Survey and Mapping

June 19, 2008

Real-time Kinematic with Multiple Reference Stations

Multiple reference station RTK (real-time kinematic) is a complex, yet natural extension of single reference station RTK. Single reference station RTK actively and dynamically measures GNSS measurement errors, most notably satellite orbit, troposphere, and ionosphere errors.

Multiple reference station RTK (real-time kinematic) is a complex, yet natural extension of single reference station RTK. Single reference station RTK actively and dynamically measures GNSS measurement errors, most notably satellite orbit, troposphere, and ionosphere errors.

These measurement errors are characterized by their spatial correlation. To this end, in single reference station RTK, the errors are assumed to be constant everywhere around the reference station. In reality however, because the errors are not constant, the quality of these error estimates degrade as a function of distance and can reach an unacceptable level for ambiguity resolution after tens of kilometers.

One approach to ensure an acceptable level of measurement error over a wide geographic region is to deploy many reference stations, each operating independently. Once this infrastructure is in place, users select the reference station that will provide them with the greatest reduction of measurement errors and apply the corresponding corrections in the traditional single reference station RTK approach.

Unfortunately, the decision of which reference station to use can be problematic especially when the user is located between reference stations with nearly equally spacing. The estimated measurement errors at each of the reference stations may be different but the user is forced to discretely choose one or the other.

The solution to this problem is multiple reference station RTK. Instead of choosing the solution from one reference station or another, the multiple reference station solution allows users to combine the estimated measurement errors at each of the reference stations and smoothly transition from the errors at one reference station to another.

The multiple reference station solution is not only better because of the ease of use when transitioning between reference stations but also because the smooth combined solution is more likely to represent the user-observed measurement errors. This provides an even further reduction of user measurement errors, relative to the single reference station case.
. . .
The main advantage of multiple reference station RTK stems from the improved user performance. However, the improvement in performance can also be analyzed in an opposite manner, namely, as a way to increase the spacing between reference stations while still achieving the same level of performance. The performance improvement depends on many factors, including the variability of the measurement errors in the region and the ability to successfully resolve network ambiguities.

Multiple reference station RTK is more robust against station outages because a network solution can still be calculated even if individual reference station data is missing. However, due to the current trend of sparse network station spacing, the absence of any individual reference station would likely cause pockets within the network with less than desirable performance. Even under these conditions, the network solution is still more likely to provide a solution better than that from a single reference station.

This improvement comes at a cost of increased complexity and infrastructure. The data from all of the network reference stations must be collected in a central location for processing and then redistributed to network users. The cost of maintaining a processing center and data communication links for each reference station may be significant, depending on the number of reference stations and the country and region in which the network is located.

(For the rest of Paul Alves’ answer to this question, including figures and graphs, please download the complete article using the pdf link above.)

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, Prof. Mark Petovello, Department of Geomatics Engineering, University of Calgary, who will find experts to answer them.

By
May 27, 2008

Topcon Draws on GNSS Expertise to Build Leadership

Recent leadership appointments at Topcon Positioning Systems (TPS) reflect the company’s efforts to expand its focus from being a vendor of equipment for surveying, civil engineering, and construction to a broad-spectrum provider of positioning solutions drawing heavily on GNSS-based technologies.

Read More >

By Glen Gibbons
April 7, 2008

The Art of ARTUS–A Second-Generation Galileo/GPS Receiver

Creation of new global navigation satellite systems and modernization of existing ones is introducing many new signals across a wide swath of RF spectrum now and in the near future. These developments are accompanied by a growing need to design new GNSS receivers that can work with new signal structures on an increasing number of frequencies.

Europe’s Galileo program has supported a number of activities intended to promote innovations in receiver design, such as prototype Galileo user equipment, reference receivers, and so on.

Creation of new global navigation satellite systems and modernization of existing ones is introducing many new signals across a wide swath of RF spectrum now and in the near future. These developments are accompanied by a growing need to design new GNSS receivers that can work with new signal structures on an increasing number of frequencies.

Europe’s Galileo program has supported a number of activities intended to promote innovations in receiver design, such as prototype Galileo user equipment, reference receivers, and so on.

One such activity is a project named ARTUS (Advanced Receiver Terminal for User Services), 50 percent of which is financed by funds allocated by the Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJU). A consortium of four companies is leading the ARTUS project (see "Acknowledgments" below)

ARTUS supports the development of receiver technologies to aid the research and development activities for Galileo “professional” receivers. These efforts are designed to facilitate the availability of Galileo professional receiver prototypes and antennas at an early stage.

ARTUS provides Galileo/GPS navigation capability. All three Galileo frequencies (L1, E6 and E5a/E5b) are supported as well as the GPS L1, L2 and L5 (L5=E5a) frequencies.

The receiver supports any BPSK (GPS-C/A, Galileo E5a and E5b (sideband tracking), AltBOC (E5ab), Galileo L1-B/C (BOC(1,1)) as well as BOCc(15,2.5) (E1-A / E6-A); GIOVE-A transmits BPSK (E5a/E5b/E6) and BOC(1,1) (E1).

Although the receiver can track the modulations foreseen for the PRS, it cannot generate the corresponding codes. One can, however, do performance measurements using periodic substitute codes.

Although not initially planned, the consortium has decided to also implement the GPS L2 band for commercial reasons. The unit performs the measurements and processes the raw data to provide an RTK solution.

The Artus design will also form the basis for a breadboard development of the next generation RIMS receivers. This development will be conducted in the frame of an ESA contract lead by IFEN with NemeriX and Euro Telematik as subcontractors.

This article describes the design and operation of the second-generation ARTUS receiver with a particular focus on innovations in four key areas: antenna, RF front-end, digital baseband processing, and navigation software.

Although originally intended to focus primary on tracking Galileo and GPS signals, the flexible design of ARTUS also allows it to receive and track signals from the Russian GLONASS system and China’s Beidou.

After discussing the receiver design and operation, we will briefly describe some of the results of testing using combinations of laboratory GNSS signal simulators, signals-in-space, and simulated signals generated in the German Galileo Test Bed (GATE). . .

Conclusion
The ARTUS GNSS receiver described in this article offers a rich flexibility for various configurations of signals on different RF bands. The high performance antenna in conjunction with a flexible RF front-end design offers excellent performance on all currently available GNSS signal bands, including the upcoming Galileo system.

With the availability of up to 120 channels, the receiver is well equipped for future navigation systems; however, it can also be configured in a version with only 20 or 40 channels for tracking the currently available GPS (L1 and L2) alone.

The modular concept, applied even for the firmware of the baseband processor FPGAs, allows easy adaptation of the algorithms developed for the ARTUS receiver or fast implementation of new algorithms. And if the IP protocol is used, any user interface can easily connect — even remotely — to the receiver — whether for navigation or monitoring purposes.

The ARTUS project is now in its qualification phase. Further developments aim for the commercialization of the receiver.

(For the complete article, including figures, charts, and images, please download the PDF version at the link above.)


Acknowledgments

ARTUS was developed in the framework of a GJU 50 percent–funded project, contract GJU/05/2414/CTR/ARTUS. These activities have been taken over by the European GNSS Supervisory Authority (GSA). This support is gratefully acknowledged. IFEN served as the principal contractor for ARTUS.

The consortium members involved in the ARTUS receiver development are ifEN (overall system design and baseband processing), NemeriX (analog RF-front-end), Roke Manor Research (antenna and RF splitter), Leica Geosystems and inPosition (RTK software). In essence the ARTUS design is based on previous receiver developments carried out by IFEN in the frame of the German Galileo Test Bed (GATE).

GATE is being developed on behalf of the DLR (German Aerospace Center, Bonn-Oberkassel) under contract number FKZ 50 NA 0604 with funding by the BMWi (German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology). DLR kindly gave its permission to publish the preliminary test results.

By
[uam_ad id="183541"]

Network Adjustment SW

NovAtel’s Waypoint Products Group offers the GrafNav/GrafNet Version 8.10 software, a high-precision GNSS post-processing package that supports raw data from most available GNSS receivers. Using data from both a roving station and as many as eight base stations, centimeter-level positions can be computed, according to the company. For applications in which base station setup is difficult or not desired, precise point positioning (PPP) is offered, which uses downloadable GPS clock and orbital corrections to compute solutions accurate to between 5 and 40 centimeters.

Read More >

By Inside GNSS
April 3, 2008

2008 ESRI Survey & Engineering GIS Summit

GPS Wing Commander David W. Madden will keynote ESRI’s Survey & Engineering GIS Summit in San Diego during the plenary session on Saturday, August 2. Col. Madden is responsible for the multinational, multiservice development of all GPS space, satellite, and ground segments.

Read More >

By Inside GNSS
March 10, 2008

Europe Readies Galileo Procurement

Having transformed the Galileo program into a fully public procurement, European agencies have announced a schedule that would lead to contracts for the €3.4-billion project by the end of 2008. And non-European companies may be involved in providing certain components and services to the effort.

The plans were revealed in presentations by high-ranking figures from the European Commission (EC) and European Space Agency (ESA) speaking at the Munich Satellite Navigation Summit in Germany, February 19–21.

In comments at the conference, Jacques Barrot, EC Vice President and commissioner for transport and energy, and Giuseppe Viriglio, ESA director of telecommunications and navigation, indicated that they hope to see invitations to tender (ITTs, essentially, requests for proposals) to be issued July 1.

Deadline for tenders would follow within a few months, followed by a review of bids and contract awards in December. Identification of prospective bidders and requests for information will precede the ITTs, activities that will probably begin within the next few weeks.

The EC and ESA still need to complete a “delegation agreement” that would outline the responsibilities and principles under which ESA would act as the prime contractor — the procurement agent and design authority that will oversee the engineering work and contracts under which the ground and space infrastructure would be built. It will receive an estimated €195 million for that role.

ESA will set up a new Galileo directorate, Viriglio said, to handle its responsibilities. The European Commission will act as the Galileo program manager, taking on additional staff to handle the work, according to Paul Verhoef, head of the Galileo Unit in the EC’s Directorate-General for Transportation and Energy. The ESA directorate would have about 30–40 staff members and the EC Galileo unit would gain about 35 persons to handle program management, according well-informed sources.

The procurement contract schedule will have to be met in order to have a chance to meet the goal of Galileo having a fully operational capability (FOC) by 2013.

The acquisition is divided into six “work packages”: system engineering support, completion of ground mission infrastructure, completion of ground control facilities, launchers, satellites (26 in batches of 10–12, 6–8, and 6–8), and operations.

No company or consortium of companies may bid for more than two of the six packages. The prime contractors must subcontract at least 40 percent of the work to companies not affiliated with them.

In the program’s clearest statement of interest in gaining from the GNSS-related experience of other countries, Viriglio underlined the possibility for European industries “to rely on non-European sources for certain components and services in case of demonstrated substantial advantages in terms of quality and costs, taking account of the strategic nature of the European GNSS programs and of the EU security and export control requirements.”

ESA Takes the IOV Reins. Meanwhile, ESA has already taken over as prime contractor for the in-orbit validation (IOV) phase of the program after a billion-euro contract with European Satellite Navigation Industries (ESNI) was terminated in December. IOV includes construction and launch of four full-fledged Galileo satellites in 2009–2010 to form a mini-constellation for additional validation testing before the other 26 spacecraft are launched in 2011–13.

All the other IOV contracts will be retained as will the associated technical baseline, said Viriglio. European officials still need to figure out how they will cover an estimated $350-million overrun in IOV caused by delays, unexpected security costs, a change in the Open Service signal design as a result of the 2004 EU-US agreement on interoperability of GPS and Galileo, and dependence on a single customer (ESNI).

European officials repeatedly emphasized that the €3.4 billion was the most that they would spend on implementing Galileo, and that competition for contracts would take place under European Union (EU) rules rather than ESA procurement policy, which allocates 90 percent of funds to businesses based on the contributions from the member states in which they are located.

The calculation of $3.4 billion is based on cost estimates by ESA, drawn primarily from industry proposals and earlier studies and concession negotiations under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) concept, which was discarded last year. The largest portion of the costs would be for the space segment — building and launching satellites — estimated at €1.6 billion; the ground segment, €400 million; operations, €275 million; and systems engineering support, €150 million.

Members of aerospace companies that will probably compete for the contracts were less optimistic in their estimates of whether $3.4 billion will be enough.

Galileo has one satellite in orbit, the so-called GIOVE-A, which launched in December 2005 and will reach the end of its design life in March, although its builder, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd., predicts that it will continue operating at least through the end of 2008. A second, larger spacecraft, GIOVE-B, is now scheduled for launch on April 26 from the Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan.

More than €2.6 billion has been spent on Europe’s satellite navigation program to date, mostly by the EC and ESA. This includes €133 million for the definition phase, €1.5 billion for the IOV phase, €520 million for the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), and €480 million for Galleo-related projects financed through the EU’s Framework R&D programs. EGNOS is a satellite-based augmentation system that will be integrated into the Galileo infrastructure and operations over the next few years.

Who Calls the Shots? A new regulation regarding financing, governing structure, and procurement procedures for Galileo will be taken up by the European Council in April. But now that the funding and acquisition process have been largely resolved, the outstanding issue facing the Galileo program is governance, that is, the matter of political direction and control of the system’s implementation.

Now that the funding and acquisition process have been addressed, the outstanding issue facing the Galileo program is governance, that is, the matter of political direction and control of the system’s implementation. That, in turn, will have a substantial effect on whether the program is able to stay on schedule and within budget.

Until the abandonment of the PPP, that issue had seemed fairly clear. The European GNSS Supervisory Authority (GSA), a Community agency with a executive board made up of directors from the EU member states, would sign and monitor a contract with a private consortium to build and operate Galileo under a 20-year concession.

Now, however, the GSA has lost that primary supervisory role and has come under pressure from both the EC and the European Parliament, which approved the €3.4-billion Galileo program budget last November.

The 2004 EC Council regulation that created the GSA also assigned it other responsibilities: market development of the Galileo operational phase, GNSS-related research, technical certification of the components and services of the Galileo system, management of Galileo security aspects, coordinating radio frequency activity, and managing the agreement with an EGNOS service provider.

The EC would clearly like to bring the GSA back under its direct control, either as a separate but subsidiary entity or by absorbing key technical staff members into the Galileo Unit headed by Verhoef. “What we need is the expertise of the GSA, either directly or through a transfer to an EC office,” Verhoef said at the Munich conference.

Two related approaches are now under consideration: retaining a GSA, separately or within the EC, and restructuring it as a GNSS Security Agency that would handle GNSS security issues and, perhaps, technical certification of the Galileo system being built under the supervision of ESA. ESA would take over most or all of the GSA’s technical responsibilities and the EC Galileo Unit, as program manager, would acquire most of the rest.

Parliament Joins the Fray. In late January, Parliament weighed in with a proposal before the Industry, Research, and Energy (ITRE) Committee that would abolish the GSA, turn responsibility for ensuring the Galileo system’s security requirements over to a new Committee on European GNSS Programs, and establish an Interinstitutional Monitoring Group (IMG) consisting of representatives of the parliament, the European Council’s Presidency, and the EC.

The proposed actions amending the EC’s draft regulation for deployment and commercial operation of Galileo were tentatively approved at a January 30 committee meeting. A final vote on the regulation as a whole by the committee and, later, by the full parliament had not taken place as Inside GNSS went to press.

Parliament clearly feels emboldened by the fully public procurement of Galileo for which the legislative body must approve a budget. In a plenary session at the Munich Summit, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, a member of the European Parliament, noted that “Galileo is a Community project, fully funded from the public budget — taxpayer money.

“We need very strong political control of the project,” she said, noting that in the 11 years since the EC submitted its first communication on satellite navigation, “We have produced a ton of paper, a lot of studies, a lot of discussion. What we need now is to build an operating system.”

Although a “substitute” rather than a full member of the ITRE Committee, Barsi-Pataky is the Galileo rapporteur, the person appointed by parliament to investigate an issue or a situation and report back to it.

By Inside GNSS
[uam_ad id="183541"]
March 9, 2008

GPS-IMU

SRI International (SRI) has recently addressed the requirements of pointing systems for a variety of maneuvering platforms. These platforms include airborne systems (unmanned aerial vehicles, aircraft), land vehicles (tanks, HUMVEES), and marine vessels.

SRI International (SRI) has recently addressed the requirements of pointing systems for a variety of maneuvering platforms. These platforms include airborne systems (unmanned aerial vehicles, aircraft), land vehicles (tanks, HUMVEES), and marine vessels.

Our primary goal was to obtain 0.1-degree pointing accuracy. To achieve this, we considered several design options. A stand-alone navigation grade inertial measurement unit (IMU) seemed too expensive and heavy but has a clear advantage by being more immune to GPS outages. A magnetic compass–based solution appeared too problematic due to calibration and accuracy issues.

After other design trades were reviewed, we limited the path forward to tactical grade IMUs combined with GPS. Several different IMUs were then evaluated for integration into a flexible software package previously developed at SRI for position and attitude tracking of large parachute pallet loads.

A secondary goal was to establish a truth system to verify pointing accuracy of the developed system. The criteria that we set for the truth system were approximately 0.06 degree for kinematic applications and 0.02 degree for static applications. Moreover, we wanted all biases between the units under test and the truth system to be less than 0.01 degree.

Providing truth at this level of accuracy presents difficulties, however. Optical systems can easily attain this level of accuracy for static tests but are difficult for dynamic tests.

A stand-alone GPS attitude system works well for kinematic tests, but the static accuracy requirement would need too long of a baseline to be portable. Ultimately, a hybrid system was developed using both optical and GPS methods.

The first part of this article presents the component analysis and differences for the MEMS IMU versus the tactical grade unit. Then we discuss the design and architecture for the system and the associated GPS/INS navigation processing software. Next we discuss implementation differences for the various components.

Following those sections, we consider the truth systems developed at SRI. Finally, we discuss the tests performed, truth data analysis methodology, and results.

This SRI initiative has led to the implementation of GPS/IMU systems on a variety of platforms. . .

Conclusions
With suitable dynamics, both varieties (fiber-optic and MEMS) of IMU/GPS combinations were capable of providing an azimuth to within at least 0.06° 1 σ. Furthermore, the Allan variance analysis accurately predicted the azimuth drift performance of the IMU systems.

Additional testing on the FOG units showed azimuth to be determined faster and more accurately with RTK data than with L1 data. The telescopic sight proved to be a convenient way of testing for static cases. The long-boom GPS attitude system, coupled with averaging, appears to give very good testing accuracy during dynamics.

Acknowledgment: We wish to thank Patrick Weldon of Honeywell for lending us on short notice the MEMS unit used in our tests.

(For the complete article, including figures, graphs, and additional resources, download the PDF version at the link above.)

By
March 6, 2008

Astrium-Allsat JV Launches GNSS Reference Network Services across Europe


Astrium Services and Allsat GmbH network+services have created a joint venture, AXIO-NET GmbH, to offer precise navigation and positioning services across Europe.

The companies, which formed a JV in September 2007 to operate the German ascos service, have created a trans-European brand — AXIO-NET  — to extend the service, based on a network of reference stations that generate high-accuracy differential corrections of GPS and GLONASS satellite signals.

Read More >

By Glen Gibbons
February 8, 2008

Trimble Breaks Billion-Dollar Mark

As Trimble approaches its 30th anniversary, the company announced that it has passed the billion-dollar mark in annual revenues during 2007.

In a statement of fourth quarter and Fiscal 2007 results released January 29, Trimble reported rvenues of $312.8 million and $1.222 billion, respectively. Net income for fiscal 2007 was up approximately 13 percent, to $117.4 million, compared to net income of $103.7 million in 2006.

Read More >

By Glen Gibbons
January 5, 2008

ACSM-American Congress on Surveying and Mapping Conference

Conference, meeting, and exhibition held jointly with the Land Surveyor’s Association of Washington (LSAW). It will take place at the Spokane Convention Center. A number of GPS-related technical sessions include "The Reality of Real-Time GPS Networks," and "GIS/GPS Inventory Mapping."

Register online at https://www.conferencemanagersforms.com/ACSM/ACSM08Reg.cfm

For more information, contact Colleen Campbell at the number and email below.

Read More >

By Inside GNSS
January 4, 2008

GLONASS – The Way Ahead

Designers and manufacturers of GNSS products for consumer mass markets may find their next big boost coming from a surprising source — Russia’s GLONASS system.

That was an unmistakable message — and aspiration — expressed by a series of high-ranking Russian governmental officials and representatives of home-grown commercial enterprises speaking at a major GNSS conference in Moscow on April 9 and 10 2007 — the 25th anniversary of the GLONASS program.

Designers and manufacturers of GNSS products for consumer mass markets may find their next big boost coming from a surprising source — Russia’s GLONASS system.

That was an unmistakable message — and aspiration — expressed by a series of high-ranking Russian governmental officials and representatives of home-grown commercial enterprises speaking at a major GNSS conference in Moscow on April 9 and 10 2007 — the 25th anniversary of the GLONASS program.

With 15 operational GLONASS satellites expected to be broadcasting by the end of April and 18 by the end of the year, Russia is looking to bolster its domestic market for GNSS commercial applications and project its presence into international markets over the next few years. Russian officials are fostering a GLONASS industry association and at least 120 Russian companies were reported to be active in the GNSS sector.

More than 600 delegates registered for the International Satellite Navigation Forum, which featured 87 speakers and three tracks of technical sessions. The event was organized by Profi-T-Centre, a Moscow-based conferencing company, and endorsed by the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos), the Russian Ministry of Communications and Information, and the Moscow City Government on whose premises the forum took place.

An announcement of a decision to add a CDMA signal to GLONASS that would more closely align the Russian system with GPS and Galileo was not forthcoming at the conference, as many had hoped. Nonetheless, a remarkable number of private companies and public institutes joined the proceedings and discussed their efforts to build and use combined GLONASS and GPS receivers.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has put the restoration of and modernization of GLONASS high on his political agenda and is following its progress closely, a fact underlined by the stature of the officials taking part in the forum: Anatoly Perminov, head of Roscosmos; Yuri Nosenko, Roscosmos deputy chief, head of the GLONASS coordination board, and chairman of the forum’s plenary session; and Lt. Gen. Alexander Kvasnikov, deputy commander of the Russian Space Forces.

They were joined at the opening session by Yuri Urlichich, director general of the Russian Institute of Space Device Engineering (RISDE), which designs the GLONASS space and ground equipment; Nikolai Testoyedov, director general of NPO PM “Reshetnev,” which builds the GLONASS satellites; M. G. Lebedev, a senior advisor to the Russian minister of communications and information; and Sergei Burov, vice-governor of the Yaroslavskaya region near Moscow that has served as a kind of GNSS showcase.

Roscosmos’ Perminov noted, “Development of positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities is one of the top priorities of the Russian Federation, particularly through use of GLONASS as a dual-use system. We have a primary objective of [achieving] compatibility and interoperability with, first, GPS, and, second, Galileo.”

Russia has increased its federal budget allocation for GLONASS to 9.88 billion rubles ($379.7 million) in 2007, more than double the 4.72 billion ruble ($181.4 million) federal expenditure in 2006. Launches of six modernized GLONASS-M spacecraft are scheduled this year — a triple launch in September and another in December.

Despite its international title, the event drew a largely Russian audience, with only a few dozen attendees from outside the country. Nosenko underlined this aspect of the forum, saying, “The primary purpose is to inform a broad Russian audience of satellite navigation and its applications.”

Unlike GNSS conferences in most other venues, the focus was pointedly on Russia’s own GLONASS system. Indeed, although the English translation of the event’s title was “satellite navigation,” the Russian name was “International GLONASS Forum.” (In fact, GLONASS itself is the Russian acronym for Global’naya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema — or global satellite navigation system.)

Official Imprimatur
Formally enshrined in an April 19, 2006, government directive, Russia’s initiative to develop mass market equipment and applications faces many of the same obstacles to commercialization that GPS has had to overcome during the past 15–20 years and some new challenges as well.

The participation of several high-ranking U.S. officials involved in GPS affairs reflected the growing cooperation in GNSS programs between the two countries: Ken Hodgkins, deputy director of the State Department’s Office of Space & Advanced Technology; Mike Shaw, director of the National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing; and U.S. Air Force Col. Mark Crews, chief engineer at the GPS Wing in the Space & Missile Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base.

“Multiple [GNSS] systems create a winning situation for consumers,” Urlichich said, announcing an initiative to create a GLONASS Forum or what he called “an association of lovers of GLONASS.” By working to make the various systems more compatible and interoperable, Urlichich said, Russia will help lay the foundation for global mass markets. “All together, it will make it possible for mass consumers to have GNSS.”

Russia’s struggle to transform a command economy shaped by more than 70 years of top-down, Communist Party–led governmental planning and direction remains a work in progress. Many of the institutions, terminology, and practices of market-based economies remain unfamiliar to both public officials and nascent businesspeople.
Lebedev, the Communications and Information Ministry advisor, undertook a sort of tutorial on entrepreneurialism and private business in his presentation. “It is necessary,” he told his plenary audience, “to understand the value chain in order to successfully develop markets.”

Lebedev showed several slides from presentations by the Galileo Joint Undertaking and the U.S. Office of Space Commerce to illustrate the GNSS value-added chain and GNSS market projections. Later, he noted that in order to “extract profits in this sector, we need to develop business models.”

Although the level of such discussions might seem basic — even primitive — to Western ears, it does reflect a clear desire to learn how to do business in a completely new way.

Home-Grown GNSS
Perhaps the most notable aspect of the conference emerged in the numerous presentations by domestic Russian companies designing multi-system GNSS receivers and offering GNSS-based services.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when almost all major manufacturing and business activities were based on government ownership and management, commercial activities have appeared in a variety of forms: privatization of former public enterprises, public/private joint ventures, commercial spin-offs from public institutes, and, increasingly, true private startup companies.

ZAO Navis, for instance, exhibited a variety of GLONASS/GPS products at the forum — mostly larger form factors such ad racks and boards for aviation, commercial vehicle tracking, and synchronizing communications systems.

Adding GLONASS to GPS increases costs by 10–20 percent, according to O. A. Borsuk, chief designer for the 11-year-old Moscow-based design bureau. The company has announced a new GPS/GLONASS module, CH-4706, and plans to bring out a 0.13 micron GPS/Galileo L1 chip in 2008.

Another 13-year-old company, Granit, began developing GPS navigation units in 2001 without government support, E. V. Vikharev, Granit’s deputy director of research, told his forum audience. Characterizing the company’s self-financed progress in post-Soviet Russia as “a difficult experience,” he described four generations of product development, including the current Granit Navigator 04 based on SiRF Technology’s SiRFstarIII.

Vikharev said the company has sold 25,000 units in 15 different models to more than 250 different Russian companies and organizations, including 200 Navigator 02 units installed on city buses in one of Yaroslavl’s projects. Granit has developed a prototype GPS/GLONASS/Galileo and should complete the unit by next year.

RISDE and the St. Petersburg–based Russian Institute for Radionavigation and Time (RIRT), two institutes that have relied on government support for much of their existence, have launched commercial development activities. RISDE’s Urlichich described an agreement signed last month for a “public-private partnership that will develop and produce user equipment.”

S. V. Filantchenkov, deputy chief of RIRT’s research division, traced several generations of GPS/GLONASS receivers developed by the institute since 2004. Known primarily for developing the atomic clocks for GLONASS satellites and ground facilities, RIRT is currently designing a receiver that can process GLONASS M and GPS IIR signals. By next year, Filantchenkov said, the institute’s engineers expect to complete an OEM GPS/GLONASS/Galileo RFIC module that would sell in the $12 range for large volumes.

Telematics services, particularly vehicle tracking/fleet management applications, appear to be the most common GNSS businesses to have developed in Russia so far. The Granit and Navis presentation touched frequently on their telematics products and customers. Other telematics-oriented Russian companies taking part in the forum included M2M, ITS Soft, Geizer, and SecTrack.

A typical business development path for the new enterprises is to secure contracts from public agencies at the federal, state, or local levels to design and install systems. These contracts then establish a foundation for further government contracts and product line extensions.

Lebedev cited “expert opinion” in estimating the current Russian market for GNSS products at up to five million units, primarily in government-regulated commercial and professional markets, including safety and security.

Looking ahead to a true consumer market in Russia, he pointed to two platforms that have incorporated GNSS technology in many other countries: private cars and portable electronic devices. Russia’s automobile market over the next five years is expected to produce sales of two to three million, while 380,000 portable PCs and mobile phones were sold in the country last year.

Although the central government is accumulating large financial reserves from taxes on extraction and exports of natural resources, however, Russia still lacks channels, workplans, and, the experience needed to recycle part of these through the nation’s emerging small and medium enterprises. One promising indication, however, could be found among several representatives of private Russian banks who attended the event to meet with the entrepreneurs and evaluate the prospects for investing in the GNSS businesses.

CDMA: Decision Still to Come
All this GNSS development activity is particularly remarkable considering that GLONASS is a frequency division multiple access (FDMA) system that differs markedly from GPS and Galileo. FDMA is, in fact, the inverse of GPS’s code division multiple access (CDMA) design in which each satellite broadcasts a distinctly coded signal on a common frequency.
In contrast, GLONASS transmits a single code on different frequencies allocated to antipodal sets of GLONASS satellites using two swaths of spectrum — currently from 1598.0625 to 1609.3125 MHz (above GPS L1 centered at 1575.42 MHz) and from 1242.9375 – 1251.6875 MHz for L2 (compared with 1227.6 MHz for GPS L2).

The $64 million question — or, closer to the mark, the $68-billion question (to pick up on Shaw’s projection for the global GNSS market in 2010) — is how compatible the Russians will decide that GLONASS will be. Russia has committed to reaching a decision on the question of adding a CDMA signal by the end of 2007.

Different perspectives and philosophies are competing among the country’s various institutional groups. A new generation of engineers appears inclined to forge greater interoperability with other GNSSes by adding a CDMA signal on a common frequency.

The main arguments raised against CDMA seem to be: single point of failure if all GNSS signals at L1/E1, national security issues, the matter of paying for new civil signal design, and an element of Russian uniqueness.

Numerous GNSS manufacturers — among them JNS, NovAtel, Trimble, Leica, Magellan, and Topcon — already offer combined GPS/GLONASS receivers, typically for professional and commercial activities such as surveying, geodesy, and construction. But such equipment is substantially more complicated in design and expensive — a long way from becoming consumer-friendly.

By having a L1 civil signal apart from the band in which consumers will find most benefit from GPS and Galileo (and, for that matter, China’s Compass GNSS), GLONASS requires manufacturers to widen the reach of their receivers’ antennas and “front-end” components.

As the GPS Wing’s Crews pointed out in his presentation, the key technical issue may be that CDMA-based systems can more easily filter out a common delay in the GNSS time signals on a common frequency. With FDMA systems, he continued, “We can calibrate our filtering for multiple frequencies [and time delays], but it increases costs. That means it’s an issue for making affordable, mass market equipment.”

Nonetheless, the American delegates went out of their way to emphasize that GLONASS signal design questions are completely up to the Russians to sort out.

By
IGM_e-news_subscribe