GNSS 20090501 May 2009

Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
THE WORLDS NEWSSTAND
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_____________________________________________________
INSIDEGNSSDIGITAL
Theprint edition
InsideGNSS
plus
READ
REVIEW
EXPLORE
move
enlarge
Search
download
the first thorough analyses of the new L5 signal and initial observations of SVN49 signal
problems
expandedversions of twoimportant articles:
WorkingPapers, Architecturefor aFutureC-Band/L-BandGNSS
Synthetic ApertureGPSSignal Processing: Concept andFeasibilityDemonstration
livelinks tosources, references, companies andmore.
Thefollowingareafewtips for navigatingthedigital editiononceyou'veopenedit:
To from page to page, use the forward and back buttons in the toolbar at the top of the
screen.
To text for easier reading, click once anywhere on the page. Click again to bring the text
backtoits original size.
The function allows you to conduct a keyword search within the entire issue, or across
all availableissues.
For offline reading, a fully functional copy of the digital edition to your hard drive by
selectingtheSave functionfromthetoolbar at thetopof thescreen.
We encourage you to forward this email to friends and colleagues with whom you would like to share
this digital edition.
If youareviewingtheWebbrowser version, just clicktheShare functiononthetoolbar.
Sincerely,
GlenGibbons
Editor andPublisher
l
l
l
l
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
GPS | GALILEO | GLONASS | COMPASS
Engineering Solutions from the Global Navigation Satellite System Community
May/June 2009
www.insidegnss.com
GNSS SOLUTIONS:
Vector Tracking Loops
Benets & Drawbacks
WORKING PAPERS:
Can C-Band Work
in the GNSS World?
L5 FIRST LOOKS:
Two Views of the
New GPS Civil Signal
GPS SAR
Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out Search Issue | Next Page For navigation instructions please click here For navigation instructions please click here
Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out Search Issue | Next Page For navigation instructions please click here For navigation instructions please click here
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_________________
_________
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
4
InsideGNSS MAY/ J UNE 200 9 www.insidegnss.com
TECHNICAL ARTICLES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MAY/JUNE 2009
VOLUME 4
NUMBER 3
TOC BY THE
NUMBERS
8
Thinking Aloud
10
360 Degrees
13
GNSS Hotspots
ARTICLES
16
GNSS Solutions
Vector Tracking Loops
22
First Look: GPS L5 Signal
30
GPS Modernization
Milestone: L5 on the Air
37
Synthetic Aperture GPS
47
Working Papers
C-Band for GNSS: Part 1
DEPARTMENTS
57
Industry View
58
Advertisers Index
58
GNSS Timeline
COVER STORY
37 Synthetic Aperture
GPS Signal
Processing
Concept and Feasibility Demonstration
Andrey Soloviev, Frank van Graas,
Sanjeev Gunawardena, and Mikel Miller
In addition to positioning, navigation and tim-
ing, GPS turns out to be a useful sensor for other
purposes. Synthetically generated, phased-
array antennas can process GPS signals to create
large antenna apertures. The resulting narrow-
beam generation capabilities mitigate interfer-
ence and jamming and produce high-resolution
radar images which could lead to interesting
civil and military applications.
D
o
D

P
h
o
t
o

b
y

M
S
G
T

P
a
u
l

N
.

H
a
y
a
s
h
i

22First Look
Observing the GPS L5 Test Transmission from SVN49
Using Software Radio Processing
Sanjeev Gunawardena, Zhen Zhu, and
Michael Braasch
The test signal from SVN49, the latest Block
IIR-M GPS satellite, has different characteristics
than the operational L5 signal specications. A
group of Ohio University researchers discovered
the discrepancies when they tracked the new L5
signal using a commercial antenna and a modi-
ed software GPS receiver of their own design.
30Modernization
Milestone
Observing the First GPS Satellite with an L5 Payload
Grace Xingxin Gao, Liang Heng, David De
Lorenzo, Sherman Lo, Dennis Akos, Alan Chen,
Todd Walter, Per Enge, Bradford Parkinson
Using a modied navigation payload on a GPS
Block IIR-M satellite, the U.S. Air Force switched
on the eagerly awaited, modernized L5 signal on
April 10. Researchers in California and Colorado
report their Initial observations of L5 broad-
casts, including an anomaly in SVN49s L1 signal.
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
________________
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS FROM THE GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM COMMUNITY
May/June 2009 Volume 4/Number 3
EDITORIAL
Editor & Publisher Glen Gibbons glen@insidegnss.com
Art Director Tim Jordan
Graphic Artist Gwen Rhoads
Circulation Director Peggie Kegel
Contributing Editor for Working Papers: Gnter Hein
Guenter.Hein@unibw-muenchen.de
Contributing Editor for GNSS Solutions:
Mark Petovello mark.petovello@ucalgary.ca
Technical Editor Hans J. Kunze klaglobal@earthlink.net
Contributing Writers/Copyeditors Eliza Schmidkunz,
Melody Ward Leslie
Web Designer/Developer Mike Lee
Web Editor Sierra Robinson
IT Technical Support Elijah Buck
Circulation Assistant Anna Liv Gibbons
MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
Director/Partner Eliza Schmidkunz eliza@insidegnss.com
ADVERTISING
sales@insidegnss.com
Telephone: 408-216-7561 Fax: 408-216-7525
PUBLISHED BY GIBBONS MEDIA & RESEARCH
1574 Coburg Road No. 233
Eugene, Oregon, 97401-4802 USA
Telephone: 408-216-7561
Fax: 408-216-7525
Copyright 2009 Gibbons Media & Research LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may
be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical (including by
photocopy, recording, or information storage and retrieval), without permission in writing from
Gibbons Media & Research. Authorization is granted to photocopy items, with attribution, for
internal/educational or personal non-commercial use. For all other uses, contact Glen Gibbons.
INSIDE GNSS (ISSN 1559-503X) is a controlled circulation magazine, published six times a year. Inside
GNSS is a registered trademark of Gibbons Media and Research LLC. Postage paid at Lebanon Junction
MPO, KY 40150-9998, Mail Permit #473. INSIDE GNSS does not verify any claims or other information
in any of the advertisements or technical articles contained in the publication and cannot take
responsibility for any losses or other damages incurred by readers in reliance on such content.
Editorial Advisory Council
VIDAL ASHKENAZI
Nottingham Scientic Ltd., Nottingham, United Kingdom
JOHN BETZ
MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA
PASCAL CAMPAGNE
France Developpement Conseil, Vincennes, France
MARIO CAPORALE
Italian Space Agency, Rome, Italy
PER ENGE
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA
MARCO FALCONE
European Space Agency, Noordwijk, The Netherlands
SERGIO GRECO
Thales Alenia Space, Rome, Italy
JEAN-LUC ISSLER
CNES, Toulouse, France
CHANGDON KEE
Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
MIKHAIL KRASILSHCHIKOV
Moscow Aviation Institute, Moscow, Russia
SANG JEONG LEE
ChungnamNational University, Daejon, Korea
JULES MCNEFF
Overlook Systems Technologies, Inc., Vienna, Virginia, USA
PRATAP MISRA
MITRE Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
BRAD PARKINSON
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA
TONY PRATT
Professor and Consultant, United Kingdom
SERGEY G. REVNIVYKH
Federal Space Agency, Korolyov, Russian Federation
MARTIN RIPPLE
Thales ATM, Melbourne, Australia
CHRIS RIZOS
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
TOM STANSELL
Stansell Consulting, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, USA
RAYMOND J. SWIDER
Ofce of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Network and
Information Integration , Washington D.C. USA
A.J. VAN DIERENDONCK
AJ Systems, Los Altos, California, USA
JRN TJADEN
European Space Agency, Korou, French Guiana
FRANTISEK VEJRAZKA
Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic
PHIL WARD
Navward Consulting. Garland, Texas, USA
CHRISTOPHER WILSON
Tele Atlas, Redwood City, California, USA
LINYUAN XIA
Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
AKIO YASUDA
Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan
Subscribe Online
FREE one-year subscriptions to the print and/or digital versions are available
to qualied readers who work in GNSS-related companies, organizations,
research institutes, government agencies and the military.
Plus change your address, renew, or unsubscribe do it all online:
WWW.INSIDEGNSS.COM/SUBSCRIPTIONSERVICES
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_____________
______________________
__________________
_______________
______________
______________
____________________________
www.insidegnss.com MAY/ J UNE 200 9 InsideGNSS 7
16 GNSSSolutions
What About Vector Tracking Loops?
Mark Petovello with Matthew Lashley and
David Bevly
47 WorkingPapers
ArchitectureforaFuture
C-Band/L-BandGNSS
Part 1: C-band Services, Space and Ground
Segments,Overall Performance
Andreas Schmitz-Peiffer, Lars Stopfkuchen,
Jean-Jacques Floch, Antonio Fernandez, Rolf
Jorgensen, Bernd Eissfeller, Jose Angel Rodri-
guez, Stefan Wallner, Jong-Hoon Won, Marco
Anghileri, Berthold Lankl, Torben Schler,
Oliver Balbach, and Enrico Colzi
8 Thinking Aloud
Inection Points
Glen Gibbons
10 360 Degrees
News from the world of GNSS
SVN49 & L5: Mixed Results
Galileo: GSA Renamed, Contract Talks
Compass Gets New GEO SV
GAO Warns of GPS Satellite Gap
57 Industry View
58Advertisers Index
58GNSS Timeline
Calendar of Events
COLUMNS DEPARTMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Is C-band in GNSSs
Future? See Working
Papers on page 47
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_____________
________________
8
I
have never been one who
thought there was a fundamental
contradiction between physics
and metaphysics.
Arguably, an understanding of
Newtonian (and Einsteinian) laws
of motion (and relativity) may lead
inevitably to a younger person giving
up her seat on the bus to an elder but
probably most of us did not arrive at
that sensibility (if, indeed, we have) by
the route of science.
Nothing about the Big Bang or
evolution intrinsically stands in
opposition to the creation narratives of
faith only a failure of imagination
on either side can make these ideas
antagonistic. Now, as to human
interpretations of scientifc and
religious concepts well, thats
another matter entirely.
Nonetheless, as long as we accept
the sound science of the former and
the metaphors and poetry of the latter
with tolerance, curiosity, and, when
necessary, a modest element of humor,
physics and metaphysics can live and
thrive together and learn from each
other.
For instance, in the 20th century a
movement arose known as ecumenism,
from the Greek oikoumene, for the
whole inhabited world. It was, frst,
a search for common ground among
factions within a particular faith, but
later expanded to seek cooperation and
mutual understanding among faiths.
Eventually, the idea has arisen of a
tolerant primacy of ones own faith in a
multicultural world.
But ecumenism is far from a done
deal. Crusade and jihad, apocalypse
and rapture are much more thrilling
prospects than cooperation, it seems.
Defning who we are by sketching the
shadows of strangers is ofen easier
than flling in the outline of our own
qualities and aspirations on which to
build the basis of mutual interests.
And thats where GNSS enters into
this little homily.
Te world now has four global
navigation satellite systems in existence
or struggling to be born. (If reports
that India now plans to expand its
regional eforts into a full GNSS,
make that fve . . . and counting.) All
of the providers have joined that most
ecumenical of organizations, the
UN-backed International Committee
on GNSS (ICG), dedicated to the
proposition that the systems should be
compatible and interoperable.
But, as frequently occurs in the
realm of religions, each GNSS provider
continues to exhibit nationalist
tendencies as well. Recent GNSS
examples: even as his country prepares
to host the fourth meeting of the ICG,
Roskosmos chief Anatoly Perminov
is making the argument that all
cars imported to Russia should have
GLONASS navigation systems.
Chinas Bureau of Surveying
reminds (foreign) cell phone owners
that the unlicensed GPS function
should be turned of to avoid running
up against the agencys crackdown on
illegal mapping. Europe would like
to tax GNSS chips but has still not
fnalized an ICD for its Open Service
that would allow manufacturers to
build receivers.
As for the United States, the
original GNSS operator with a
complete system and enormous
installed base, it sometimes only has to
not step up to some issue to advance its
particular interests.
Te search for unique qualities,
secure signals, and comparative
advantages vis--vis the other systems
must coexist beside the demand of
rapidly growing numbers of GNSS
users to have interoperable systems.
Otherwise, well have no way to
deal with such things as the trend
toward felding higher power GNSS
signals that raise the noise foor in
limited L-band frequencies like water
from a broken pipe fooding the
basement.
Each system faces a series of
internal challenges and infection
points, where providers must decide to
turn one way or another in their GNSS
program development. And they all
have the same external infection point:
protectionism or free trade, dominance
and exclusivity or primacy with mutual
beneft.
GLEN GIBBONS, JR.
Editor
Dening who we are by sketching the shadows of strangers is
often easier than lling in the outline of our own qualities and
aspirations on which to build the basis of mutual interests.
THINKING ALOUD
Inection Points
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
____________
____________
10
SVN49 & L5:
Mixed Results
W
ant the good news first, or
the bad?
Well, in the order they
occurred, the good news is
that a successful launch of a Block IIR-
M(20) satellite on March 24 and the
beginning of transmissions have secured
the primacy of the GPS civil L5 signal
centered at 1176.45 MHz.
L5, the third civil GPS signal, will
eventually support safety-of-life applica-
tions for aviation and provide improved
availability and accuracy to users. Te
GPS program had faced an August 26,
2009, deadline in order to secure its fling
for the frequency with the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU).
The bad news? Signal anomalies
characterized by the U.S. Air Force
as out of family transmissions will
keep the latest GPS satellite from being
declared healthy for an indeterminate
amount of time.
News of the problem with IIR-M(20)
now that its on orbit, known as
space vehicle number (SVN)49 was
announced May 4 to the European Navi-
gation Conference in Naples, Italy, by the
GPS Wings chief engineer, Col. (Select)
David Goldstein.
Although a healthy L5 signal began
transmitting on April 10, other GPS
signals being broadcast by the satellite
particularly those at the L1 frequency
are demonstrating larger than expect-
ed pseudorange errors that appear to be
elevation-dependent, Goldstein said.
Tat is, they vary with the varying eleva-
tion angle of the satellite as it rises and
sets in the sky.
(Articles by two teams of research-
ers appear in this issue of Inside GNSS,
beginning on page 22 and page 30, and
confrm the phenomena.)
Te Air Force detected the anomalies
on April 9, the day before the L5 broad-
casts began. That suggests the out-of-
family problem may stem from a fun-
damental mechanical difculty, which
cant be fxed now that the spacecraf is
in orbit. However, the GPS Wing has a
large military/civilian team of satellite
experts working on the issue.
Goldstein predicted that several more
months would pass before we fnish all
of the trouble-shooting.
Because 18 other Block IIR satellites
built by Lockheed Martin are on orbit
and performing well, a substantial like-
lihood also exists that something about
the L5 payload is creating the problem.
The problem poses no immediate
problem for GPS users. Tirty GPS sat-
ellites are currently in orbit and broad-
casting healthy signals; however, the full
operational constellation for GPS only
requires 24 satellites.
Were in no hurry because of our
overpopulated constellation, Goldstein
told the ENC audience. SVN49 ofcial-
360 DEGREES
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
______________________
___________________________
ly remains in the early orbit check-out
phase. However, the Air Force har-
vested the pseudorandom noise (PRN)
code number (PRN01) of a GPS satellite
already in orbit to use on SVN49. Tat
reduced the constellation by one.
Te uncertainty created by the signal
anomalies will probably delay launches
of the last modernized Block IIR satel-
lite, now scheduled for August, and the
first next-generation Block IIF, which
had been expected to go up late this year
or early in 2010.
Galileo: GSA
Reorganized,
Contract Talks
A
gainst the backdrop of nego-
tiations to build and deploy
the Galileo system, a proposal
now before the European Par-
liament and Council of the European
Union would complete the transforma-
tion of the European GNSS Supervisory
Authority (GSA) from the leading execu-
tive agency for the Galileo program into
a diminished subsidiary of the European
Commission (EC).
That pre-eminent role, envisioned
under the strategy of a public-private
partnership (PPP) abandoned more
than two years ago, would have seen the
GSA sign and oversee a contract with a
private consortium building and operat-
ing the Galileo system and its precursor
European Geostationary Navigation
Overlay Service (EGNOS).
Instead, under the terms of EC Com-
munication 139 released March 24, the
GSA would be renamed the GNSS Agen-
cy with the EC holding veto power over
its administrative board and the agen-
cys primary mission reduced to market
research and promotion of Galileo as
well as conducting security audits.
On April 1, ownership of the EGNOS
infrastructure was transferred to the
EC, and a Brussels-based company, the
European Satellite Services Provider
(ESSP SaS), was entrusted with opera-
tion of the system.
Buying and Building a GNSS. Galileo is
now being developed as a fully public
procurement with a 3.4 billion budget.
The European Space Agency (ESA) is
acting as the technical design authority
and prime contractor.
Te EC is currently negotiating with
a short list of 11 industry teams compet-
ing for prime contracts in six so-called
work packages (WPs) to build the fully
operational capability (FOC) Galileo
system. ESA and the EC say that an
FOC constellation of 30 satellites is still
planned, including four in-orbit valida-
tion (IOV) spacecraft, although some
participants have called for a reduced
set of satellites and services.
Its not just about sending up a
bunch of satellites and building a ground
infrastructure, said Michel Bosco, an
EC representative who spoke to the Euro-
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
______________________
12
360 DEGREES
pean Navigation Conference on May 4.
We are now moving from infrastruc-
ture to applications with the objective
of promoting the quickest and broadest
uptake of EGNOS and Galileo.
Some work packages are further
along than others, with some in the
competitive dialog phase with bid-
ders and others approaching the best
and fnal ofers phase. Te system sup-
port WP, for example, may be signed
this summer, but EC and ESA ofcials
hope to have all contracts signed by the
end of 2009.
Te negotiations are hard; the play-
ers know their jobs, he added. But the
signs are positive.
Nonetheless, ESA and industrial
sources involved in the process say that
the initial bids for WP4, space segment
(satellites), were 40 percent over the bud-
geted allocations and the ofers for all six
WPs, several hundred million euros over
budget.
ESA reportedly asked the competing
WP4 teams, led by EADS Astrium and
OHB-System for three options in their
proposals: one 28-satellite batch (appar-
ently including two spares), two sets
(16 and 12) of space vehicles (SVs), and
another for sets of 8 and 12. Te latter
option suggests that ESA might award
two contracts of 8 each, ensuring a dual
source for the space segment and reserv-
ing the option of choosing between the
two designs for the fnal 12 satellites.
The first IOV satellites will begin
launching next year from ESAs facility
in Korou, French Guiana, using Russian
Soyuz rockets. A Soyuz facility is nearing
completion in Korou. Te launch strat-
egy for the FOC satellites will probably
use a combination of Ariane 5 launch-
ers (four SVs per launch) and Soyuz (two
SVs per launch).
Lessons for Leadership. Observers
generally believe that the current leaders
of the Galileo program are doing better
than their predecessors in the EC and
the Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJU), an
EC/ESA-guided agency from which the
GSA took over responsibility in 2007. Te
GJU failed to complete a contract with the
private consortium under the PPP model
and has recently come under criticism
from the European Court of Auditors.
Albany, New York;
Madison, Wisconsin
Laying Down the Law:
In May, the New York Court
of Appeals ruled 4 to 3 that
warrantless GPS surveillance
isnt legal. Oregon and
Washington courts agree.
Meanwhile, a Wisconsin
appeals court panel okd
secret police use of a GPS
tracking device, because
it didnt involve search or
seizure. Wonder when the
Feds will chime in
In focusing on the development
and validation phase during 20036,
the auditors concluded that the Galileo
program is fve years behind schedule
and facing a current overrun of 2.25
billion (US$3.06 billion) above the 2000
cost projection of 3.33 billion for the
defnition, development and validation,
and deployment phases.
The auditors attribute many of the
problems to an unclear mandate and con-
ficted governance structure of the GJU,
established in September 2003, adding
that the EC also failed to provide ade-
quate leadership during that phase.
A New Role for the GNSS Agency. Te EC
characterizes its recent communication
as an efort to remove contradictions and
ambiguities between the 2004 regulation
360 DEGREES
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
____________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
establishing the GSA and a 2008 regu-
lation outlining the public procurement
for Galileos deployment.
Although the 2008 regulation implic-
itly and comprehensively amended the
Supervisory Authoritys responsibilities,
it had no impact on its internal organisa-
tion, and the Commissions infuence in
this area continues to be very limited,
says the March 24 communication.
Te communication says the reor-
ganized GSA would continue as a
Community Agency that is, one
under the control of European mem-
ber states rather than the EC, the EUs
executive branch, but the far-reaching
changes that it proposes would pro-
foundly alter the agencys political and
legal status.
Tese changes include giving the EC
representative on the GSA/GNSS Agen-
cys administrative board a vote equal to
half of that bodys votes, with the 27 rep-
resentatives of the member states having
the other half.
Moreover, the term of the agencys
executive director would be shortened to
four years from the current fve and cur-
tails that role to carrying out his duties
under the supervision of the Admin-
istrative Board in accordance with the
guidelines provided to the Agency by the
Commission.
Te communication calls for aboli-
tion of the GSAs Scientifc and Techni-
cal Committee, which had been charged
with delivering opinions on technical
questions or on proposals involving major
changes in the design of the European
GNSS system and making recommenda-
tions on modernization of the system.
Those responsibilities have been
moved along with many of the GSA
technical staf to the EC or to the ESA
Evolutions project that is investigating
the technical design for a next-genera-
tion system with 105 million in fund-
ing from ESA members over the next
two years.
Te ECs proposal would also replace
the GSAs System Safety and Security
Committee with a Security Accredita-
tion Committee for European GNSS
Systems, chaired by an EC representative
and with members from the EU nations.
With oversight from this committee, the
GNSS Agency would be charged with
360 DEGREES
GNSS Hotspots
Moscow, Russia
Pay to Play. The head
of Roscosmos, Russias
space agency, has asked
the government to make
it prohibitively expensive
to import cars that cant
use GLONASS. Business
newspaper Vedomosti said
not many Russian cars have
built-in navigation systems
now, and only 10,000 of
nearly two million imports
can use the Russian GNSS.
Trieste, Italy
GNSS for Africa 50
scientists from15 sub-
Saharan universities
consulted with GNSS
experts and even built
LEGO Mindstormrobots
at the rst Satellite
Navigation and Technology
for Africa workshop in April.
Why? GNSS infrastructure
means better maps, safer
transportation, managed
natural resources and
food supplies, improved
emergency services major
goals on the continent.
Washington, DC
Backup The land-based
radio navigation system,
Loran-C and its eLoran
modernization, has been
cut fromthe 2010 federal
budget. Key members of
the Senates Homeland
Security and Science and
Transportation committees
worried about the GAOs
report on a faltering
GPS question killing
an interoperable but
independent PNT backup.
Thiruvananthapuram, India
Ready to Go? In just three years, says the director
of the VikramSarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), Indias
Regional Navigation Satellite System(IRNSS) will be
up and running, delivering 10 meter accuracy to the
subcontinent using three GEOs and four IGSO satellites.
Could be the precursor to a full-edged Indian GNSS.
GLONASS
Compass
Military
Breaking
Policy
Signal Launch
Other Systems Galileo
GPS
Bright Idea
Technology
Commercial
Consumer
Satellite
History
Glitch
Conference
Middle Earth Orbit
L5: A Mixed Bag. The GPS
satellite carrying the new
safety-of-life civil signal
is under investigation. An
L5 signal transmitted on
April 10 was healthy. But
signals on the L1 frequency
are not meeting spec. Larger
than expected pseudorange
errors, says the GPS Wings
chief engineer. The L5 signal
itself could be a cause.
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
14
setting up a Galileo Security Center that
would begin operation in 2012.
Te new regulation has had its frst
reading in the European Parliament and
been referred to committee.
GAO Warns
of Potential GPS
Satellite Gap
I
n what is not necessarily its worst-case
scenario, a recent U.S. Government
Accountability Ofce (GAO) report
suggests that a two-year delay in the
production and launch of the first and
all subsequent GPS III satellites would
reduce the probability of maintaining a
24-satellite constellation to about 10 per-
cent by around fscal year 2018.
Tat would be fewer than the mini-
mum number of satellites to which the
U.S. government has committed for
national and international user com-
munities. It would also surely diminish
the quality of GPS service, particularly
for military, safety-critical, and urban
applications.
However, 12 months into a 72-month
schedule from contract award to first
launch, the GPS IIIA program is still
on track for a 2014 launch, according
to ofcials at the GPS Wing and Lock-
heed Martin, which won the $1.4-billion
development and production contract in
May 2008.
Te GPS Wing, part of the Space &
Missile Systems Center (SMC) at Los
Angeles Air Force Base, California, suc-
cessfully completed an integrated base-
line review of the GPS IIIA program last
October 31. An overall segment-level
preliminary design review (PDR) was
scheduled to take place in mid-May.
Te U.S. government plans to invest
more than $5.8 bil lion from 2009
through 2013 in GPS space and ground
control segments. Nonetheless, in a
report issued April 30 under the title,
Global Positioning System Sig-
nifcant Challenges in Sustaining and
Upgrading Widely Used Capabilities,
Cristina Chaplain, the GAOs director of
acquisition and sourcing management
and primary author of the report, indi-
cated that considerable risk still exists
that the schedule may not be met.
Noting GPS IIIAs highly com-
pressed timeline, the GAO report said
that the schedule is shorter than most
other major space programs we have
reviewed, adding no major satellite
program undertaken in the past decade
has met its scheduled goals.
A two-year delay in the launch
schedule would translate into 5 years
when the U.S. government would be
operating a GPS constellation of fewer
than 24 satellites, and a 12-year period
during which the government would not
meet its commitment to maintaining a
constellation of 24 operational GPS sat-
ellites with a probability of 95 percent
or better.
Even before the 2014 frst GPS IIIA
launch, however, the GAO warns that
a 20 percent chance will arise in 2011-
2012 that the constellation could drop
below 24 space vehicles (SVs) as older
satellites begin failing faster than they
can be replaced.
However, the projections of an
impending gap are primarily based on
design life estimates, not so much on-
orbit performance. None of the GPS
Block IIR satellites on orbit now, for
instance, have failed, even though the
frst was launched more than a decade
ago with a design life of 7.5 years.
Aside from possible launch delays
and constellation decline, the GAO
report criticized the failure of the GPS
program to synchronize the acquisi-
tion and development of the next gen-
eration of GPS satellites with the corre-
sponding timelines of the ground control
segment and military user equipment.
Te result: a likelihood that the mod-
ernized military signal (M-code) will be
available for more than a decade before
user equipment will be felded that can
take strategic advantage of it.
Te report attributed the problems
to a variety of causes: a bungled acqui-
sition reform introduced in the 1990s,
turnover in military program leader-
ship, diffuse responsibilities for GPS
system development, reprogramming
of GPS funds to other DoD program
(or from GPS control segment and user
equipment programs to backfill cost
overruns in the space segment), felding
of immature technologies, post-contract
engineering changes, and so on.
Compass Gets
New GEO SV
L
aunch of a second modernized
Compass (Beidou 2) satellite on
April 14 this one a geostation-
ary spacecraf marks the return
of China to its launch program two years
after the initial venture into space to
build a full-fedged GNSS.
Designated Compass G2 refecting
the geostationary nature of its intended
orbital position about 22,300 miles above
the equator, the satellite lifed of at 16:16
UTC aboard a Long March 3C rocket
from the Xichang launch base in south-
western Chinas Sichuan province, accord-
ing to Chinas state news agency Xinhua.
The satellite is the first of 10 that
China has previously announced it
plans to launch over the next year and
a half. Te second Compass satellite
was developed by the China Academy of
Space Technology, which is part of the
China Aerospace Science and Technol-
ogy Corporation.
An April 17 news report by Xinhua
quoted Cao Chong, chief engineer of the
China Electronics Technology Group
Corporation, as estimating that the frst
phase of Compass, scheduled to complete
a regional capability by the end next year,
would cost more than US$1.46 billion.
I think the Compass system might
cost China several dozen billion yuan,
said Cao, who works with the China
Satellite Navigation Engineering Cen-
ter responsible for building the Compass
system. Te frst phase alone could cost
more than 10 billion yuan, Cao said.
China launched its first Compass
middle-earth-orbiting (MEO) satellite
in April 2007, joining several geosta-
tionary Beidou-1 satellites that have been
launched since 2000. Program ofcials
says that the system will be complete by
2015.
360 DEGREES
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
____________________
16
InsideGNSS MAY/ J UNE 200 9 www.insidegnss
GNSS
Solutions:
V
ector tracking loops are a type
of receiver architecture. Te
diference between traditional
receivers and those that use
vector tracking algorithms is the man-
ner in which they process the received
GNSS satellite signals, and how they
determine the receivers position and
velocity.
Vector-based tracking loops com-
bine the two tasks of signal tracking
and position/velocity estimation into
one algorithm. In contrast, traditional
or scalar tracking methods track
each satellites signal(s) independently;
both of each other and of the position/
velocity solution.
Vector tracking has many advan-
tages over scalar tracking loops. Te
most commonly cited advantage is
increased immunity to interference
and jamming. Te minimum carrier-
to-noise power density ratio (C/N
0
) at
which the receiver can operate is low-
ered by processing the signals in aggre-
gate instead of separately.
Vector tracking algorithms also
have the ability to bridge signal outages
and immediately reacquire blocked sig-
nals. Moreover, vector tracking loops
have a greater immunity to receiver
dynamics than scalar tracking loops.
A fnal advantage: Te vector track-
ing architecture allows the receivers
motion to be constrained in diferent
dimensions, which can be exploited by
receivers whose motion occurs primar-
ily in one or two directions, such as
ships or automobiles, for example.
Te primary drawbacks of vector
tracking loops relative to traditional
approaches are their processing load
and complexity. Te Kalman flter used
by the vector tracking architecture
(more details to follow) must be iterat-
ed on a time scale commensurate with
the integrate-and-dump period used by
the algorithm (~ 50 Hz). Te numeri-
cally controlled oscillators (NCOs) in
each channel also must be controlled
directly by the central Kalman flter.
Another drawback of vector track-
ing is that the presence of a fault in one
channel will afect all the other chan-
nels, possibly leading to receiver insta-
bility or loss of lock on all satellites.
Before discussing how vector track-
ing loops operate, lets frst review how
a traditional receiver operates. Figure 1
shows a block diagram of a typical GPS
receiver.
In the traditional GNSS receiver,
scalar tracking loops are used to esti-
mate the pseudoranges and pseudor-
ange-rates for the available satellites. A
delay lock loop (DLL) is generally used
for estimating the pseudoranges, and
either a Costas loop or frequency lock
loop (FLL) is used to estimate the pseu-
dorange-rates or carrier Doppler. (A
phase lock loop can also be implement-
ed, although it is not strictly required
for signal tracking).
Te pseudoranges and pseudo-
range-rates are fed forward to the
navigation processor, which solves for
the receivers position, velocity, clock
bias, and clock drif (i.e., the naviga-
tion states). Te navigation processor
is typically an iterative least squares
algorithm or a Kalman flter.
In Figure 1, note that the fow of
information in the receiver is strictly
from lef to right. Each channel of the
receiver tracks its respective signal
independent of the other channels.
In addition, no information from the
navigation processor is fed back to the
tracking loops.
Te only exception to this may
occur when the navigation solution is
used to initialize the acquisition pro-
cess for a particular satellite. Although
this may reduce acquisition time, it
does not improve the receivers satellite
tracking capability.
By its very nature, the traditional
receiver architecture does not exploit
the inherent relation between signal
GNSS Solutions is a
regular column featuring
questions and answers
about technical aspects of
GNSS. Readers are invited
to send their questions to
the columnist, Dr. Mark
Petovello, Department of
Geomatics Engineering,
University of Calgary, who
will nd experts to answer
them. His e-mail address
can be found with
his biography at the
conclusion of the column.
What are vector
trackingloops,
andwhat are
their benets and
drawbacks?
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
tracking and navigation state estima-
tion. In particular, recall that the basic
concept of GNSS is that the signal
tracking information (i.e., pseudor-
anges and pseudorange-rates) can be
used to estimate the desired navigation
states (i.e., position, velocity, and clock
information).
In contrast to traditional receiv-
ers, vector tracking algorithms exploit
the inherent coupling between signal
tracking and navigation solution com-
putation, and combines theminto a
single step. In other words, in a vec-
tor tracking approach, the navigation
processor is used to performboth tasks
and eliminates the need for intermedi-
ate tracking loops.
Figure 2 shows a block diagramof
a receiver employing a vector delay/
frequency lock loop (VDFLL). In this
architecture, the pseudoranges and
pseudorange-rates are predicted by the
navigation processor (in this case an
extended Kalman flter (EKF)) for each
signal that is to be tracked. Tis predic-
tion is performed using the estimated
navigation states and the computed
satellite position and velocity.
Each channel of the receiver then
produces pseudorange and pseu-
dorange-rate residuals (diferences)
relative to the predicted pseudorange
and pseudorange-rates. In turn, the
EKF uses the residuals to update its
estimates of the receivers navigation
states. In the VDFLL, the vector track-
ing loop is closed through the EKF.
For a VDFLL, the typical states
used in the EKF are shown in equation
(1).
FIGURE 1 Traditional Receiver Architecture
Antenna
IF Signal
Pseudoranges,
pseudorange-rates
RF Front-end
Processing
Tracking
Loops
Channel 1
Channel 2
Channel j
Navigation
Processor
Position,
Velocity,
Time
Tracking
Loops
Tracking
Loops
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_________
________
18
above a value represent its time derivative). Te receivers
clock error is denoted as t and the letter c represents the
speed of light. Te terms a
x,j
, a
y,j
, a
z,j
are the elements of a unit
vector pointing from the receivers estimated position to the
j-th satellite.
Equation (2) is very important in that it shows how the
channels of the receiver are coupled. Te pseudoranges
are tied together through the three position states and one
clock bias state. Similarly, the pseudorange-rates are coupled
through three velocity states and one clock drif state. Te
position and velocity states are related to the residuals by the
line-of-sight vectors.
We should note that the phase of the received carrier sig-
nals can also be tracked using the vector tracking approach.
Tis is referred to as a vector phase lock loop (VPLL). Te
VPLL requires an alternate formulation of the central EKF
due to the fact that the carrier phases of the received signals
cannot be predicted unambiguously from the flter states
shown in (1).
Te VPLL is not as common as the VDLL and VFLL
because the carrier frequencies and code phases can be
tracked at lower C/N
0
ratios than the carrier phases. In gen-
eral, vector tracking is used specifcally for situations where
low C/N
0
ratios are encountered.
Te advantage of vector tracking over scalar tracking
loops stems from the number of unknowns that the two algo-
rithms are attempting to estimate, and how the unknowns
are related to the available measurements. A traditional
receiver uses N scalar DLLs to estimate N pseudoranges. In
contrast, a VDLL uses N pseudorange residuals to estimate
four states (three position and one clock bias). Similar num-
bers apply to the VFLL case as well and are therefore not
provided here.
To illustrate this point, consider the situation where N
pseudorange residual measurements are available, as shown
in (3).
Higher order derivative states can be appended to (1) but
are not necessary for the VDFLL to function. Te residuals
produced in the j-th channel are related to errors in the states
of the EKF by equation (2).
In (2), the symbol denotes an error in a state. Te receiv-
ers Cartesian coordinates are represented by x, y, and z (dots
GNSS SOLUTIONS
FIGURE 2 Vector Tracking Receiver Architecture
Antenna
IF Signal
Pseudoranges,
pseudorange-
rate
Residuals
Predicted
Pseudoranges,
pseudorange-rates
RF Front-
end
Processing
Tracking
Loops
Channel 1
Channel 2
Channel j
Extended
Kalman
Filter
Tracking
Loops
Tracking
Loops
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_____________________________
In this equation, the pseudorange residuals (denoted
with a tilde) are assumed to consist of the true residuals plus
white noise. In a manner analogous to using scalar DLLs, the
pseudoranges are estimated using the equations in (3) with
weighted least squares. Te weighted least squares estimate of
the pseudoranges ( ) and associated covariance are shown
in (4).
Examining equation (4) reveals an important drawback
of scalar tracking loops. As the number of available pseudo-
ranges increases, the variance of the estimated pseudoranges
remains constant. Tis is a direct result of the pseudoranges
in (3) being modeled as completely uncoupled.
Now, consider using the Npseudorange residuals to frst
estimate three position errors and one clock bias error. Tis
is analogous to the VDLL approach. Equation (5) relates the
position and clock errors to the residuals.
Te weighted least squares estimate of the vector X and
its associated covariance are shown in (6).
Te vector X is related back to the estimated pseudor-
anges by Equation (7).
Terefore, the covariance of the estimated pseudoranges
fromthe vector tracking approach are:
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_____________
20
In other words, the variance of individual pseudoranges is
determined by multiplying the appropriate diagonal element
of the matrix W by the noise variance .
Comparing the pseudorange covariances in (4) and (8),
the vector tracking approach will yield smaller pseudorange
variances when the diagonal elements of W are less than one.
In the case of four satellites, the pseudorange covariances in
(4) and (8) are equal (assuming H has full rank).
In a case where N exceeds four, the pseudorange vari-
ances from the vector tracking method in (8) will generally
be less than those in (4). Tis is the main beneft of vector-
based tracking.
Time (Hours)
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
D
i
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

(
P
D
O
P
)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
a
t
e
l
l
i
t
e
s
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (Hours)
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
G
a
i
n

i
n

C
/
N
0
(
d
B
)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
MaximumGain
MinimumGain
FIGURE 3 PDOP and Number of Satellites FIGURE 4 Maximum and Minimum Effective Gain from Vector Tracking
GNSS SOLUTIONS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
________________
Equation (8) also shows that the
performance of vector tracking is a
function of how many satellites are
available and their geometry. To deter-
mine the relative performance advan-
tage of the vector-tracking algorithm
for a typical GPS receiver, the visible
satellite constellation was recorded
every minute for about 14 hours at
Auburn University.
For each satellite geometry, the
efective gain in C/N
0
ratio was deter-
mined by examining the maximum
and minimumdiagonal elements of
the matrix Win (8). Anominal C/N
0
ratio of 45 dB-Hz was assumed for all
of the available satellites. At 45 dB-Hz,
the noise variance is 34.1 m
2
.
Te reduction in C/N
0
ratio needed
to make the largest pseudorange vari-
ance equal to 34.1 m
2
is defned as the
minimumgain in efective C/N
0
ratio.
Conversely, the reduction in C/N
0
ratio
needed to make the smallest pseu-
dorange variance equal to 34.1 m
2
is
defned as the maximumgain in efec-
tive C/N
0
ratio.
Figure 3 shows the position dilution
of precision (PDOP) and number of vis-
ible satellites over the 14-hour period.
Te maximumand minimumgain
in efective C/N
0
ratio over the 14-hour
period are shown in Figure 4.
Te maximumgain in C/N
0
ratio
varies from2 to 6.5 decibels and has
a mean of 5.1 decibels. Te minimum
gain in C/N
0
ratio varies fromnearly
0 to 2.8 decibels and has a mean of 1.1
decibels. Figure 4 demonstrates that
the vector approach can signifcantly
improve a receivers ability to track the
received signals.
In conclusion, vector tracking
algorithms combine the operations of
signal tracking and navigation state
estimation. Te performance improve-
ment brought about by vector tracking
is contingent on the number of avail-
able satellites and their geometry. Te
only major drawbacks of vector track-
ing are their complexity and computa-
tional loads.
MATTHEW LASHLEY AND DAVID M. BEVLY
Matthew Lashley is a
Ph.D. candidate at
Auburn University. He is
an employee of
Navigation Technology
Associates, Inc. and a
member of the GPS and
Vehicle Dynamics Lab (GAVLAB). His research
interests are currently vector tracking and deep
integration for GPS receivers.
David M. Bevly received his B.S. fromTexas
A&MUniversity, an M.S. fromMassachusetts
Institute of Technology, and a Ph.D. from
Stanford University in
mechanical
engineering. Bevly
directs Auburn
Universitys GPS and
Vehicle Dynamics
Laboratory (GAVLAB),
which focuses on modeling, navigation, and
control of vehicles.
SUGGESTED ARTICLES:
[1] Benson, D., Interference Benets of a Vector
DelayLockLoop(VDLL)GPSReceiver,inProceed-
ings of the63rdAnnual Meetingof theInstituteof
Navigation. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Institute
of Navigation, April 2007
[2] Petovello, M., andG. Lachapelle, Comparison
of vector-based software receiver implementa-
tions withapplicationtoultra-tight GPS/INSinte-
gration, in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2006. Fort
Worth, Texas, Institute of Navigation, September
2006.
[3] Spilker, J. J., Fundamentals of Signal Track-
ingTheory, inGlobal PositioningSystem: Theory
and Applications, Vol. I. Progress in Astronautics
and Aeronautics, Volume 163, AIAA, Washington,
D.C., 1996
Mark Petovello is an Assistant
Professor in the Department of
Geomatics Engineering at the
University of Calgary. He has been
actively involved in many aspects
of positioningandnavigationsince
1997 including GNSS algorithm
development, inertial navigation,
sensor integration, and software
development.
Email: mark.petovello@ucalgary.ca
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_________________ _______________
______________
22
First Look
Using a commercial antenna
and a modied software GPS
receiver of their own design,
researchers at Ohio University
tracked the new L5 signal from
the latest Block IIR-M GPS
satellite. Among other things,
they discovered that the test
signal being transmitted from
SVN49 has some different
characteristics than the signal
specications dened for
the operational L5 signal.
U
S

A
i
r

F
o
r
c
e
SANJEEV GUNAWARDENA, ZHEN ZHU,
AND MICHAEL BRAASCH
AVIONICS ENGINEERING CENTER,
OHIO UNIVERSITY
22
Observing the
GPS L5 Test Transmission
from SVN49
Using Software
Radio Processing
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
T
he much-anticipated frst GPS satellite with an L5 test
payload was launched from Cape Canaveral on March
24, 2009. On April 10, at approximately 11:58 UTC, the
L5 test transmission was turned on by the GPS Control
Segment.
Tis event marked a signifcant milestone for GPS: 31 years
afer the launch of NAVSTAR 1 (space vehicle number 1 or
SVN01), GPS SVN49 is now transmitting on a completely new,
third navigation frequency; something the GPS forefathers
probably could never have imagined back in February 22 of
1978 when that Atlas 64F rocket carrying NAVSTAR 1 lifed
of the launch pad.
Arguably even more significant is the fact that a U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) program developed primarily
for military use during the Cold War era is now transmitting a
signal dedicated for civil use; free of any military signal modu-
lations.
Times have changed.
Te GPS L5 transmission, like L1, is allocated in the inter-
nationally protected aeronautical radio navigation services
(ARNS) band, clearing one more hurdle for GPS-based dual-
frequency systems to be certifed for safety-of-life services such
as aviation. Te L5 transmission also demonstrates the fnal
prong of the three-pronged approach to GPS modernization:
transmit stronger signals; implement longer, faster, and more
sophisticated pseudorandom noise (PRN) codes; and add fre-
quency diversity to make GPS more robust and resistant to
interference for civilian and military users alike.
Te implementation of the GPS modernization program
started in September of 2005 with the launch of the frst Block
IIR-M satellite SVN53, which gave civil users direct access to
L2 for the frst time via the L2C code not to mention the
sophisticated M-code on L1 and L2 for military users.
Significance aside, an operational GPS L5 constellation
wont exist for yet a few more years until a signifcant number
of Block IIF satellites replace the existing constellation. For the
GPS Wing, the event of April 10 meant that the US wont lose
its International Telecommunications Union (ITU) fling sta-
tus for L5, which came uneasily close to an August 26, 2009,
deadline due to launch delays.
For the thousands of individuals who comprise the com-
munity of researchers and equipment manufacturers that use
(or cater to users of) GPS for aviation and other safety-of-life,
atmospheric studies, space weather monitoring, RTK, and
countless other applications, it means the frst-time availability
of an unrestricted wideband civil GPS signal-in-space to help
bring their research to fruition.
Certainly, GPS researchers at the Ohio University Avion-
ics Engineering Center are among these thousands. During
the past 18 months we upgraded our instrumentation-quality
L1/L2 GPS sofware receiver to include L5. April 10, 2009 will
forever be etched in our minds as that Good Friday we collected
terabytes of data and spent an entire gorgeous Easter weekend
stuck indoors, unrelentingly processing and processing till we
fnally saw the L5 correlation peak from GPS SVN49. What
follows is our frst look of the signal from Athens, Ohio.
GPS L5 Signal Structure
Te most complete description of the GPS L5 signal can be
found in the interface specifcation IS-GPS-705, referenced in
the Additional Resources section near the end of this article.
What follows is a quick summary for the purposes of this
article.
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
____________________
24
FIRST LOOK AT L5
In general, the L5 transmission received at time t with power
level P
L5
from the i
th
GPS satellite can be described as:
Where f
L5
is the L5 carrier frequency of 1176.45 MHz, f
D
is
the carrier frequency ofset due to satellite line-of-sight motion
and satellite-and-receiver combined clock frequency error,
L5
is a phase ofset and n(t) is the received noise.
As shown, the L5 transmission is quadrature BPSK (bi-phase
shif keying) modulated, with the in-phase component contain-
ing an SV-specifc 10,230-chip long PRN code G
1
chipping at a
rate of 10.23 10
6
chips/sec, a 10-bit Neumann-Hofman code
NH
i
at 1000 chips/sec, and a rate 1/2 convolutionencoded C-
NAV data stream D
5
at 100 symbols/sec.
Te quadrature component is modulated with a diferent
10,230-chip long SV-specifc PRN code G
Q
and a 20-bit Neu-
man-Hofman code NH
Q
with chipping rates the same as the
I-channel: C
I
, C
Q
, NH
I
, NH
Q
, and D
5
{1, - 1}, NH
I
= [1 1 1 1
- 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1}, and NH
Q
= [1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1
1 - 1 - 1 - 1 1]. Te 10.23 MCPS code chipping rate results in a
null-to-null bandwidth of 20.46 MHz: identical to the band-
width of the legacy P(Y) code modulation on L2.
Te Neuman-Hofman codes efectively lengthen the 1-mil-
lisecond, periodic L5 PRN codes to 10 and 20 milliseconds for
the in-phase and quadrature-phase channels, respectively, to
provide improved cross-correlation performance.
Referred to as the pilot channel, the quadrature-phase com-
ponent contains no data modulation and, hence, enables long
coherent integration by the user equipment integration that
is primarily limited by dynamics estimation errors (i.e., inertial
drif) and the stability of the receivers (and to a lesser extent the
satellites) reference oscillator. Te L5 pilot channel thus allows
the implementation of robust and certifable high-sensitivity
and anti-jam processing.
According to IS-GPS-705, the guaranteed minimum
received signal power P
L5, min
, to a user at the surface of the earth
measured at the output of a 3 dBi linearly polarized antenna
from an SV at elevation above fve degrees is stated as -157.9
dBW: 0.6 dB stronger than the -158.5 dBW minimum specifed
for the legacy L1 C/A code signal.
Assuming the said antenna is at the standard ambient tem-
perature of 295K, the guaranteed received minimum carrier-to-
noise ratio (C/N
0
) measured at the output will be 46.9 dB-Hz.
However, C/N
0
values measured by a GPS receiver connected
to a typical circularly polarized antenna would be three to six
decibels lower due to the antenna gain pattern and receiver
implementation losses.
The L5 Test Transmission
It is important to realize that the GPS L5 transmission from
SVN49 has signifcant deviations from the specifcation of IS-
GPS-705. As the article by T. Powell et alia discusses (Addi-
tional Resources), the primary goal of integrating an L5 dem-
onstration payload into a Block IIR-M satellite was to satisfy
the bring into use deadline of August 26, 2009, a date which
was set when the United States fled with the ITU Radiocom-
munication Sector (ITU-R) to transmit on the L5 frequency.
Te following is a listing of these deviations:
SVN49 transmits only the dataless quadrature component
of the L5 signal specifcation. (i.e., in the L5 signal equation
presented in the previous section, G
I,i
(t) = 0).
It is hardwired to generate only one PRN code on L5: L5-
Q PRN63. Tis applies no matter what PRN is assigned to
SVN49s primary GPS mission. (Currently, the primary
mission assignment is PRN1.)
Most likely, the transmitted power on L5 is lower than
required to meet the guaranteed minimum received sig-
nal strength specifed in IS-GPS-705. Tis is because the
demonstration payload is occupying the auxiliary payload
capability of the Block IIR-M spacecraf, which is probably
not designed to handle the power requirements of an addi-
tional transmission at full-spec.
Most likely, the antenna gain pattern of SVN49s L5 trans-
mission may not be optimal for full earth surface coverage
because the L5 demo mission is secondary to the IIR-M
vehicles primary mission of sustaining the GPS constella-
tion.
Te frst two factual constraints mean that the L5 test trans-
mission is non-operational, but allows acquisition and tracking
as an experimental signal good enough to meet the condi-
tions of the ITU fling and to enable basic research on triple-fre-
quency GPS. Te latter two deviations in the preceding list are
educated guesses based on the authors initial observations
of the L5 signal.
L1/L5 RF Front-End and Data Collection
System
In anticipation of the frst L5 signals in space, the Ohio team
upgraded its Transform-Domain Instrumentation GPS Receiv-
er (TRIGR), described in the article by S. Gunawardena et alia
(2007), to include L5. TRIGR represents a breakthrough set
of GPS receiver technologies that had been developed at the
Ohio University Avionics Engineering Center during the last
six years.
Te technology encompasses instrumentation-quality RF
front-ends, high-fdelity wideband multi-bitsampled interme-
diate frequency (IF) data collection and post-processing, and
high-performance realtime transform-domain GPS baseband
The GPS L5 transmission from SVN49
has signicant deviations from the
specication of IS-GPS-705 [because]
the primary goal of integrating an L5
demonstration payload into a Block
IIR-M satellite was to satisfy the ITUs
bring into use deadline.
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
processing engines implemented on feld
programmable gate array (FPGA) pro-
cessors.
Te current version under develop-
ment represents the third generation
of TRIGR technology and is being tar-
geted for a variety of next-generation
multi-channel and multi-frequency
GNSS applications. Figure 1 shows the
block diagram and frequency plan of the
L1/L5 RF front-end used for L5 signal
analysis.
Figure 2 shows a close-up view of the
L5 section of the front-end. Te perfor-
mance of the L5 section of the front-end
was verifed previously using L5 signals-
in-space from WAAS PRNs 135 and
138. Results of this work and additional
details of the front-end are covered in
the article by S. Gunawardena et alia
(2008).
As shown in Figure 1, the L1/L5 sig-
nals downconverted to the 70 MHz IF
are bandpass sampled at 56.32 MSPS
to yield a digital baseband signal with
its IF centered at 13.68 MHz. To maxi-
mize options for high-dynamic range
GNSS signal processing (such as in the
midst of interference), the analog IF is
sampled at 14-bit resolution without the
use of automatic gain control circuitry.
For data collection purposes, these 14-
bit samples are then reduced to 8, 4, 2
or 1-bit per sample inside the FPGA and
subsequently streamed to a RAID stor-
age array.
The ability to stream 8-bit L1/L5
samples continuously (~113 MBytes/sec
sustained transfer rate) and to do so for
up to fve hours continuously (storage
limit of the array) enabled us to capture
pristine sets of L1/L5 data for the morn-
ing and afernoon visibility periods of
SVN49. We postprocessed the data to
produce the results presented in this
article.
Data Collection Setup
Figure 3 shows the test setup that was
used to collect live L1/L5 data for the
results presented in this article.
We used a commercial antenna that
covers the L1, L2 and L5 bands. Because
this model is a passive antenna, we
incorporated a high-quality low noise
amplifier (LNA) with a noise figure
below 1 decibel and approximately 40-
decibel gain. Te LNA is placed as close
to the antenna port as possible to obtain
the lowest possible system noise fgure.
Te RF signal is fed to each front-end
channel via an active splitter built into
the four-channel RF front-end.
GPS L5
GPS L1
Reference Clock
f
ref
: 10.0 MHz
IF Data
f
IF
:
13.68 MHz
f
s
: 56.32 MHz
f
LO1
: 1106.45 MHz
f
s
: 56.32 MSPS
RF/IF Digital Gain Control
Parallel
interface
to Virtex-4
FPGA
CH2: GPS L5 RF/IF Section
BPF1: 1176.45 MHz, 2-pole, Bw: 20 MHz
BPF2: 1176.45 MHz, 3-pole, Bw: 20 MHz
BPF3: 70 MHz, SAW, Bw: 20 MHz
FIGURE 1 L1/L5 RF front-end and frequency plan
FIGURE 2 L5 channel of TRIGR RF front-end
FIGURE 3 Test setup for live GPS L1/L5 RF data collection and spectrum analysis
RF-In Bias-T LNA BPF1 BPF2
IF-In IF DVGA IF SAWFilter IF-Out Manual-Mode DVGA Control
RF DVGA Mixer LO-In Mixer IF-Out
NovAtel
GPS-704X
(L1, L2, L5)
Reference Clock
LNA
Gain: 40 dB
NF: <1 dB
L1-70 MHz
L5-70 MHz
f
s
: 56.32 MHz
f
Ref
: 10.0 MHz
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
26
Acquiring the GPS L5 Signal
As described previously, the L5 test trans-
mission may not necessarily adhere to
the guaranteed minimum received signal
level of -157.9 dBW (~47 dB-Hz). Even
though we suspected it, the necessity for
more care when acquiring the L5 signal
(relative to the easy acquisition of L1
C/A) was not immediately apparent.
Our initial analysis of the dataset
containing the L5 turn-on event yield-
ed no discernible correlation peak. Tis
had us puzzled: was the L5 turn-on event
postponed? Did we have a bug in our L5
code generator? Our initial method used
one millisecond of coherent integration
(to sidestep having to perform NH
Q
code
wipeof) and a handful of non-coherent
integrations (to increase signal-to-noise
ratio at the expense of squaring loss).
Soon we realized this would not work
if the signal were signifcantly weaker
than expected. Further, what if the
NH
Q
code transition happened close to
the middle of our one-millisecond data
blocks? Tis would kill most of the cor-
relation energy and yield no peak. A bit
of refnement was in order!
Because we had recorded both the L1
and L5 coherently sampled data streams
in the same fle, we could initialize the
L5 processing by frst acquiring SVN49s
L1 C/A-code signal (PRN01) and use it
to determine both the Doppler frequen-
cy ofset at L5 (f
D,L5
= (f
L5
/f
L1
)f
D,L1
) and,
more importantly, the 20-millisecond
L1 C/A navigation data bit epochs. Te
latter, by defnition, are the same as the
20-bit NH
Q
code epochs (ignoring the
few samples ofset due to hardware and
atmospheric relative delays).
While we were at it, we also aligned
our one-millisecond data block to coin-
cide with the start of the C/A-code (i.e.,
code phase zero alignment). With the
code-phase and Doppler frequency of-
sets nailed, we tried 100 milliseconds
of coherent integration with NH
Q
code
wipeoff. (The carrier frequency needs
to be within 10 Hz for 100-millisecond
coherent integration).
The resulting L5 correlation peak
was a sight to behold! Figure 4 shows
the acquisition results. Animations of
the L5 correlation space can be viewed
at <http://www.youtube.com/user/
sanjeevg123>.
Observed Strength of L5
Test Signal
As of the time of this writing, at least
two groups from Europe have reported
GPS-L5 received signal strength being
stronger than expected. (See Septentrio
and Javad GNSS news releases cited in
Additional Resources.) Tis may be due
to the fact that SVN49 reaches higher
elevations in Europe.
In the U. S. Midwestern region
SVN49 peaks at elevations of approxi-
mately 37 and 34 degrees during its
two daily passes. At the peaks of these
passes, the observed signal strengths are
approximately 35 dB-Hz; relatively weak
compared to the guaranteed minimums
of IS-GPS-705.
As alluded to earlier, the test pay-
loads L5 antenna beam pattern appears
to have a narrow main beam. Observa-
tions at multiple locations would aid in
inferring the antenna pattern, which
would be useful for numerous research
applications.
We are presenting the carrier-to-
noise (C/N
0
) versus time and elevation
profles from our initial observations of
the L5 test signal from Athens, Ohio, (N
39 12 33.14520, W 82 13 25.93487)
as a first step towards inferring the
actual gain pattern of the L5 test signal.
We trust this information will be espe-
cially helpful for those researchers who
plan to use regular L1/L5 GPS antennas
(i.e., standard patch-types as opposed to
high-gain dish antennas) to get a sense
of the signal strengths to expect from a
location similar to ours.
For the results shown in this article,
the L1 and L5 front-end channels were
sampled at an effective resolution of
four bits per sample and continuously
streamed to the TRIGR RAID array
for about four hours, generating fles of
approximately 850 GB each for the two
passes.
Because its prohibitively slow to
postprocess the entire fles with the sof-
ware we were using (requiring about 30
minutes to process a second of data on
a fast desktop computer), observations
were made every fve minutes for a dura-
tion of one second per observation.
Figure 5 shows measured C/N
0
from
SVN49s L1 C/A and L5 Q transmissions
FIRST LOOK AT L5
FIGURE 4 Left: SVN49 L1 C/A code correlation space computed using 100milliseconds of coherent integration (includes 5-bits data wipeoff). Right: Cor-
relation space of L5 pilot channel computed using 100-millisecond coherent integration.
SVN49 L1 C/A Code Correlation Space (PRN1)
Carrier Doppler
Offset (Hz) Code Offset
(Samples)
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
0
1
2
3
4
5
-20
-40
-60
-80
4
3
2
1
x 10
6
x 10
4
SVN49 L5-Q Channel Correlation Space (PRN63)
Doppler
Offset (Hz)
Code Offset
(Samples)
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
0
1
2
3
4
5
-20
-40
-60
-80
1.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
x 10
5
x 10
4
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_________
during the morning visibility period
from Athens, Ohio, on April 23. Figure
6 shows the same for the afernoon vis-
ibility period.
Figures 7 and 8 show the measured
C/N
0
as a function of azimuth and
elevation angles (i.e., skyplot) from our
location for the morning and afernoon
visibility periods, respectively. Figure 9
shows C/N
0
as a function of elevation
angle for both periods of visibility.
From Figures 5 and 6, it can be seen
that, on average, the power diferential
between SVN49s L1 and L5 transmis-
sions is approximately 15 decibels. Tis
confrms our initial assessment that the
L5 test transmission has significantly
lower signal strength than the 46.9 dB-
Hz guaranteed minimum specifed in
IS-GPS-705. The observed minimum
C/N
0
from our location is closer to 27
dB-Hz.
Assuming that the L1 and L5 gain
patterns of the reception antenna are
consistent, as was verified from the
antenna manufacturers datasheet, the
L1 C/N
0
contours from Figures 5 and
6 could be used as a baseline to deduce
the L5 antenna gain pattern variation.
Using this observation, the fgures show
two faintly distinguishable minima that
may correspond to nulls in the antenna
pattern. Te time spacing between these
nulls is approximately two hours for the
morning visibility period and three
hours for the afernoon.
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
60
50
40
30
20
10
L5 C/N
0
(dB-Hz) versus azimuth & elevation (degrees)
SVN49 Visibility from Athens, Ohio on Apr 23 2009 Morning
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
60
50
40
30
20
10
L5 C/N
0
(dB-Hz) versus azimuth & elevation (degrees)
SVN49 Visibility from Athens, Ohio on Apr 23 2009 Afternoon
FIGURE 7 Received C/N
0
from L5 test transmission as a function of azi-
muth and elevation at Athens, Ohio: morning visibility period
FIGURE 8 Received C/N
0
from L5 test transmission as a function of azi-
muth and elevation at Athens, Ohio: afternoon visibility period
SVN 49 Signal Strength, Apr-23-2009
C
N
R
,

d
B
-
H
z
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Time of Day, hr
L1
L1-polynomial fit
L5
L5-polynomial fit
FIGURE 5 L1 and L5 received C/N
0
as a function of local time (EDT) at
Athens, Ohio: morning visibility period
FIGURE 6 L1 and L5 received C/N
0
as a function of local time (EDT) at
Athens, Ohio: afternoon visibility period
SVN 49 Signal Strength, Apr-23-2009
C
N
0
,

d
B
-
H
z
14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Time of Day, hr
L1
L1-polynomial fit
L5
L5-polynomial fit
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
28
In terms of elevation angle, these minima correspond to
an elevation of between 22 to 24 degrees, as distinguishable
from Figure 9. Tis reinforces the notion that SVN49s antenna
pattern has a narrower-than-specifed main lobe. Besides this
initial assessment, we plan to do more detailed analysis of the
L5 test transmission during the coming months.
Data Available For Download
Te Ohio University research team is making available raw
L1/L5 sampled IF datasets containing the L5 transmission from
SVN49 (naturally includes the WAAS GEO L5 transmissions as
well). We hope this data will help other researchers to develop
and test their own GPS L5 signal processing techniques.
Te data can be downloaded at <www.ohio.edu/avionics/
sdr>. Te site contains data fles sampled at 1, 2, 4, or 8 bits. In
addition, fle format information and a MATLAB data visual-
ization script are also provided. Coherently sampled L1/L2/L5
datasets from our next-generation TRIGR instrument currently
under development will also be made available shortly.
Summary and Conclusions
At long last, afer numerous launch delays and just 20 weeks
before the ITU filing deadline, an L5 signal is transmitting
from a GPS satellite. Even though the L5 signal from SVN49
is non-operational, it is nevertheless useful for many dual and
triple-frequency research applications, receiver development,
and testing.
Te Ohio University research team collected coherently
sampled L1/L5 sofware radio data from its TRIGR instrument
of the L5 turn-on event as well as complete data sets for both
visibility periods of SVN49 for several days thereafer. Te frst-
look results presented here were obtained by post-processing
this data.
We presented data about the visibility of the signal in
terms of C/N
0
as a function of elevation and azimuth angles,
as observed using a typical multi-frequency patch-type antenna
from our location in Athens, Ohio, USA. We observed that the
signal is on the average approximately 15 decibels weaker than
specifed in IS-GPS-705. Moreover, we showed that the signal
strength varies signifcantly with elevation angle from our loca-
tion where SVN49 peaks around 35 degrees in elevation.
Our observations contrast stronger-than-expected-signal
reports from Europe where SVN49 rises near zenith. Obser-
vation of L5 C/N
0
minima with respect to time and elevation
angle seems to indicate an antenna pattern with a narrower-
than-expected main lobe.
As reported by Inside GNSS (see Additional Resources) on
May 4, 2009, in addressing the European Navigation Conference,
Lt. Col. David Goldstein of the GPS Wing indicated the presence
of an anomaly on SVN49 that is responsible for elevation-angle-
dependent range biases on the L1 and L2 transmissions.
Te availability of long L1/L5 sampled data records from
our TRIGR instrument, even days before the L5 turn-on event,
enables us to perform a detailed independent study of this anom-
aly and perhaps will shed some light as to what to expect for
those still intending to do research using what is for now the
only triple-frequency, albeit unhealthy, GPS satellite. Te results
of such a study will be presented in the months ahead.
Acknowledgements
Te authors thank Frank Lorge of the Federal Aviation Admin-
istrations William J. Hughes Technical Center for discussions
related to the L5 test transmission. Curtis Cohenour with the
Ohio University Avionics Engineering Center is acknowledged
for providing SVN49 orbit data used in the skyplots. Previous
generations of TRIGR technology was developed under fund-
ing from the FAA LAAS and WAAS programs.
Manufacturers
Te L1/L5 antenna was a GPS-704X from NovAtel, Inc., Cal-
gary, Alberta, Canada. We used a 3 GHz spectrum analyzer
from Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, California, USA, for
initial spectrum observations. TRIGR uses FPGAs from Xilinx
Inc., San Jose, California, USA., and runs on the Windows XP
platform from Microsof Inc., Redmond, Washington, USA.
Te data was postprocessed using MATLAB from the Math-
works, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, USA.
Additional Resources
[1] ARINC Engineering Services LLC, Navstar GPS Space Segment/User Segment
L5 Interfaces: IS-GPS-705, September 22, 2005, available at <http://www.nav-
cen.uscg.gov/gps/modernization/Number.pdf>, accessed April 30, 2009
[2] Gunawardena, S. (2007), and A. Soloviev and F. van Graas, Wideband
Transform-Domain GPS Instrumentation Receiver for Signal Quality and
Anomalous Event Monitoring, NAVIGATION: Journal of the Institute of Navi-
gation, Vol. 54 No. 4, November 2007
[3] Gunawardena, S. (2008), and Z. Zhen and F. van Graas, Triple Frequency RF
Front End for GNSS Instrumentation Receiver Applications, Proceedings of the
21st International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of the Institute
of Navigation, September 1619, 2008, Savannah, Georgia, USA
SVN49 L5 C/N
0
versus Elevation Angle
A
M
C
/
N
0
,

d
B
-
H
z
5 15 25 35 25 15 5
40
35
30
25
20
15
Elevation, deg
L5 C/N
0
Polynomial fit
P
M
C
/
N
0
,

d
B
-
H
z
10 20 30 40 30 20 10
40
35
30
25
20
15
L5 C/N
0
Polynomial fit
FIGURE 9 LReceived C/N
0
from L5 test transmission as a function of eleva-
tion angle for both visibility periods at Athens, Ohio
FIRST LOOK AT L5
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
___
_________
_________________________
[4] Inside GNSS(onwebsite), GPSSVN49andL5
Signal: A Success with Problems, <http://www.
insidegnss.com/node/1478>, May 5, 2009
[5]JavadGNSSInc., Our CustomersNowTrackGPS
L5Signal, News Release, April 24, 2009; available
at <http://www.javad.com/jgnss/javad/news/
pr20090424.html>, accessed April 30, 2009
[6] NovAtel Inc. GPS-704X: GNSS Wideband
Antenna, available at <http://www.novatel.
com/products/gps_704X.htm>, accessed April
30, 2009.
[7] Powell, T., and C. Edgar, H. Ozisik, M. McFad-
den, D. Reigh, R. Spieth, and J. Irvine, The L5
Demo Payload on GPS Mission IIR-20, Proceed-
ings of the 21st International Technical Meeting
of the Satellite Division of the Institute of Naviga-
tion, September 1619 2008, Savannah, Georgia,
USA
[8] Septentrio Satellite Navigation NV, Dual-
Constellation Live L5 Tracking with Septentrio
PolaRx3G, news release, April 16, 2009, available
at <http://www.septentrio.com/news/NR_GPS_
L5_090416_nal.pdf>, accessed April 30, 2009
Authors
Sanjeev Gunawardena is a
senior researchengineer
andco-principal investi-
gator with the Ohio Uni-
versity Avionics Engi-
n e e r i n g C e n t e r .
Gunawardena earned
Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering
fromOhio University, and was the 2007 recipient
of the RTCA WilliamE. Jackson Award. Gunawar-
denas research interests include RF systems
design, digital systems design, reconfigurable
computing, and all aspects of GPS receivers and
signal processing.
Zhen Zhu is a senior
research engineer with
the Ohio University Avi-
onics Engineering Cen-
ter, and an adjunct
assistant professor with
the School of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science, Athens,
Ohio, USA. He received a Ph.D. in electrical engi-
neeringfromOhioUniversity. His researchinter-
ests include GPS and augmentation systems,
software radio technology, GPS interference and
multipath, computer vision, and laser-based
navigation, and automatic navigation and guid-
ance. He has also been actively involved in
research of articial intelligence, neural net-
works, and machine learning.
Michael Braasch, Ph.D., is Thomas Professor of
Electrical Engineeringanddirector of theAvionics
EngineeringCenter (AEC)
at Ohio University. He
wasoneofthepioneering
r e s e a r c h e r s wh o
i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e
application of software
radio and transform-
domain signal processing techniques for GPS
receivers. His workalsoincludes researchinhigh-
precision GPS positioning through differential
carri er-phase processi ng. Braasch i s
internationally recognized for his work on
characterizing the effects of GPS multipath on
both pseudorange and carrier-phase baseband
signal processing and is one of the originators of
the integrated multipath-limiting antenna for
GPS. In addition to GPS-related research, he has
alsoworkedonother navigationsystemsincluding
INS, ILS, MLS, VOR, Loran-C, and DME.
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
__________
___________
_______________
A
t 5 a.m. PDT (Pacifc Daylight
Time) on April 10, 2009, GNSS
reached a new milestone as the
frst GPS L5 signal was turned
on and transmitted from a GPS satel-
lite. Eagerly anticipated, this is the frst
broadcast of a GPS signal in a frequency
band dedicated solely for civilian use.
Te latest signal represents the frst
step into a new era for GNSS users,
particularly for safety-of-life applica-
tions. The L5 signal gives these users
two civil signals (L1 being the other) in
a protected aeronautical radionaviga-
tion services (ARNS) band. Tis allows
for ionospheric corrections using only
ARNS bands.
After a lengthy delay in satellite launches caused by a variety
of technical problems, the new civil GPS signal L5 began
transmitting a demonstration signal on April 10. Using a
modied navigation payload on a GPS Block IIR-M satellite
placed in orbit only two weeks earlier, the U.S. Air Force
switched on the eagerly awaited, modernized signal. The
article reports the initial observations of L5 broadcasts
by researchers in California and Colorado, including the
appearance of an anomaly in SVN49s L1 signal.
GRACE XINGXIN GAO, LIANG HENG, DAVID DE LORENZO, SHERMAN LO STANFORD UNIVERSITY
DENNIS AKOS UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
ALAN CHEN, TODD WALTER, PER ENGE, BRADFORD PARKINSON STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Above, left to right: The 1.8-meter dish antenna of Stanford GNSS Monitoring Station
(SGMS), Stanford, California; ITS 18-meter parabolic antenna, Table Mountain,
Colorado; SRI Internationals 45.7-meter radio telescope antenna in the Stanford
hills, Stanford, California.
30
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
Additionally, the higher chipping
rate on L5 enables more precise code
phase measurements than available on
other civilian GPS frequencies.
This article will trace the history
of L5s origin within the GPS program
modernization initiative, the signals
characteristics as designed, and the
results of observations of the initial
transmission of L5 and other GPS sig-
nals from three research facilities.
A Short History of L5
Development of the L5 signal has its
roots in the increasing use of GPS by
civil users, particularly in aviation. As
the system approached full operational
capability, GPS system managers and
user communities recognized that a sec-
ond civil frequency would provide great
benefits. Eventually, a second civilian
signal became part of GPS moderniza-
tion planning in the late 1990s.
In fact, a select panel of GPS experts
recommended that two additional civil
frequencies be broadcast, L2C and L5.
An anecdote from that period charac-
terizes the recommendation as arising
from a debate over strategy: the civil
L2 signal was thought to pose a lower
risk approach to getting Department
of Defense (DoD) buy-in, as there was
already a GPS P(Y) broadcast on L2 (at
1227.6 MHz). However, a civil signal on
L5 (centered at 1176.45 MHz), located in
an ARNS band, would be more useful to
safety-of-life users.
Rather than deciding to ask for one
or the other, the panel recommended
both new signals. Afer discussion and
analysis, the DoD adopted these recom-
mendations along with the proposal for
two new military (M-code) signals. On
March 30, 1998, Vice-President Al Gore
announced that two new signals would
be implemented.
At the time, the U.S. Air Force had
a number of GPS replenishment (Block
IIR) satellites yet to be launched and
elected to modify eight of these (the IIR-
Ms) to add both the new civil L2 signal
as well as new military signals (L1M and
L2M). Seven IIR-Ms are now on orbit
and broadcasting.
The Air Force was also developing
the next generation of GPS spacecraf,
designated IIF (follow-on). Te IIF pro-
curement added both military signals,
the new civilian signal L2C as well as the
L5 signal.
With the L2C signal now being
broadcast, attention has shifed to L5. In
recent years schedule delays on the Block
IIF program (the frst satellite of which
was originally scheduled to launch in
January 2005) brought great anxiety
over the fate of L5. Te U.S. radio fre-
quency fling for L5 at the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU)
would expire in August of 2009 unless a
continuous use of that frequency could
be demonstrated.
With the launch of the Block IIF
slipping to late 2009 and a Chinese
filing for the L5 frequency in place,
the status of the GPS civil L5 signal
was indeed in danger. Te GPS Wing
(under its commander Col. Dave Mad-
den) was very sensitive to the issue.
Madden created an insurance policy
against further delays in the launch
of Block IIF by having the GPS Wing
contract early in 2007 for the inclusion
of an L5 demonstration payload on the
Block IIR(20)-M satellite, the seventh
modernized Block IIR satellite.
Fortune favored GPS as the Block
IIR(20)-M satellite, designated Space
Vehicle Number (SVN) 49, was success-
fully launched on March 24 , 2009.
Overviewof the L5 Signal
The L5 signal consists of two carrier
components, in-phase and quadrature.
Each carrier component is a binary
phase shif keying (BPSK) signal with a
chip rate of 10.23 MHz.
The in-phase component is modu-
lated by a bit sequence of the modulo-2
sum of a primary code, a secondary code
for synchronization, and navigation
data, while the quadrature component
is only modulated by a primary code
and a secondary code, without naviga-
tion data. Te secondary codes for the
in-phase and quadrature channels are
10-bit and 20-bit Neuman-Hofman
codes, respectively.
Te modulation of GPS L5 signals is
shown in Figure 1. Table 1 summarizes the
in-phase and quadrature signal features.
Te L5 frequency band is within the
frequency band of the existing aeronau-
tical system pulsed emitters, namely Dis-
tance Measuring Equipment (DME) and
Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) sys-
tems. DME provides distance measure-
ments between an aircraf and a ground
station, while TACAN a military
system provides additional azimuth
information to aviators. Te DME and
TACAN systems transmit pulses paired
12 microseconds apart, each pulse last-
ing 3.5 microseconds.
The L5 and DME/TACAN signals
can co-exist, obviating any need to move
FIGURE 1 GPS L5 signal modulation
GPS L5 signal Modulation Chip rate Nav Data? Secondary code
In-phase component BPSK 10.23 MHz Yes 10 bit Neuman-Hofman code
Quadrature component BPSK 10.23 MHz No 20 bit Neuman-Hofman code
TABLE 1. GPS L5 inphase and quadrature signal comparison
100 Hz Symbol Clock
50 Hz Data Clock
L5 Data
Message 276 bits
1 ms epoch
10.23 Hz
Code Clock
XQ(t)
XI(t)
L5
Signal
1 kbaud
300 bits 100 sps
1 kbaud
Add
CRC
QPSK
Modulator
Code
Generator
20-symbol
Neuman-
Hofman
Code
Carrier
Encode
with FEC
10-symbol
Neuman-
Hofman
Code
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
32
MODERNIZATION MILESTONE
the DME center frequencies permanent-
ly. However, arrangements were made to
turn of the nearby Woodside, Califor-
nia, DME in the early morning of April
10, 2009, until an hour after SVN 49
began broadcasting the L5 signal. Tis
enabled researchers at the Stanford facil-
ity to capture pristine satellite data on
the frst day of transmissions.
Facilities for Capturing SVN
49 Transmission
We used three facilities in California and
Colorado for the data capture. One is the
1.8-meter dish antenna of the Stanford
GNSS Monitoring Station (SGMS). Te
second is the 18-meter dish located at
Table Mountain, Colorado. The third
one is SRI Internationals 45.7-meter
dish antenna located in the hills above
Stanford.
Te three dish antennas, shown on
the opening page of this article, have
been previously used to observe GPS,
Galileo GIOVE, and Compass satellite
transmissions.
As described in earlier Inside GNSS
articles (see the Additional Resources
section near the end of this article), a vec-
tor signal analyzer is used in the Stanford
GNSS Monitoring Station to down-con-
vert the radio frequency signal to base-
band and record the data. Te Stanford
SGMS dish connects to a band pass flter,
but the Colorado dish does not.
Observations through the
1.8-meter Dish Antenna
We will first discuss the observations
made by the dish antenna at Stanford
University.
L5 Signal Measurements, with the
Woodside DMEOn and Off. At Stanford, we
observed the L5 initial broadcasting at 5
a.m. PDT. Figure 2 shows the very frst
snapshot. We verifed the center frequen-
cy of the L5 signal to be 1176.45 MHz
and the chip rate to be 10.23 MHz.
As mentioned earlier, the DME
transmitter site closest to Stanford is in
Woodside, located at latitude 37.39278 N,
longitude 122.28194 W with a site eleva-
tion of 675 meters. Te DME transmits
at the 1173 MHz frequency. Due to the
sites proximity to the Stanford receiv-
ing antenna and the high elevation,
Woodside DME is the major operational
aeronautical signal in the L5 band in the
Stanford vicinity.
Figures 3 and 4 compare the L5 spectra
with the DME turned of and on, respec-
tively. Figure 3 was plotted at 5:40 a.m.
on April 10 when the Woodside DME
was still of. Figure 4 is an observation
from the following day at the same time
(April 11, 5:40 a.m.) when the Woodside
DME was back on the air.
The two plots were intentionally
taken when the satellite elevation was
the same to ensure that the antenna
pattern and received signal power were
identical for both observations. For ease
of comparison, the scales of Figures 3
and 4 are set to be the same.
As shown in Figure 4, Woodside
DME is a strong narrowband spike in the
L5 frequency band, whose peak power
spectral density is 30 decibels above
that of the GPS L5 signal. Operationally
this is not a problem as L5 receivers can
detect and blank the L5 pulses with little
impact on the GPS L5 signal reception.
Other SVN 49 Signal Observations.
Besides the L5 signals, we also observed
signals in other frequency bands broad-
cast by satellite SVN 49, namely L1, L2,
and even L3 for a short period of time.
Centered at 1381.05 MHz, the L3 sig-
nal provides the communications link
for the Nuclear Detonation (NUDET)
Detection System (NDS) payload on
board GPS satellites designed to detect
nuclear detonations and other high-
energy infrared events.
Figure 5 shows the spectrum of the L1
signal centered at 1575.42 MHz. Again,
the spectrum is already down-converted
to the baseband. Te spectrum shows the
1.023 MHz C/A signal, the 10.23 MHz
P(Y) signal, and the binary ofset carrier
(BOC) (10,5) M-code signal.
Figure 6 shows the spectrum of
the L2 signal down-converted to the
baseband. The spectrum shows the
1.023 MHz C/A signal, the 10.23 MHz
L1 P(Y) signal and BOC(10,5) M code
signal. Although the satellite was at
a higher elevation when the L2 spec-
trum was captured compared to the L1
spectrum in Figure 5, the received L2
signal power is lower than the received
L1 signal power, because the peak of
the power spectral density (PSD) is
lower.
Te unexpected observation of the L3
signal at center frequency 1381.05 MHz
for a few minutes around 5:50 a.m. PDT
on April 10, 2009, is shown in Figure
7. The authors assume that the short
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Frequency (MHz)
-108
-109
-110
-111
-112
-113
-114
P
o
w
e
r

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
d
B
/
H
z
)
FIGURE 2 The very rst snapshot of the L5
spectrum of GPS SVN 49 satellite, captured at
5:00 a.m. PDT on April 10, 2009, at Stanford,
California. Satellite elevation was 64 degrees
and azimuth was 305 degrees. The Woodside
DME was arranged to be off.
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Frequency (MHz)
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
P
o
w
e
r

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
d
B
/
H
z
)
FIGURE 3 The L5 spectrum of GPS SVN 49
satellite, captured at 5:40 a.m. PDT on April
10, 2009, at Stanford, California. Satellite
elevation was 74 degrees and azimuth was
256 degrees. The Woodside DME was off.
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Frequency (MHz)
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
P
o
w
e
r

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
d
B
/
H
z
)
FIGURE 4 The L5 spectrum of GPS SVN 49 satel-
lite, captured at 5:40 a.m. PDT on April 11,
2009, at Stanford, California. Satellite eleva-
tion was 74 degrees and azimuth was 249
degrees. The satellite elevation is identical
to that in Figure 3, to ensure that the antenna
pattern and the received L5 signal power are
the same. The Woodside DME was on. Clearly
visible in the spike around -4 MHz is the DME
signal captured through a side lobe of the
1.8-meter parabolic antenna gain pattern.
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
appearance of the L3 signal was for test
purposes.
Observations at Table
Mountain, Colorado
Because the facility does not use a band-
pass flter, the observations through the
18-meter parabolic antenna at Table
Mountain show all GPS bands in Figure
8. From lef to right, the frequency bands
are L5, L2, L3, and L1.
Te GPS signal spectrum from this
antenna is cleaner than the Stanford
SGMS antenna, due to the higher anten-
na gain provided by the larger antenna
parabolic refection area.
Figure 9 presents a close look at the L5
spectrum through the parabolic anten-
na. Te spectrum is consistent with the
L5 signal defnition and the spectrum
seen from the Stanford 1.8-meter dish.
Because t he
DME/ TACAN
environment at
Table Mountain is different from that
at Stanford and no DME transmitters
were arranged to be turned of, the L5
spectrum in Figure 9 shows three DME/
TACAN signals appearing on the right-
hand portion of the spectrum.
Observations fromSRI
Dish Antenna
The cleanest L5 spectrum among the
three facilities we have access to was cap-
tured by SRI Internationals 45.7-meter
dish antenna in the Stanford hills. Te
large-diameter parabolic refection area
of this antenna provides a 52-decibel
antenna gain for L-band signals.
Te high antenna gain boosts the L5
signal above the noise foor in the fre-
quency domain, and, thus, the main lobe
and the side lobes of the L5 spectrum are
clearly shown in Figure 10.
Acquiring and Tracking the
First SVN49 Transmission
Immediately after the data recording,
we loaded the collected SVN 49 data
collected by our 1.8-meter dish into our
multi-signal all-in-view GNSS sofware
receiver.
We have used this sofware receiv-
er to acquire and track GPS, Galileo
GIOVE, and Compass transmissions,
reported in earlier Inside GNSS articles.
With the observed SVN 49 data
loaded into our receiver, we successfully
acquired and tracked the L5 signal. Te
acquisition results are shown in Figure
11. Te L5 signal is present only in the
quadrature channel and not the in the
in-phase channel.
The L 5 s i g na l s p e c i f i c a -
t i on (I S- GPS-705) def i nes t he
pseudorandom noise (PRN) code of the
SVN 49 L5 signal as the L5 code in the
code set of PRN 63. Each code set of a
certain PRN number in the GPS signal
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Frequency (MHz)
-100
-105
-110
-115
-120
P
o
w
e
r

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
d
B
/
H
z
)
satellite, captured at 4:20am PDT on April
314 degrees. The spectrum shows the 1.023
MHz C/A signal, the BOC(10, 5) M code signal,
as well as the 10.23 MHz L1 P(Y) signal.
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Frequency (MHz)
-100
-105
-110
-115
-120
P
o
w
e
r

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
d
B
/
H
z
)
satellite, captured at 4:31a.m. PDT on April
313 degrees. The spectrum shows the 1.023
MHz L2C signal, the BOC(10, 5) M code signal,
as well as the 10.23 MHz L2 P(Y) signal.
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Frequency (MHz)
-100
-105
-110
-115
-120
P
o
w
e
r

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
d
B
/
H
z
)
satellite, captured at 5:51 a.m. PDT on April
10, 2009 at Stanford, California. Satellite
237 degrees. The L3 signal disappeared a few
minutes later.
FIGURE 8 The full spectrum captured by the 18-meter parabolic antenna at
5:46 a.m. PDT at Table Mountain, CO. Because the facility does not use
a bandpass lter, all GPS bands (from left to right, L5, L2, L3, and L1)
are shown. The GPS signal spectrum from this antenna is boosted higher
above the noise oor than the Stanford SGMS antenna, due to the higher
antenna gain provided by the larger antenna parabolic reection area.
FIGURE 9 A close look at the L5 spectrum captured by the 18-meter
parabolic antenna. The L5 spectrum is consistent with the Stanford 1.8-
meter dish observation, but the DME environment is different.
LogMag
-130 dBm
A: Ch1 Spectrum RMS: 10 Range: -45 dBm
-60 dBm
Center: 1.378 GHz
RBW: 3KHz
Span: 460 MHz
Swp Time: 5 sec
LogMag
-140 dBm
5 dB/div
A: Ch1 Spectrum RMS: 10 Range: -45 dBm
-90 dBm
Center: 1.17645 GHz
RBW: 300 Hz
Span: 50 MHz
Swp Time: 6 sec
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
34
specifcation contains a set of the L1, L2, and L5 codes. How-
ever, the L1 and L2 PRN codes use the L1 and L2 codes in the
code set of PRN 1 in the signal specifcation, codes from a dif-
ferent PRN number set. Te authors assume that the absence
of an L5 in-phase signal and the PRN number inconsistency
indicates that the current L5 signal is a test signal.
Figure 12 shows our L5 tracking results. Te data modula-
tion plot shows the secondary code modulated on top of the
primary PRN code. Te secondary code of the L5 Q channel is
a 20-bit Neuman-Hofman code with the bit string [0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0], the same as defned in the L5 signal
specifcation.
Te phase lock loop (PLL) output shows jitters every 1.5
seconds in the time domain, which indicates a periodic carrier
phase scattering of the PRN 63 L5 test signal.
SVN 49 Anomalous Behavior
Many observers have noted that the ranging performance of
SVN 49 includes some anomalous behavior. An observable
elevation angledependent shif in the L1 code delay exists that
is consistent with an antenna group delay bias, although the
nature and cause of the anomaly are still under investigation.
In order to observe this anomaly, we processed data from
a receiver at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, which is part of the National
Satellite Test Bed (NSTB) receiver network. Te data set was
recorded on May 5, 2009.
We compared the SVN 49 measurement results with those
from SVN 30 (PRN 30), a GPS IIA satellite that shares the same
B2 expanded orbital slot as SVN 49. Over the 24-hour observa-
tion time on May 5, the maximal elevation diference seen at
Mauna Loa between SVN 49 and SVN 30 is only 4.3 degrees,
and the maximal azimuth diference is only 5.8 degrees. Te
proximity of SVN 49 and SVN 30 results in similar ionosphere
and troposphere efects at the receiver and thus provides a sen-
sible basis for comparison.
We examined several combinations of the satellite measure-
ments to identify and isolate the potential sources of the anom-
aly. Te observed carrier measurements for the two satellites
were very similar and displayed no obvious signs of anomalous
behavior. However, the code measurements did reveal a visible
discrepancy.
Figure 13 shows the computed L1/L2 pseudorange (PR)
diference minus the L2/L1 carrier range (CR) diference. Te
frequency diferences cancel out the common errors between
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
Correlation - PRN #63 Q-channel
Correlation - PRN #63 Q-channel
5000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
-5000
Code-Phase (chips)
Code-Phase (chips)
Doppler
Frequency (Hz)
8812 8816 8820 8824 8828
Data Modulation - PRN 63
1
0
-1
90
0
-90
P
h
a
s
e

o
f
f
s
e
t

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (ms)
2000 2040 2080 2120 2160 2200
Time (ms)
PLL Discriminator
40
0
-40
C
o
d
e

o
f
f
s
e
t

(
m
)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (ms)
DLL Discriminator
90
0
-90
D
o
p
p
l
e
r
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
0 2000 4000 6000
Time (ms)
Doppler Frequency
40
0
-40
C
o
d
e

s
t
a
r
t

(
c
h
i
p
s
)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (ms)
Position of the Code Start
FIGURE 10 The L5 spectrum captured by the SRI 45.7-meter dish antenna.
The large size of the dish reection area provides an antenna gain as
high as 52 decibels, which boosts the L5 signal high above the noise
oor in frequency. A clear L5 spectrum with the main lobe and two side
lobes are shown. Figure courtesy of Mike Cousins and John Ciboci, SRI
International.
FIGURE 11 Acquisition plot of SVN 49 L5 signal with ve milliseconds of
coherent integration. The data used in the plot were logged at 5:30 a.m.
PDT on April 10, 2009. The triangular correlation peak clearly visible in
the right-hand panel veries the BPSK modulation of the signal. Only
the quadrature channel contains signals, not the in-phase channel.
FIGURE 12 L5 tracking results. The data modulation on the top shows a 20-
bit Neuman-Hofman code modulated on the primary PRN code, which is
consistent with the L5 Q-channel signal denition. The phase lock loop
shows jitter every 1.5 seconds, which indicates a periodic carrier phase
scattering.
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
L1 and L2, such as clock, orbit, and troposphere errors. Te
diference between (L1 PR L2 PR) and (L2 CR L1 CR) then
eliminates the frequency-dependent ionopheric error.
Te elevation curves of PRN 1 and PRN 30 are also pre-
sented for comparison in Figure 13. Te PRN 30 curve is fat
over the whole satellite path showing no sign of an anomaly.
However, the PRN 1 curve has a distinct bump of 0.7 meters
at high elevation.
Figures 14 and 15 examine how the dependency afects the
L1 and/or L2 bands. Tese fgures show the code/carrier dif-
ference for a single frequency afer applying dual-frequency
carrier-based ionosphere error corrections. Again, clock, orbit,
troposphere, and ionosphere errors are all eliminated.
Figure 14 indicates that the SVN 49 anomaly is primarily in
the L1 band. Compared to Figure 15, the L1 code-minus-carrier
(CMC) with ionosphere correction for PRN 1 has a bias highly
correlated with the satellite elevation. Consistent with Figure
13, the bias has a relative shif of 0.7 meters from a low elevation
of 20 degrees to a high elevation of 60 degrees.
Te L2 CMC curve is fatter, although there could be a bias
in the opposite direction. Figure 15 shows the normal case of
PRN 30, where both L1 and L2 CMC curves are fat over the
whole satellite path.
In summary, the SVN 49 L1 signal has a bias with a rela-
tive shif of about 0.7 meters from a low elevation of 20 degrees
to a high elevation of 60 degrees, as observed in Mauna Loa,
Hawaii. Similar results have been reported by other researchers
at diferent locations.
Tis bias can be larger if the satellite reaches a higher eleva-
tion at other locations (e.g., up to 90 degrees in Australia). Te
satellite is labeled as unhealthy and will likely remain so as the
anomaly is still under investigation.
Conclusion
This article presents our first observations of the new GPS
IIR(20)-M satellite, also known as SVN 49. Te GPS IIR(20)-M
satellite is the very frst GPS satellite with an L5 payload, centered
at 1176.45 MHz in a band designed solely for civilian use.
Te satellite was launched on March 24, 2009, and its L5
transmission was turned on at 5 a.m. PDT on April 10, 2009.
We observed the broadcast signal from SVN 49 in all frequency
bands, namely L1, L2, L5, and even L3 band for a short period
of time.
We acquired and tracked the broadcast L5 signal, which
only appeared in the quadrature channel and carried PRN 63
as the primary PRN code and a 20-bit Neuman-Hofman code
as the secondary code.
Finally, we investigated an anomaly of SVN 49 in L1 band
based on data collected at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, on May 5, 2009.
A measurement bias is observed in the L1 band and is depen-
dent on the elevation. Te satellite is labeled as unhealthy as the
anomaly remains under investigation.
Acknowledgment
Te authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Federal
Aviation Administration under Cooperative Agreement 08-G-
007. Tis article contains the personal comments and beliefs
FIGURE 13 Comparison of PRN 1 to PRN 30 pseudorange errors where
clock, orbit, troposphere, and ionosphere errors are eliminated. PRN
30 is chosen for comparison due to its orbital proximity. PRN 1 has an
elevation-dependent bias with a relative shift of 0.7 meters from 20
degrees elevation to 60 degrees elevation
FIGURE 14 PRN 1 code minus carrier measurements after applying a dual-
frequency ionosphere correction. The clock, orbit, troposphere, and
ionosphere errors are all eliminated. An obvious elevation-dependent
bias exists in the L1 measurements.
FIGURE 15 PRN 30 code-minus-carrier (CMC) measurements after ap-
plying a dual-frequency ionosphere correction. Compared to Figure 14,
both L1 and L2 curves are atter, showing no evidence of dependence on
elevation angle.
L
1

P
R

-

L
2

P
R

-

(
L
2

C
R

-

L
1

C
R
)
,
w
i
t
h

6
0

s
e
c

s
m
o
o
t
h
i
n
g

(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
80
60
40
20
0
6 8 10 12 14
Time (hours)
PRN 1 elevation
PRN 30 elevation
PRN 1
PRN 30
P
R
N

1

c
o
d
e

m
i
n
u
s

c
a
r
r
i
e
r

(
C
M
C
)
,
w
i
t
h

6
0

s
e
c

s
m
o
o
t
h
i
n
g

(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
80
60
40
20
0
6 8 10 12 14
Time (hours)
L1 CMC corrected for iono
PRN 1 elevation
P
R
N

3
0

c
o
d
e

m
i
n
u
s

c
a
r
r
i
e
r

(
C
M
C
)
,
w
i
t
h

6
0

s
e
c

s
m
o
o
t
h
i
n
g

(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
80
60
40
20
0
6 8 10 12 14
Time (hours)
PRN 30 elevation
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
36
of the authors and does not necessarily
represent the opinion of any other per-
son or organization.
David De Lorenzo from the Stan-
ford GPS Lab developed the software
receiver based on the integration of our
own receiver code and code from the
University of Aalborg, Denmark, and
Dennis Akos of the University of Colo-
rado, Boulder.
Te authors would also like to thank
Stuart Riley from Trimble Navigation
Ltd. for valuable discussions on L5 PRN
codes, and Mike Cousins and John
Ciboci from SRI International for pro-
viding the L5 spectrum snapshot.
Manufacturers
Stanford University and Colorado
researchers use an 89600 vector signal
analyzer (VSA) from Agilent Tech-
nologies, Santa Clara, California, USA,
to collect signals received at either the
SGMS or Table Mountain dish antennas.
Stanford also used an E4440 spectrum
analyzer manufacturered by Hewlett-
Packard Company, Palo Alto, Cali-
fornia. Te universitys sofware GNSS
receiver is implemented in MATLAB
from the MathWorks, Inc., Natick Mas-
sachusetts, USA.
[1] Barker, B. C., and J. W. Betz, J. E. Clark, J. T.
Correia, J. T. Gillis, S. Lazar, K. A. Rehborn, and J.
R. Straton, Overview of the GPS M Code Signal,
Proceedings of ION NTM 2000, January 2000
[2] De Lorenzo, D., Navigation Accuracy and
Interference Rejection for GPS Adaptive Antenna
Arrays, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University,
August 2007
[3] Gao, G. X., and A. Chen, S. Lo, D. De Lorenzo
and P. Enge, GNSS over China: the Compass MEO
Satellite Codes, Inside GNSS, July-August 2007
[4] Gao, G. X., and D. Akos, T. Walter and P. Enge,
GIOVE-B on the Air: Understanding Galileos New
Signals, Inside GNSS, May-June 2008
[5] IS-GPS-705 GPS L5 signal specification,
<http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/GPS/moderniza-
tion/Number.pdf>
[6] IS-GPS-200 GPS L1 and L2 signal specica-
tion, <http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/
IS-GPS-200D.pdf>
[7] Lo, S., and A. Chen, P. Enge, G. X. Gao, D. Akos,
J-L. Issler, L.Ries, T. Grelier, and J. Dantepal, GNSS
Album: Images and Spectral Signatures of the New
GNSS Signals, Inside GNSS, May-June 2006.
Authors
Grace Xingxin Gao, Ph.D., is
a research associate in the
GPS lab of Stanford Univer-
sity. She received the B.S.
degree in mechanical engi-
neering and the M.S.
degree in electrical engi-
neering, both at Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China. She obtained the Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering at Stanford University. Her current
research interests include GNSS signal and code
structures, GNSS receiver architectures, and inter-
ference mitigation. She has received the Institute
of Navigation (ION) Early Achievement Award.
Liang Heng is a Ph.D. candi-
date under the guidance of
Professor Per Enge in the
Electrical Engineering
Department at Stanford
University. He received the
B.S. and M.S. degrees in
electrical engineering from Tsinghua University,
Beijing, China. His current research interests include
GNSS signal processing and GPS modernization.
David De Lorenzo, Ph.D., is
a research associate at the
Stanford University GPS
Research Laboratory. He
received the Ph.D. in aero-
nautics and astronautics
from Stanford University
with thesis research on adaptive antenna arrays,
their ability to reject radio frequency interference,
and their impact on GPS measurement errors. He
has previously worked for Lockheed Martin and for
the Intel Corporation.
Sherman Lo, Ph.D., is a
senior research engineer at
the Stanford University GPS
Research Laboratory man-
aging the assessment of
Loran for civil aviation and
also works on a variety of
GNSS-related issues. He received his Ph.D. in aero-
nautic and astronautics from Stanford University.
He has received the Institute of Navigation (ION)
Early Achievement Award and the International
Loran Association (ILA) Presidents Award.
Dennis M. Akos, Ph.D., com-
pleted the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering at
Ohio University within the
Avionics Engineering Cen-
ter. His research interests
include GNSS systems,
software-defined radio (SDR), applied/digital
signal processing, and radio frequency (RF)
design. Currently Akos is an assistant professor
with the Aerospace Engineering Science Depart-
ment at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He
holds a visiting professor appointment at Lule
University of Technology, Sweden, and a consulting
professor appointment with Stanford University.
Alan Chen is a Ph.D. candi-
date in the Department of
Aeronautics and Astronau-
tics at Stanford University.
He received an M.S. from
that department and
received his S.B. degree in
aeronautics and astronautics from MIT. His current
research interest involves unexploded ordnance,
sensor fusion, autonomous helicopter, and GNSS
signals.
Todd Walter, Ph.D., is a
senior research engineer in
the Department of Aero-
nautics and Astronautics at
Stanford University. He
received his Ph.D. from
Stanford and is currently
working on the Wide Area Augmentation System
(WAAS), dening future architectures to provide
aircraft guidance, and working with the FAA and
GPS Wing on assuring integrity on GPS III. Key early
contributions include prototype development
proving the feasibility of WAAS, signicant contri-
bution to WAAS MOPS, and design of ionospheric
algorithms for WAAS. He is a fellow of the Institute
of Navigation.
Per Enge, Ph.D., is a profes-
sor of aeronautics and
astronautics at Stanford
University, where he
directs the GNSS Research
Laboratory. He has been
involved in the develop-
ment of the Federal Aviation Administrations GPS
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and
Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS). Enge
received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois.
He is a member of the National Academy of Engi-
neering and a Fellow of the IEEE and the Institution
of Navigation.
Bradford W. Parkinson,
Ph.D., is an emeritus pro-
fessor of aeronautics and
astronautics at Stanford
University. He served for
six years as the rst NAV-
STAR GPS Joint Program
Ofce director and chief architect of the Global
Positioning System.He was the principal investi-
gator at Stanford for several innovative GPS
research projects, including the rst commercial
Cat III aircraft landings, the rst robotic tractor
demonstrations, and the initial development of
WAAS. He was awarded the Draper Prize in 2003
for his work on GPS.
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_________________________
_________
__________
S
ynthetic aperture techniques
combine data obtained from
multiple sensors or one sen-
sor moving among multiple
locations, or both to construct a
single image. These techniques have
been widely researched, developed, and
applied in the area of radar systems.
This article discusses efforts to
extend synthetic aperture concepts to
GPS signal processing, exploiting the
beam steering capabilities of syntheti-
cally generated phased array antennas.
In it, we will describe the fast Fourier
transform (FFT)based method used to
simultaneously steer a synthetic arrays
beams in multiple directions. We will
also discuss the results of simulator and
fight tests to demonstrate the efcacy of
synthetic beam steering techniques for
GPS antennas.
Development of GPS-based SARs
will enable high-resolution imaging
capabilities using passive receivers of
GPS signals and allow 24-hour global
availability of imaging technology. It
represents a dual-use technology that
could support military applications such
as imaging of military ground feet hid-
den under foliage, as well as humani-
tarian applications such as detection of
unexploded ordnance.
GPS SAR: The Concept
Large synthetic apertures allow for pro-
ducing very narrow array beams. Tese
Synthetic Aperture
GPS Signal Processing
Concept and Feasibility Demonstration
Most people relate to GNSS as a technology for positioning, navigation, and timing.
However, space weather researchers have already demonstrated the use of GPS as
a useful sensor for studies of the Earths atmosphere. This article introduces the
concept of applying synthetically generated, phased-array antennas for processing
GPS signals to create large antenna apertures. In turn, the narrow-beam generation
capabilities of synthetic apertures can be used to mitigate interference and jamming
and for producing high-resolution radar images passively using received GPS signals
which raise the possibility of some interesting civil and military applications.
ANDREY SOLOVIEV
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
FRANK VAN GRAAS,
SANJEEV GUNAWARDENA
OHIO UNIVERSITY
MIKEL MILLER
AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY
Aerial view of a transporter-
erector-launcher vehicle covered
with camouage netting, during
ground launch cruise missile (GLCM)
evaluation.
D
o
D

P
h
o
t
o

b
y

M
S
G
T

P
a
u
l

N
.

H
a
y
a
s
h
i

q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
38
narrow beams are
steered in desired
di rect ions usi ng
GPS signal process-
ing techniques.
As shown in Fig-
ure 1, an array beam
can be steered in the
direction of a GPS
satellite to mitigate
the effects of radio
frequency interfer-
ence and jamming
signals that are orig-
inating from direc-
tions other than the
satellite. Steering the array beam towards refecting objects to
record high-resolution radar images provides the foundation
for the development of GPS-based synthetic aperture radars
(SARs).
An important consideration in using GPS-based SAR is
that large synthetic arrays are generated with small physi-
cal antennas utilizing platform motion and/or multiplatform
integration. As a result, the physical size of the antenna does
not act as a limiting factor. Tis, in turn, enables miniatur-
ization of the technology for applications on small platforms
such as mini-autonomous aerial vehicles (UAVs) and micro-
UAVs.
Phased array antennas have been widely employed for
antenna beam steering. In a phased array, phases of individual
antennas are adjusted to maximize the array gain in a desired
direction, while increasing the array size narrows the array
beamwidth. Figure 2 illustrates beam steering in the case of a
one-dimensional (1D) array.
In the GPS domain, beam-steering techniques both ana-
log beam steering and digital have primarily been exploited
to mitigate interference.
Hardware versus Software GPS
In designing our phased array, we needed to decide whether to
implement an architecture with a hardware or sofware GPS
receiver.
A hardware-based construction has several limitations. For
instance, an increase in the physical size of the array is required
to narrow its beamwidth. Moreover, adjusting the phases of
individual antennas in hardware constrains the systems capa-
bility to simultaneously generate multiple beams that can be
used, for example, to track multiple satellites or to simultane-
ously track both direct and refected (multipath) signals.
To overcome these limitations, we propose a synthetic array
generation scheme that uses a sofware GPS receiver architec-
ture. Instead of adding new antennas to the array, the beam is
narrowed by exploiting antenna motion that is, the array is
synthesized by observing an antenna at diferent locations over
time. Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate this principle for 1D and
two-dimensional (2D) array cases, respectively.
Generation of synthetic GPS antenna arrays is conceptually
similar to synthetic aperture radar, where antenna motion is
FIGURE 1 Applications of synthetic aperture GPS signal processing
FIGURE 2 Beam steering with a one-dimen-
sional phased array: phase delays are applied
to individual antenna outputs to steer the
beam in the direction of
0
, the beam width is
inversely proportional to the number of array
elements (N)
FIGURE 3 Synthetic generation of a one-dimensional phased array: an
incoming GPS signal is down-sampled by the GPS receiver RF front-end;
signal samples that correspond to different spatial antenna locations
are combined to generate a synthetic phased array; phases of individual
samples are adjusted to steer the arrays beam in the direction of the
incident angle of the GPS satellite signal
0
.
FIGURE 4 Synthetic generation of a two-dimensional phased array:
Physical one-dimensional (1D) arrays are used to steer the beam in
the rst dimension (beam direction is collinear to the planar surface
that is perpendicular to the direction of platform motion); 1D arrays at
different spatial locations are applied for beam steering in the second
dimension (beam direction is collinear to the planar surface that is
parallel to the direction of motion); measurements of individual anten-
nas are combined for phased array processing. Note that the 1D physical
antenna arrays can be implemented on a single platform or can exploit
multi-platform implementations such as multiple autonomous aerial
vehicles (UAVs).
Synthetic beam steering
(interference and jamming mitigation)
GPS-based synthetic aperture
radar (passive imaging)
Synthetic aperture
GPS signal processing
Jammer Antenna
beam
Antenna
beam
GPS satellite
GPS satellite
Synthetic aperture
GPS signal processing
Antenna
output
Antenna beam
d d
phase delay
d cos(
)
phase delay
2d cos(
)
phase delay
Nd cos(
Incoming GPS signal S(t)

S(T
0
)
Antenna
output
S(T
1
) S(T
2
) S(T
N
)
d d
phase delay
d cos(
0
)
phase delay
2d cos(
0
)
phase delay
Nd cos(
0
)
RF
front-end
RF
front-end
RF
front-end
RF
front-end
Phased array
signal processing
d d
RF
front-end
RF
front-end
RF
front-end
RF
front-end
SYNTHETIC APERTURE
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
used to increase the antenna aperture
in order to increase the azimuth resolu-
tion.
Te synthetic array generation needs
to operate with signal samples. In par-
ticular, samples that are taken a certain
distance apart (generally, a half-wave-
length apart: d=/2) must be combined.
Hence, we use a sofware-defned GPS
receiver to generate a synthetic phased
array antenna.
Te sofware receiver approach also
allows the generation of multiple beams
that are steered in diferent directions.
Instead of hardware phase adjustments,
a phase of a signal sample is adjusted to
maximize the gain in a given direction
(as seen in Figure 3).
As a result, multiple beams can be
generated simultaneously by applying
diferent sequences of phase shifs to the
same set of signal samples. Tis simulta-
neous steering in diferent directions can
be used, for example, for simultaneous
tracking of direct and refected signals
such as urban and ground multipath
refections.
In the remainder of this article, we
will first summarize previous efforts
in the area of synthetic aperture GPS
signal processing. Ten we will discuss
the principles of FFT-based multi-direc-
tional beam steering and how we applied
them to develop signal processing tech-
niques for synthetic phased array GPS
antennas.
Finally, we describe the simulation
and live data test results used to verify
the beam steering methods that we have
developed. In particular, we apply actual
fight data and ground data to demon-
strate the operation of 1D and 2D syn-
thetic phased GPS antenna arrays.
Simulated data are exploited to dem-
onstrate the use of 2D synthetic phased
arrays for simultaneous tracking of
direct and multipath signals. We also
use simulated data to demonstrate GPS-
based SAR imaging.
Earlier Work
Te concept of synthetic aperture signal
processing for GNSS signals has been
previously considered in both the navi-
gation domain, and in the area of radar
systems. (For a discussion of the former
principle, see in particular the papers
by A. Broumandan et alia, S. Draganov
et alia, and T. Pany et alia cited in the
Additional Resources section near the
end of this article. For a discussion of
the latter, see the paper by M. Chernia-
kov et alia.)
In the navigation domain, these
earlier papers describe synthetic aper-
ture GPS signal processing for a single
antenna case as well as the exploitation
of circular antenna motion to synthesize
a circular phased array.
In the work described by A. Brou-
mandan et alia, a synthetic phased
array is applied for interference mitiga-
tion while the paper by T. Pany et alia
discusses the application of the circular
synthetic array to suppress multipath.
S. Draganov et alia discuss the use of
the synthetic aperture technique by the
ultra-tightly coupled GNSS/INS archi-
tecture to mitigate multipath.
In their paper, Cherniakov et alia dis-
cuss the use of GLONASS signals from
the Russian GNSS system as signals of
opportunity for bi-static synthetic aper-
ture imaging. There, antenna motion
is utilized to achieve high-resolution
imaging capabilities in the direction of
motion. The cross-track resolution is
achieved through use of the GLONASS
precision (P)-code, based on publicly
available technical specifcations, which
provides a ranging resolution of about
30 meters.
Tis article extends synthetic aper-
ture GPS signal processing for those
cases in which multiple GPS antennas are
used. Antenna motion is used to synthe-
size one-dimensional phased arrays. As
indicated in Figure 4, the second dimen-
sion is added (synthesized) through the
combining of signals received by mul-
tiple antennas mounted perpendicular
to the direction of motion.
We will introduce a computationally
efcient 2D FFT-based signal processing
algorithm to simultaneously steer the
array beam in multiple directions. As
suggested previously, the array beam can
be steered towards refecting objects to
record high-resolution SAR images with
GPS signals.
For GPS-based SAR, the range-based
resolution of the cross-track image com-
ponent is limited by the duration of the
chip of the pseudorandom ranging
sequence: 300 meters for the C/A-code
and 30 meters for the GPS P-code.
Focusing the array beam using mul-
tiple antennas that are mounted per-
pendicular to the direction of motion
to resolve the cross-track component
improves the cross-track image reso-
lution beyond the C/A or P-code chip
duration. Te approach especially bene-
fts cases where the multiplatform signal
integration can be applied to construct
large array apertures in the cross-track
direction.
FFT-Based Multi-Directional
BeamSteering
As reported by M. I. Skolnik (see Addi-
tional Resources), FFT-based multi-
directional beam steering techniques
have been previously employed for radar
applications. In our work described here,
we adopted these techniques to develop
computationally efcient methods for
multi-directional beam steering of syn-
thetic GPS antenna arrays.
Te FFT-based beam steering tech-
nique processes synthetic phased array
data to construct a GPS signal image in
which each image pixel contains signal
parameter information corresponding
to a signal that is received from a par-
ticular steering angle. Figure 5 illustrates
the FFT-based signal image construction
for the 2D antenna array.
Each cell of the 2D FFT frequency
grid corresponds to a particular 2D
steering angle, where the correspon-
Focusing the array beamusing multiple antennas that
are mounted perpendicular to the direction of motion
to resolve the cross-track component improves the
cross-track image resolution beyond the C/A or P-
code chip duration.
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
40
dence between frequency and angles is defned by the antenna
size and FFT parameters. (We will present detailed equations
later in this section.)
Essentially, the FFT-based approach provides a signal image
that is similar to the one constructed by a digital photographic
camera: each pixel in the image is defned by the intensity
of the signal that is received from the angular direction asso-
ciated with this pixel. In the case of multi-directional beam
steering, the pixel intensity is represented by a post-correla-
tion complex amplitude that contains the in-phase (I) value
(real part of the complex amplitude) and quadrature (Q) value
(imaginary part of the complex amplitude).
Tis signal image can be used to identify and process mul-
tiple signal sources that may include direct signals, interference
signals, and multipath refections. Hence, this image can be
applied to simultaneously track multiple signal sources such
as direct signal and multipath refections.
Te following section describes the principles of FFT-based
multi-directional beam steering for synthetic GPS antenna
arrays.
FFT for Multi-Directional Beam Steering
To steer a phased array in the angular direction of
0
(see Figure
2), phases of individual antennas are adjusted by , which is
defned as follows:
where R is the absolute value of the distance between the cur-
rent antenna and the frst antenna of the array.
For the physical array case, R is the distance between anten-
nas:
In (2), m is the antenna index number within the array
(starting with index zero for the frst antenna) and d is the
distance between two adjacent antennas (see Figure 2).
For the synthetic array case, R is the antenna displacement,
as follows:
where R is the displacement vector and || is the absolute
value.
Beam steering is performed by multiplying samples S of the
incoming signal by a complex exponential:
The array output is then formed by adding individual
antenna outputs:
In (5), S
m
is the output of the m
th
antenna, M is the num-
ber of antennas in the array, and d=/2 is normally chosen to
avoid beam ambiguities (i.e., a creation of multiple beams in
the angular range from 0 to 180 degrees).
For d=/2, equation (5) is modifed as follows:
Te antenna beam can be steered simultaneously in multi-
ple directions if we use the FFT mechanism to implement equa-
tion (6). FFT harmonic frequencies can be chosen to satisfy the
desired steering angular range and angular resolution.
For the case of a physical antenna array, the use of the FFT
instead of summation transforms single-direction steering into
multi-directional steering as follows:
where {
k
} are steering angles and k is the FFT frequency
index.
Note that k is changing from 0 to M/2 and not from 0 to
M-1. Tis is due to the fact that the FFT spectrum amplitudes
with the index numbers M/2+1 to M are complex conjugates of
the spectrum amplitudes with the index numbers 1 to M/2-1.
Consequently, the former do not provide any new information
and are not considered.
Signal image
Normalized signal power
Angular grid
FFT frequency grid
mapping
(defined by FFT
parameters)
Elevation, deg
Azimuth, deg
pixel
angular cell
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
180
150
120
90
60
30
0
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
FIGURE 5 FFT-based multi-directional beam steering: In this simulation, a
2D GPS signal image contains the received direct signal and a multipath
reection; each image pixel corresponds to a particular 2D steering
angle derived from the FFT frequency grid; multiple signal sources (such
as direct and multipath signals) can be identied and processed based
on the signal image.
SYNTHETIC APERTURE
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
From equations (6) and (7), the FFT spectrum amplitude
for the k
th
frequency harmonic is defned as follows:
On the other hand, this spectrum amplitude can be related
to the amplitude of the phased array that is steered in the direc-
tion of
k
:
From equations (8) and (9):
or:
Equation (11) defnes mapping of the FFT frequencies into
steering angles for multi-directional beam steering. Tus, the
FFT that is applied to outputs of individual antennas generates
multiple beams that are steered in diferent directions. Tese
steering directions are defned by the initial steering angle
0
and FFT harmonic frequencies as specifed by equation (11).
To steer multiple beams within the angular range from 0 to
180 degrees, the FFT is frst applied for
0
= 0
Tis provides beam steering in the angular range from 0 to
90 degrees. To extend the steering angles to the range from 90
to 180 degrees, the second FFT is applied for
0
= /2
Hence, a complete FFT-based multi-direction beam steer-
ing procedure combines FFT outputs for initial steering angles
of 0 and 90 degrees:
FFT-Based Synthetic BeamSteering for GPS
Antennas
Figure 6 illustrates an FFT-based multi-direction beam steering
method for the synthetic array case.
First, batches of signal samples are formed in such a way
that the spatial distance between frst samples in the adjacent
batches is d.
Second, FFTs are applied to samples that have the same
index number within diferent batches: for example, to frst
samples of each batch, second samples of each batch, and so
on. Te total number of FFTs required equals P; where P is the
number of samples in the batch.
Tird, FFT results are added together to improve the sig-
nal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the received GPS signal. Te FFT
addition operation in the synthetic array case is equivalent to
the incoming/replica signal correlation in the conventional
GPS receiver architecture. Addition of FFT outputs forms the
output of the synthetic phased array.
To reduce the computational load, the number of signal
samples in the batch can be reduced using averaging. In cases
where P4 and d=/2, distortions associated with this averag-
ing have negligible infuence on the FFT-based multi-direc-
tional beam steering.
We should note that GPS carrier phase tracking must be
maintained for phased array antenna formation. Coherent sig-
nal accumulation over the entire synthetic aperture is required
to maintain carrier phase tracking capabilities.
To support coherent signal accumulation, down-sampled
GPS signals must be compensated for changes in the carrier
phase due to intermediate frequency (IF) variations and sat-
ellite motion as well as for changes in the code phase of the
pseudorandom code sequence (PRN). Equation (15) provides
the corresponding compensation expression for satellite j:
where:
t
n
is the discrete time within the current aperture
accumulation interval: , t
n
= t
0
+ n t, t is the time
discrete of GPS signal down-sampling;
Signal
samples
FFT
1
FFT
2
FFT
P
Synthetic
array output
d d
FIGURE 6 FFT-based beam steering for the synthetic array case
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
42
f
IF
is the intermediate frequency, which is the frequency of
down-conversion of the incoming GPS signal to baseband;
R
SV
j
(t
n
) is the increment in the satellite/receiver range (or
the line-of-sight LOS increment) that is due to satellite
motion;
L
1
is the wavelength of the GPS Link 1 (L1) carrier;
PRN
j
is the PRN for satellite j; and,
is the estimate of the code phase at the start of the aperture
accumulation, where early, prompt or late code phase estimates
can be used.
Equation (16) is applied to compute the R
SV
j
term:
In (16), (. , .) is the vector dot product, e
j
is the satellite/
receiver LOS unit vector, R
SV
j
is the satellite position vector;
and R
rcvr
is the receiver position vector.
Note that equation (16) does not compensate the PRN code
phase for antenna motion. Synthetic apertures stay in the range
from 1.2 to 6.2 meters for experimental scenarios reported
in this article (see next section), which focuses on GPS C/A
code applications. In this case, because the antenna aperture
is signifcantly shorter that the code chip length (equivalent
to approximately 300 meters), the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
processing loss caused by uncompensated antenna motion is
negligible (less than 0.2 dB).
For apertures that are comparable to the length of the C/A-
code chip or for precision (Pcode) applications where the chip
duration is equivalent to approximately 30 meters, changes in
the code phase resulting from antenna motion must be taken
into account.
Future research will address modifications of synthetic
aperture algorithms that account for code phase changes due
to antenna motion. Note that antenna motion must be compen-
sated for the construction of the synthetic antennas as detailed
in the next section.
Navigation message data bits in the GPS signal must be
wiped-of to avoid energy losses due to bit transitions for those
cases where the time duration of synthetic aperture exceeds the
duration of navigation data bits (20 milliseconds). Te bit wipe-
of can utilize bit estimates from GPS receiver tracking loops.
Alternatively, an energy-based bit estimation algorithm
described in a forthcoming article by A. Soloviev et alia (see
Additional Resources) or Kalman flter bit estimation routines
(see the articles by N. I. Zeidan et alia and M. L. Psiaki et alia
in Additional Resources) can be used for those cases where low
carrier-to-noise ratio (C/N
0
) signals are processed.
To determine the spatial distance between signal samples
we used the motion trajectory computed by an inertial navi-
gation system (INS). We applied a quarter-wavelength spatial
separation between synthetic antennas to the methods reported
in this article (see Equation [21] below). Tis separation cor-
responds to approximately fve centimeters for the GPS L1 car-
rier. Tus, the INS must provide centimeter-accurate trajectory
estimates. Tis requirement is satisfed if INS error states are
periodically estimated by a Kalman flter that uses GPS carrier
phase measurements as flter observables.
A pattern of the synthetic phased array that is constructed
by adding outputs of individual FFTs (see Figure 6) can be
approximated by a sinc function:
where is the steering direction, * is the direction of the
incoming signal, and A is the total length of the array.
The sync function corresponds closely to the pattern of
the physical phased array for the case in which the distance
between individual antennas is equal to a half-wavelength:
Figure 7 illustrates close agreement between patterns of the
half-wavelength physical array and a synthetic array using a
simulated case where the satellite signal is received from a 45-
degree angle.
In applying equation (17) we can see that the pattern of
the synthetic array does not depend on the spatial distance
between synthetically generated antenna locations. As a result,
this spatial distance can be chosen to provide a desired angular
range for the multi-directional beam steering.
For our particular purposes, we chose a spatial distance
equal to /4 so as to cover the angular range between 0 to 180
degrees. In this case, the FFT amplitude that corresponds to
the k
th
frequency harmonic is expressed as follows:
Array pattern for 12 antennas
SV LOS angle
Physical array pattern
Synthetic array pattern (sync function)
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y
Steering angle, deg
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
FIGURE 7 Simulated synthetic array pattern versus physical array pattern
SYNTHETIC APERTURE
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
Tis spectrum amplitude also serves as a synthetic array
output for steering direction
k
. As a result, it satisfes the fol-
lowing equation:
Comparison of equations (19) and (20) maps FFT frequen-
cies into beam steering angles:
Equation (22) provides the fnal expression for the FFT-
based multi-directional beam steering for synthetic phased
arrays:
Two-Dimensional BeamSteering
For multi-directional steering in two dimensions, one-dimen-
sional FFTs for the synthetic and physical phased arrays in
accordance with equations (22) and (14) are combined into
a two-dimensional FFT:
In (23), m and n are index numbers of the antenna in the
physical and synthetic arrays, respectively, with corresponding
steering angles and , as shown in Figure 8.
FFT-Based Multi-Directional Signal Tracking
Te outputs of the 2D FFT-based steering procedure that we
have described correspond to post-correlation complex ampli-
tudes of incoming signals received for diferent antenna steer-
ing angles. More specifcally, the real part of the FFT spec-
trum represents the in-phase (I) post-correlation values and the
imaginary part represents the quadrature (Q) post-correlation
values for the anten-
na steering angles
defned by FFT fre-
quencies as specifed
by equation (23).
Hence, the 2D
FFT mechanism for-
mulated by equation
(23) simultaneously
provides Is and Qs for multiple beam steering angles, which
can be applied for multi-directional carrier phase tracking. I
and Q values for each FFT frequency grid and its correspond-
ing steering direction are treated independently from other
frequency grids.
Multi-directional carrier phase tracking is performed by
processing I and Q values of each steering direction. Signal
parameters for diferent steering directions can be estimated
from I and Q values using an open-loop receiver architecture
described in the forthcoming article by F. van Graas et alia
(Additional Reources). FFT-based multi-directional tracking
will be illustrated later in the section describing simultaneous
tracking of direct and multipath signals.
So, with the foregoing theoretical background in mind, lets
turn to the feasibility demonstration and experimental verifca-
tion phases of our discussion.
1DSynthetic Array: Flight Test Results
Synthetic generation of 1D antenna arrays was verifed using
experimental data collected in actual flight environments.
Figure 9 shows the confguration of equipment on the Ohio
University Avionics Engineering Center (OU AEC) McDonald
Douglas DC-3 aircraf used for the fight test.
We selected a straight segment of the fight to demonstrate
the generation of synthetic arrays, with the aircraf traveling
at approximately 63 meters per second.
Te synthetic array approach was verifed using sampled
GPS data recorded during the fight test by the AECs sof-
ware instrumentation receiver described in the article by S.
Gunawardena et alia (Additional Resources). To implement
multi-directional beam steering in the range from 0 to 180
degrees using a single FFT per Equation (18), antennas
in synthetically generated arrays are spatially separated by a
quarter-wavelength of the GPS L1 carrier wavelength (approxi-
mately fve centimeters).
As described earlier in this article, quarter-wavelength
batches of GPS signal samples are first formed and then
processed. Te motion trajectory reconstructed by the INS
is applied to determine the spatial separation of GPS signal
samples in order to combine samples that are quarter-wave-
lengths apart.
Te INS motion trajectory is computed from measurements
of a low-cost inertial measurement unit (IMU). Tis units sen-
sor errors are specifed as 0.1 degree/second (one sigma) gyro
drif and one milligal (one sigma) accelerometer bias. IMU
measurements are periodically calibrated in-fight using GPS
Physical array
Synthetic array
Beam direction
FIGURE 8 Two-dimensional steering angles

q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
44
carrier phase in order to maintain the centimeter-accurate
reconstruction of motion trajectory needed to generate the
synthetic phased arrays.
For each satellite, the down-conversion frequency f
IF
, PRN
code, and satellite motion are wiped of from the incoming sig-
nal prior to applying the FFT-based beam steering procedure.
Figures 10 and 11 show synthetic array patterns (with 13 and
26 elements, respectively) computed by the FFT-based steering
method for the case where the motion of the GPS satellite iden-
tifed by its pseudorandom noise code PRN 7 is wiped of
from the incoming signal. An estimated carrier-to-noise ratio
(C/N0) for PRN 7 is 47 dB-Hz.
In the fgures, the synthetic array patterns are represented
as normalized signal energy (y-axis) versus steering angle,
where the signal energy is normalized such that the maximum
energy over the entire steering angular range is equal to one.
Tese fgures reveal patterns for cases in which the synthetic
aperture corresponds to a 13-element array (Figure 10) and a
26-element array (Figure 11) that use half-wavelength separa-
tion between their antennas.
In the fgures, the maximum energy is observed when the
antenna beam is steered towards the satellite. An energy loss
is introduced as the beam is steered away from the satellite.
Essentially, an energy loss for the angle is equivalent to a
suppression that would be applied to an interference signal (or
any other unwanted signal) from a given angle while the beam
is steered towards the satellite.
Te beamwidth is approximated as the distance between
the points for which the energy is degraded by three decibels
from its maximum (boresight) value. Hence, the beamwidths
are approximately 10 degrees and 5 degrees for the 13-element
and 26-element synthetic antenna arrays, respectively.
2D Synthetic Array: Ground Test Results
We use ground vehicle test data to demonstrate the generation
of 2D synthetic phased arrays. Figure 12 shows the experimental
setup in the AEC test van that was used for data collection.
Similar to the fight test, we implemented a straight motion
trajectory with the vans velocity at approximately four meters
Array pattern for 13-antenna array
SV LOS angle
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

s
i
g
n
a
l

e
n
e
r
g
y
,

d
B
Steering angle, deg
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Array pattern for 26-antenna array
SV LOS angle
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

s
i
g
n
a
l

e
n
e
r
g
y
,

d
B
Steering angle, deg
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
FIGURE 10 Pattern of a one-dimensional synthetic antenna array with 13
elements generated using ight data and FFT-based multi-directional
beam steering. PRN 7 satellite motion is wiped off from the incoming
signal;
FIGURE 11 Pattern of a one-dimensional synthetic antenna array with 26
elements generated using ight data and FFT-based multi-directional
beam steering. PRN 7 satellite motion is wiped-off from the incoming
signal
SYNTHETIC APERTURE
FIGURE 9 Flight test setup
GPS antenna
OU AEC
front-end
Data collection computer
(Low-cost IMU mounted inside)
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
per second. An AEC two-channel sof-
ware instrumentation receiver was used
to record raw GPS signal samples. IMU
data were applied to reconstruct the
motion trajectory for the synthetic array
formation.
Two antennas mounted on the van
roofop formed the array beam in the
direction perpendicular to motion.
Array aperture in the direction of
motion was synthesized by observing
these antennas at diferent spatial loca-
tions.
We calibrated the systems inter-
channel and inter-antenna biases in
advance of the ground test and removed
their associated phase delays from raw
signal samples prior to implementing the
synthetic signal processing routines.
Note t hat t he
beam steering capa-
bilities in the cross-
t r ack di rec t i on
were limited by the
number of front-end
channels (two) cur-
rently available in
the sofware receiv-
er. This limitation
can be mitigated
by increasing the
number of front-
end channels and/
or by implementing
multi-platform signal integration tech-
niques.
Figures 13 and 14 show 2D synthetic
array patterns generated for the ground
experiment. In these figures, is the
steering angle in the direction of motion
and is the steering angle in the cross-
track direction. Figure 13 shows test
results for a phased array constructed
using two physical and six synthetic
antennas.
Similar to the 1D array case, the
maximum signal energy is received
when the array beam is steered in the
direction of the satellite. As the beam
is being steered away from the satel-
lite, signal attenuation occurs. At a spe-
cifc angular direction, this attenuation
is equivalent to that which would be
applied to a multipath or an interfering
signal coming from this direction.
As mentioned previously, beam-
steering capabilities in the cross-track
direction are currently limited by the
number of front-end channels in the
receiver. With only two channels avail-
able, therefore, the array beam in the
cross-track direction is rather wide:
approximately 30 degrees. Nevertheless,
the experimental results demonstrate
the feasibility of generating 2D arrays
by using synthetic aperture GPS signal
processing and combining signals from
multiple antennas.
Figure 14 shows the 2D synthetic
array pattern for the case where the
synthetic aperture is extended to 31 ele-
ments. Tis extension narrows the array
beam significantly in the direction of
motion. The beamwidth in the cross-
track direction remains unchanged.
FFT-based Multi-Directional
BeamSteering: Simulation
Results
The following section uses simulated
results to demonstrate the feasibility of
the FFT-based multi-directional signal
tracking with simulated results.
For the simulation, a multipath signal
was added to the direct satellite signal.
Multipath was simulated as a specular
refection from a horizontal planar sur-
SYNTHETIC APERTURE
Pattern of 2x6 element array
180
150
120
90
60
30
0
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
,

d
e
g
, deg
0 30 60 90 120 160 180
SV location
Pattern of 2x31 element array
180
150
120
90
60
30
0
0
-20
-40
-60
,

d
e
g
, deg
0 30 60 90 120 160 180
SV location
FIGURE 13 Pattern of a two-dimensional antenna array that is comprised
of two physical and six synthetic antennas. Satellite motion has been
wiped off from the incoming signal from PRN4, which had a carrier-to-
noise ratio of 49 dB-Hz.
FIGURE 14 Pattern of a two-dimensional antenna array that is comprised
of two physical and thirty one synthetic antennas; PRN 4 satellite mo-
tion is wiped-off from the incoming signal; PRN 4 C/N
0
is 49 dB-Hz
RF front-end
Data collection computer
(AGNC IMU mounted inside)
GPS antennas
FIGURE 12 Ground vehicle test setup
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
46
face collinear to the Y-Z plane. Figure 15
illustrates this multipath scenario.
For the FFT-based synthetic array
processing, the synthetic aperture
corresponds to 20 physical antennas
separated by a half-wavelength. A four-
element physical array with half-wave-
length antenna separation was simu-
lated to steer the beam in the direction
perpendicular to motion. Array beams
were steered in multiple directions using
2D FFTs (see Equation [23]).
For the direct signal, a C/N
0
of 40
dB-Hz was implemented. Te multipath
power was simulated to be three decibels
below the direct sig-
nal power.
Figure 16 shows
a 2D signal image
constructed using
the 2D FFT-based
b e a m s t e e r i ng
method. The plot
demonstrates simul-
taneous recovery of
the direct and mul-
tipath signals.
F F T - b a s e d
multi-directional
signal tracking was
implemented and
simulated for the
case of simultaneous
tracking of direct
and multipath signals for the scenario
illustrated in Figure 15. FFT-based Is
and Qs are applied to track the carrier
phase of direct and multipath signals.
Real and imaginary parts of FFT com-
plex amplitudes for beams steered in the
direction of direct and multipath signals
are exploited as I and Q values, respec-
tively.
Figure 17 illustrates the results of
the simulated tracking. Carrier phase
tracking errors are shown as diferences
between true carrier phase (known in
the simulation) and measured carrier
phase based on I and Q values provided
by 2D FFT computations.
Standard deviations of carrier phase
errors are evaluated as 3.2 and 4.3 mil-
limeters for the direct and multipath
signals, respectively. Hence, the simula-
tion results presented demonstrate the
feasibility of simultaneous tracking of
multiple signals using the FFT-based
multi-directional beam steering.
GPS-Based SAR Imaging
Figure 18 illustrates a simulation scenario
implemented to demonstrate GPS-based
SAR imaging.
A si mulated receiver platform
includes four GPS antennas mounted on
an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that
is fying at 20 meters above the ground
with a 2 meters per second ground veloc-
ity. The simulated scenario assumes a
single point refector located at ground
level. The C/N
0
of the reflected signal
was simulated to represent an army tank
hidden under a dense canopy.
Analysis of RF GPS data collected
in forestry areas shows that for high-
elevation satellites the signal is generally
attenuated by 7 decibels as it propagates
through the canopy. Terefore, the sig-
nal attenuation of 14 decibels was intro-
duced for the two-way propagation path
through the canopy, that is, from the sat-
ellite to the target and from the target to
the receiver.
The radar cross section (RCS) of
the target is assumed to be fve square
meters. For the 14-decibel signal atten-
uation due to the propagation through
the canopy and a five square meter
RCS value, the C/N0 of the signal that
is received at the UAV platform is esti-
mated at 17 dB-Hz.
We simulated and processed the C/
A-code component of the GPS signal.
To process the GPS signal at a 17 dB-Hz
level, a one-second coherent integration
4x20 antenna array
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

s
i
g
n
a
l

e
n
e
r
g
y
x axis steering
angle, deg
y axis steering
angle, deg
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
30
0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
60
90
120
150
Direct phase minus estimated direct phase, m
Time, s
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Multipath phase minus estimated multipath phase, m
Time, s
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
FIGURE 16 Simulated FFT-based signal image
for a two-dimensional antenna array: Direct
and multipath signals are simulated; direct
signal carrier-to-noise ratio is 40 dB-Hz;
multipath signal power is three decibels
lower than the direct signal power; angles
between X and Y axes of the antenna array
and direct signal are simulated as 90 and 46
degrees, respectively; angles between X and
Y axes of the antenna array and multipath
signal are simulated as 90 and 134 degrees,
respectively; energy peaks are clearly
observed for cases where the antenna beam
is steered towards the direct signal and
multipath
FIGURE 17 Simultaneous tracking of direct and multipath signal using FFT-
based multi-directional beam steering
FIGURE 18 Simulation scenario implemented to
demonstrate GPS-based SAR imaging
V = 2 m/s
h = 20 m
Y
X
SYNTHETIC APERTURE
FIGURE 15 Multipath reection scenario
simulated to verify multi-directional beam
steering in two dimensions
Receiver
y
z
x
SV
direct path
multipath
v
rcvr
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
interval was implemented. Construction of SAR images was
based on the 2D FFT-based processing approach discussed in
the previous section, augmented by beam focusing techniques
discussed in the book by J. C. Curlander and R. N. McDonough
(Additional Resources) to avoid image distortions that are due
to the motion of the platform.
Figure 19 shows an example of a simulated SAR image. To
construct this image, steering angles were converted into X
and Y Cartesian coordinates using the known height above
the ground (20meters).
The GPS-based SAR image shown in Figure 19 clearly
identifes the presence of a target. Note that the image resolu-
tion in the direction of motion is achieved using the synthetic
aperture. For the cross-track direction, the image is resolved
by focusing the array beam with multiple physical antennas
mounted perpendicular to motion.
This implementation differs from the classical SAR
approach that uses a single antenna and the cross-track image
component is resolved using the carrier modulation by a rang-
ing signal. For the GPS case, the chip duration of the C/A-code
ranging modulation is 300 meters. Clearly, this resolution is
insufcient for most imaging applications. Hence, multiple-
antenna beam focusing is applied to resolve the cross-track
image component.
As shown in Figure 19, the multi-antenna focusing approach
allows for resolving the cross-track image component within
approximately three meters. In other words, the ranging resolu-
tion of the C/A code is improved by two orders of magnitude
in the simulation scenario.
Conclusions
Tis article has described the generation of synthetic phased
GPS antenna arrays using moving antennas. Signals received
from a GPS antenna at diferent spatial locations are combined
into a synthetic phased array to sharpen the array beam with-
out increasing its physical size. We introduced an FFT-based
approach to simultaneously steer the array beam in multiple
directions and to perform multi-source signal tracking.
Tis approach can be applied for improving GPS robust-
ness to radio-frequency interference, simultaneous tracking
of multiple signal sources such as direct signal and multipath
refections, and for recording high-resolution images utilizing
GPS signal refections.
Future research in the area of synthetic aperture GPS signal
processing will focus on the demonstration of the GPS SAR
concept with experimental data and multi-platform signal pro-
cessing for generating large array apertures in the direction
perpendicular to motion.
Acknowledgment
Tis article is based on a presentation made at the 2009 Insti-
tute of Navigation International Technical Meeting in Ana-
heim, California.
Manufacturers
Te low-cost IMU used in the AEC fight test is a Coremicro
manufactured by American GNC Corporation, Simi Valley,
California, USA.
Authors
Andrey Soloviev is a research assistant professor at
the University of Florida, Research and Engineering
Education Facility. Previously he served as a senior
research engineer at the Ohio University Avionics
Engineering Center, Athens, Ohio. He holds B.S. and
M.S. in Applied Mathematics and Physics from Mos-
cow University of Physics and Technology and a Ph.D.
in Electrical Engineering from Ohio University. Solovievs research interests
focus on all aspects of multi-sensor integration for navigation applications.
He is a recipient of the Institute of Navigation (ION) Early Achievement Award
and the RTCAs William Jackson Award.
Sanjeev Gunawardena is a senior research engineer
and co-principal investigator with the Ohio Univer-
sity Avionics Engineering Center. He earned a Ph.D.
in electrical engineering from Ohio University and
was the 2007 recipient of the RTCA William E. Jackson
award. His research interests include RF systems
design, digital systems design, recongurable com-
puting, and all aspects of GNSS receivers and signal processing.
Frank van Graas is the Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Pro-
fessor of Electrical Engineering and a principal inves-
tigator with the Avionics Engineering Center at Ohio
University. A Past President of The Institute of Navi-
gation, van Graas received the 1996 Johannes Kepler
Award from the IONs Satellite Division of the ION. His
research interests center on all facets of GPS, includ-
ing aircraft precision approach and landing, attitude determination, and sys-
tem integration.
Mikel Miller is the technical director for the Advanced Guidance Division,
Munitions Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Eglin Air Force Base,
Florida. He received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the Air Force
Focused SAR image
180
150
120
90
60
30
0
Y
,
m
X, m
-10 -5 0 5 10
Target location
FIGURE 19 Simulated SAR image for the GPS-based SAR implementation
www.insidegnss.com MAY/ J UNE 200 9 InsideGNSS 46a
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
___________
Institute of Technology
(AFIT), WPAFB, Ohio.
Since 1986, he has
focused on navigation
system R&D related to
GPS, GPS/INS integra-
tion, alterative naviga-
tion techniques including bio-inspired naviga-
tion and signals of opportunitybased navigation,
autonomous vehicle navigation and control, and
multi-sensor fusion. He is currently responsible
for directing both in-house and contracted R&D
projects advancing guidance, navigation, and
control technology for weapon systems.
[1] Akos, D. M., A Software Radio Approach to
Global Navigation Satellite System Receiver
Design, Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio University,
August 1997
[2] Broumandan, A., and T. Lin, A. Moghaddam,
D. Lu, J. Nielsen, and G. Lachapelle, Direction of
Arrival Estimation of GNSS Signals Based on Syn-
thetic Antenna Array, in Proceedings of the ION
GNSS-2007, September 2007
[3] Cherniakov, M., and R.Saini, M. Antoniou, R.
Zuo, and J. Edwards, SS-BSAR with Transmitter
of Opportunity - Practical Aspects, in Proceed-
ings of the 3rd EMRS DTC Technical Conference,
June 2006
[4] Curlander, J. C., and R. N. McDonough, Syn-
thetic Aperture Radar: Systems and Signal Pro-
cessing, Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons,
1991
[5] Draganov, S., and L. Haas, Novel Multipath
Mitigation Methods for Ultra-tightly Coupled
GNSS/INS Systems, presented at the for ofcial
use only (FOUO) session of the ION GNSS-2008,
September 2008.
[6] Farrell, J. L., GPS/INS-Streamlined, NAVIGA-
TION, Journal of the Institute of Navigation, Vol.
49, No. 4, Summer 2002
[7] Gold, K., and R. Silva, R. Worrell, and A. Brown
Space Navigation with Digital Beam Steering GPS
Receiver Technology, in Proceedings of the ION
Annual Meeting, June 2003
[8] Gunawardena, S., A. Soloviev, F. van Graas,
Wideband Transform-Domain GPS Instrumen-
tation Receiver for Signal Quality and Anomalous
Event Monitoring, NAVIGATION, Journal of the
Institute of Navigation, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2007
[9] Kaplan, E., and C. Hegarty (Editors), Under-
standing GPS: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed.
Norwood, Massachusetts: Artech House, 2006
[10] McGraw, G. A., and C. McDowell, and J. M.
Kelly GPS Anti-Jam Antenna System Measure-
ment Error Characterization and Compensation, in
Proc. of the ION GNSS-2006, September 2006
[11] Morton, Y. T., and L. L. Liou, D. M. Lin, J. B.
Y. Tsui, and Q. Zhou, Broad Band Interference
Cancellation using Digital Beam Forming and a
Software GPS Receiver, in Proceedings of the ION
GNSS-2005, September 2005
[12] Nicholson, B. W., and D. M. Upton, S. Cotterill,
J. Marchese, T. Upadhyay, and W. E. Vander Velde
Computer Simulation of Digital Beam Forming
Adaptive Antennae for GPS Interference Mitiga-
tion, in Proc. of the ION National Technical Meet-
ing, January 1998.
[13] Pany, T., and B. Eissfeller, Demonstration of
a Synthetic Phased Array Antenna for Carrier/Code
Multipath Mitigation, in Proc. of the ION GNSS-
2008, Sep. 2008.
[14] Psiaki, M. L., and H. Jung, Extended Kalman
Filter Methods for Tracking Weak GPS Signals, in
Proceedings of the ION GPS-2002, September
2002
[15] Rama Rao, B., and E. N. Rosario, and R. J.
Davis, Eleven Element Beam Steering GPS Anten-
na Array in a GAS-1 CRPA Footprint, presented at
the FOUO session of the ION GNSS-2008, Septem-
ber 2008
[16] Skolnik, M. I., Introduction to Radar Systems,
3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001
[17] Soloviev, A., and S. Gunawardena, and F. van
Graas, Decoding Navigation Data Messages from
Weak GPS Signals, to appear in IEEE Transactions
on Aerospace and Electronic Systems
[18] van Graas, F., and A. Soloviev, M. Uijt de Haag,
S. Gunawardena, Comparison of Two Approaches
for GNSS Receiver Algorithms: Batch Processing
and Sequential Processing Considerations, to
appear in IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Sig-
nal Processing, Special Issue on: Advanced Sig-
nal Processing for GNSS and Robust Navigation,
August 2009
[16] Zeidan, N. I., and J. L. Garrison, Bit Synchro-
nization and Doppler Frequency Removal at Very
Low Carrier to Noise Ratio Using a Combination of
the Viterbi Algorithm with an Extended Kalman Fil-
ter, in Proceedings of the ION GPS/GNSS-2003,
September 2003
SYNTHETIC APERTURE
46b
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_______________________
___________
W
ithin the European Space
Agency (ESA) GNSS Evolu-
tion program, EADS Astri-
um has led a team analyzing
the potential benefts, performance, and
technical requirements for adding a C-
band navigation capability to existing
L-band services on a second-generation
Galileo.
Te C-band issue is not new. Between
1998 and 2004, U.S. and European
researchers undertook signifcant work
on this subject. One of the factors that
led to the decision at that time not to
choose C-band for Galileo was that the
required satellite payload power would
have been difcult to provide.
However, C-band has returned as a
candidate for GNSS systems. Among the
main reasons for renewed interest in C-
band is that its frequency (5010 - 5030
MHz) is rather untouched compared
to the L-band, where existing and new
navigation satellite systems have prolif-
erated. Moreover, C-band ofers a variety
of technical characteristics compared to
L-band that would make it particularly
attractive for regulated and safety-criti-
cal applications.
Te provision of a C-band naviga-
tion signal on a future GNSS would
make sense if a new set of services can
be ofered (with markets behind them)
and the satellite power requirements
and associated link budget defciencies
can be solved.
In this issue, we introduce the frst
of a two-part column examining the
WORKING PAPERS
Almost all GNSS navigation signals operate in the crowded L-band portion of the radio frequency
spectrum. In the past, C-band spectrum has been considered and rejected for GNSS services
due to a couple of substantial obstacles, despite some distinct technical advantages. However,
continued proliferation of signals in L-band and advances in electronics and spacecraft
technologies have prompted a new look at C-band for future GNSS services. This article is the
rst of a two-part series describing the results of a European Space Agencysponsored study
on the subject. (The views expressed are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
reect those of the European Space Agency.)
Architecture for a Future
C-band/L-band GNSS Mission
Part 1: C-bandServices, Space- and
GroundSegment, Overall Performance
ANDREAS SCHMITZ-PEIFFER
LARS STOPFKUCHEN
JEAN-JACQUES FLOCH
EADS ASTRIUM
ANTONIO FERNANDEZ
DEIMOS SPACE
ROLF JORGENSEN
TICRA
BERND EISSFELLER
JOSE ANGEL RODRIGUEZ
STEFAN WALLNER
JONG-HOON WON
MARCO ANGHILERI
BERTHOLD LANKL
TORBEN SCHLER
UNIVERSITY FAF MUNICH
OLIVER BALBACH
IFEN GMBH
ENRICO COLZI
ESA-ESTEC/VEGA IN SPACE
left: (Galileo IOV Extension)
for PRS-C services only;
right: Overall view of Galileo
C/L-band satellite
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
48
potential for incorporating C-band
technology into a GNSS system. The
frst part discusses prospective C-band
services and applications, signal propa-
gation and user equivalent range error
(UERE), spacecraft payload design,
satellite constellation, and end-to-end
performance.
In the July-August issue of Inside
GNSS, the second part of the column will
focus on C-band signal design for GNSS
given the constraints of other C-band
services, optimal navigation message
design, C-band user equipment design
in the context of expected applications,
and identifcation of critical technolo-
gies needed to prepare C-band for use
in a future GNSS constellation.
The Scope of the C-Band
Project
In order to show the benefts of a future
C-band navigation in addition to the
L-band system used by GNSSs, includ-
ing the Global Positioning System and
Galileo, the C-band analysis included
an architecture study that considered
likely technology developments through
2020
Te main justifcation for ofering an
additional C-band navigation capability
would be to provide new GNSS services
for new or existing applications. Conse-
quently, a detailed user market analysis
was performed in light of present and
future market trends and parallel devel-
opments in user receiver design. We will
discuss the outcomes of these analyses a
little later in this article.
For the identifed services, we then
performed satellite constellation anal-
yses in order to derive the required
navigation parameters: number of the
satellites available for the user, dilution
of precision (DOP), positioning perfor-
mance and so forth.
We simulated the performance of
various candidate signals in order to
identify robust C-band signals that fulfl
the C-band user requirements. In ana-
lyzing C-band signal propagation, we
applied the latest atmospheric models.
Appropriate C-band GNSS signals were
then designed, considering the spectral
constraints imposed by adjoining C-
band services, such as radio astronomy
(RA) and microwave landing systems
(MLS).
On the user equipment side, we
investigated appropriate receiver archi-
tectures and derived link budgets for
various services to verify the design.
Advantages of C-Band
The primary technical question to be
answered by this study is whether use
of C-band for satellite navigation would
be able to overcome at least some of the
problems associated with Lband. And,
if so, which services can be ofered, and
what technology is needed in space and
on the ground?
A GNSS transmitting C-band signals
brings a number of potential benefts.
GNSS services have not proliferated in
the portion of the spectrum, as they have
in L-band, which improves the situation
for implementing regulated and safety-
critical services. Signal diversity with
Lband also reduces the vulnerability of
the system and user equipment to such
efects as interference and jamming.
C-band signals encounter signifi-
cantly smaller ionospheric efects (delay,
scintillations) than L-band, thus reduc-
ing receiver vulnerability and improv-
ing integrity monitoring and carrier
smoothing. For example, signal propa-
gation delays are 10.2 times less than
L-band; amplitude scintillation fading
times, 5.7 less; and phase scintillation
variation times 3.2 less. Tis improved
signal performance enables high-accu-
racy single-frequency receivers, as iono-
spheric correction is not required.
C-band also requires smaller receiver
antenna arrays and elements, leading to
reduced vulnerability against uninten-
tional interference and to higher jam-
ming resistance (nulling of jammers).
A larger Doppler efect on C-band
enables improved accuracy in calculat-
ing velocity at the same carrier-to-noise
(C/N
0
) ratio. Te smaller carrier wave-
length also leads to better carrier phase
accuracy for the same C/N
0
(however,
this leads to a more difcult ambiguity
resolution).
The multipath performance com-
pared to L-band is improved. C-bands
higher fading frequency in ground mul-
tipath also means that carrier-smooth-
ing works better. It also has a tendency
to more difuse refections in the mul-
tipath channel, because the roughness of
refector has a larger efect on C-band,
which leads to lower multipath-to-signal
ratios).
The main disadvantages of the C-
band compared to L-band include the
more critical role of the link budget due
to the following factors:
Larger free-space loss (10 decibels)
Increased rain attenuation and water
vapor (up to 4 decibels)
Increased sensitivity to tropospher-
ic scintillations although a rare
event
Higher foliage and wall attenuation
(greater than 4 decibels)
Larger vibration-induced oscillator
noise in the receiver (factor 3.2).
C-band also faces very stringent out-
of-band emission requirements, espe-
cially for possible afects on the adjacent
radio astronomy band.
The drawbacks lead to the follow-
ing problem areas for the user segment:
Te stability of phase lock loops (PLLs),
especially non-coherent PLLs, becomes
potentially worse. The same holds for
the stability issues of the frequency lock
loops (FLLs), although we could assume
from Lband experience that this will be
less critical than in the case of PLLs. Te
performance of oscillators, especially
temperature-controlled crystal oscil-
lators (TCXO), also becomes a greater
matter of concern.
Higher signal dynamics together
with a reduced C/No could lead to
impairment of the C - band receiver.
However, several technical solutions
certainly exist to the problem areas
mentioned.
C-band solutions must be competi-
tive with Lband in terms of size, power
consumption, cost, and performance in
order to ensure acceptance by the user
segment, including manufacturers of user
equipment.). User technology and market
requirements are major considerations in
the C-band service defnition task.
Besides these technical challenges
for signal propagation and user equip-
WORKING PAPERS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
ment, the provision of additional power
for the payload has a large efect on the
spacecraf design, which has been ana-
lyzed along with its effect on the user
segment.
C-Band Service Analysis
The main advantages of C-band from
a user perspective are that the current
allocation is in a cleaner part of the
spectrum more free from unintention-
al interference, the ionosphere signal
propagation efects are smaller and C-
band signals exhibit a higher jamming
resistance compared to L-band for same
C/N
0
.
Tese factors make C-band attractive
for services seeking increased robustness
and higher accuracy in particular on the
absence of ionospheric corrections.
The interest of these features was
confirmed through a detailed mar-
ket and user receiver analysis and as a
baseline for the execution of the study.
Two services representative of the type
of characteristics that typical C-band
services could offer were identified: a
Service with Precision and Robustness
(SPR-C), with global coverage, and a
Public Regulated Service in C-band
(PRS-C) with spot beam coverage over
two selectable service areas.
Te SPR-C would provide users with
additional robustness, protection, and
precision for nonsecurity-related criti-
cal infrastructures and applications for
which vulnerability is a threat but does
not require the use of a higher level of
security signal as PRS-C.
For its part, the Galileo PRS-C ser-
vice is defined as an additional local,
fexible option for security-related appli-
cations that would complement with
additional robustness the Earth-cover-
age L-band PRS planned on E1 and E6.
Two high-power spot beams would pro-
vide coverage anywhere on the surface
of the Earth with footprints 1,500-
kilometer in diameter.
As envisioned by the C-band service
analysis, the SPR-C could support robust
professional satellite navigation and will
include additional value-added elements
with the navigation message, such as
clock and tropospheric correction data.
Te service would be protected against
spoofng by authentication.
Table 1 summarizes the performance
defnitions of the proposed SPR-C and
PRS-C services.
Te 1 UERE budget of the SPR-C
would equal or be less than 1.1 meters
with a target of 0.8 meters, considering
the noise contribution to be that of the
Cramr-Rao Lower Bound (CRLB, com-
puted at C/N
0
= 30dB-Hz). Te integrity
level to be provided by SPR-C has not yet
been defned because the performance
of multi-constellation RAIM (receiver
autonomous integrity monitoring) still
needs to be assessed in context of future
GNSS integrity concepts.
Te SPR-C will make use of authen-
tication to provide robustness against
spoofng and will provide an anti-jam-
ming resistance of 40 decibels. SPR-C
signals would be spectrally decoupled
from those of the PRS-C. A proposed
business model for SPR-C is leading in
the direction of charging a subscription
fee for a prepaid access card to the ser-
vice and the authentication data.
PRS-C would provide a high level of
protection/security against threats that
result in reductions of national security,
law enforcement, and safety in local geo-
graphic areas of interest.
As with the SPR-C, additional data,
like clock correction and tropospheric
correction data from weather services
would be provided to improve the UERE
budget so as to achieve the target val-
ues presented in Table 1. Code encryp-
tion would protect the PRS-C against
spoofng.
The proposed business model for
the PRS-C is based on charging for
subscription and initial loading of the
crypto keys.
Satellite Constellation
with C-Band
Navigation service requirements such as
availability and position dilution of pre-
cision (PDOP) have a direct efect on the
confguration of the satellite constella-
tion. Consequently, a variety of constel-
lations were analyzed in order to fnd the
best solution.
Te C-band study conducted a trade-
off analysis of a global and a regional
SPR-C service. A regional SPR-C would
provide continuous service over three
selected industrial areas, covering North
America, Europe and Eastern Asia (each
area covering a circle of roughly 6,000
kilometers in diameter on the Earths
surface).
If all available satellites are pointed
toward the same service area in a beam
steering mode, only one industrial
region can be covered (i.e., Europe).
In this case, the average PDOP value
is the same as for a global coverage
system. Te main advantage of such a
regional service is that it requires less
transmitter power compared to a global
service. In turn, that reduces payload
and spacecraft size, mass, and power
requirements.
For covering the three industrial
service areas at the same time, a beam
switching mode was devised, defning
a satellite-pointing rule that provides
maximum PDOP over each area. Nev-
ertheless, since in this mode three areas
need to be covered by a sufcient number
of satellites, signal availability and PDOP
values decrease. Increasing the visibility
to satellites for three areas would require
enlargement of the Galileo constellation
(27 operational satellites).
We investigated alternative confgu-
rations with two geostationary orbit
(GEO) satellites to augment the SPR-C
service: one placing the GEOs at the edge
of the service area and another with the
GEOs closer to the center. Tis confgu-
ration provides slightly better visibility
at higher latitudes and slightly worse
DOP. Figure 1 shows the three service
areas and the possible GEO locations
for each.
Parameter
Service
HDOP VDOP
Availability @ 10
user elevation
Continuity
Antijamming
A/J
UERE Target (1) CRLB @
30dBHz
SPR-C 1.1 2.6 99.8 10-5/15s > 40 dB 0.8 m
PRS-C 1.1 2.6 99.5 10-5/15s > 40 dB 1.1 m
TABLE 1. Budgets for the proposed C-band services
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
50
We also considered other augment-
ing confgurations, such as inclined geo-
synchronous orbits (IGSO) or Molniya
orbits, with the idea of increasing depth
of coverage in northern latitudes for the
three service areas. Te IGSO confgu-
ration (Figure 2) would provide a three-
satellite regional constellation over each
service area.
Te Molniya constellation (Figure 3)
would be global, composed by nine sat-
ellites in highly elliptical orbits distrib-
uted among three equi-spaced ground
tracks (three satel lites per ground
track), that would added to the nomi-
nal Galileo constellation along with the
GEOs.
Table 2 summarizes the results of
our analysis of the SPR-C constellation
options. Most promising for providing
services to three 6,000-kilometer areas
is a Molniya constellation consisting of
nine satellites optimized for the select-
ed service areas, which would operate
together with the Galileo MEO constel-
lation plus two GEOs (confguration 4
in Table 2).
However, the additional develop-
ment and launching costs of additional
Molniya and GEO satellites need to be
compared with an enlarged Galileo
spacecraf for a global SPR-C service.
Table 3 displays the results for the
PRS-C services. Provision of only one
PRS-C service via the Galileo constella-
tion is no problem (Case 6). Serving two
areas concurrently with the same PRS-C
signal from one satellite reduces the vis-
ibility because the number of satellites
for user elevation angles of 10 degrees
has to be split between two service areas
(Case 7). In addition these two service
areas need to be at least 6,000 kilometres
apart; otherwise visibility and PDOP
degrades too much.
Although Galileo with a three-satel-
lite IGSO constellation does bring some
advantages (Case 8), the best improve-
ment in terms of visibility and PDOP is
achieved by the Galileo MEO plus Mol-
niya constellation (Case 9). However,
this solution would also be the most
expensive one.
Further improvements in naviga-
WORKING PAPERS
FIGURE 1 Beam-switching mode, service areas, and augmenting GEO satellites
90
60
30
0
-30
-60
-90
20 60 100 140 180 -20 -60 -100 -140 -180
90
60
30
0
-30
-60
-90
20 60 100 140 180 -20 -60 -100 -140 -180
FIGURE 2 IGSO constellation with three satellites over Europe
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
tion performance would be to increase
the number of Galileo satellites (Case
10) and (Case 11) or to ofer two inde-
pendent transmit channels for two
service areas (Case 6 with two PRS-C
services).
The final trade-off analysis shows
that the solution based on 27 operational
Galileo MEO satellites (Case 1, Case 6)
best fts the SPR-C and PRS-C service
concept. Te performance is in line with
the user requirements.
C-Band Ground Segment
Te Galileo ground segment would need
to be adapted to consider the additional
use of C-band signals. The extended
ground segment will provide new navi-
gation message data, including improved
t ropospheri c cor-
rections based on
numerical weather
data, and the mis-
sion planning for
PRS-C operations.
T h e G a l i -
l eo archi t ect ure
remains valid for
the C-band services.
Upgrades of a sub-
set of ground sen-
sor stations (GSSs)
will be necessary to
include C-band sig-
nal tracking capa-
bilities in order to
determine the biases
Conguration Auxiliary GEOs required Minimum Visibility Average Visibility Maximum PDOP Average PDOP
6. PRS-C 1500km
(anywhere) 27 - Galileo
No 6 9-10 2.8 1.6
7. PRS-C (2 areas of 1500 km diameter)
27 - Galileo
No 4 (6000 kmseparation,
high latitude)
5 (6000km
separation, high
latitude)
2.8 2.7 (6000km
separation)
1.9 (maximum
separation)
27- Galileo + 3 IGSO per service area
No 4 7 2.3 2
27 - Galileo + 9 Molniya
No 4 10 1.8 1.6
10. PRS-C (2 Areas of 1500 km diameter)
30-Galileo
No 4 for latitudes < 72
3 for latitudes > 72
6 2.3 2
11. PRS-C (2 Areas of 1500 km diameter)
36-Galileo
No 4 8 2.1 1.8
TABLE 3. Constellation performances for PRS-C
Conguration Auxiliary GEOs required Minimum Visibility Average Visibility Maximum PDOP Average PDOP
1. SPR-C global,
27 - Galileo
No 6 9-10 2.8 1.6
2. SPR-C Beam Steering 6000 km
partial coverage allowed, 27 - Galileo
No 6 9-10 2.8 1.5
3. SPR-C Beam Switching 6000 km
(3 areas) 27 - Galileo
Yes, 2 SC at 1/3 and 2/3 longitude of the
circle diameter
6 for latitudes < 45 4
for latitudes up to 70
7 25 for latitudes < 60
>33 for latitudes > 60
4
(3 areas) 27 Galileo + 9-Molniya
Yes, 2 SC at 1/3 and 2/3 longitude of the
circle diameter
6 for latitudes < 72 9 12 for latitudes > 60 8
for latitudes < 60
4
(3 areas) 36 - Galileo
No 4 for latitudes < 72 6 22 for latitudes > 60 8
for latitudes < 60
4
TABLE 2. Constellation performances for the SPR-C service
FIGURE 3 Molniya constellation (left) and corresponding ground track (right)
90
60
30
0
-30
-60
-90
60 0 120 180 -60 -100 -180
LON/6000/PARTIAL/GALILEO/2GEO/third/selective/9MOLNIYA - Ground Track
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
FIGURE 4 Preliminary network of C-bandcapable ground sensor stations
52
associated with the spacecraf, C-band
antenna, and RF chain.
Using directional antennas for the C-
band GSS, C-band measurements would
be less noisy and, hence, would allow
improving the orbit determination and
time synchronization (OD&TS) perfor-
mance of the Galileo constellation.
We should point out that that the
Galileo GSS network has been designed
to provide the required integrity perfor-
mance. From the OD&TS point of view,
a reduced GSS network would be enough
to achieve the required accuracy.
In summary, then, the ground seg-
ment architecture would be composed of
a worldwide network of 40 stations for L-
Band OD&TS, with a subset of upgraded
GSSs with C-band tracking capabilities
incorporated.
In summary, the ground segment
architecture will consist of a world-
wide network of 40 stations for L-band
OD&TS, plus a subset of upgraded GSSs
with C-band tracking capabilities.
In order to fnd the optimum sub-
set of GSSs for C-band we performed
an analysis, maximizing the constella-
tion visibility and the depth of coverage
(DOC), the number of stations which are
simultaneously tracking a specifc satel-
lite. Figure 4 shows the results of GSS vis-
ibility optimization
(up to 18 stations).
We subjected the proposed C-band
GSS network to an OD&TS performance
assessment. Figure 5 illustrates the mini-
mum, average, and maximum RMS posi-
tion error obtained for a simulated time
period of three days, taking into account
12 GSSs. Te mean RMS stabilizes at a
value slightly below 10 centimeters. Te
OD&TS error does not change when the
number of stations is increased from 12
to 18 and is only slightly worse than that
predicted when using the whole fully
operational capability (FOC) Galileo
network.
Terefore, the optimum number of
GSSs with additional C-band function-
alities is 12. With 12 GSSs, a DOC value
of three (DOC-3) is guaranteed with
98.6 percent availability, a value suf-
cient for OD&TS performance estima-
tion purposes.
Additional constrai nts can be
imposed to the list of candidate GSS
for instance, requesting that C-band
upgraded stations shall be under Euro-
pean control. However, if the list of
candidates is reduced from the opera-
tional Galileo list to a list based solely on
European sites, the DOC-3 fulflment is
degraded to 83 percent availability. Te
cause of this degradation would be the
lack of tracking sites located in America
and Asia.
C-Band Transmit Power
Requirement
For both C-band services, we calculated
link budgets in order to determine the
DC power required at the payload level.
Tese will be described later in the end-
to-end performance section.
Table 4 shows the required DC power
at the payload antenna output in order
to provide the following two service con-
cepts:
A global SPR-C global service plus
two independent spot-beam PRS-C
services each with a 1,500-kilometer
service area or
Two independent spot-beam PRS-C
services each with a 1,500-kilometer
service area.
Obviously, the SPR-C requires the
largest power due to the fact that it is
offered globally. These power budgets
have an substantial efect on the payload
and satellite design, which is described
in the following section.
C-Band Payload Design
The preferred payload architecture
would accommodate the C-band pay-
load on a spacecraf in combination with
a Galileo L-band payload.
With this objective in mind, we will
now cover the following points:
general payload architectures to per-
form the beam forming for PRS-C
RF front-end technologies, such as
frequency up-conversion principles
possibilities of high-power amplifca-
tion and efects on power budget and
signal distortion
trade-off between antenna design
and signal generator payload
interference with mission up-link
receiver and preservation of ITU
regulatory
100
80
60
40
20
0
Earth-Fixed Position Error Statistics 18
3190 3190.5 3191 3191.5
Time (days)
3192 3192.5 3193
E
r
r
o
r

(
c
m
)
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
FIGURE 5 OD&TS performance for C-band network with 12 ground sensor
stations
Service Concept Required Tx Power
1 One global SPR-C:
Two PRS-C spot beams
(1,500 km): Sum:
675 W
140 W
815 W
2 Two PRS-C spot beams
(1.500 km):
140 W
TABLE 4. Required transmitter power for two
different C-band service concepts
WORKING PAPERS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
power and mass budgets
Te design of the most appropriate
C-band signals will be described in the
July/August issue of Inside GNSS. How-
ever, as the signal design is one driver
for the payload design, we will briefly
introduce it here.
The constraints on the downlink
C-band signal selection are the lim-
ited bandwidth (5010-5030 MHz), the
requi rements set
at the ITU level for
compatibility with
radio ast ronomy
(4990-5000 MHz),
microwave landing
systems (5030-5150
MHz), and the Gal-
ileo mission uplink
receiver (5000-5010
MHz), as illustrated
in Figure 6.
The g e ne r a l
obj ect i ve of t he
signal and payload
design was to trade
of baseband signal design and compat-
ibility with the aforementioned con-
straints. Out-of-band (OOB) emissions
caused by intermodulation products
introduced by the payloads high power
amplifer (HPA) were taken into account
in the trade-of. We performed simula-
tions in order to display the efect of the
payload HPAs on diferent signal types
under these constraints.
Finally, Gaussianminimumshifkey-
ing (GMSK) has beenchosenas the base-
line signal for both C-band services.
Te proposed payload architecture
is presented in Figure 7 where C-band
features have been added to a generic
Galileo L-band payload.
Te RF front-end of the payload con-
sists of a separate L-band and C-band
section. The L-band output section
incorporating the high power ampli-
fers, the output flter, the coupler and
antenna is assumed to be similar respec-
tively unchanged to the current Galileo
system. Due to the expected enhance-
ment of high power amplifers efciency
in the coming years, power allocated
today for L-Band could be reallocated
for C-Band.
Te navigation output section for the
C-Band signals consists of one SPR-C
and two PRS-C RF chains. Te SPR-C
solution requires high RF power on
the order of 600 to 700 watts due to
the plans for global coverage, which
leads to the use of travelling wave tube
amplifiers (TWTA). With todays C-
band TWTA technology, at least eight
TWTAs need to be working in paral-
lel and adding another four TWTAs
must be considered to provide sufcient
redundancy.
A possible solution to enable beam-
steering for PRS-C is to apply digital
beam-forming. Because in this case
every single antenna feed is excited with
individual confgurable signal lines from
the NSGU, we need as many numbers
of channels to be amplifed as there are
available antenna feeds.
Atrade-of analysis of the number of
antenna feeds, signal performance, and
payload efort has been performed in the
study. Every channel needs to be ampli-
fed to provide RF power on the order of
fve watts, which leads to the use of solid
state power amplifers (SSPAs).
Navigation Signal Output Filter. Power
amplifers in general exhibit nonlinear
distortions in both amplitude (AM/AM)
and phase (AM/PM). Tis causes spec-
tral regrowth of the signal, which leads
to adjacent channel interference and
becomes an issue due to the stringent
requirements of the adjacent bands.
FIGURE 7 Combined L/C-band payload architecture with digital beam-forming for PRS-C: RAFS,
rubidium atomic clock frequency standard; PHM, passive hydrogen maser; CMCU, clock monitoring
and control unit; MISREC, mission uplink receiver; NSGU, navigation signal generation unit; FGUU,
frequency upconversion unit
-124.5dBW/m
2
/150kHZ
required by MLS
R
a
d
i
o
A
s
t
r
o
n
o
m
y
C
-
B
a
n
d
U
p
l
i
n
k
C
-
B
a
n
d
D
o
w
n
l
i
n
k
M
i
c
r
o
w
a
v
e
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
4
9
9
0

M
H
z
5
0
0
0

M
H
z
5
0
1
0

M
H
z
5
0
3
0

M
H
z
5
1
5
0

M
H
z
-
1
9
6
.
5

W
/
m
2
o
v
e
r

w
h
o
l
e

b
a
n
d

a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

1
0

s
a
t
e
l
l
i
t
e
s
T
X

P
o
w
e
r

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

-
1
1
1
.
1
1

W
/
m
2
(
-
1
4
6
d
B
W

f
o
r

0
d
B
i

a
n
t
e
n
n
a
)

S
P
R

(
6
7
5
W
)

+

P
R
S

(
2
x
7
0
W
)
FIGURE 6 Frequency neighbors of the C-band downlink signal
Mission
Receiver
Antenna
5.00..
5.01 GHz
MISREC
NSGU
L-Band
Signals
NSGU
SPR-C
NSGU
PRS-C
NSGU
PRS-C
HPA (TWTA)
8 hot
(+4 Redundant)
Divider Combiner
Output Filter
& Coupler
Output Filter
& Coupler
Output Filter
& Coupler
SPR-C
Antenna
(DRA
31 feed)
PRS-C
Antenna
(DRA
31 feed)
PRS-C
Antenna
(DRA
31 feed)
HPA (SSPA)
HPA (SSPA)
FGUU
C-Band
FGUU
L-Band
L-Band Navigation
Signal Output Section
RAFS 1 RAFS 2 PHM 1 PHM2
CMCU
SAR
Transponder
f
ref
f
ref
n f
ref
f
ref
pulse/
synch
L1
E5
E6
L1
E5
E6
C-SPR
C-PRS{0}
C-PRS{n}
C-PRS{0}
C-PRS{n}
C-SPR
C-PRS{0}
C-PRS{n}
C-PRS{0}
C-PRS{n}
mission
data
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
54
Te numerical values of the spectral
re-growth of all signal candidates in con-
junction with each HPA type (TWTA,
SSPA) have been calculated and show,
as expected, that the GMSK modulated
signals do not lead to spectral regrowth
due to their constant envelope nature.
The analyses show that an OMUX
filter slope of -25dB/10MHz provides
sufficient attenuation to protect the
mission up-link receiver in case GMSK
signals are used, assuming a decoupling
of the transmission-to-mission-receiver
antenna of at least -110 decibels.
Payload Architecture for a
Global SPR-C Service
The selected payload architecture for
the global SPR-C service consists of
an NSGU and an FGUU.The signal is
amplifed by a set of parallel switched
TWTAs.
Afer amplifcation the signals need
to be combined properly and any OOB
emission, fltered by the passive output
filter. Finally, a globally illuminating
antenna would serve as transmission
antenna for the SPR-C signal.
For the SPR-C a fxed direct radiat-
ing array (DRA) with a 170-millimeter
diameter and a gain of 14 decibels is
proposed.
The C/-L Band
payl oad de s i g n
i ncludes al so an
analysis in order to
fnd the most appro-
pr i at e payl oad-
antenna design for
the PRS-C service.
The antenna simu-
lations and payload
considerations con-
cluded that a feed array diameter of 370
millimeters, together with a feed ele-
ment spacing of 62-millimeters, results
in a DRA with 31 feeds a reasonable
number for the antenna design. This
general antenna baseline was selected
for the C-band payload.
Table 5 summarizes the key param-
eters of the PRS-C direct radiating
antenna
Payload Architecture
Trade-off
Tree diferent payload architectures
were analyzed in order to fnd the most
appropriate one for the PRS-C services:
digital beam-forming, RF high power
beam-forming, and use of a single
ref lector antenna with mechanical
steering.
The third alternative would use a
single-feed refector antenna, steering
the beam by the mechanical movement
of the feed, the reflector, or the whole
antenna. Tis is the simplest architec-
ture with the best overall power effi-
ciency. However, the architecture has
several substantial risks and will not be
considered further here.
Digital Beam-Forming. Te proposal
would generate the PRS-C service using
digital beam-forming for the two sin-
gle beam PRS-C array antennas with
31 feeds. The major challenge of this
approach arises from the complexity of
having 31 identical channels running in
parallel, because at least the analog parts
(RF mixer, RF flters, amplifer, and so
on) of this proposed design will show
slightly diferent characteristics among
the channels and are subject to aging
efects. Furthermore the phase-synchro-
nous distribution of the local oscillator
signals with low skew over temperature
is a tedious task requiring careful elabo-
ration.
Figure 8 shows the payload architec-
ture for a PRS-C service based on digital
beam-forming (Architecture 1).
RF High-Power Beam-Forming. In
contrast to digital beam-forming, Pay-
load Architecture 2 would implement
beam-forming of the PRS-C signals afer
amplifcation using ferrite phase shifers.
Tis eases the calibration of the payload
and enables the use of TWTAs. Figure 9
shows Payload Architecture 2 with a RF
high power beam forming network.
Compared to a digital BFN solution,
this option has a disadvantage in the
drif of the characteristics of the phase
shifers over temperature and/or time.
However, compared to the digital beam-
forming architecture, fewer sources of
phase and amplitude tracking errors
exist because the architecture relies on
a single RF chain up to the high-power
phase shifers.
Furthermore, temperature stabil-
ity of the RF chain, which is one of the
mayor contributors to group delay stabil-
ity, might be easier to achieve with this
architecture. Finally, with a centralized
HPA only one output flter is required.
Tus, in contrast to the low-power BFN
architecture, the spacecraf accommo-
FIGURE 8 Proposed Architecture 1 for PRS-C payload (digital beam-forming network)
NSGU PRS-C
P
R
S
-
C
LO1
C-PRS
C-PRS
C-Band FGUU
DBFN
LO2
D/A
D/A
LO1 LO2
HPA
Output filter
Coupler
PRS-C
Antenna
(DRA
31 feed)
PRS-C spot beam (70 W)
WORKING PAPERS
Parameter PRS-C DRA
Minimum Flux (50 Latitude Separation) 23.4 dB
Minimum Flux (0 Latitude Separation) 24.7 dB
Feed excitation Phase variable, Amplitude uniform
Number of Feed 31
Feed Spacing 62 mm
Decoupling to Mission Receiver (@1870 mm distance from C-Band antennas) -112 dB
Diameter 370 mm
Mass 6.0 - 14.5 kg
TABLE 5 Parameters of the PRS-C Direct Radiating Antenna
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
dation for the output flter is much more
relaxed.
Power and Mass Budgets
Several factors drive the requirement for
payload power:
power efciency of the HPA
the need to control amplification
so as to ensure that signal distor-
tions and OOB emissions are within
acceptable limits
beam-forming network architec-
ture
number of antenna feeds
cable and flter losses.
We investigated the payload mass
and power budget, taking into account
the additional C-band elements and the
three diferent PRS-C payload architec-
tures.
Figure 10 shows the power of difer-
ent C-/L-band payload architectures
relative to the Galileo IOV satellite. Te
payload power of the Galileo IOV satel-
lite is normalized to 100 and is shown in
the frst column.
Te second column shows the addi-
tional power which can be gained by
enlargement of the radiation areas and
more efcient L-band HPAs (Extended
Galileo IOV satellite). The required
L-band DC power due to higher HPA
efciency expected in the next 10 years
(personal information, Astrium) will
reduced by 15% and the additional
power available for an extended Galileo
IOV satellite with L-band and C-band is
marked by the dotted line.
Te third column shows the required
power for a global SPR-C and two spot-
beam PRS-C services, which is about 3
times the power of the present Galileo
IOV satellite. Such high power consump-
tion can be ofered only by a new genera-
tion of Galileo satellites with a size twice
the present Galileo IOV satellite. Hence
for Architecture 1 (Digital BFN) with an
extended Galileo IOV satellite, one PRS-
C service could be ofered.
For Architecture 2 (RF High Power
BFN) the power efciency is better than
with digital beam-forming and two
separate PRS-C services could be ofered
by an extended Galileo IOV satellite.
Architecture 3 shows better results but
has several technical risks as mentioned
earlier and thus is discarded. In conclu-
sion, the most attractive solution from
power budget point of view is Architec-
ture 2.
Compared to the Galileo L-band IOV
satellite the mass increase by additional
C-band services is signifcant. Te mass
impact of a PRS-C service in Architec-
ture 1 and Architecture 2 is larger than
the SPR-C because of the active BFN.
In Architecture 3 the payload mass
for PRS-C is the lowest due to the simple
mechanical antenna concept. Te mass
estimation shows that, compared to L-
band, the mass of a common C-band
L-band payload is doubled.
FIGURE 10 Power of different Payload Architectures relative to Galileo IOV satellite
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
IOV Available DC Power
IOV Extension,
45% HPA
Architecture 1
(Digital BFN)
Architecture 2
(RF High Power
BFN)
Architecture 3
(Single Feed
Reflector)
Add Power IOV Ext
SPR-C (675 WRF)
2. PRS-C (70 WRF)
1. PRS-C (70 WRF)
L-Band and Common
100
85 86 86 86
50
31
22 19
34
22
19
155 155 155
FIGURE 9 Payload Architecture 2 for PRS-C (RF high-power BFN)
Beam Steering
Control
LO1
C-SPR
C-PRS-1
C-PRS-2
NSGU
SPR-C
Timing Reference
NSGU
PRS-C
NSGU
PRS-C
LO2
LO1
D/A
D/A
D/A
LO2
LO1 LO2
HPA
Combiner 8 Hot
(+4 Redundant)
Output Filter
& Coupler
HPA (TWTA)
C-SPR
Divider
Divider
Output
filter
HPA Divider
Output
filter
Coupler
Ferrite Phase Shifters
Coupler
PRS-C
Antenna
(DRA
31 feed)
SPR-C
Antenna
(DRA
31 feed)
PRS-C
Antenna
(DRA
31 feed)
PRS-C spot beam (2x70 W)
SPR-C global (675W
P
/
F

B
u
s
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
56
Spacecraft Accommodation
Te L-band/C-band payload architec-
ture design has been taken as an input
for the space segment in order to analyze
the accommodation on the spacecraf
and launcher.
The accommodation analysis was
performed for the two C-band service
concepts displayed in Table 4 using
Architecture 1, because it also covers the
slightly relaxed power and mass require-
ments of Architecture 2.
Service Concept 1: Te overall payload
power for a combined C- and L-band
payload is roughly three kilowatts. Tis
value together with the mass budget
is one of the input parameters for the
spacecraf accommodation analysis.
The C/L-band payload budget has
been considered in the overall space-
craf analysis, which, based on the Gali-
leo mission analysis, has been extend-
ed. Taking the initial parameters into
account it becomes obvious that a satel-
lite considerably larger than the current
Galileo structure is required.
Investigations
into available pay-
l oad equi pment
show that current
C-band TWTAs in
the frequency range
required would need
eight TWTAs com-
bined to achieve the
output power need-
ed. For redundancy
addit ional spare
TWTAs will also be required.
Te power requirements, the thermal
needs and the mounting area needs are
the drivers that have defned the size of
the satellite. A modified EUROSTAR
3000 satellite bus has been selected as a
potential candidate to provide a solution
(see Figure 11).
As direct injection into the opera-
tional orbit (current Galileo) would be
maintained, the bi-propellant propul-
sion system would not be needed. Tis
can therefore be discarded, which in
turn would reduce the mass and sub-
sequent loads on the structure consid-
erably.
Te helium pressuring tank normal-
ly used in conjunction with the bi-prop
system would be exchanged for a mono-
prop tank and a simple mono-prop pro-
pellant system would then be installed.
Furthermore, the overall height of the
structure would be reduced.
To provide a thermally stable area
for the RAFS and hydrogen maser
clocks, the +X enclosure panel would
be modifed to allow for the mounting
of equipment. When yaw steering is
FIGURE 12 View on the C/L-band Payload
showing also part of the set of TWTAs (Y-side
panel)
Waveguide Switches
+Y Side Panel Layout
TWT
L-Band
SSPA
Mission
Rx
Battery
ICDU
TT&C
Trans.
GYRO
PLSU
NSGU
EPC
WORKING PAPERS
FIGURE 11 EUROSTAR 3000 bus general layout
Payload Module Platform Module
Constants/Application
Earth radius (km) 6378 6378
Satellite altitude (km) 23222 23222
Max. Dist. For 10 user elevation angle, MEO (km) 27824,6 27824,6
Frequency (GHz) 5,02 5,02
Wavelength (m) 0,06 0,06
HPA + NTWK efficiency 0,25 0,25
Service Requirements SPR-C global (Data) (Pilot)
Availability of Service (%) 99.8 99.8
Payload Requirements
Po=Output Power before passive antenna (W) 337,5 337,5
Required Tx Power per Service (W) 337,5 337,5
Transmit Power [dBW] 25,3 25,3
Antenna Gain [dBi]; antenna isoflux corrected 14 14
Antenna Pointing Loss (dB) 0,25 0,25
EIRP [dBW] 39,03 39,03
Atmospheric Environment
Free Space Losses [dB] 193,78 193,78
Atmospheric Losses [dB] worst cases for water vapour, rain and clouds (tropics) 1,90 1,90
Tropospheric Scintillations Worst case (10 deg elev. Angle) 1,39 1,39
Ionospheric Scintillations (neglected, in C-band factor 6 smaller than L-Band 0,00 0,00
Polarisation Losses (dB) 1,20 1,20
Receiver Environment
Attenuation by Foliage (dB) 7,00 7,00
Interference 0,30 0,30
No : Noise Power Density (dBW/Hz) -203,00 -203,00
Received Signal Power at Rx Antenna Output (dBW) -166,79 -166,79
Receiver Implementation Loss
neg. Ant. Gain [dBi] worst case 5 5
LNA Noise Figure (dB), yet included in Noise Power Density No 0 0
Correlation Loss (dB) 1 1
Implementation Loss (dB) 1 1
Precorrelation C/No (dBHz) 29,2 29,2
Required C/N
o
at Correlator from PLL(UniBW) dBHz 28,7 21,9
Delta dBHz 0,5 7,3
Results with 0dBi Rx antenna 34,2 34,2
Table 6 : Link Budget for an SPR-C Service for Applications in the Tropics
SPR Case 1: Expl. of Mineral
Resources in the Tropics
(foliage)
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
used, this side of the satellite can then
be maintained in permanent shadow
(Figure 12).
The Ga l i l e o
C/L-band mission
analysis shows that
the spacecraf power
would require two
Gal i leo bat teries
(compared to the
present Galileo IOV
satellites). Two Gal-
ileo C/L band satel-
lites would ft on an
Ariane 5 launcher;
one would fit on a
Soyuz launcher.
Figure 13 di s-
plays the equipment
accommodation on
the z-side of the platform. Beneath the
large L-band antenna, the three C-band
antennas are visible. Additionally the
search and rescue payload, the antenna
of the mission uplink receiver and infra-
red Earth sensors are accommodated.
A three-dimensional view of the Gal-
ileo C/L-band satellite for a global SPR-
C and two spot-beam PRS-C services is
shown (right side) on the opening page
of this article.
Service Concept 2. An illustration of
the extended Galileo IOV confguration
with enhanced platform and extension
of radiation areas is shown on the open-
ing page of this article (lef side).
Up to two PRS-C services using pay-
load architecture 2 would ft on such a
spacecraf. Two extended Galileo IOV
satellites would ft on a Soyuz launcher,
four extended Galileo IOV would ft into
an Ariane 5 launcher.
End-to-End Performance
Te overall performance of the SPR-C
and PRS-C services has been analyzed
by calculating link budgets for differ-
ent receiver classes in simulated appli-
cation scenarios. Te analysis poses a
kind of worst-case scenario for the C-
band because of the substantial efects of
tropospheric water vapor content there.
The link budgets include a section
with the constants, service requirements
(availability of service derived from the
Galileo baseline), payload parameters,
the atmospheric environment based on
detailed analysis, and receiver require-
ments.
Tables 6 and 7 show, respectively, the
link budgets for the SPR-C and PRS-C
service and applications in the tropics.
Conclusions
We performed a detailed system study
in order to analyze the advantages and
the efect of an additional C-band GNSS
navigation system. Two C-band services
have been identifed that fll niches not
covered by the present Galileo L-band
signals: a global Service of Precision
and Robustness and two independent
spot-beam for public regulated type of
services.
The constellation analysis shows
that a set of 27 Galileo C/L-band satel-
lites provides the sufcient navigation
performance. The payload accommo-
FIGURE 13 View on the C/L-band antenna side (Z-side panel)
C-Band PRS Antenna
Laser Reflector
L-Band Antenna
IR Earth Sensors
Mission Receive Horn
ICDU
SAR Antenna
C-Band SPR Antenna
Constants/Application
Earth radius (km) 6378 6378
Satellite altitude (km) 23222 23222
Max. Dist. For 10 user elevation angle, MEO (km) 27824,6 27824,6
Frequency (GHz) 5,02 5,02
Wavelength (m) 0,06 0,06
HPA + NTWK efficiency 0,25 0,25
Service Requirements PRS-C 1500 km spot (Data) (Pilot)
Availability of Service (%) 99,5 99,5
Payload Requirements
Po=Output Power before passive antenna (W) 35,0 35,0
Required Tx Power per Service (W) 35,0 35,0
Transmit Power [dBW] 15,4 15,4
Antenna Gain [dBi]; antenna isoflux corrected 24,4 24,4
Antenna Pointing Loss (dB) 0,25 0,25
EIRP [dBW] 39,59 39,59
Atmospheric Environment
Free Space Losses [dB] 195,35 195,35
Atmospheric Losses [dB] worst cases for water vapour, rain and clouds (tropics) 1,22 1,22
Tropospheric Scintillations Worst case (10 deg elev. Angle) 1,15 1,15
Ionospheric Scintillations (neglected, in C-band factor 6 smaller than L-Band 0,00 0,00
Polarisation Losses (dB) 1,20 1,20
Receiver Environment
Attenuation by Foliage (dB) 7,00 7,00
Interference 0,30 0,30
No : Noise Power Density (dBW/Hz) -203,00 -203,00
Received Signal Power at Rx Antenna Output (dBW) -166,88 -166,88
Receiver Implementation Loss
neg. Ant. Gain [dBi] worst case 5 5
LNA Noise Figure (dB), yet included in Noise Power Density No 0 0
Correlation Loss (dB) 1 1
Implementation Loss (dB) 1 1
Precorrelation C/No (dBHz) 29,1 29,1
Required C/N
o
at Correlator from PLL(UniBW) dBHz 29,5 21,9
Delta dBHz -0,4 7,2
Results with 0dBi Rx antenna 34,1 34,1
Table 7 : Link Budget for the PRS-C Services for Applications in the Tropics
PRS Case 1: Environmental
Mission in the Tropics
(foliage)
www.insidegnss.com MAY/ J UNE 200 9 InsideGNSS 56a
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
dation analysis shows that around three
kilowatts are required for a combined
C/L-band satellite offering the SPR-C
and two PRS-C services. Te proposed
new C/L-band Galileo spacecraf design
is based on a EUROSTAR 3000 bus,
with two EUROSTARs fitting into an
ARIANE 5 launcher or one on a Soyuz
launcher.
In case only two independent PRS-C
services would be ofered, an extended
Galileo IOV platform with more efcient
HPAs would be sufcient. Tis platform
is half the size of the EUROSTAR 3000
solution, which means that four extend-
ed Galileo satellites ofering L-band and
spot-beam C-band services would ft on
one Ariane 5 launcher and two on a
Soyuz rocket.
Manufacturers
The OD&TS performance assessment
of the proposed C-band GSS network
was conducted using the GNSS+ sof-
ware from DEIMOS Space, Madrid,
Spain, developed in the frame of an ESA
contract.
Authors
Working Papers explore the technical and sci-
entic themes that underpin GNSS programs and
applications. This regular column is coordinated
by PROF. DR.-ING. GNTER HEIN.
Prof. Hein is a member of
the European Commis-
sions Galileo Signal Task
Force and organizer of
the annual Munich Satel-
lite Navigation Summit.
He has been a full pro-
fessor and director of the Institute of Geodesy and
Navigation at the University of the Federal Armed
Forces Munich (University FAF Munich) since 1983.
In 2002, he received the United States Institute of
Navigation Johannes Kepler Award for sustained
and signicant contributions to the development
of satellite navigation. Hein received his Dipl.-Ing
and Dr.-Ing. degrees in geodesy from the Univer-
sity of Darmstadt, Germany. Contact Prof. Hein at
<Guenter.Hein@unibw-muenchen.de>.
Andreas Schmitz-Peiffer
received his Masters and
Ph.D. in atmospheric
physics at Kiel Universi-
ty, Germany. He has 19
years of experience in
system engineering and
project management in earth observation and
navigation. Since 2000 he has been working at
EADS Astrium GmbH as project manager in the
Galileo program, where he is presently leading the
C-band study and an indoor navigation project.
Lars Stopfkuchen received
his Diploma at the Uni-
versity of Cooperative
Education Ravensburg,
Germany in communica-
tions engineering. He
joined EADS Astrium
GmbH in 2003 as design engineer for FPGA and
ASIC developments and participated in GIOVE-B
and other ESA projects. Currently he conducts sys-
tem engineering tasks for electronics subsystems
and is responsible within the C-band study for the
navigation payload design.
Jean-Jacques Floch was
graduated with a Dip-
lom-Ingenieur in elec-
tronics and telecommu-
nication at the Institut
Suprieur Electronique
Numrique in France. He
has worked in the area of mobile communications
for several years. Since 2002 he has been working
in the field of navigation satellites as system
engineer at EADS Astrium. His work is mainly
focused on Galileo signal design at the system
level and evaluation of performances and robust-
ness of Galileo signals.
Ant oni o Fer nndez
received his M.S. degree
in aeronautical engi-
neering from the Poly-
technic University of
Madrid and an M.S. in
physics from the UNED
University of Spain. He has been working in the
eld of GNSS since 1996. Fernndez co-founded
DEIMOS Space in 2001, where he is currently in
charge of the GNSS technologies section.
Rolf Jorgensen received
his MScEE degree from
the Technical University
of Denmark. An antenna
expert with long experi-
ence, he has been
involved in the design
support for development of C-band and Ku-band
satellite communication payloads for ESA and
INTELSAT and responsible for the antenna design
in numerous other ESA projects..
Bernd Eissfeller is full professor and director of the
Institute of Geodesy and Navigation at the Univer-
sity FAF Munich. He is responsible for teaching
and research in the eld of navigation and signal
processing. Until the end of 1993 he worked in
industry as a project
manager on the devel-
opment of GPS/INS
navigation systems.
From 1994 to 2000 Eiss-
feller was head of the
GNSS Laboratory at Uni-
versity FAF Munich. He is author of more than 215
scientic and technical papers.
Jos-ngel vila-Rodr-
guez received his PhD in
signal design at the
Institute of Geodesy and
Navigation at the Univer-
sity of FAF Munich. He is
responsible for research
activities on GNSS signals, including BOC, BCS, and
MBCS modulations. Avila-Rodriguez is one of the
CBOC inventors. He is involved in the Galileo pro-
gram, where he supports ESA, the European Com-
mission, and the Galileo Supervisory Authority
(GSA), through the Galileo Signal Task Force. He
studied at the Technical Universities of Madrid,
Spain, and Vienna, Austria, and has a M.S. in elec-
trical engineering.
Stefan Wallner studied at
the Technical University
of Munich and graduated
with a Diploma in tech-
no-mathematics. He is
now research associate
at the Institute of Geod-
esy and Navigation at the University of the Fed-
eral Armed Forces Germany in Munich. His main
topics of interests can be denoted as the spread-
ing codes, the signal structure of Galileo together
with radio frequency compatibility of GNSS.
Jong-Hoon Won received
his Ph.D. in control and
instrumentation engi-
neering at Ajou Univer-
sity, Suwon, Korea. His
thesis was on signal pro-
cessing, simulation, and
navigation algorithms for software-based GPS
receivers. Currently he is working at the Institute
of Geodesy and Navigation at the Federal Armed
Forces (FAF) University Munich, Germany. His cur-
rent research activities are software GNSS receiv-
ers, GNSS/INS coupling systems, and user termi-
nals.
Marco Anghileri is a
research associate and
Ph.D. candidate at the
Institute of Geodesy and
Navigation at the Univer-
sity FAF Munich. He
studied at the Politecnico
di Milano, Italy, and at the Technical University
WORKING PAPERS
56b
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
___________
____________________
Munich, Germany and has an M.Sc. in telecommunication engineering. His
scientic research work focuses on GNSS signal structure and on signal pro-
cessing algorithms for GNSS receivers.
Berthold Lankl received his Dipl.-Ing. from the Tech-
nical University Munich and his Dr.-Ing. from the
University FAF Munich. He has 20 years experience
in the development of radio relay systems at several
positions in the industry. Since 2003 he is a professor
of communications engineering at the University FAF
Munich.
Torben Schler received his diploma in geodesy and
cartography from the University of Hannover in 1998.
He later joined the Institute of Geodesy and Naviga-
tion (IGN), University FAF Munich, as a research
associate, where he earned a doctorate and received
the habilitation in geodesy and navigation. Schler
is currently head of the GNSS/INS laboratory at IGN.
His major research work is focused on precise GPS/Galileo positioning, includ-
ing atmospheric delay modeling.
Oliver Balbach joined IFEN GmbH in 2006 where he is
involved in the Galileo testbed project GATE and in
projects concerning the development of GNSS receiv-
ers. He received his Diploma in electrical engineering
from the Technical University Mnchen and has
worked as a patent examiner at the German Patent
Ofce and as research associate at the University FAF
Munich IGN.
Enrico Colzi, received his Ph.D. from the Technical
University of Delft, The Netherlands and his M.Sc in
telecommunication engineering from the University
of Florence, Italy. He was with the European Space
Agency (ESA), the Italian Space Agency, and the Uni-
versity of Florence. Currently he is working for Vega
Group PLC as senior RF payload engineer in the RF
Payload System Division of ESA/ESTEC.
[1] Hein, G.W., and M. Irsigler, J.A. Avila-Rodriguez, S.Wallner, Th.Pany,
B.Eissfeller, and Ph.Hartl, Envisioning a Future GNSS System of Systems,
Part 3: A Role for C-Band? Inside GNSS, May/June 2007
[2] Irsigler, M., and G.W. Hein, and A. Schmitz-Peiffer, Use of C-Band Fre-
quencies for satellite Navigation: Benets and Darwbacks, GPS Solutions,
Wiley Periodicals Inc., Volume 8, Number 3, 2004
[3] ITU Regulations, www.itu.int/pub/R-REG-RR/en.
[4] Schmitz-Peiffer, A., and L. Stopfkuchen, F. Soualle, J.-J. Floch, R. King, A.
Fernandez, R. Jorgensen, B. Eissfeller, J.A. Avila-Rodriguez, S. Wallner, J.-H. Won,
Th. Pany, M.Anghileri, B. Lankl, T. Schueler, and E. Colzi, Assessment of the Use
of C-Band for GNSS within the European GNSS Evolution Programme, ION 2008,
Savannah, Georgia, USA.
www.insidegnss.com MAY/ J UNE 200 9 InsideGNSS 56c
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Te following colleagues provided technical support and
helpful discussions for the work: Dr. Dirk Felbach, Raymond
King, Stefan Paus and Helmut Wolf from EADS Astrium
GmbH.
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_____________________________
_________________
UKSchools
Win GNSS
Grants
Four United Kingdom universities
University College London (UCL),
Imperial College, and the universities of
Nottingham and Westminster have
won four linked grants totalling 2.7
million (US$4.14 million) from the Engi-
neering and Physical Science Research
Council (EPSRC) to undertake collab-
orative research focusing on the exploita-
tion of new GNSS signals.
Recently launched GPS satellites have
new signal structures and the signals
from the planned European (Galileo) and
Chinese (Compass) GNSSs will have sim-
ilar characteristics. Te Russian GNSS
(GLONASS) is also being upgraded. By
2012 more than 120 satellites may be
transmitting highly complex navigation
signals. Te EPSRC-funded research is
directed towards establishing the best
way to exploit them from receiver
design to delivering positioning, tracking,
and navigation-based products to users.
Ventures
NavComTech Partners
with AstriumServices
NavCom Technology Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Deere & Company,
and Astrium Services have formed a stra-
tegic partnership to deliver precise posi-
tioning solutions throughout Europe..
Trough this new alliance, Astrium
Services, a wholly owned subsidiary
of EADS Astrium, will become the
sole European supplier of NavComs
GNSS product and positioning solu-
tions, including the StarFire Network,
NavComs global decimeter-accurate
satellite-based augmentation system
(GSBAS).
u-blox Buys Geotate
In a 5.5-million cash deal, u-blox AG, of
Talwil, Switzerland, has acquired Geo-
tate B.V. and its patented technology and
products in the area of sofware GPS and
geotagging GPS.
Te acquisition will enable u-blox to
expand its position in consumer markets
with geotagging solutions for digital
camera manufacturers and other por-
table device manufacturers.
Geotate is a joint venture between
Road Group Holding AG, of Zug, Swit-
zerland, and NXP B.V., a semiconductor
manufacturer headquartered in Eind-
hoven, Te Netherlands. Te company
launched its frst Snapshot product at
the 2008 International Photo Marketing
Association conference.
Te 5.5 million includes 2 million
for a royalty-free patent license arrange-
ment with NXP and 3.5 million for the
outstanding shares of Geotate B.V.
u-blox will integrate the Geotate
business into its existing operations.
SSTL TeamDeveloping
GNSS-Based Remote
Sensing of Sea State
Surrey Satellite Technology Limited
(SSTL) will lead a British project to
exploit signals from GPS and other
GNSS satellites that are refected from
the Earth for remote sensing purposes.
Te project will investigate a proto-
type instrument capable of measuring
the roughness of the sea and soil mois-
ture content, providing data for atmo-
spheric science and for operational ocean
and weather forecasting
SSTL will lead one of fve teams
awarded funding by the Centre for Earth
Observation Instrumentation), the Natu-
ral Environment Research Council, and
Department for Innovation, Universi-
ties & Skills in an initiative to further
technological capability in line with UK
Earth observation science priorities. Te
SSTL-led team will include experts from
the University of Surrey, the University
of Bath, and the National Oceanographic
Centre in Southampton.
Te instrument, which will fy
onboard a separate small satellite, will
analyze GNSS signals refected from land,
ice and ocean. According to SSTL, a fex-
ible multi-channel receiver will be devel-
oped to detect the refected GNSS signals
for surface sea-state measurements.
Sea-surface roughness is important
for operational ocean and weather fore-
casting and afects many areas of ocean
and atmospheric science.
CAST Moves to NewFacility
CAST Navigation LLC is moving and
expanding because of increased demand
for the companys GPS simulators,
GPS/INS navigation test equipment, and
embedded GPS/inertial (EGI) integra-
tion tools.
Te companys new address is One
Highwood Drive, Suite 100, Tewksbury,
MA 01876. Phone contact is 978-858-
0130; Fax, 978-858-0170; website, <www.
castnav.com>.
Te relocation from the current ofc-
es in Billerica, Massachusetts, puts sales,
R&D, and equipment manufacturing in
a state-of-the-art facility, according to
CASTs president, Ray Simeon.
People
RosumNames Anderson CEO
Rosum Corporation, the Mountain View,
Californiabased supplier of timing and
positioning technology that combines
GPS and broadcast television signals, has
named Brad Anderson as the companys
new chief executive ofcer.
Anderson most recently served as
president of SigNav Inc.Before that, he
held leadership positions with u-Nav
Microelectronics, Navman, Conexant
Systems, and Stanford Telecom. He suc-
ceeds Skip Speaks, who has led Rosum
for the past fve years. Speaks will con-
tinue to serve on the companys board of
directors.
ATK Hires Former GPS JPO
Director JimArmor
Alliant Techsystems has named Major
General U.S. Air Force (Ret.) James B.
Armor Jr., a former director of the NAV-
STAR GPS Joint Program Ofce (GPS
JPO, now the GPS Wing), as vice-presi-
dent of strategy and business develop-
ment for spacecraf systems and engi-
neering services in the companys Space
Systems unit.
INDUSTRY VIEW
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
____
________
58
SEPTEMBER 1417
EMAV 2009: EUROPEAN
MICRO AIR VEHICLE
CONFERENCE
Delft, Netherlands
EMAV 2009 features technical
presentations and an indoor and
outdoor competition of small,
lightweight ying robotic systems
that make ideal research platforms
in a number of elds. <www.
emav2009.org/>
SEPTEMBER 2225
ION GNSS 2009
Savannah, Georgia USA
This will be the 22nd international
technical meeting of the Satellite
Division of ION. It is the worlds
largest and oldest GNSS conference,
founded in 1987 as the ION GPS
conference. The event will cover
program updates of the worlds
global navigation satellite systems
and technological developments
August
AUGUST 10-13
AUVSIS UNMANNED SYSTEMS
NORTH AMERICA 2009
Washington D.C., USA
Key event focusing on international
ground, air, and maritime unmanned
systems at the Washington
Convention Center.
<http://symposium.auvsi.org/>
AUGUST 31-SEPT. 4
IAG 2009
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Geodesy for Planet Earth is the
theme of the annual International
Association of Geodesy Scientic
Assembly.
<http://www.iag2009.com.ar/>
September
SEPTEMBER 25
GNSS VULNERABILITIES AND
SOLUTIONS CONFERENCE
2009
Baka, Krk Island, Croatia
Among other topics, two special
sessions will be organized in order
to address particular causes of
GNSS vulnerabilities: Space Weather
and Ionospheric Effects on GNSS,
and Safety Critical Applications
(concerning primarily the ITS). E-
mail to <renato.ljar@yahoo.co.uk>
SEPTEMBER 1418
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE
ON GNSS MEETING (ICG-4)
St. Petersburg, Russia
The ICG is a voluntary United
Nationsbacked association
that brings together GNSS and
augmentation providers including
the United States, Russia, European
Union, China, India, and Japan -
associate members representing
key user communities. <http://www.
oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SAP/gnss/
icg.html>
GNSS TIMELINE
June
JUNE 17-19
TRANSNAV SYMPOSIUM 2009
METROLOGY SEMINAR
Gdynia, Poland
International symposium on
marine navigation and safety of
transportation, held in the Baltic
seaport and spa area of Gdansk.
<http: transnav.am.gdynia.pl>
July
JULY 6-10
NAVTECHGPS SEMINARS
Noordwijk, Netherlands
Courses cover fundamentals,
GNSS operation for engineers
and technical professionals,
signals and receiver operations
and Galileo design, development
and signal processing. <https://
www.navtechgps.com/seminars/
sem2009schedule.asp#0904_ESA>
JULY 11-14
2009 ESRI SURVEY &
ENGINEERING SUMMIT
San Diego, California USA
National Geodetic Survey head
Juliana Blackwell keynotes the
plenary. The event covers GPS and
GIS technologies that drive new
applications for surveyors and
engineers. <http://www.esri.com/
events/survey/index.html>
JULY 13-17
2009 ESRI USER CONFERENCE
San Diego, California USA
The largest conference for GIS
users, developers, integrators and
suppliers will take place at the San
Diego Convention Center.
<http://www.esri.com/events/uc/
JULY 20-30
SUMMER SCHOOL ON GNSS
Berchesgaden, Germany
Overview of design, development
and applications of GNSS, for
graduate students and early-
stage professionals. Limited to 50
students.
<http://www.munich-satellite-
navigation-summerschool.org />
ADVERTISERS INDEX
Company Page Number
746th Test Squadron 20
CAST Navigation 11
Forsberg Services Ltd. 7
GPS Networking 23
Hemisphere GPS 10
IFEN 9
ION GNSS 2009 15
L3/Interstate Electronics Inside Front Cover
NavCom Technology Inc. Inside Back Cover
NavTechGPS 18
NovAtel, Inc. 17 , Back Cover
OmniSTAR 19
Oxford Technical Solutions 12
Pacic Crest 29
PCTEL, Inc. 21
Racelogic Ltd. 5
Septentrio 3
Need more information?
Its online!
<WWW.INSIDEGNSS.COM/EVENTS>
in all areas of space-based
positioning, navigation and timing
and related systems. <http://www.
ion.org/meetings>
SEPTEMBER 2224
INTERGEO 2009
Karlsruhe, Germany
Annual conference and exhibition
held in different cities in Germany
each year covering geodesy,
geoinformation and land
management. <http://www.intergeo.
de/en/englisch/index.php>
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
___
________ ______________
_____________
____
_________________
______________
_____
_______________
________________
______________
_________________
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
__________________
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
Qmags
IGNSS
_____________________________________________________

GNSS 20090501 May 2009

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

GNSS 20090501 May 2009

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page q

Incoming GPS signal S(t)

FIGURE 8 Two-dimensional steering angles

Você também pode gostar