Aerospace and Defense

April 6, 2007

Two for One: Tracking Galileo CBOC Signal with TMBOC

On-going discussions are taking place between U.S. and European Union (EU) experts concerning the future GPSIII L1C and Galileo E1 OS civil signals. An agreement on a common power spectral density (PSD) known as multiplexed binary offset carrier (MBOC) recently emerged as a solid candidate to replace the current baseline: BOC(1,1).

On-going discussions are taking place between U.S. and European Union (EU) experts concerning the future GPSIII L1C and Galileo E1 OS civil signals. An agreement on a common power spectral density (PSD) known as multiplexed binary offset carrier (MBOC) recently emerged as a solid candidate to replace the current baseline: BOC(1,1).

In order to comply with the MBOC PSD, two candidate implementations, known as time-multiplexed BOC (TMBOC) and composite BOC (CBOC) modulations, have been proposed. If fully exploited, these implementations will provide improved performance but require a more complex receiver architecture than a BOC(1,1) receiver.

Increased complexity and associated higher costs, however, might be detrimental for a GNSS receiver manufacturer that would like to use MBOC, but with limited modifications to their receivers — particularly for those companies producing equipment for mass consumer markets. This article aims at evaluating a new CBOC receiver architecture using locally generated TMBOC-like signals that will result in a simpler architecture comparable to a BOC receiver.

The normalized MBOC PSD includes the whole of GPSIII L1C or Galileo E1 OS civil signals, which means both their data and pilot components.

Because the MBOC is defined only in the frequency domain, a variety of compliant temporal modulations can be used. In the literature, two different modulations were proposed to implement the MBOC:
• TMBOC, which multiplexes in the time domain BOC(1,1) and BOC(6,1) sub-carriers and seems likely to become the main candidate used by the future GPSIII L1C signal, and
• CBOC, which linearly combines BOC(1,1) and BOC(6,1) sub-carriers (both components being present at all times), and appears to be the leading candidate for the Galileo E1 OS signal.

The Additional Resources section lists papers by G. Hein et al, J. Betz et al, and J.-A. Avila-Rodriguez et al, which introduce and discuss TMBOC and CBOC in detail. (Available in the downloadable PDF, above.)

The philosophy behind these two modulations is very different, and, although they would theoretically produce equivalent tracking when used with a TMBOC or CBOC receiver (considering pilot and data channels), they can result in different performances in other configurations (for instance, considering the pilot channel only).

A major difference between the TMBOC and CBOC modulations is that the CBOC sub-carrier, as the weighted sum of two squared-wave sub-carriers, will have four different levels. Consequently, this means that an optimal CBOC receiver has to generate a local replica that also has four levels, resulting in a local replica encoded on more than just one bit. This could complicate the CBOC receiver architecture and might prove detrimental to the widespread use of this modulation for certain types of receiver, if retained as the Galileo E1 OS modulation.

This article describes an innovative technique that only requires a 1-bit local replica, very similar to a TMBOC waveform, to track CBOC signals. This method is particularly interesting because, despite its simple implementation, it has only limited losses in tracking performance with respect to traditional CBOC or TMBOC receivers. Moreover, it shows excellent performance when compared to the previous GPS/Galileo L1 baseline signal, the BOC(1,1).

The first part of this article describes the possible CBOC and TMBOC candidates for Galileo E1 OS and GPS III L1C modulations. The second part looks at the traditional tracking performances of these two modulations in terms of thermal noise and multipath-induced errors.

Finally, we introduce the new 1-bit tracking technique and compare it against optimal CBOC and TMBOC tracking in terms of tracking noise and multipath resistance.

Conclusions
Following the US/EU MBOC agreement, the current main candidates for the GPSIII L1C and Galileo E1 OS have been introduced. In particular, the pilot channels have been analyzed with their use of the new CBOC and TMBOC modulations.

Although adding a very small amount of BOC(6,1) to the previous BOC(1,1) baseline, it has been shown that the tracking performances of these future signals are significantly improved compared to pure BOC(1,1) tracking. In particular, tracking noise is reduced by 2.4 to 3 dBs in terms of equivalent C/N0, and multipath mitigation is significantly improved.

Focusing on the CBOC modulation, its multi-level waveform could result in more challenging receiver architecture. In order to keep a simple receiver design to receive a CBOC signal, a new tracking technique, referred to as TM61, has been proposed to allow tracking of the CBOC modulation with a 1-bit only locally generated replica. This method uses time-multiplexing of BOC(1,1) and BOC(6,1) sub-carrier on the same model as the TMBOC modulation.

A preferred implementation of TM61 is the use of a pure BOC(1,1) sub-carrier for the prompt correlators and a pure BOC(6,1) sub-carrier for the early and late correlators (a DP discriminator being assumed). This yields a much simpler receiver architecture since it requires only pure sub-carriers with no-multiplexing (different from TMBOC receivers), 1-bit local replicas (unlike a CBOC local replica) and a minimum of correlators. Please note it is also possible to use another implementation of the TM61 tracking methods with time-multiplexing.

In its preferred implementation, TM61 brings only a slight post-correlation SNR degradation (about 0.35 dBs for the selected CBOC main candidate for Galileo pilot channel), enabling good phase tracking. TM61 code tracking noise performance is degraded with respect to traditional CBOC tracking by approximately 2.4 dBs. However, this has to be put into perspective considering the substantial reduction in receiver complexity with TM61 and the fact that thermal noise might not be the main source of error for many applications.

Finally, the TM61 tracking technique has been demonstrated to provide, in its preferred implementation, a better multipath resistance compared to traditional CBOC tracking. In any case, the use of TM61 to receive a CBOC signal has been shown to significantly outperform the traditional reception of a pure BOC(1,1) with equivalent power, thus supporting the use of the modernized CBOC signal. Consequently, it seems to be a very good tracking technique for implementation in future CBOC receivers.

For the full article, including graphs, figures, and additional resources, download the PDF above.

By

Enhancing the Future of Civil GPS: Overview of the L1C Signal

The Global Positioning System is undergoing continual modernization, providing ongoing improvements for users worldwide. Although various enhancements in system features have been under development since the mid-1990s, modernization first benefited civil users when Selective Availability — a security-motivated technique for “dithering” the open L1 signal to reduce positioning accuracy — was set to zero in May 2000.

The Global Positioning System is undergoing continual modernization, providing ongoing improvements for users worldwide. Although various enhancements in system features have been under development since the mid-1990s, modernization first benefited civil users when Selective Availability — a security-motivated technique for “dithering” the open L1 signal to reduce positioning accuracy — was set to zero in May 2000.

Subsequently, other improvements in accuracy have been obtained through enhancements to the capabilities and operation of the control and space segments, still based on the original set of GPS signals.

The launch of the IIR-14(M) (modernized replenishment satellite) in 2005 began a new era with transmission of the L2 civil (L2C) signal, along with the modernized military M-code signal. A third civil signal, called L5, will be transmitted from Block IIF satellites.

All the while, improvements in monitoring, satellite technology (for example, the on-board atomic clocks) and operations yield continuing increases in accuracy. The United States plans to continue providing these capabilities free of user fees. It will continue to complement this pricing policy by providing free and open signal descriptions and other technical information needed for development of receivers and services using civil signals.

In the meantime, development of the next generation of satellites, called GPS III, and a modernized control segment (OCX) continues, which will lead to greatly enhanced capabilities beginning early in the next decade. An integral part of the GPS III capabilities being developed is a new civil signal, called L1C, which will be transmitted on the L1 carrier frequency in addition to current signals.

Approximately one year ago, the U.S. Air Force released the initial draft of Interface Specification IS-GPS-800, describing L1C. Novel characteristics of the optimized L1C signal design provide advanced capabilities while offering to receiver designers considerable flexibility in how to use these capabilities.

The development of L1C represents a new stage in international GNSS: not only is the signal being designed for transmission from GPS satellites, its design also seeks to maximize interoperability with Galileo’s Open Service signal. Further, Japan’s Quazi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) will transmit a signal with virtually the same design as L1C.

L1C has been designed to take advantage of many unique opportunities. Its center frequency of 1575.42 MHz is the pre-eminent GNSS frequency for a variety of reasons, including the extensive existing use of GPS C/A code, the lower ionospheric error at L1 band relative to lower frequencies, spectrum protection of the L1 band, and the use of this same center frequency by GPS, Galileo, QZSS, and satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS) signals for open access service and safety-of-life applications.

Other unique opportunities that the L1C design leverages include advances in signal design knowledge, improvements in receiver processing techniques, developments in circuit technologies, and enhancements in supporting services such as communications. The L1C design has been optimized to provide superior performance, while providing compatibility and interoperability with other signals in the L1 band.

L1C provides a number of advanced features, including: 75 percent of power in a pilot component for enhanced signal tracking, advanced Weil-based spreading codes, an overlay code on the pilot that provides data message synchronization, support for improved reading of clock and ephemeris by combining message symbols across messages, advanced forward error control coding, and data symbol interleaving to combat fading.

The resulting design offers receiver designers the opportunity to obtain unmatched performance in many ways.This article will give an overview of the L1C signal design, highlighting the features that will benefit receiver designers and, ultimately, end users. The following section provides background on L1C and its design process, from its beginnings in 2003.

Subsequent sections then provide an overview of the signal structure, details of the signal’s spreading codes and overlay codes, spreading modulation, data message structure, and encoding and decoding of message information.

Summary of Benefits
Although more complete details are provided in IS-GPS-800, we will outline the most significant characteristics here.

L1C has been designed with unique, innovative, and powerful new features to enhance its robustness for all users, especially in difficult environments.

The signal structure alone, with the spreading code and the overlay code, provides exact GPS time, modulo 18 seconds. Alignment to the spreading code provides bit synchronization and alignment to the overlay code provide frame synchronization, making these receiver functions simple and robust.

For high-precision (e.g., survey) use, the pilot carrier removes the half cycle phase ambiguity, and the larger RMS bandwidth of the new spreading modulation has the potential to improve tracking performance, especially multipath mitigation. With the combination of improved carrier tracking of the pilot component, segmentation of clock and ephemeris in the data message, and FEC design, an autonomous navigator can demodulate the satellite clock and ephemeris whenever the signal can be tracked.

The improved cross-correlation of the new codes will also improve the performance of high-sensitivity receivers. Performance will also improve as a result of the new message format that allows code combining across satellites for the TOI and code combining of the near constant sub-frame 2 ephemeris data across multiple frames. International collaboration and outreach have assisted in producing a truly international signal with capabilities that will serve users for decades to come.

For the full article, including figures, graphs, and additional resources, download the PDF above.

By
March 2, 2007

More Perils for Galileo . . . and Other GNSS Dramas

A convergence of developments over the past few months has brought Europe’s Galileo program to the most critical passage of its history — at least, since final approval of the GNSS initiative by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Union (EU) in 2003 and 2004, respectively.

Read More >

By Inside GNSS
January 31, 2007

GPS Block III Contracts

The U.S. Air Force has awarded two $50 million contracts to Boeing and Lockheed Martin to execute a system design review for the next-generation GPS space segment program, GPS Block III.

The contracts come on the heels of both companies successfully completing system requirements reviews in November 2006. Those reviews, part of a $10 million follow-on order to a Phase A Concept Development Contract awarded in 2004, assessed Boeing’s and Lockheed’s ability to mitigate development and delivery risks associated with building the Block III satellites.

Read More >

By Inside GNSS
October 1, 2006

GPS: Launches of Satellites and Institutional Initiatives

Successful launch of the second modernized Block IIR satellite, IIR-15(M2), on September 25 and scheduling of another IIR-M launch on November 14 underlines recent progress in the GPS program.

IIR-15(M2), also identified by its space vehicle number (SVN58) and pseudorandom code number (PRN31), will be placed into orbital plane A, slot 2. The U.S. Air Force has designated the satellite to be launched in November as GPS IIR-16/M3, PRN15/SVN55.

Read More >

By Inside GNSS

Correlators for L2C

The term “Correlator” is often used in discussions of GPS and GNSS receiver design. It has been used to describe devices as simple as a single exclusive OR gate through to complete “baseband” chips that include a microprocessor.

Most usually, and in this article, the term describes the hardware or software that produces all of the required correlation data for a single signal from a specific GNSS satellite signal. This is also sometimes termed a “channel.”

The term “Correlator” is often used in discussions of GPS and GNSS receiver design. It has been used to describe devices as simple as a single exclusive OR gate through to complete “baseband” chips that include a microprocessor.

Most usually, and in this article, the term describes the hardware or software that produces all of the required correlation data for a single signal from a specific GNSS satellite signal. This is also sometimes termed a “channel.”

With the open GPS civil signal at the L2 frequency (L2C) now becoming available on Block IIR-M satellites, receiver designers have the opportunity to work with a markedly different GNSS signal resource. The first IIR-M spacecraft (designated SVN53/PRN17) was launched September 25, 2005, and the second is scheduled to go into orbit on September 14, 2006. (IIR-Ms also transmit the new GPS L1/L2 military (M-code) signal, but we will not treat this issue here.)

Against that historic backdrop, then, this article examines some of the novel elements of the L2C signal and its implications for GNSS receiver correlators. Our focus will be on a technically challenging aspect of receiver operation: initial acquisition of the signal and its processing by the correlator.

But first we will review some of the key functional aspects of GNSS correlators and some of the signal parameters that affect their operation.

. . . We can more easily explain the role of a correlator if we examine its two functions separately. In a GNSS receiver, correlation is used in two distinct activities:

Acquisition. Before the receiver knows whether it can receive a certain satellite’s signal, it must “search” for it using the correlation in an ordered but relatively indiscriminate way. Effectively, many correlation trials are run for each of many code delays and Doppler frequency offsets.

Tracking. Once acquired, the receiver must still despread the received signal in order to receive data and measure pseudoranges. Several correlators are usually used to keep the local code as closely aligned to the received code as possible. To do this, a “delay-locked loop” is used, with the correlators operating within the loops, some typically ahead of the received code (“early”) and some behind (“late”).

In other words, correlation is used both to “get” the signal and to “keep” it. These actions should be considered quite separately. In this article, we concentrate on the acquisition process.

. . . Various signal parameters affect correlation. These are listed for the three GPS signals in Table 1. Both L2C and L5 have dataless sub-signals which are time-multiplexed (CM and CL) and in quadrature (I5 and Q5), respectively. Both use longer codes than L1, while L5 has a higher chipping rate. L5 also has the added complication of Neuman-Hoffman codes, which will not be further discussed here.

. . . Correlation Signal “Shape” – the L1 civilian C/A-code signal is a single BPSK modulation. Despite the fact that the L2C signal is also BPSK, it introduces another layer of complexity by having the data-carrying and dataless signals multiplexed in time. Typically, the shorter (20-millisecond) data-carrying CM code will be acquired first, then the receiver would hand over to the longer (1.5-second) dataless CL code for tracking.

. . . The beauty of the exploitation of the circular convolution is that the code in the data does not need to be well aligned with the stored data— the whole point of acquisition, after all, is to perform this alignment. So, if the CM code was chopped up into pieces smaller than 20 milliseconds, this circular convolution would no longer reflect the time domain correlation, and a receiver would need to have many stored codes.

. . . Many GPS chipsets are optimized for operation in mobile telephone handsets and, as such, are aimed at minimizing the drain on handset batteries. For such applications, the large L2C acquisition overhead presents a serious problem . .

Conclusion
In this article, we have primarily examined the implications of signal acquisition for the new L2C signal. In a typical L2C-only receiver, significantly more effort is required to acquire the signal than is the case for L1 C/A code: more than 200 times higher in the hardware case and more than 500 times higher in the software case. However, because the long CL code does not carry any data, it can be used for the long integrations required for acquisition in a weak-signal environment.

For the complete story, including figures, graphs, and images, please download the PDF of the article, above.

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the useful suggestions made by Eamonn Glennon of Signav Pty Ltd.

By
July 1, 2006

The L2C Study: Benefits of the New GPS Civil Signal

GPS has had enormous benefits to the economy and society that go well beyond military and civil aviation applications – that is becoming ever more widely understood. What has been more open to discussion are the civilian non-aviation benefits of further U.S. efforts at GPS modernization, particularly the introduction of additional signals.

GPS has had enormous benefits to the economy and society that go well beyond military and civil aviation applications – that is becoming ever more widely understood. What has been more open to discussion are the civilian non-aviation benefits of further U.S. efforts at GPS modernization, particularly the introduction of additional signals.

In an effort to define and measure civilian benefits, the U.S. departments of commerce and transportation commissioned some economic analyses of civil signal modernization. Particular emphasis was placed on the value of the L2C signal centered at 1227.60 MHZ, which recently began broadcasting from the first modernized GPS Block IIR-M satellite. This article is an outgrowth of that effort.

The analysis focused on the value of signals at more than one frequency for precision non-aviation use by business and government. It considered how utilization of the second civilian signal and its benefits would evolve in the coming decades as the L2C constellation expands and as additional signals become available from GPS and other GNSSes.

In the study, projections were developed under four scenarios — with the “moderate benefit”scenario seeming most likely — that reflect combinations of developments, including the strength of markets, the timing of L2C signal availability, the timing of Galileo availability, and complementary and competitive relationships with augmentations.

The main findings of the study are:

  • The projected number of U.S. high precision users of any signal nearly doubles from 39,000 to 75,000 from 2004 to 2008, and reaches 146,000 in 2012 and 333,000 in 2017.
  • Under a “moderate benefits” scenario, the number of L2C users reaches 64,000 by 2017, of which 35,000 are dual frequency users and 29,000 use three or more frequencies.
  • Civilian benefits of L2C net of user costs range from $1.4-$9.6 billion under alternative scenarios and civilian net benefits are about $5.8 billion under the moderate benefits scenario.
  • Results are robust.
  • Positive present values of benefits net of user costs are obtained in all tests.
  • The ratio of benefits to user costs ranges from 8 to 20 in all tests.

In addition to the domestic benefits examined, L2C will undoubtedly have important international benefits.
This article presents in more detail how we defined the problem, approached the study, and arrived at those conclusions.

The L2C Evolution
L2C, together with the present L1 C/A-code signal and the future modernized civil signal L1C, will provide an alternative to augmented single frequency GPS for precision users. Separate investigations have outlined the incremental benefits of L1C (See sidebar, “The L1C Studies,” at the end of this article)

L2C signals can be used for both horizontal and vertical measurement and positioning along with L1 C/A as satellites become available over more areas and in more times of the day. The first satellite can be used for improved timing. L2C also can be used in configurations of three or more frequencies in combination with the forthcoming GPS L5 signal and with signals from Galileo and GLONASS.

At various times in each signal’s deployment and development of markets, other signals will, to varying degrees, provide complements to L2C and competitors to it. L2C has its greatest potential to generate benefits for dual frequency applications until alternative signals are widely utilized, and for long-term use in applications taking advantage of three or more frequencies.

The L2 signal is currently being widely used for augmentations, and the new signals can be used in that way along with the existing constellation. However, L5’s use as a competitor to L2C and as a partner to L2C in multiple frequency implementations primarily depends on the launch timeline for satellites carrying the L5 signal since L5, centered at the 1176.45 MHz frequency, is not currently in service. Plans call for its implementation on the GPS Block IIF satellites, with the first IIF now expected to be launched in 2008.

L2C deployment requires a commitment to operational capability. Decisions will be required as to launch dates and signal activation for each successive satellite containing the signal. The L2C benefits study is intended to contribute to decisions about L2C deployment with consideration of alternative scenarios informed by quantitative and qualitative analysis. 

To explore the implications of L2C evolution, we make projections about the numbers of U.S. precision users, incremental benefits, and user costs, based on examination of applications and available evidence on value of benefits, and consider how these can unfold over the period 2006–2030.

The analysis focuses on precision users of L2C who use two or more frequencies, although we do include estimates for supplementary multiple-frequency users and single-frequency users. However, the estimates of these types of use are more conjectural and do not contribute much to the overall value of benefits.

Benefits net of user costs are measured according to the widely accepted economic productivity approach, which includes productivity gains and cost savings. This comprehensive approach is more appropriate than one that measures benefits simply by expenditures on equipment and services.

Incremental benefits and user costs are defined to include all differences in outcomes from what would be expected in the absence of L2C. 

Signal Advantages and Availability
The L2C signal, scheduled to be the first of the modernized civil GPS signals, is intended for civilian purposes other than aviation and safety-of-life. It will provide greater accuracy and robustness and faster signal acquisition than the current L1 C/A-code signal.

Higher signal power and forward error correction will improve GPS mobile, indoor, and other uses.
The L5 signal that will arrive within a few years will be in a protected aeronautical radionavigation system (ARNS) band intended for aviation and other safety-of-life uses and will have broader applications.

Multiple signals will allow many users to obtain greater precision and availability at lower cost than achievable with proprietary augmentation systems. However, signal combinations combined with public and private augmentations for even greater precision and reliability will support applications with some of the greatest potential benefits.

Combined use of L2C with L1 C/A and L5 will also enable some precision users to achieve even greater reliability and accuracy. Although available simulations differ on the size of benefits of three signals over two, many professionals expect important advantages from such “tri-laning” techniques.

The U.S. Air Force launched first satellite containing the L2C frequency on September 25, 2005, and the signal became available on December 16. Going forward, two to four Block IIR-M satellites are expected to be launched each year. With six to eight satellites anticipated to be available by about December 2007, users will be able to access at least one single satellite with L2C at almost all times. Eighteen L2C-capable satellites  (including the Block IIF generation) will be available by about 2011 and 24 L2C signals, around 2012. (These statements are based on official 2005 launch schedules and are subject to revision.)

The first L5 launch is scheduled for March 2008. L5 does not have a GPS signal in use at its frequency, so it will not be usable to any great extent until a large part of its constellation is available. In contrast, L2 is in place to transmit the military P(Y) code and the carrier signals of the satellites are currently being used along with L1 C/A for higher-accuracy applications.

Consequently, the L2C signal can be used immediately as a second frequency. The GPS signal L1C, which is being planned now for implementation on the GPS III satellites scheduled for launch beginning in 2013, will be able to be used immediately, even for single frequency use, without augmentation because it is at the same frequency as the L1 C/A-code.

Using Multiple Frequency GPS
Many private and government precision applications could potentially benefit from multiple frequency GPS.
For example:

  • Centimeter accuracy is important to many land and marine surveying applications including planning, zoning, and land management; cadastral surveying, harbor and port mapping, aids to navigation, coastal resources management, mapping, and surveys of sensitive habitats.
  • Machine control applications using high precision GPS have grown rapidly in a number of sectors, including agriculture and forestry, mining, construction, energy, transportation, structural monitoring and positioning for mapping and geographic modeling..
  • Civil applications that rely on precise timing will benefit from increased GPS signal availability and elimination of atmospheric effects possible using dual-frequency techniques.  Beneficiary industries include those operating cellular telephone, power, and financial information networks.

Scope of Benefits and Costs
Incremental benefits — those that arise because of the availability of L2C— include far more than the comparison of multiple frequency with augmented single frequency use. Companies adopting GPS in the future may even skip single-frequency options and instead choose multiple-frequency equipment (incorporating L2C) over non-GPS alternatives. Large candidate markets include construction, agriculture, and other applications where technological alternatives exist.

In some organizations, dual-frequency GPS will be the catalyst for extensive changes in systems that will occur earlier than if dual frequency GPS had not been adopted.

In the L2C study, benefits are measured according to the “economic productivity approach,” which is superior to the expenditure/economic impact approach because:

  • Productivity gains and cost savings, which this approach emphasizes, are the main purpose of much of GPS deployment and can be much larger than expenditures.
  • Benefits may accrue to a large number of customers of the purchaser, as occurs with use of GPS timing in communications, financial services, and electric power and in use of GPS positioning for mapping, structural monitoring, and weather.
  • The more common approach (economic impact) gauges benefits by added GPS spending without deducting the loss of benefits of non-GPS expenditures that are replaced.

L2C benefits can take both market and non-market forms, including increases in the productivity of business and government operations, user cost savings, benefits to the public through provision of public services and saving lives, and through improved health and environment.

Net benefits are benefits minus user costs. Incremental user costs include all additional costs that are expected with the availability of L2C, not simply the difference in costs between single- and dual-frequency receivers. These can take the forms of enhancements and accessories purchased when adding L2C capability (e.g.  better displays, controllers and software) or costs associated with users upgrading to multiple frequency GPS from less sophisticated single-frequency GPS systems or non-GPS systems.

However, incremental user cost is net of savings from use of receivers with less proprietary technology and any reduced use of private augmentation subscription services.

Expenditures to develop the GPS system infrastructure (satellites and ground segment) are not included, however, because most represent nonrecurring, sunk costs. Moreover, if we added them to our L2C analysis, we would need to include benefits to aviation and military users as well as their associated equipment costs.

Scenarios
The analysis takes into account alternative conditions of timing and impact of alternatives through the use of scenarios. Projections of signal use and value of benefits are developed through the year 2030 under four scenarios: High Opportunity, Moderate Benefits, Diluted Benefits, and Opportunity lost.

These scenarios reflect combinations of developments, including the strength of markets, the timing of L2C signal availability, the timing of Galileo availability, and complementary and competitive relationships with augmentations. (See the sidebar, “L2C Benefit Scenarios” at the end of this article for details of assumptions behind each.)

Probabilities are not given for the scenarios because the likelihood of alternative Galileo delays cannot be evaluated quantitatively. Moreover, the diluted benefits and opportunity lost scenarios are significantly affected by U.S. GPS policy, which is also not predicted.

Estimates of GPS Users
The L2C study projections shown in Figure 1 are based on assumed rates of decline in prices for user equipment and services and increases in the number of users in response to price changes. Projections reflect assessments of market sizes and patterns of market penetration under each scenario. Allowance also is made for effects of economic growth on market size. Table 1 (to view tables and figures, please download the PDF of this article using the link above) provides a detailed breakdown of results by scenario.

Within each scenario, projections are made for precision L2C users of three or more frequencies, dual frequency precision users, multiple frequency supplementary users, and single frequency users of L2C.

The starting point for determining the number of high precision users is a widely relied–upon estimate of 50,000 high precision users worldwide in 2000. We assumed that the United States had 40 percent of precision users in that year.

The study further assumes that the number of U.S. high-precision GPS users will grow by 18 percent per year from 2000 to 2030. This projection is based on a rate of price decline for user equipment of 15 percent per year and a corresponding a 1 percent increase in users for each 1 percent decline in price. Finally, we include an assumption of general growth in the economy (i.e., independent of GPS receiver price) that adds 3 percent per year.

These assumptions and calculations produce a projection of U.S. high precision GPS users — those using augmentations, of 38,776 in 2004. The estimated number of U.S. high precision users of any signal or combination nearly doubles to 75,177 from 2004 to 2008 and reaches 145,752 in 2012 and 333,445 in 2017.

We computed the numbers of multi-frequency GPS users by applying an estimated percentage to the number of high-precision users for each scenario. The number of multi-frequency precision users adopting dual versus three or more frequencies was then calculated using projected values for the percent of each category. Finally, the number of L2C users was calculated based on projections of the percent of multiple frequency users that use L2C, constructed to reflect the dynamics of each of the scenarios. 

Rapid growth is projected in the numbers of U.S. precision multiple-frequency L2C users. In the moderate benefits scenario, the number of L2C users reaches 64,000 by 2017, of which 35,000 are dual frequency users and 29,000 use three or more frequencies. The numbers of L2C users vary widely among scenarios.

Average Net Benefits per User
The study defines average incremental net value of benefits per L2C user as the incremental value of benefits per L2C user above the incremental user cost of equipment and services. Benefits largely reflect productivity gains and/or cost savings. Estimates reflect a review of available evidence ranging from formal studies to case histories and expert opinion across a wide range of applications.

Our research suggests that average annual incremental benefit per precision L2C user net of costs could reach the range of $8,000–$16,000 per year. This includes benefits across systems that are not attributable to specific numbers of users and non-market benefits, such as safety and environmental advantages, as well as market benefits associated with the value of goods and services transactions. Market benefits attributable to numbers of users are estimated at 60 percent of all incremental net benefits.

These are peak values after benefits have had an opportunity to rise with experience using the new signal. The values decline from their peaks as new users with lower benefits are attracted by declining costs and some high benefit users move to alternatives.

In considering the plausibility of these figures, consider that:

  • If a worker saved one hour a week by avoiding rescheduling due to signal unavailability, slow signal acquisition, loss of lock and additional work due to phase ambiguities, and further assuming labor costs of $80 per hour (including salary, fringe benefits, equipment, support staff and other overheads), — the saving would total $4,000 per year. Improvements in the organization’s processes with better work flow could make the savings even greater.
  • If the telecommunications, electricity generation, and financial industries together had system benefits that together were valued at $20 per customer over 20 million customers, the benefits would be $400 million per year. Market benefits of $400 million per year, if divided by 100,000 dual frequency users, for example, would amount to an average of $4,000 per user per year.
  • $400 million in non-market benefits over 100,000 precision users would equal an additional $4,000 per user per year.

(This could result, for example, from avoiding 100 deaths due to industrial accidents or environmental impacts at a value of $4 million per incident.)

The present values of incremental user costs range among scenarios from $175 million to $514 million in year 2005 purchasing power.

Costs represent one eighth or less of the total value of benefits in each scenario.

Value of Benefits
Civilian net benefits per user are incremental, net of incremental costs, and derive from prospects for major areas of application. The patterns incorporate some high-value initial use, assume that higher benefit users switch earlier to newer signals, factor in a buildup of productivity gains with experience, and project lower values for late-entry users attracted by lower equipment prices as well as later increases in higher benefit users switching to alternative signals.

We calculate the value of civilian net benefits of L2C through multiplying civilian net benefits per user by the number of L2C users for the user type and scenario. Higher net benefit scenarios result from higher benefits per user and larger numbers of users.

At a 7 percent real (above inflation) discount rate, present values of total net civilian market benefits range from $9.6 billion to $1.4 billion dollars. Benefits under the moderate benefits scenario have a present value of $5.8 billion and those under the high opportunity scenario $9.6 billion. (Values are discounted using annual data to calendar year 2006. That essentially places the values at the middle of 2006.)

Nearly all of the incremental benefits of L2C stem from precision use of two or more frequencies. That is both because of moderate numbers of other types of users in these and their low benefits per user.

The timeframe in which other signals become available after L2C plays an important role in the size of estimated benefits. In the high opportunity scenario, for example, dual-frequency net benefits appear higher than benefits from use of three or more frequencies because the latter applications start later as additional frequencies become available.

In the other scenarios, benefits from applications using three or more signals are higher than dual-frequency benefits because the benefits of dual frequency remain as strong when competing frequencies become available.

New spending can encourage greater long run economic growth, especially when it is associated with new technology for widely usable infrastructure. The spending may induce others to innovate, invest in greater capacity, take risks and/or provide financing. While direct estimates of the size of long run economic multipliers are not readily available, analyses of determinants of growth suggest that effects are modest, perhaps adding 20% to market benefits. Because of the uncertainty surrounding such estimates, no allowance is made for growth multiplier effects in the estimates shown.

Cost-Benefit Analysis
The ratio of incremental civilian benefits to user costs is calculated by dividing the present discounted value of total incremental benefits (including net benefits and costs) by the present value of incremental costs. These are shown with a 7% real (above inflation) discount rate.

The ratios of benefits to costs range from a multiple of 20 in the high opportunity scenario to 9 in the opportunity lost scenario. It would be surprising if benefit/cost ratios were not high because only direct user expenses (and not system costs) are included to get a picture of incremental costs of each set of outcomes. 

The moderate benefits scenario, which has a ratio of 20, is considered more likely than the others. Because of the interest in obtaining the greatest benefits, focusing on the present value of net benefits is appropriate for policy rather than using the benefit/cost ratio when all ratios are high.

As mentioned, changes in various factors could substantially affect the outcomes of L2C benefits and produce either an overstatement or an understatement of these. See the “Benefit Variables” sidebar at the end of this article for a listing of the most important factors.

Conclusions
Rapid growth is projected in the numbers of U.S. precision GPS users and in most scenarios for the numbers of high-precision multiple frequency L2C users. Substantial L2C benefits can occur along with availability of other signals and constellations, augmentations, and alternative technologies. While Galileo will compete with L2C, Galileo signals also can increase precision L2C use in multiple frequency applications, an alternative that will become increasingly affordable.

The economic productivity approach offers a means of considering benefits in a comprehensive way. Benefits and costs are incremental. They are defined to include all changes that occur as a result of the existence of L2C.

Defined comprehensively, benefits can encompass results from more extensive changes in equipment and systems and include both benefits that are attributable to specific numbers of users and those that may be incorporated in systems and spread over a broad population. They include both market and non-market benefits — those that are not bought and sold in markets, such as benefits to life, health, security and the environment.

User costs also are incremental, including all changes that occur with the availability of L2C, and are net of savings from moving to less sophisticated and less proprietary equipment.

Sidebar: The L1C Studies
Before the L2C study, important progress had already been made in understanding the benefits of additional GPS signals. These activities included the discussion of civilian applications in the report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on GPS, released last December, and the L1C Study undertaken by the Interagency GPS Executive Board in 2004. (See the “Additional Resources” section at the end of this article to find out how to obtain these studies on line.)

Upper limits of total benefits of L1C for the single year 2005 — including those obtained by single- and multiple-frequency users in private households, businesses, governments — were estimated at approximately $2 billion: $640 million for mobile and wireless location services, $62.5 million for information/data services, $990 million for “commercial GPS,” and $490 million for in-vehicle information and navigation services (telematics).

The L1C study approximated a “rough order of magnitude” dollar value of L1C applications based on 2005 spending by applying a “team consensus” for an assumed incremental benefit as a percentage of market value (revenue) for each of 13 user categories. Spending in user group categories was based on a compilation of trade estimates.

Sidebar: L2C Benefit Scenarios
The four scenarios developed to support the L2C benefits study, along with the assumptions underling each, include the following:

High Opportunity

  • Timely signal availability
  • Larger than expected markets
  • High complementarity with L5
  • Success of High-Accuracy Nationwide Differential GPS augmentation
  • Full Galileo deployment in 2012 with less than complete technical performance

Moderate Benefits

  • Timely L2C availability
  • Large potential markets
  • Benefits moderated by competition from other signals and augmentations
  • Full Galileo deployment in 2011

Diluted Benefits

  • Large potential markets
  • Gradual L2C deployment and uncertainty about schedules slows investment in innovation and market development
  • Many users wait for L5 and for Galileo, which is expected in 2010
  • Improvements in public and private augmentations make single signal use more attractive

Opportunity Lost

  • Late signal initiation and protracted pace of L2C deployment
  • Slow introduction and adoption of user equipment
  • Some users wait for Galileo
  • Moderately large potential market size, moderate effects of availability of other signals and delay in Galileo FOC to 2011
  • Attractiveness of augmentations

Sidebar: Benefit Variables
Overstatement could result from competition from other signals, from augmentations and from other technologies that is greater than anticipated. For example,

  • Greater attractiveness of other signals because of the availability of satellites from Galileo in addition to those from GPS at the L1 and L5 frequencies
  • Advances in augmentations that make single frequency use more attractive
  • Slower price declines for L2C user equipment
  • Less triple frequency use when additional satellites are available from Galileo and/or greater use of Galileo signals at frequencies that do not correspond with L1 and L5
  • More users waiting for L5 for non-aviation civilian dual frequency use than allowed for in the study.

Understatement could result from

  • More important and/or numerous applications than were allowed for in the calculations
  • Faster price declines for multiple frequency user equipment (e.g. if competition squeezes high end margins even more) and/or larger price sensitivity of demand
  • Non-market benefits greater than the 25% of market benefits assumed
  • Impacts of L2C on long run economic growth, which were not included in the calculations and perhaps could add perhaps 20% to benefits.

For figures, graphs, and images, please download the PDF of the article, above.

Acknowledgments
Steve Bayless, Tyler Duval, Jason Kim, Scott Pace, Mike Shaw, Tom Stansell, Dave Turner, Jack Wells, Rodney Weiher, and Avery Sen offered comments, guidance and assistance to the study. Many others contributed expertise through interviews.

Additional Resources
Kenneth W. Hudnut, and Bryan Titus, GPS L1 Civil Signal Modernization (L1C), Interagency GPS Executive Board, July 30, 2004, <http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/modernization/L1/L1C-report-short.pdf>

U.S. Defense Science Board, The Future of the Global Positioning System, Washington, D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, October 2005, <http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-10-GPS_Report_Final.pdf>

By

BOC or MBOC?

Europe and the United States are on the verge of a very important decision about their plans to implement a common civil signal waveform at the L1 frequency: Should that waveform be pure binary offset carrier — BOC(1,1) — or a mixture of 90.9 percent BOC(1,1) and 9.09 percent BOC(6,1), a combination called multiplexed BOC (MBOC). The desire for a common civil L1 signal is enshrined in a 2004 agreement on GNSS cooperation between the United States and the European Union (EU).

Europe and the United States are on the verge of a very important decision about their plans to implement a common civil signal waveform at the L1 frequency: Should that waveform be pure binary offset carrier — BOC(1,1) — or a mixture of 90.9 percent BOC(1,1) and 9.09 percent BOC(6,1), a combination called multiplexed BOC (MBOC). The desire for a common civil L1 signal is enshrined in a 2004 agreement on GNSS cooperation between the United States and the European Union (EU).

For the EU and the European Space Agency (ESA), that decision — and its consequences — will come sooner: with the Galileo L1 Open Service (OS) that will be transmitted from satellites to be launched beginning in the next few years. For the United States, the waveform decision will shape the design of the L1 civil signal (L1C) planned for the GPS III satellites scheduled to launch in 2013. For a background on the process that led to design of the GPS L1 civil signal and its relevance to the BOC/MBOC discussion, see the sidebar L1C, BOC, and MBOC.

The May/June issue of Inside GNSS contained a “Working Papers” column titled, “MBOC: The New Optimized Spreading Modulation Recommended for Galileo L1 OS and GPS L1C”. Authored by members of a technical working group set up under the U.S./EU agreement, the article discussed the anticipated MBOC benefits, primarily improved code tracking performance in multipath. The column also noted that, while lower-cost BOC(1,1) receivers would be able to use MBOC, it would come at the cost of a reduction in received signal power.

An article in the “360 Degrees” news section of the same issue of Inside GNSS noted that some GNSS receiver manufacturers believe MBOC is not best for their applications and perhaps should not have been recommended. (This point was noted on page 17 of the May/June issue under the subtitle “MBOC Doubters.”) See the sidebar “Other Observers” (below) for additional comments from companies with concerns about MBOC recommendation.

This article, therefore, continues the discussion of a common signal waveform by asking several companies with different product perspectives whether they consider the proposed MBOC waveform to be more or less desirable for their applications than the BOC(1,1). Currently, BOC (1,1) is the baseline defined in the June 26, 2004, document signed by the U.S. Secretary of State and the vice-president of the European Commission (the EU’s executive branch): “Agreement on the Promotion, Provision and Use of Galileo and GPS Satellite-Based Navigation Systems and Related Applications.”

Maximum benefit from MBOC will be obtained by receivers using recently invented technology that employs computationally intensive algorithms. Although such receivers clearly will provide benefits to their users because of the BOC(6,1) component of MBOC, the practical value of the benefits have not been quantified, which is one purpose of the questions raised in this article. For the moment, let’s call all these prospective MBOC users “Paul”.

Meanwhile, patents on the most widely used multipath mitigation technologies today, such as the “narrow correlator” and the more effective “double-delta” techniques, will expire about the time the new signals are fully available, making these techniques more widely available. Unfortunately, the double-delta technology cannot use the BOC(6,1) component of MBOC. In addition, narrowband receivers, which today dominate consumer products, also cannot use the BOC(6,1). Let’s call all these users “Peter”.

Therefore, the fundamental question raised by this article is whether we should rob Peter to pay Paul. If the amount taken is quite small and the benefits are large, then the answer should be “yes.” If the amount taken creates a burden to Peter, now and for decades to come, with little benefit to Paul, then the answer should be “no.” The in-between cases are more difficult. The purpose of this article is to explore the tradeoffs.

To address this issue, we invited engineers from companies building a range of GNSS receivers to take part in the discussion. We’ll introduce these participants a little later. But first, let’s take a look at the technical issues underlying the discussion.

BOC/MBOC Background

The RF spectrum of a GPS signal is primarily defined by the pseudorandom code that modulates its carrier and associated data. A pseudorandom code appears to be a completely random sequence of binary values, although the sequence actually repeats identically, over and over.

For the C/A code on the L1 frequency (1,575.42 MHz), the state of the code (either +1 or –1) may change at a clock rate of 1.023 MHz. We call this binary phase shift keying, or BPSK(1), meaning BPSK modulation with a pseudorandom code clocked at 1.023 MHz. Note that the bits of a pseudorandom code often are referred to as “chips,” and four BPSK chips are illustrated at the top of Figure 1. (To view any figures, tables or graphs for this story, please download the PDF version using the link at the top of this article.)

Among many other topics, the 2004 U.S./EU agreement settled on a common baseline modulation for the Galileo L1 OS and the GPS L1C signals: BOC(1,1). (The BOC(n,m) notation means a binary offset carrier with n being a 1.023 MHz square wave and m being a 1.023 MHz pseudorandom code.) Like BPSK(1), the BOC(1,1) waveform also is a BPSK modulation, meaning there are only two states, either a +1 or a –1. The timing relationships of the code and the square wave are illustrated by Figure 1.

Although the agreement defined BOC(1,1) as the baseline for both Galileo L1 OS and GPS L1C, it left the door open for a possible signal “optimization” within the overall framework of the agreement. As documented in the paper by G.W. Hein et al., “A candidate for the GALILEO L1 OS Optimized Signal” (cited in the “Additional Resources” section at the end of this article) and many other papers, the EC Signal Task Force (STF) after much study initially recommended a composite binary coded symbols (CBCS) waveform.

Because the agreement made it desirable for GPS L1C and Galileo L1 OS to have an identical signal spectrum and because GPS III implementation of CBCS would be difficult, a search was made by a joint EC/US working group to find an optimized signal that was acceptable for both GPS and Galileo. The result is MBOC (discussed in the May/June “Working Papers” column and the like-named IEEE/ION PLANS 2006 paper by G. W. Hein et al. cited in “Additional Resources.”).

Like all modernized GPS signals — including M-code, L2C, and L5 — L1C will have two components. One carries the message data and the other, with no message, serves as a pilot carrier. Whereas all prior modernized GPS signals have a 50/50 power split between the data component and the pilot carrier, L1C has 25 percent of its power in the data component and 75 percent in the pilot carrier.

The L1C MBOC implementation would modulate the entire data component and 29 of every 33 code chips of the pilot carrier with BOC(1,1). However, 4 of every 33 pilot carrier chips would be modulated with a BOC(6,1) waveform, as illustrated in Figure 2. The upper part of the figure shows 33 pilot carrier chips. Four of these are filled to show the ones with the BOC(6,1) modulation. Below the 33 chips is a magnified view of one BOC(1,1) chip and one BOC(6,1) chip.

The BOC(1,1) chip is exactly as illustrated in Figure 1 while the BOC(6,1) chip contains six cycles of a 6.138 MHz square wave. With this image in mind, we can easily calculate that the pilot carrier has 29/33 of its power in BOC(1,1) and 4/33 of its power in BOC(6,1). Because the pilot carrier contains 75 percent of the total L1C signal power, then the percent of total BOC(6,1) power is 75 × (4/33) or 9.0909+percent. Conversely, the data signal has 25 percent of the total L1C signal power; so, the calculation of BOC(1,1) power is 25 + 75 × (29/33) or 90.9090+ percent.

Because the Galileo OS signal has a 50/50 power split between data and pilot carrier, the implementation is somewhat different in order to achieve the same percentages of BOC(1,1) and BOC(6,1) power. For the most likely time division version of MBOC for Galileo, 2 of 11 chips in the pilot carrier would be BOC(6,1) with none in the data component. Thus, the percent of total BOC(6,1) power is 50 × (2/11) or 9.0909+ percent. Similarly, the percent of total BOC(1,1) power is 50 + 50 × (9/11) or 90.9090+ percent. This makes the spectrum of Galileo L1 OS the same as GPS L1C.

Code Transitions. The fundamental purpose of MBOC is to provide more code transitions than BOC(1,1) alone, as is evident in Figure 2. (A code loop tracks only the code transitions.) However, these extra transitions come on top of the increased number in BOC(1,1) compared to the L1 C/A signal.

Taking into account that the pilot carrier has either 75 percent of the signal power with GPS or 50 percent with Galileo, GPS with BOC(1,1) has 2.25 times more “power weighted code transitions” than C/A-code (a 3.5-dB increase). Galileo with BOC(1,1) has 1.5 times more (a 1.8-dB increase). MBOC on GPS would further increase the net transitions by another factor of 1.8 (2.6-dB increase), and the most aggressive version of MBOC on Galileo would increase the net transitions by a factor of 2.2 (3.4-dB increase).

Therefore, given the improvement of BOC(1,1) over C/A code, the question raised by this article is whether a further improvement in number of transitions is worth subtracting a small amount of signal power during all signal acquisitions, for all narrowband receivers, and for all receivers using the double-delta form of multipath mitigation.

A portion of Table 1 from the May/June “Working Papers” column is reproduced here, also as Table 1. Of the eight possible waveforms in the original table, only three are included here. These are representative of all the options, and they include the two versions of MBOC considered most likely for implementation in Galileo and the only version GPS would use.

Two new columns have been added in our abbreviated version of the table. The first is an index to identify the particular option, and the last identifies whether GPS or Galileo would use that option.

Receiver Implementations

Most GNSS receivers will acquire the signal and track the carrier and code using only the pilot carrier. For GPS L1C this decision is driven because 75 percent of the signal power is in the pilot carrier. Little added benefit comes from using the data component during acquisition and no benefit for code or carrier tracking, especially with weak signals.

For Galileo, the decision is driven by the data rate of 125 bits per second (bps) and the resulting symbol rate of 250 symbols per second (sps). This allows only 4 milliseconds of coherent integration on the Galileo data component (compared with 10 milliseconds on the GPS data component). Because coherent integration of the pilot carrier is not limited by data rate, it predominantly will be the signal used for acquisition as well as for carrier and code tracking.

Reflecting the reasons just stated, Figure 3 compares the spectral power density in the pilot carrier for each of the three signal options listed in Table 1. In each case the relevant BOC(1,1) spectrum is shown along with one of the three MBOC options. These plots show power spectral density on a linear scale rather than a logarithmic dB scale, which renders small differences more prominent.

The center panel shows the GPS case with either BOC(1,1) or TMBOC-75. (The BOC(1,1) peaks are arbitrarily scaled to reach 1.0 Watt per Hertz (W/Hz). The BOC(1,1) peaks of TMBOC-75 are lower by 12% (-0.6 dB) in order to put additional power into the BOC(6,1) component of TMBOC-75, primarily at ±6 MHz.

All three panels of Figure 3 have the same relative scaling. The reason the peaks of the BOC(1,1) components in panels 1 and 3 are at 0.67 W/Hz is that GPS L1C will transmit 75 percent of its total signal power in the pilot carrier whereas Galileo will transmit 50 percent. The difference is simply 0.5/0.75 = 0.67 (-1.8 dB).

The first panel of Figure 3 also shows the Galileo TMBOC-50 option in which the BOC(1,1) component peaks are lowered by 18 percent (-0.9 dB) in order to provide power for the BOC(6,1) component, primarily at ±6 MHz.

The third panel shows the same Galileo BOC(1,1) power density but with the CBOC-50 option. In this case the BOC(6,1) component exists in the data channel as well as the pilot carrier. That is why it is half the amplitude at ±6 MHz as in panels 1 and 2. That also is why less power is taken from the BOC(1,1) component for the BOC(6,1) component; in this case the reduction is 9 percent (-0.4 dB). This is not considered an advantage by those who want to track the BOC(6,1) component, and it also reduces the data channel power for narrowband receivers by the same 9 percent or 0.4 dB.

As stated before, the fundamental question raised by this article is whether we should rob Peter to pay Paul. As with all such top-level questions, the answers lie in the details and in the perceptions of those affected. Inside GNSS posed a series of questions to industry experts in order to explore their perspectives and preferences.

The Questions and Answers

Q: What segment of the GNSS market do your answers address? Describe your market, including typical products and the size of the market.

Fenton – High precision survey and mapping, agriculture/machine control, unmanned vehicles, scientific products, and SBAS ground infrastructure where centimeter accuracy is very important. NovAtel sells at the OEM level to software developers and system integrators and calculates its present total addressable market (TAM) at $300-$400 million USD, again at the OEM level.

Garin – We are focused on consumer electronics where very low cost and very low power are of critical importance, such as personal navigation devices (PNDs), cellular phones, and in general applications where the power consumption is at a premium. These objectives should be reached with little to no impact on the user experience. The loss of performance due to design tradeoffs is mitigated by assisted GPS (A-GPS).

Hatch /Knight – NavCom supplies high-precision, multi-frequency GNSS receivers that employ advanced multipath and signal processing techniques, augmented by differential corrections from our StarFire network. These receivers are widely used in the agriculture, forestry, construction, survey, and offshore oil exploration markets. Current market size is on the order of 100,000 units per year.

Sheynblat/Rowitch – Our answers address wireless products for the consumer, enterprise, and emergency services markets. There are over 150 million Qualcomm GPS enabled wireless handsets in the market today, and this large market penetration and heavy usage is primarily driven by low cost, low power, and high sensitivity. The vast majority of other GPS enabled consumer devices worldwide are also cost driven.

Stratton – Rockwell Collins is a leading provider of GPS receivers to the U.S. military and its allies, and we are also a major supplier of GNSS avionics to the civil aviation industry. The civil aviation applications demand high integrity and compatibility with augmentation systems, while the military requirements range from low-power, large-volume production to high-dynamic and highly jam-resistant architectures (as well as civil compatible receivers). Military receivers are impacted due to civil compatibility requirements. Our company has produced over a half million GPS receivers and has a majority market share in military and high-end civil aviation (air transport, business, and regional) markets.

Studenny – Our market is commercial aviation where continuity of operation and integrity are the most important performance parameters.

Weill – I and a colleague, Dr. Ben Fisher, of Comm Sciences Corporation, are the inventors of a new multipath mitigation approach which we call Multipath Mitigation Technology (MMT), so our primary product is technology for improved multipath mitigation. MMT is currently incorporated in several GPS receivers manufactured by NovAtel, Inc. Their implementation of MMT is called the Vision Correlator.

Q: Which signal environments are important for your products: open sky, indoor, urban canyon, etc.

Fenton – In general, most of our customers operate in open sky environments. However, a significant number are operating under or near tree canopy and in urban canyons.

Garin – Ninety percent of our applications are or will be indoors and in urban canyons.

Hatch /Knight – Our receivers are mostly used in open sky and under-foliage conditions.

Stratton – Our products use civil signals mainly in open sky conditions, although civil signals may be used to assist the acquisition of military signals in a broad variety of environments.

Studenny – Aircraft environments, with particular attention to safety-of-life. Also, ground-based augmentation system (GBAS) ground stations.

Weill – Any environment in which multipath is regarded as a problem, including precision survey, indoor (911) assisted GPS, and military and commercial aviation.

Q: Which design parameters are most critical for your products: power, cost, sensitivity, accuracy, time to fix, etc.

Fenton – In general, our products service the high end “commercial” markets. Our customers in general have priorities in the following order: a) accuracy, b) robust tracking, c) cost, d) power, e) time to first fix.

Garin – The most important criteria are, from the highest to the lowest: power, cost, sensitivity, time-to-first-fix, and finally, accuracy.

Hatch /Knight – Accuracy is most important.

Sheynblat/Rowitch – We have invested substantial engineering effort to achieve market-leading sensitivities (-160 dBm) while maintaining very low receiver cost. Engineering investment, focus on sensitivity, and close attention to cost models is probably also true for other vendors focused on mass market, AGPS enabled devices that have to work indoors. All of these GPS vendors go to great lengths to improve sensitivity for difficult indoor scenarios. Every dB counts and may make the difference between a successful or a failed fix, which is of particular concern for E-911 and other emergency situations.

Stratton – The tradeoff in relative importance of these parameters varies widely depending on the particular application, though life-cycle cost (including development and certification) arguably is most significant.

Studenny – Actually, all parameters are important. However, we focus on safety-of-life and the drivers are both continuity of operation and integrity (hazardously misleading information or HMI).

Specifically, we believe cross-correlation, false self-correlation, and the ability to resist RFI, as well as improving multipath performance, are signal properties of great interest to us. A well-selected coding scheme minimizes all of these and HMI in particular. Finally, HMI may become a legal issue for non-aviation commercial applications, especially if those applications involve chargeable services, implied safety-of-life, and other such services.

Weill – MMT is most effective in receivers that have high bandwidth and are receiving high-bandwidth signals. However, it can substantially improve multipath performance at lower bandwidths.

Q: Do you really care whether GPS and Galileo implement plain BOC(1,1) or MBOC? Why?

Fenton – Yes, we expect that the MBOC signals combined with the latest code tracking techniques will provide a majority of our customers a significant performance benefit for code and carrier tracking accuracy in applications where multipath interference is a problem.

Garin – I do not believe that MBOC will significantly benefit our short-term market. The MBOC expected multipath performance improvement will be meaningless in the urban context, where the dominant multipath is Non Line of Sight and where the majority of the mass market usage is concentrated. However we believe that a carrier phase higher accuracy mass market will emerge within a 5 year timeframe, with back-office processing capabilities, and wireless connected field GPS sensors. This will be the counterpart of the A-GPS architecture in cell phone business. MBOC would have an important role to play in this perspective. We envision this new market only in benign environments, and not geared towards the surveyors or GIS professionals.

Hatch /Knight – The MBOC signal will significantly improve the minimum code tracking signal to noise ratio where future multipath mitigation techniques are effective. The expected threshold improvements will be approximately equal to the best case improvements indicated by this article. MBOC will be less beneficial to very strong signals where the noise level is already less than the remaining correlated errors, like troposphere and unmitigated multipath.

Designing a receiver to use the MBOC code will be a significant effort. The resulting coder will likely have about double the complexity of the code generator that does not support MBOC. There will be a small recurring cost in silicon area, and power consumption will increase significantly. Overall, MBOC is desirable for our high performance applications. For many applications the costs are greater than the benefits.

Sheynblat/Rowitch – Yes, we do care about the decision of BOC versus MBOC. The proposed change to the GPS L1C and Galileo L1 OS signal to include BOC(6,1) modulation will perhaps improve the performance of a very tiny segment of the GPS market (high cost, high precision) and penalize all other users with lower effective received signal power due to their limited bandwidth. We prefer that GPS and Galileo implement the BOC(1,1) signal in support of OS location services.

Stratton – This decision does not appear to have much influence on our markets when viewed in isolation, but we would like to see GPS make the best use of scarce resources (such as spacecraft power) to provide benefits that are attainable under realistic conditions.

Studenny – Yes, we do care. GPS L5 needs to be complemented by a signal with similar properties at L1, the reason being that a momentary outage during precision approach on either L1 or L5 should not affect CAT-I/II/III precision approach continuity or integrity. We understand that there are constraints in selecting a new L1 signal; however the proposed MBOC waveform better supports this. This is keeping with supporting the FAA NAS plans and transitioning to GNSS for all phases of flight including precision approach.

Weill – Yes. Comm Sciences has established that the performance of current receiver-based multipath mitigation methods is still quite far from what is theoretically possible. It is also known that GNSS signals with a wider RMS bandwidth have a smaller theoretical bound on ranging error due to thermal noise and multipath. Since multipath remains as a major source of pseudorange error in GNSS receivers, I feel that the use of an MBOC signal for GPS and Galileo is an opportunity to provide the best possible multipath performance with evolving mitigation methods that take advantage of the larger RMS bandwidth of an MBOC signal as compared to plain BOC(1,1).

Q: Are the GNSS receivers of interest narrowband (under ±5 MHz) or wideband (over ±9 MHz)?

Fenton – Wideband. High precision GNSS receivers typically process all available bandwidth ~20 MHz (±10 MHz).

Garin – Our GNSS receivers are narrowband today, but we expect the widening of the IF bandwidth (or equivalently their effective bandwidth) to ±9 MHz, in the next 3-5 years, with the same or lower processing and power consumption.

Hatch /Knight – Our receivers are primarily wideband.

Sheynblat/Rowitch – The receivers of interest are narrowband. Low cost GPS consumer devices do not employ wideband receivers today and will most likely not employ wideband receivers in the near future. Any technology advances afforded by Moore’s law will likely be used to further reduce cost, not enable wideband receivers. In addition, further cost reductions are expected to expand the use of positioning technology in applications and markets which today do not take advantage of the technology because it is considered by the manufacturers and marketers to be too costly.

Stratton – All of our markets require wide-band receivers; however, the civil receiver/antenna RF characteristics are adapted to high-bandwidth C/A processing (where the bulk of RF energy is at band center). So the MBOC signal does raise some potential compatibility questions.

Studenny – Wideband.

Weill – I believe the trend will be toward wideband receivers for most applications. If one looks at the history of GPS receiver products, it is clear that there has always been competitive pressure to increase positioning accuracy, even at the consumer level. Not only is better accuracy a marketing advantage, but it has also opened up entirely new applications. The availability of wide bandwidth signals is a key factor in continuing to improve positioning accuracy. Although currently available receivers that can take advantage of wider bandwidth signals cost more and consume more power, the rapid rate of improving digital technology should make low-cost, low-power, wide bandwidth receivers available in the not-so-distant future. The availability of an MBOC signal would maximize the capability of such receivers.

Other Observers

Inside GNSS invited comments from a broad range of companies representative of most GNSS markets. In addition to those who fully responded to our questions, several offered abbreviated remarks:Garmin International, Inc. did not identify a spokesperson, but it submitted the following official statement: “It is Garmin’s policy not to disclose any information about future designs. However, we would like to indicate that we support the BOC(1,1) implementation over the MBOC.”Sanjai Kohli, Chief Technology Officer of SiRF Technology Inc., submitted the following official statement: “The existence of the BOC(6,1) chips in the MBOC signal won’t matter very much to SiRF. Still, to maximize the availability of weak signals, it would be preferable not to suffer any loss of signal power. Therefore, SiRF would prefer that all chips be BOC(1,1). Furthermore, it is doubtful that any advanced method of multipath reduction will be of much benefit for urban and indoor signal reception, since it is likely that the line-of-sight component of the weak signal is blocked.”

European Company – A large and well known European consumer products company could not obtain internal approval to answer the questions, but the following unofficial communication from a technical manager is of interest: “Our understanding about the pros and cons of MBOC as compared with BOC(1,1) is . . . that narrow-band receivers are not able to utilize the higher frequency components of the MBOC signal and they thus represent wasted power from their viewpoint. This is especially true for acquisition, because the acquisition bandwidth many times seems to be narrower than the tracking bandwidth, especially in those parallel acquisition receivers that are used in consumer products specified for weak signal operation. For such receivers the received signal power is critical in the acquisition phase, not so much in the tracking phase.”

L1C, BOC, and MBOC

Pertinent to the subject of this article is the remarkable way in which the L1C signal was designed. The original C/A- and P-code signals were designed by a small group of technologists under the direction of the GPS Joint Program Office (JPO). Although from the beginning GPS was understood to be a dual-use (civil and military) system, the signals were designed primarily from a military perspective.

Design of the L2C civil signal was led by a JPO deputy program manager representing the Department of Transportation (DoT) — but the process took place under extreme time pressure. The RTCA, Inc., with authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), initially defined the L5 signal. The RTCA is a consensus-driven open forum, but its focus is almost exclusively on aviation.

In contrast, development of L1C was funded by the Interagency GPS Executive Board (IGEB), now superseded by the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Executive Committee. Representatives of the Department of Defense (DoD) and DoT co-chair the PNT Executive Committee: so, the central focus is on managing GPS as a dual-use utility. Reflecting this, the L1C project was co-chaired by a DoD representative and by a civil representative. (The civil co-chair was Dr. Ken Hudnut of the U.S. Geological Survey. A sequence of JPO officers represented the DoD: Captains Bryan Titus, Amanda Jones, and Sean Lenahan. Tom Stansell of Stansell Consulting served as project coordinator throughout.)

L1C development consisted of two key activities. The first was a study of the wide range of civil requirements and development of five signal structure options. A technical team conducted this part of the work, drawing on experts in all aspects of the signal, including spreading code, data modulation, forward error correction, and message format.

Several team members had deep experience developing civil user equipment, from consumer chipsets to high-precision survey receivers. Others were experts on aviation requirements. The second key activity is, to our knowledge, unique: a worldwide survey of GNSS experts to determine which of the five options to choose. The design process is complete, and a draft specification (IS-GPS-800) has been published.

The innovative MBOC proposal was developed quickly by a group of very competent U.S. and EU signal experts with both civil and military backgrounds. However, this team apparently had only one person with extensive experience in receiver manufacturing, and the timeline did not allow the opportunity for a broad survey to assess equipment manufacturers’ opinions about the design. Informal conversations with some industry representatives also revealed dissatisfaction with MBOC. Therefore, Inside GNSS decided to consult a number of experts from companies that build GNSS equipment to determine their thoughts about the MBOC concept.

Additional Resources

1. Agreement on the Promotion, Provision and Use of Galileo and GPS Satellite-Based Navigation Systems and Related Applications, June 26, 2004, http://pnt.gov/public/docs/2004-US-EC-agreement.pdf

2. Hein, G. W., and J-A. Avila-Rodriguez, L. Ries, L. Lestarquit, Issler, J. Godet, and T. Pratt, “A candidate for the GALILEO L1 OS Optimized Signal”, Proceedings of ION GNSS 2005 – 13-16 September 2005, Long Beach, California

3. Hein, G. W., and J-A. Avila-Rodriguez, S. Wallner, J. W. Betz, C. J. Hegarty, J. J. Rushanan, A. L. Kraay, A. R. Pratt, S. Lenahan, J. Owen, JL. Issler, T.A. Stansell, “MBOC: The New Optimized Spreading Modulation Recommended for Galileo L1 OS and GPS L1C”, Inside GNSS, Volume 1, Number 4, pp 57–65, May/June 2006

4. Hein, G. W., and J-A. Avila-Rodriguez, S. Wallner, A. R. Pratt, J. Owen, J-L. Issler, J. W. Betz, C. J. Hegarty, S. Lenahan, J. J. Rushanan, A. L. Kraay, T.A. Stansell, “MBOC: The New Optimized Spreading Modulation Recommended for GALILEO L1 OS and GPS L1C”, IEEE/ION PLANS 2006, April 24-27, 2006, San Diego, California

5. IS-GPS-200: NAVSTAR GPS Space Segment / Navigation User Interfaces; IS-GPS-705: NAVSTAR GPS Space Segment / User Segment L5 Interfaces; Draft IS-GPS-800 for new L1C signal; http://gps.losangeles.af.mil/engineering/icwg/

By
May 1, 2006

Galileo Light Show: First Laser Range Measurements to GIOVE-A

Space Geodesy Facility at Herstmonceux, East Sussex,UK

European researchers have obtained laser range measurements of 1.5-centimeter accuracy to GIOVE-A, the first element in the Galileo In-Orbit Validation phase. The observations were made through collaboration between the UK Space Geodesy Facility (SGF), Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL), and the European Space Agency (ESA). The SGF is operated by the UK Natural Environment Research Council, with support from the British National Space Centre and the Ministry of Defence.

European researchers have obtained laser range measurements of 1.5-centimeter accuracy to GIOVE-A, the first element in the Galileo In-Orbit Validation phase. The observations were made through collaboration between the UK Space Geodesy Facility (SGF), Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL), and the European Space Agency (ESA). The SGF is operated by the UK Natural Environment Research Council, with support from the British National Space Centre and the Ministry of Defence.

The SGF satellite laser ranging system at Herstmonceux, East Sussex, made the range measurements on April 8. The facility had been invited to attempt observations by SSTL, the prime contractor that built the GIOVE-A space vehicle launched from Kazakhstan’s Baikonur space center on December 25, 2005.

At the time of acquisition, GIOVE-A was more than 25,000 kilometers distant from the station, the furthest distance ranged by the facility. GIOVE-A orbits the Earth at a height of more than 23,000 kilometers, some 3,000 kilometers above the GPS and GLONASS satellites that SGF regularly observes.

In order to track the satellite from Herstmonceux, predictions of its path based upon its transmitted navigational signals were supplied to SGF by the GIOVE Processing Centre located at ESA ESTEC, The Netherlands. The predictions were sufficiently accurate for the sunlit image of the satellite to be detected at night by the system’s high intensity camera and allowed the observer to direct short laser pulses towards it.

Laser Ranging
The satellite laser ranging (SLR) technique uses small astronomical telescopes to emit short pulses of laser light towards specially equipped spacecraft and to detect those photons that are reflected back. The times of emission and reception are recorded to an accuracy of a few picoseconds such that the range to the satellite can be deduced from the measured time of flight to a precision of better than one centimeter. The satellites tracked by this technique are equipped with an array of quartz cube-corner reflectors that closely return to source the incoming laser pulses.

The technique is weather dependent as skies have to be fairly cloud-free, but measurements are carried out both during daytime and at night. The key to success in extracting signal from noise is narrow-band spectral filtering in the return optical path and spatial filtering through a range gate technique that arms the detector only a few tens of nanoseconds before the expected arrival time of returning photons.  During the satellite pass the time of flight inferred from every detected event is compared to the expected time of flight to the satellite and back.

A plot against time is built up of these observed-computed values, where true returns appear as a correlated track amongst the sky-noise events. Post processing extracts the real events, which are made available to the analysis community a few minutes after the end of the observations.

Unlike the microwave signals used by GNSS, the propagation time of laser light is not affected by the ionosphere; the tropospheric delay, amounting to a zenith range correction of two meters, can be estimated to millimeter accuracy using atmospheric mapping functions and local meteorological data. This lack of dependence of propagation delay on the variable effects of the ionosphere makes laser ranging a very strong technique for high-precision terrestrial reference frame (TRF) determination.

Laser range observations of a series of geodetic satellites, high-density small spheres encrusted with retro-reflectors and orbiting the Earth at heights of from 800 to 19,000 kilometers, are routinely used to monitor tiny changes in the location of the center of mass of the Earth, the origin of the TRF, that are driven by mass redistributions within the Earth system.

The technique is also used in precise orbit determination of Earth-observation altimeter and SAR satellites, complementing on-board tracking systems such as GPS and DORIS. This work and the operation of the worldwide network of SLR stations is coordinated by the International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS, http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/).

The GIOVE-A satellite is equipped with 76 quartz corner-cube retro-reflectors in an array to one side of its base, which is taken from the ESA document “Specification of GALILEO and GSTB-V2 Space Segment Properties Relevant for Satellite Laser Ranging, ESTEC, November 2005.”

During the design phase of the satellite, discussion took place among SSTL, ESTEC, and SGF in order to use SGF’s previous experience of ranging to the navigational satellites to help understand the difficulties and inform the choice of numbers of cubes to deploy, within available space and weight constraints, to enable a realistic link budget. For comparison, the two GPS satellites that are fitted with retro-reflectors have an array of only 32 cubes, and the newest GLONASS satellites have about 130 cubes.

The higher altitude of GIOVE-A reduces the return signal, which varies as the fourth power of the range, by some 55 percent relative to the signal from a GPS satellite; so, the greater number of cubes on GIOVE-A should ensure a return signal that is about 30 percent better than that from the GPS satellites, which from SGF’s Herstmonceux SLR facility are difficult targets.

SLR Results
Observations from Herstmonceux tend to support this analysis, with the Galileo laser return rate estimated at about 4 percent on average over the one-hour session; for the GPS satellites the rate is about 2 percent, and for GLONASS closer to 10 percent.

We can also use the laser range observations to estimate the accuracy of the predictions supplied by the GIOVE Processing Centre located at ESTEC. The differences between the observed and computed ranges imply that the predictions were accurate to about two or three kilometers, the major error being in the along-track direction.

Previous studies carried out by SGF and others have used laser range observations from the global network of ILRS stations to measure the quality of GPS and GLONASS orbits that are computed by the International GNSS Service (IGS, http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/). The laser ranging technique is a powerful, independent method of testing the accuracy of these orbits, which are determined from continuously transmitted navigational signals.

Given knowledge of the accurate location of the retro-reflector arrays on the satellites, SGF uses the laser range measurements to determine at a level of accuracy of better than one centimeter the radial distance to the satellite center of mass. The results suggest that the IGS orbits for GPS and GLONASS have an RMS radial accuracy of better than five centimeters and, interestingly, that there appears to be a radial bias in the IGS orbits of a few centimeters, in the sense that the IGS-determined orbits appear too big.

SGF and other researchers expect to use a similar technique to test the quality of any available precise orbital information derived from the GIOVE Processing Centre. In addition, once laser range data from the global network is available, it will be possible to determine SLR-only satellite orbits, which will further assist on-board clock characterisation in flight.

For figures, graphs, and images, please download the PDF of the article, above.

By