The final issue of our seventh year heads off to the printer. And tomorrow I will point my car north and west, returning as generations of Americans have done over the centuries to the family farm, the “home place,” for Thanksgiving.

Because this is the season for gathering in and counting up. For gratitude at what we have received in the year past, and for those untoward things that we have avoided.

This is, as they say in Hollywood, a wrap.

The final issue of our seventh year heads off to the printer. And tomorrow I will point my car north and west, returning as generations of Americans have done over the centuries to the family farm, the “home place,” for Thanksgiving.

Because this is the season for gathering in and counting up. For gratitude at what we have received in the year past, and for those untoward things that we have avoided.

In the Northern Hemisphere’s autumnal days, at least. Down Under, it’s spring; a new crop has been sown. And hope rises again.

So, a shout-out to the nuggets of emerging life everywhere, each special, and all linked in the miracle of creation.

But north or south, we enter a season that is for many cultures and traditions one of thanksgiving and gift-giving.

Of course, here in the United States we are thankful — oh, so very thankful — that the national election campaign is behind us.

It would be a great gift to receive governance worth the billions of dollars that candidates spent on reaching office, but perhaps too much to ask for.

So, instead, let’s hope to awake in the New Year with the self-inflicted wound of sequestration healed and the nation back to the business of solving the real problems that confront it.

Now let me be a little more GNSS-specific in these seasonal reflections.

First, we should reaffirm our gratitude for the gift of the U.S. Global Positioning System and what it has wrought.

Born in the deep freeze of the Cold War, its original purpose was to guide nuclear devastation to our former enemies’ doors. And though the shadow of those dark urges remains in a morally ambiguous policy of using drones to hunt new enemies, the benefits of GPS’s capabilities — not on the battlefield alone but in its ever-expanding, life-enhancing applications — have eclipsed the narrow purpose of its origin.

More than ever, the program is a role model for open standards, free access, and continuing improvement. Perhaps one day soon, Congress will gift the program with stable funding, protected spectrum, and less second-guessing.

Let us also rejoice at Russia’s GLONASS. A nation that has shared the race for space — sometimes leading, sometimes lagging — has also turned its GNSS program into a dual-use mission in which civil applications excel. What a gift it would be, if politics could be sorted out from peccadilloes, and the program returned to its path toward modernization.

We spare a grateful thought for Galileo, which has given Europe another opportunity to sort out when it is 27 separate nations, and when it is united in a common purpose. The long-promised/long-delayed gift of Galileo’s arrival could actually be celebrated soon.

Or not so soon. To be continued.

Thanks, too, to China’s Compass/ BeiDou, which has leaped onto the global stage in the past five years and become a notable part of that nation’s rise to prominence. BeiDou’s rapid development reflects the energy and talent of the nation.

But our hopes for China remain the same as in years past: a complete, stable, and open set of specifications that will allow other nations’ product designers and manufacturers to help bring the full value of Compass to the world.

We share with India its hopes for GAGAN and IRNSS, and look forward to its renewed presence at cooperative forums, such as the International Committee on GNSS. A place waits at the table.

Let us praise Japan, for its determined realization of QZSS — a testbed within an augmentation system within a regional GNSS, marked with excellent design and execution.

Finally, we celebrate those new initiatives, yet unseen or unborn, stirring throughout the world of GNSS. May they make future harvests ever more bountiful.

In this season, then, we give thanks for the divine and the mundane, for the transient and the eternal. Let us share the commonwealth of our humanity anew.

The post Our Harvest Being Gotten In appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

Return to main article: "Non-Gaussian Noises"

The post Figures 4 & 5: Non-Gaussian Noises appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

Return to main article: "Non-Gaussian Noises"

The post Figures 1, 2 & 3: Non-Gaussian Noises appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

Return to main article: "Non-Gaussian Noises"

The post Equations 1 – 18: Non-Gaussian Noises appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

Return to main article: "Navipedia — The GNSS Wiki"

The post Figures 3 & 4: Navipedia appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

Return to main article: "Navipedia — The GNSS Wiki"

The post Figures 1 & 2: Navipedia appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

Return to main article: "LTE, Positioning, and the Implications for GNSS Over-the-Air Testing"

Return to main article: "LTE, Positioning, and the Implications for GNSS Over-the-Air Testing"

The post Figures 2 & 3: LTE, Positioning, and the Implications for GNSS Over-the-Air Testing appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

The shortfall is just one of the challenges facing the program over the next four months as the current six-month budget extension winds down, the government’s ability to borrow runs out, and, barring a fast political deal, the onerous budget cuts set up under sequestration kick in.

The GPS program has taken a fiscal hit that will delay critical plans to begin multi-satellite launches and could ultimately hamper the Air Force’s ability to keep the constellation at its current level of service.

The shortfall is just one of the challenges facing the program over the next four months as the current six-month budget extension winds down, the government’s ability to borrow runs out, and, barring a fast political deal, the onerous budget cuts set up under sequestration kick in.

The immediate concern is a decision by Congress to deny a request to shift $20 million to support the development of dual launch — the capability to launch two GPS III satellites at a time.

In its Omnibus 2012 Implementation, a collection of requests to reprogram funding in various accounts, the Department of Defense (DoD) asked to move $20 million in order to “design and develop Global Positioning System (GPS) dual launch capability for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Fleet.”

A source familiar with the matter said the money was to have come from the GPS III program. Indeed, the long list of funding cuts DoD was proposing included a $20 million cut from GPS III.

The funding, the request noted, would “help the (GPS) program meet the National Launch Forecast requirements,” an acknowledgement of a key program challenge. As reported earlier this year, the GPS program is fast approaching a critical period when aging satellites and a limited number of available launchers are expected to make maintaining the constellation problematic.

The earliest GPS satellites were launched in clusters as the constellation was being built out. Should similarly aged satellites start to fail in rapid succession, it could necessitate the rapid replacement of multiple spacecraft.

However, only a limited number of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs), the rocket used to loft GPS satellites, are available, and the demand for them is expected to escalate, driven in part by the needs of other federal satellite programs. Experts suggested a shortage of launchers could occur in the 2015–2016 timeframe. Dual launch was seen as one way to ease the launch crunch — and save some $50 million per satellite in launch costs.

“Depending on when you start dual launch, and how many satellites you do with dual launch over the GPS III constellation deployment cycle, that could result in anywhere from $700 million to $1.5 billion in savings,” said Lockheed Martin spokesman Michael Friedman.

Friedman said that Lockheed Martin had already completed a study that showed it was possible to launch two GPS III satellites onboard an Atlas 5. In the next round of studies Lockheed would design a dual-channel communications unit, which would allow the ground system to distinguish between the two satellites during launch and on-orbit insertion.

Meanwhile, the United Launch Alliance was to continue design work on the Dual Satellite System Payload Adapter, which would keep the two satellites safe as they are launched and placed in orbit. ULA did not respond to a request for a comment.

Congressional Intervention
Dual launch is now considered part of the program’s baseline, according to the omnibus implementation request, and the Defense Department has been working on it for some time. And, as far as Congress was concerned, that was the problem.

Inside GNSS was told that Congress gave no official reason for denying the reprogramming request. A Democratic staffer, however, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the request was denied because it was not appropriate to submit it under reprogramming.

“The [Appropriations] Committee has had concerns about budgeting practices in the Department of Defense for several years,” the staffer said in an email, “including the practice of seeking reprogrammings for items that should appear in the annual budget request to Congress. The reprogramming process is directed by law to apply only for higher priority, unforeseen military requirements.“

“The Department’s proposal to develop a GPS dual-launch capability has been in works for some time, and is not an unforeseen requirement,” the staffer added. “We have informed the Air Force about the reasons for our objection to funding this program outside the normal budgeting process, and that the Committee will re-examine the program in future budget requests, especially in light of the high cost of space launch.”

The staffer’s point was echoed in the report accompanying the Senate defense appropriations bill. Senate appropriations criticized DoD for lax oversight and expressed concern about “above threshold reprogrammings.”

“The Committee understands fact of life changes will occur after the budget is approved by Congress,” it wrote in S. Report 112-196, “and provides significant flexibility in general and special transfer authority to account for these unanticipated changes. However, the number of reprogrammings, dollar amounts, and significant increase of requests to start new programs outside the normal budget cycle that do not receive the same level of oversight, scrutiny and documentation, is disconcerting.”

The Air Force is seemingly taking the point to heart and does not plan to resubmit the request in the 2013 list of reprogrammings.

“The next opportunity for the Air Force to request funds is via the FY14 President’s Budget,” said a Directorate of Space Programs official.

Dual launch was baselined to begin with the 9th and 10th GPS III space vehicles (SVs), said Friedman. SV9 was slated for launch in the 2019 timeframe. The Air Force and its contractors have been working to improve that schedule and were striving to be able to dual launch the SV5 and SV6 — which were tentatively slated to be launched in 2017.

“The FY12 Omnibus request for $20M was to begin the effort to develop the dual launch capability for GPS III satellites on EELV in 2013,” said the Directorate official. “The denial of the $20M will delay the beginning of the development effort.”

Whatever the delay, dual launch will happen because it has to, said one insider who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“It makes a huge difference being able to launch two (satellites) on one (rocket)” in terms of the cost, the expert said, adding that “because the number of launchers are not going to be the numbers that they want,” if they don’t have dual launch “they can’t sustain the constellation.”

Other changes
In addition to the dual-launch funding, the undated omnibus reprogramming document had a number of other requests to shift monies in GPS-related programs.

Congress approved a $32 million cut to the Army’s purchase of Defense Advanced Global Positioning System Receivers (DAGRs). The savings come from both a smaller order for the devices and a reduction in unit price, according to the notes that accompany each request. The contractor, however, “was able to maintain an economic order quantity of 13,500 devices,” it says.

There were also two requested cuts to research and development work that could be applicable to GPS. The first, a $9 million cut to Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation would have affected unspecified navigation technologies. The other, a $15 million cut to Advanced Technology Development, would have undercut work on low-cost space power generation. Both requests were denied.

Continuing . . . and Continuing . . .
The omnibus reprogramming request should not be confused with the omnibus funding bill Congress is still working on. They passed instead a $1.047 trillion continuing resolution that will keep the government operating until the end of March.

Like many stop-gap funding bills that preceded it, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 or H. J. Res. 117, largely keeps the funding levels for fiscal year 2013 at the levels of FY12. The actual funding levels for the GPS program and for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contribution for civil elements in the GPS modernization efforts are not yet clear.

The National Coordination Office (NCO) for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing will be working with $770,000 this year – just slightly lower than the amount the office had to work with the year before, according to NCO Director Tony Russo.

Operating under a continuing resolution (CR), however, entails a number of challenges. These include generally sharp limits on new starts – that is, the launch of new projects or procurements. New studies on interference issues could be caught up, for example, or procurements could be delayed.

The rules, however, vary from department to department, said Stan Collender, a federal budget expert, which makes it hard to anticipate the impact on any specific program or agency. Collender is a partner and global director of financial communications at Qorvis Communications LLC.

That same department-by-department variation applies to other things as well. Payments, for example, may be delayed.

“The FAA usually will not start the process of sending money until we are out of the CR,” noted one expert, “and as you know the CR can go pretty well into the [fiscal] year.”

Particularly problematic for the GPS program is the fact that Congress chose to continue funding at current levels. The program needed to make up ground lost over the last two years when Congress cut tens of millions of dollars from the FAA’s request for the civil funding.

In FY11 Congress cut $20 million from a request for $58.5 million. In FY12 FAA won approval for just $19.0 million of the $50.3 million it requested — a total shortfall of some $50 million.

In FY11 the cut was seen as a temporary program adjustment because the program had run into some delays, explained a source familiar with the program at the time.

As long as the money was restored in a future fiscal year, it would not have been a problem. That did not happen in FY12, and now it appears increasingly unlikely, given both the CR and the prospect of sequestration.

Will the Ax Fall?
Sequestration, a set of mandatory and indiscriminate budget cuts, was part of a hard fought compromise last summer to keep the government from running out of money. The nation had hit its debt ceiling in May and, unable to borrow more money, Treasury had been using some financial sleight of hand to keep the doors open.

Those options were drying up by the end of July, and the federal government was facing a crisis. Republicans, however, refused to raise the debt limit unless broad budget cuts were found.

With time running out and the financial markets watching, the White House and Congress agreed to make $2.4 trillion in spending cuts over the coming decade. Of that $900 billion would be made immediately and a bipartisan “super-committee” would be set up to work out the rest.

To ensure the committee’s success the deal included a particularly nasty set of budget cuts that would be triggered automatically unless the group worked out a plan and Congress passed it. The idea was to make the consequences of failure so appalling that the committee would absolutely have to come to agreement.

It didn’t work.

The committee could not settle on the source of the needed savings and now, without an agreement before the end of this year, more than $100 billion dollars will be cut from government operations in 2013 — some $55 billion of it from defense.

Across the Board
It isn’t just that cuts are coming if sequestration is imposed; it is how the cuts will be made. All nonexempt programs would take the same percentage cut.

“There is very, very, very little discretion for an agency. . . . [I]t is supposed to be across the board,” said Collender. “You’re not supposed to be able to save one (program) and cut another one by more to compensate.”

Indeed, a glance at a September report by the Office and Management and Budget reveals page after page of 7.6 to 9.4 percent cuts across Congress, the judiciary, and nearly every agency including FAA, defense, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

Collender does not think that enough time remains before the first week in January, when the cuts take effect, to work out a deal. He said that is not a critical issue because there are ways to ease into sequestration if it happens.

“There is a procedure that the Office of Management and Budget can use known as apportionment that can be used by agencies, DoD and others, to avoid cuts at the beginning of January,” he explained. “It doesn’t mean that the cuts won’t eventually happen, if sequestration stays in place, but it means that the immediate impact on DoD or any of the other departments and agencies could be relatively limited, especially if they think that there is going to be some sort of resolution at some point in January.”

One important note: sequestration was an element of the deal made last year when the debt ceiling needed to be raised. Treasury has said that the nation will need to raise the debt ceiling yet again, sometime around the first of the year.

It appears that the White House and Congress agree with Collender — that it is too late to work out a full deal. Press reports indicate that a compromise is emerging where a limited number of cuts would be made immediately with a much more comprehensive deal to be worked out after January 1.

Delay entails a risk though, noted Collender, who pointed out that by the time New Year’s Day rolls around the government is well into its fiscal year.

“On January 1 you are already three months into the fiscal year. So, you are now going to take a full year of cuts in nine months,” he said. “If you wait another month before implementing, you are going to take a full year’s reduction in only eight months. That means that the percentage is going to be much, much greater.”

The Silver Lining
As for the prospects for GPS in general and dual launch specifically, every source who spoke to Inside GNSS noted the support GPS enjoys in the Defense Department and on both sides of the aisle. The program will face the same budget pressures as the rest of the government, however, and GPS managers will not get all of the money they want.

Even so, one insider was confident that the effort to develop dual launch will go forward even if it is delayed, because the Air Force needs the cost savings and the expanded launch opportunities.

“Dual launches for GPS will happen,” asserted the expert. “It is just a matter of when.”

The post Taking Turns at the Fiscal Cliff appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

Finding your way indoors will be even easier with a new smartphone app from two Portuguese research institutes that augments GNSS with positioning using ultra-low magnetic field communication (ULF-MC).

Fraunhofer Portugal and the University of Porto’s Faculty of Engineering received the €20,000 Galileo Master’s prize for their innovation in this year’s European Satellite Navigation Competition (ESNC 2012) awards. The ULF-MC application was the overall winner from among 406 completed entries (the most ever) submitted from more than 40 countries.

Finding your way indoors will be even easier with a new smartphone app from two Portuguese research institutes that augments GNSS with positioning using ultra-low magnetic field communication (ULF-MC).

Fraunhofer Portugal and the University of Porto’s Faculty of Engineering received the €20,000 Galileo Master’s prize for their innovation in this year’s European Satellite Navigation Competition (ESNC 2012) awards. The ULF-MC application was the overall winner from among 406 completed entries (the most ever) submitted from more than 40 countries.

Dirk Elias, president of the Fraunhofer Portugal Executive Board and director of the institute’s Research Center for Assistive Information and Communication Solutions, accepted the prize during an October 25 ceremony at Munich’s Der Residenz.

The ULF-MC technology takes advantage of three-axis hall sensors (electronic compasses) already on board most smartphones to provide the relative positioning. The sensor can be used to receive artificial magnetic fields that are modulated with ultra low frequencies (below 50 hertz), requiring only the addition of software to the mobile device. Buildings can be easily retrofitted with the low-cost ULF-MC infrastructure, Elias says. The relative locations can be converted to absolute positions by using the most recent GNSS fix.

The app has been tested and is under development, with patents pending in Europe and the United States. The next step, according to Elias, is to license the technology to interested companies in order for them to start building products. Although designed for indoor use by humans, ULF-MC can also be used to extend the reach of GNSS to tunnels for car navigation or to increase outdoor accuracy related to points of interest.

A panel of expert judges selected the Galileo Master from among the 24 winners in ESNC competitions held by regional partners. The ESNC is sponsored by the European GNSS Agency (GSA), the European Space Agency (ESA), the European Commission, the Free State of Bavaria, and the German Space Center (DLR}. The competition is organized by Anwendungszentrum GmbH Oberpfaffenhofen (AZO), a Bavarian economic development and business incubation center.

This is the ninth year for the competition, which has grown from a Europe-only affair to an international forum for GNSS innovation. The application fields drawing the most responses this year were mobile location-based services (35 percent of all submissions) and “smart moving” (29 percent).

Winners of Special Prizes
Consumer-oriented navigation aids also featured among winning entries in the seven ESNC special prize categories.

GSA EGNOS Application. An idea to help visually impaired people navigate using sound cues and augmented satellite navigation signals captured the GSA Special Topic Prize for the most promising EGNOS application idea, exploiting the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service.

The GSA prizewinner, 3SOUND, integrates acoustic binaural technologies (i.e., 3D sounds) and GNSS to guide people via open earphones to aid the blind, others with sight impairments, and people working in low-visibility environments (emergency and rescue services).

The concept is the brainchild of Rafael Olmedo, who conceived the idea while working at the Spanish National Institute of Aerospace Technology (INTA) in Madrid. 3SOUND is currently being developed and validated under the ARGUS project (Assisting personal Guidance system for people with visual impairment), funded by the European Union’s 7th Framework Program.

The 3SOUND concept offers a low-cost solution based on the use of the EGNOS SDK (software development toolkit) developed by the GSA to allow the full capabilities of EGNOS augmented navigation capabilities to be realized on normal smartphone technology.

According to the GSA, Olmedo is now working as a project manager for OK-Systems, a Spanish firm specializing in space programs and engineering, but he has also founded a start-up company (GEKO NAVSAT) that will further develop and commercially exploit the 3SOUND concept with the ARGUS consortium.

Winners of the GSA prize receive six months of support at the European innovation incubator of their choice with the possibility of extending the assistance to a year. The prize has a maximum value of € 40,000 (US$52,000).

ESA Innovation Prize. Jonathan Durant, of France, took home the €10,000 ESA Innovation Prize, for “Project Citizen First Aid,” another smartphone app that enables people in distress to call for assistance to others in nearby locations.

University Challenge. The University Challenge special prize, sponsored by the GNSS Education Network for Industry and Universities (GENIUS), went to Luis Gomes and Filipe Sousa, of Portugal, for “Access ON.” The crowd-sourced app allows individuals encountering an accessibility problem to automatically geoposition, photograph, describe, and identify the inaccessibility and upload the information to an associated website. Access ON will have partnerships with organizations capable of correcting the problems submitted.

ITRI Prototyping Award. The prototyping prize, sponsored by Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute, went to a team from HAITEC Automobile Information Technical Center, an R&D company that specializes in the integration of mobile IT into the automobile industry value chain.

Their innovation, D.S.R.C. (Driving with Safety, Responsiveness and Courtesy!) integrates DSRC communications, a novel software-based dead reckoning algorithm capable of reducing positioning error to two meters, and an in-vehicle CAN bus-monitoring scheme to create “a new communication model for everyday drivers.” Drivers can send emergency warnings and receive “thank-you” messages in return.

GNSS Living Lab Prize. “Vamos,” now available as a downloadable iTunes app, won the GNSS Living Lab prototyping prize sponsored by Galileo Advanced INnovation Services (GAINS). The mobile application combines Facebook and Instagram functionality in order to “pry friends away from their screens and get them together in real life.” The innovation combines geo-location-tagged Facebook events, Instagram photos, and information on event attendance to discover where a Vamos user’s friends are going and what the day’s most interesting local happenings are.

HPI Prototyping Prize. Another special prize sponsored by HPI Fleet & Mobility AG went to a team from Fraunhofer Institute for Material Flow and Logistics IML in Prien am Chiemsee, Germany. The entry, “immer MOBIL,” seeks to match transportation needs and GNSS Living Lab: Vamos user interface ITRI Prototyping Prize Winner: D.S.R.C. available transportation services in rural areas by combining specialized telematic, information, and communication technologies. In addition to traditional public transportation services, these new approaches include alternatives such as community transportation, private transportation services, and shared taxis.

DLR Prize. Among the top ESNC prizewinners, a GNSS Based Attitude Determination (GBAD) technique submitted by Boris Vassilev, an associate professor at the Technical University of Sofia, and Boriana Vassileva, with the Institute for Information and Communication Technologies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, received the DLR prize. The GBAD technique exploits velocity information measured by one or two GNSS receiver antennas shuttled within the body coordinate system of an aircraft, vehicle, or vessel.

The post 2012 European Satellite Navigation Competition Results appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

If one is not careful, idle conversation can turn into rumor and rumor become a “buzz.”

Say what you want about the European capitol — one thing is for sure, Brussels is alive with conversation. With corporate high flyers and political decision makers tripping over one another on their way to long lunch breaks and after-dinner drinks, the chitchat can flow fast and furious.

If one is not careful, idle conversation can turn into rumor and rumor become a “buzz.”

Over their beer, chocolate, and waffles in recent weeks, people have been buzzing — among other things — about Europe’s satellite navigation program . . . such matters as technical problems with Galileo satellite production, a new GNSS regulation that will shift institutional roles, and the ever-popular subject of program budgets.

Satellite Software Issues?
Early in November, one media source (Space News) reported that the deployment of Europe’s Galileo satellite navigation constellation was “likely to be stalled until late next summer because of software issues on the new batch of satellites.” The publication attributed that assessment to officials involved with the program.

Space News said the purported delays are related to “harmonizing the software on the new satellites, made by a team led by OHB AG of Germany, with that on board the four Galileo validation satellites already in orbit, which were built by a consortium led by Astrium and Thales Alenia Space.”

But sources here in Brussels say there is nothing unusual about this kind of glitch — “This is to be expected, not a huge problem” — and the announced schedule, with the next launch set to take place in the first semester of 2013, is still a “go.”

Consensus opinion seems to be that software adjustments and corrections like those described are always necessary. When the first Galileo satellites went up and operators started initial testing, getting the software systems up and running, they encountered “lots of discrepancies” along the way. “It took quite some time to get all the bugs worked out,” according to one knowledgeable source.

Adjustments and corrections had to be made to software systems, both on satellites already in orbit and in the control systems on the ground.

As one expert explained to me, “These satellites are complex, and the computer programs that make them function are very advanced.” Just as when Apple or Microsoft launch their latest phones and pads and operating systems, any new and extremely sophisticated software system is going to discover bugs.

“These programs are so advanced that even the developers themselves cannot anticipate every possible outcome,” said one source. In addition to the satellite operators themselves, users and other observing agencies or institutes may report the problems, and a period of adjustment follows.

Right now, the problem is being compounded by the fact that a new contractor is involved, using its own methods, quite naturally, and according to a slightly different design than the in-orbit validation (IOV) generation built by the Astrium team.

Bremen-based OHB has contracted with the European Commission to build a total of 20 Galileo satellites. Most of them will be placed into orbit by a specially modified Russian Soyuz launcher.

“Even if all the software interfaces are well designed, all according to specifications, there will still be problems.” Our sources affirm, with confidence, that all the necessary adjustments will be made, any problems will be fixed, and the new satellites will be launched on schedule.

In Brussels, of course, one understands that what you hear is not always what you get. No one should ever feel too at ease pooh-poohing a reported delay in the Galileo program, and we certainly do not. We’ve been here before.

Beyond the software-related bumps in the road and other problems around actually building the satellites, the Galileo program admits it expects to face some basic logistical challenges associated with the next set of launches. Working with a new manufacturer is going to mean different shipping and delivery arrangements, for example. “There are always new challenges associated with a new satellite that have nothing to do with the actual satellite,” a close observer of the program points out.

European Commission officials have consistently said that the specific dates of Galileo satellite launches are not important. What is important is having 18 satellites in orbit and operational by the end of 2014, when initial services are set to get underway.

For its part, the European GNSS Agency (GSA) has no official comment on the reported software issue. As for the perspective of European Commission (EC) officials, my calls about the subject went unreturned.

To be fair, neither the GSA nor the EC is the right body to speak to about Galileo technical issues today, as you will understand when you read on.

GNSS Regulation Outlines Roles
The EC is finalizing a new “communication” on Galileo and EGNOS. The so-called “EU GNSS Regulation” outlines the way forward for European Union (EU) GNSS programs, and that means getting the relevant European agencies and institutions to work together in a new and better-coordinated way.

For many years, the core of the problem was EU-ESA relations, as in interrelations, as in interpersonal relations. No joke — this reporter can remember a time not so long ago when handlers had to physically push a certain ESA director and a certain European commissioner together in order to get them to shake hands.

Happily, the climate has warmed considerably in the intervening years, with all sides now declaiming common interests, and the wisdom of moving forward quickly on the integration of all European space activities. Indeed, the EU’s Lisbon Treaty calls specifically for a final solution to this problem, and that really does mean something.

So who will do what? The EU GNSS Regulation identifies the roles and responsibilities of the European GNSS Agency, the European Space Agency and the European Commission:

• The GSA will be responsible for tasks related to the Galileo and EGNOS exploitation phase, including program management and marketing of services. The implementation of security procedures will also be part of its remit.
• ESA will be responsible for tasks related to the design and procurement of the Galileo system during the deployment phase. In addition, it will cooperate with the GSA in the exploitation of the Galileo and EGNOS programs, particularly in matters of technical support and future technical development. 
• The EC will bear overall responsibility, managing funds, organizing the delegation of tasks, monitoring the implementation of programs, and ensuring their security.

Sources say that some lack of clarity still exists on the question of R&D activities. Some EU-funded projects are more technical and systems-related, which would tend to argue for ESA control, while others are more applications- or services-related, better overseen by the GSA. A simple assignment of research projects either to the GSA or ESA based on their content might be the easiest solution, but this could still be a source of minor contention.

The GSA, ESA, and the EC are expected to be fully invested in their roles by 2016. The substantial change, compared to what they are doing today, and the main challenge for all will be the handing over of operational control from ESA to the GSA.

The GNSS Regulation will have to be approved by the EU Parliament and the EU Council before it can enter into force. Pretty much everyone now believes that it will be approved in its present form.

Some sources believe final approval is being held up until after the ESA ministerial conference, coming up in December in Naples. This is the meeting that brings together all the government ministers responsible for space matters from all the ESA member states. It takes place only once every four years, the aim being to lay out the Agency’s long-term goals and activities.

If all goes according to plan, ESA ministers will sign off on the proposed assignment of Galileo responsibilities, as outlined in the draft EU GNSS Regulation, and the whole thing will be sealed with a round of drinks.

Galileo Plan for Launching Services
Meanwhile, initial Galileo services are set for launch in 2014. Sources close to the program say the important thing here is to demonstrate that Galileo is real, and while that may seem like a rather modest goal to some, one has to remember the long and uncertain trail this program has traveled. Simply getting a usable signal transmitted will feel like an enormous milestone for the people who’ve been living and dying the Galileo dream for more than 20 years.

Things to watch for in 2014 include the free-of-charge Galileo Open Service. In fact, insiders say that as soon as four functional satellites are up and transmitting and Galileo is able to achieve 3D positioning — in the first part of next year — the program is going to throw a huge continent-wide party, with technical illustrations, of course, to mark the occasion.

The objective is to deliver at least a demonstration version of all the Galileo services in 2014. Thus, a demo of the secure, encrypted Galileo signal, the Public Regulated Service (PRS), will be launched, allowing developers to check it out and start thinking about new receiver designs. Demo versions of the Galileo Search And Rescue Service, Europe’s contribution to COSPAS-SARSAT, and an encrypted Commercial Service will also appear.

Notice those dates again: 2016 for the handover of operational control from ESA to the GSA; 2014 for the launch of initial services; so, ESA will still be at least partly in control when initial services begin. Word has it that we are likely to see some kind of shared control arrangement in place in 2014.

Show Us All the Money
The European Council has already agreed on a “partial general approach” to a new financial and governance framework for EGNOS and Galileo, for the period covered by the EU’s 2014–2020 Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF). This is the new terminology for the seven-year budget cycle under which Europe’s GNSS programs are financed.

The exact amount of funding to be made available by the EU is left out of the partial general approach, as that will depend on the outcome of discussions on the multi-annual financial framework. According to current projections, resources needed for Galileo for the 2014-2020 period are estimated at around €7.9 billion (US$10 billion).

Key EU budget talks are now set to take place in late November.

So far, so good.

Enter British Prime Minister David Cameron, with his take on the new EU budget: “They are proposing a completely ludicrous €100 billion increase. I’ll be arguing for a very tough outcome,” he said in a Reuters article recently.

Cameron was speaking just as he was about to meet with Germany’s Angela Merkel in London to try to iron out their differences before the real budget talks began. He had already threatened to veto any deal he thinks is not in Britain’s interests. Meanwhile, the British parliament voted in November to call for a real-terms cut in the EU budget.

Given Galileo’s long history of delays, backtracks, and budget overruns, Cameron’s “completely ludicrous” comments made shivers run down more than one spine in Brussels.

Just where does Galileo stand on Mr. Cameron’s hit list? Could European GNSS be on the chopping block?

One official close to the program says, “Not so — there is no trepidation about the Galileo budget.” For all concerned, it would seem, a very strong sense of confidence exists regarding the commitment of the powers-that-be to the Galileo program. It’s as if there were a big black box drawn around the Galileo section in the EU budget, and no one is allowed to touch it. “It’s virtually guaranteed,” this official said.

Barring unforeseen events (“If the whole EU were to suddenly go bankrupt tomorrow, well then we might have to ask the question”), the only possible snag could come if the wider budget talks drag on for too long. This could conceivably — stretching the imagination — delay some Galileo activities. But if and when the talks do conclude, Galileo’s needs are certain to be covered.

So, while David Cameron may not be happy about the overall EU budget, no one seems to believe he or anyone else in Britain is going to raise a fuss about the EU GNSS programs.

Proof of British commitment to Galileo?
For one, the UK fought hard to get one of two Galileo Security Monitoring Centers (GSMCs) established on British soil. Operated by the GSA, the GSMCs will be the hub of European GNSS security, ensuring that sensitive information relating to the use of PRS is suitably managed and protected, and allowing continuous monitoring of the security status and performance of EGNOS and Galileo.

The “master” GSMC will be based in Saint Germain en Laye, in France, while the equally important backup GSMC will be in Swanwick, in the south of England.

Some are suggesting that Cameron’s remarks were aimed more at appeasing his own Eurosceptic back-benchers than at signaling any real intention to scupper the EU budget. In any case, the general feeling among Galileo connoisseurs is that the UK is in for the long haul.

“Just like many governments around the world, the UK sees this [Galileo] as an opportunity,” said one observer.

The EU is certainly doing what it can to push for more market share in the global GNSS sector. Organizers of the upcoming “European Space Solutions” conference, set to take place in London the first week in December, say that’s their ultimate goal.

The event is fully booked, interestingly enough, with a full slate of participants from the UK, including researchers, businesspeople, all manner of gadget mongers, and government representatives.

Some “foreigners” have gone so far as to complain that the British are “virtually monopolizing” the ostensibly international event. The Galileo program says let them in — the UK is always a valued partner in any EU initiative, if only because it means they are then less likely to try to wreck the show.

For now, Galileo looks like one EU party that David Cameron is not going to pull the plug on.

The post Galileo Round Up appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.