop settings.
Jammer Effect on Receiver
To analyze the interference effect on the receiver, we took measurements with static receivers and different jammers approaching the receivers, starting from a distance of 1,200 meters. Both commercial receivers, capable of recording the carrier-to-noise density ratio, and the Ipex software receiver, capable of recording IF samples, were set up. Receiver antennas were mounted on the car roof. For jammer reference trajectory, we used an odometer with a GPS receiver providing initial position and reference time.
A measurement for the degradation in the receiver is the carrier-to-noise density ratio. The theoretical effective carrier-to-noise density ratio is defined as
where Q is the spectral separation gain adjustment factor. While moving the jammer towards the receivers, the received interference power Preceived(r) increases relative the distance according to the free-space loss as
where Pjammer is the jammer transmission power. Figures 7 to 10 give the C/N0 degradation for the four different receivers interfered with by the three different jammers in respect to the distance. The measurements have been taken at different times so the undisturbed C/N0 is varying.
Figure 7. Carrier-to-noise ratio for IpexSR.Figure 8. Carrier-to-noise density ratio for BeeLine receiver.Figure 9.Carrier-to-noise density ratio for NAVILoc receiver.Figure 10. Carrier-to-noise density ratio for Garmin receiver.
Comparing the professional receivers with professional antenna to the mass-market receivers with patch antenna, it is evident that the professional receivers are interfered with at a later point but lose lock on the signal earlier.
The degradation of the C/N0 for ipexSR compared with the theoretical curve as introduced before is given in Figure 11. The measured curves follow the theoretical one as long as the front end is not saturated. As soon as the front-end analog-to-digital converter (ADC) is saturated, it causes severe degradation of the signal which exceeds the pure degradation caused by the increased interference power until loss of lock on the signal.
Figure 11. Carrier-to-noise ratio for IpexSR (Jammer 1).
Saturation is caused because the amplitude of the received interference power exceeds the range of the ADC. The comparison between the theoretical and actual received signal strength in respect of distance for the measurements of jammer 1 is shown in Figure 12. With an effective jammer transmission power of –40 dBW, the curves show good alignment for the interval where the received interference power is noticeable above the noise floor, until the front
end goes into saturation and the received signal strength converges to an upper limit.
Figure 12. Received signal strength (Jammer 1).Figure 13. Sample distribution over 8-bit ADC (Jammer 1).
The rising received interference power drives the IF samples to the outer limit of the ADC and changes the distribution of the IF samples over the bins of the ADC as shown in Figure 13. For these measurements, the gain of the front end was set to have the samples without interference distributed over all the ADC bins. This setting with low remaining dynamic range is optimal when no interference is present, whereas with interference the ADC goes immediately into saturation. The red line shows the distribution of the samples where 0.2 percent of the samples are at the outer boundary.
Figure 14. Punctual correlator output (Jammer 1).
Until saturation of the front end, the interference degrades the correlation process by raising the noise floor. When the dynamic range of the front end can no longer occupy the received interference power, the degradation by saturation dominates. For the undisturbed signal, all the signal power is in the I-channel as seen at the punctual correlator output in Figure 14. The correlation is degraded until loss of lock on the PLL occurs.
Degradation of the correlator output has a direct effect on the performance of the tracking loops and their discriminator outputs, as shown in Figure 15. The discriminator error rises until it is out of the discriminator function’s pull-in range. When the PLL error is outside the pull-in range, the tracking loop loses lock on the signal.
Figure 15. DLL and PLL discriminator outputs (Jammer 1).
The degradation of DLL performance causes a position error as shown in Figure 16.
The measurements show that currently available in-car jammers degrade the receiver performance in an radius of about 1 kilometer around the interference source and disable position determination within a radius of about 200 meters.
Interference Detection
Jammers constitute a serious threat to the future of intelligent transport systems. Their use is forbidden by law, and their illegal use must be prosecuted. To have awareness of the actual number of jammers in use requires deploying jammer detectors at dedicated points and recording interference events. Promising points for initial measurements would be highway interchanges or highly frequented border crossings. Reliable numbers on the actual use of GNSS jammers would be required to support government decision-making regarding further actions, and to support the final goal of an comprehensive GNSS interference monitoring network.
For the interference detection test, we recorded were recorded with five static receivers deployed in the GATE core area as shown in Figure 17, with jammer trajectory in red.
Detection of the interference source is based on monitoring the jammer-signal-to-noise ratio (JNR). To prosecute malicious intentional jamming, it is necessary to assign the detected interference signal to the jamming device. Therefore, the signal was analyzed in the time-frequency domain for the characteristic chirp signal of a jammer. The gain of the front end was set to the minimum so that the front end could cover high interference power levels
First, signals were recorded with the chirp jammer located at the central point. The jammer is located outside the car, with line-of-sight to position 1. The measurements at position 1 at about 200 meters from the jammer are shown in Figure 18. Short-time Fourier transformations of the signals in Figure 19 and Figure 20 clearly show the presence of the chirp signal.
Figure 18. JNR at Position 1.Figure 19. STFT of Jammer 1 at Position 1.Figure 20. STFT of Jammer 3 at Position 1.
For the second measurement, the jammer was used inside a car. The car started at position 1, where it switched on the jammer and drove along the main street, passing position 3. The car then turned and drove back the same way. The measured JNR at the five positions is illustrated in Figure 21.
Figure 21. JNR with jammer 1 moving.The resulting degradation in C/N0 is presented for GPS PRN 9 in Figure 22 and for GATE PRN 46 in Figure 23. The measurements show that the jammer can be detected and identified within the distributed receiver network.Figure 22. C/N0 of GPS PRN9 with jammer 1 moving.Figure 23. C/N0 of GATE PRN46 with jammer 1 moving.
The next step in developing a comprehensive interference-monitoring network would be to have automotive GNSS receivers enabled to detect and report interference events. For this scenario, a jammer was operated in a moving car and measurements with the ipexSR driving in another car on the same road were made.
Both cars started at the same position. The pattern in Figure 24 corresponds to the following events. The jammer started first, followed by the receiver with a random car in between. After 170 seconds, the jammer parked at the roadside, and the receiver passed by, indicated by the single spike. At about 240 seconds, the receiver turned and passed by the parked jammer again, as indicated by the second spike at 310 seconds. After the receiver passed by the jammer, the jammer started again, approached the receiver from behind and overtook the receiver at 450 seconds.
During this measurement, neither of the two cars could track or re-acquire a signal. Reporting of the loss of lock on all satellites could therfore be used for a coarse localization of jammers.
Figure 24. JNR in a traffic environment with jammer 1.
Conclusion
The analysis has shown that the interference range of a jammer is very dependent on the receiver architecture. In every scenario, the jammers had severe effects. After detecting interference events, the next step is to mitigate their effect within the receiver. Mitigation techniques based on time-frequency transformations like short-time Fourier transform or wavelet packets are envisaged. With the ipexSR IF Sample API, Figure 25, it is possible to implement and test these algorithms in real time.
Figure 25. IF sample API.
Also the possibility of localizing the interference source based on the JNR and C/N0 measurements will be e
valuated.
Steps against the use of in-car jammers must be taken. To prosecute the use of jammers, detector units must be deployed. This would also help to gather reliable numbers on the use of jammers and would support and justify future actions. Clearly, degrading the integrity of GNSS positioning is a threat for all safety-relevant ITS applications. Therefore, avoidance and mitigation of interference signals should be subject of safety-related vehicular communication, and its standards should be able to handle this in the same way as other safety-related issues. We propose discussion of the GNSS jammer threat within the working groups for cooperative ITS standardization: GNSS interference should be handled in the same way as any other road hazard.
Acknowledgments
These results were developed during the InCarITS Project (Analysis, Detection and Mitigation of In-car GNSS Jammer Interference in Intelligent Transport Systems), founded by the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie and administered by the Project Management Agency for Aeronautics Research of the DLR in Bonn (FKZ 50 NA 1001).
Manufacturers
Jammers were analyzed with a Will’tek 9102B spectrum analyzer and signals recorded with a GE ICS-572B software-defined radio card. The two front ends were developed by Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (FhG). Receivers used for jamming testing were ipexSR with NovAtel GPS-704-X antenna and FhGIII front end, a NovAtel BEELINE with the same antenna, a NAVILock NL-302U Sirf3, and a Garmin GPSMap 76, the latter two both with patch antennae. Only the IpexSR was used for tests to locate jammers, using an FHGIII front end and NovAtel GPS 511 antenna (Position 1, 5), the same antenna with an FHGII front end (Position 2, 3), and an FHGIII front end with SensorSystems S67-1575-96 antenna (Position 4). The two-car driving test used the IpexSR with Novatel GPS-704-X antenna and FHGII front end. IFEN GmbH developed and installed the test range and is GATE operator at least until end of 2013.
Roland Bauernfeind works at the Institute of Space Technology and Space Applications at the University FAF Munich. He received a diploma in aerospace engineering from University of Stuttgart.
Thomas Kraus is a research associate of the Institute of Space Technology and Space Applications at University FAF Munich.
Dominik Dötterböck is a research associate of the Institute. He received his diploma in electrical engineering and information technology from Technical University Munich.
Bernd Eisfeller is director of the Institute of Space Technology and Space Applications at the University FAF Munich. He is responsible for teaching and research in the field of navigation and signal processing.
Erwin Loehnert received a diploma in aerospace engineering in from the Munich University of Technology. He is head of the Mobile Solutions department at IFEN GmbH, and GATE manager.
Elmar Wittman received a Dipl.-Ing. degree in geodesy from the Munich University of Technology. He works as a systems engineer in the field of GPS/Galileo satellite navigation for IFEN GmbH.
The first Soyuz to take off from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana was moved to the launch pad October 14. The rocket that will carry the first two Galileo navigation satellites into orbit is on track for liftoff on October 20, reports the European Space Agency (ESA). 
