This latest version, denoted v2.1, introduces new elements supporting the improvement and enlargement of the Galileo service portfolio. OS SIS ICD v2.1 is available together with a corresponding new version of the OS Service Definition Document (OS SDD). New elements in v2.1 include:

• definition of OS Extended Operation Mode (EOM), and criteria for identifying when it is activated;
• description of a new ARAIM Integrity Support Message (ISM), and a new annex detailing a numerical example for the computation of its 32-bit checksum;
• a new annex detailing the Galileo PRN Codes Assignment process. In particular, codes belonging to the families E1 B, E1 C, E6 B, E6 C, E5a I, E5a Q, E5b I, E5b Q are now available (application required).

The annex dealing with authorization of Galileo trademarks, now obsolete, has been removed.

The Galileo OS SIS ICD provides the information required by receiver and chipset manufacturers, application developers and service providers to process the Open Service signals generated by Galileo satellites. It specifies:

• Galileo signal characteristics;
• characteristics of Galileo spreading codes;
• Galileo message structure;
• message data contents;
• OS Signal in Space flags.

OS SIS ICD v2.1 is especially relevant for receiver technology developers. The availability of adapted receivers is a key requirement for translating the full range of Galileo signals into useful services. EUSPA has long been engaged in regular dialogue with advanced chipset and receiver manufacturers, working to see Galileo fully integrated into the latest generation of receivers.

The previous OS SIS ICD, version 2.0, was published by European Commission in January 2021. In the modification of the ICD, the principle of backward compatibility for Galileo receivers has, as always, been applied.

The post EU Publishes Galileo OS SIS ICD v2.1 appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

Earlier this year, the European Commission’s (EC) science and knowledge service, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), issued its report Assessing Alternative Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Technologies for Potential Deployment in the EU. It summarized the assessment of seven Alternative PNT (A-PNT) platforms which occurred during the eight month period between October 2021 and July 2022. It concluded that commercially available mature Alternative-PNT (A-PNT) technologies are already present in the market that can provide positioning and/or timing information separately from Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). It also concluded that a system of systems approach that incorporates a range of interoperable technologies, supported by standards, remains the lynchpin to resilient PNT. Will any of the technologies reviewed in the JRC Report come out on top in the U.S. as serious contenders for CPNT?

What’s In A Name?

Before comparing the JRC and DOT requirements as a potential indicator of which technologies may prevail in a U.S. contest for the same, the first issue is whether or not the DOT’s CNPT and the EC’s A-PNT even refer to the same thing. Spoiler alert: they kinda don’t.

It’s nuanced. The EC defines A-PNT as “backup solutions,” meaning “technologies providing PNT independently from GNSS.”(1)

A look at the Volpe Report from a couple years ago would lead one to believe the EC and DOT are on exactly the same page. Back then, both US law, DOT policy and research statements lumped together the terms CPNT and “backup GPS capability” or “GPS backup” technologies. Both essentially meant “capabilities to back up and complement the PNT capabilities of the GPS.”(2) (Gotta love definitions that use the same term to define the term in question.) In fact, even the September 2023 DOT CPNT Plan defines CPNT systems as resilient PNT technologies that could offer complementary service in the event of GPS disruption, denial, or
manipulation.(3)

While this sounds like more of the same, the Plan also shows an important evolution of thinking. In describing the tech DOT seeks, it says “CPNT technologies must provide increased capability, not viewed (sic) only a backup to GPS.”(3) Read that again.

It must also, according to the Plan, have a “mature threat posture against capable actors.” And the Federal Government will act as “lead investor/subscriber of services” across key domains: maritime, rail, and surface applications.

That’s why we see what we see in DOT’s recent RFI. (Previous IG coverage here: https://insidegnss.com/all-jammed-up-dot-urgently-seeks-complementary-pnt/) And there’s more. A glaring difference between A-PNT and CPNT, at least from this initial testing volley, lies in the selection criteria for potential participants. The JRC required a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) greater than 5 for position/navigation services or greater than 6 for timing services. The DOT RFI required a TRL of 8 or beyond. This requirement harkens back to the CPNT plan indicating a need for “mature” technology. A TRL of 8 or 9 indicates something already in use, off-the-shelf if you will, on the commercial market. It underscores the DOT’s current sense of urgency to find it.

A close read of the RFI also shows the DOT seeks interoperable tech. It’s not looking for stand alone, apples-to-oranges systems. It’s looking for an entire CPNT ecoverse to bridge the gap should GPS go Poof!

Yet among all of these differences, the needs driving these different requirements are generally the same here and across the pond.

The Driving Need

Both the U.S. and EC rely heavily on GNSS services for PNT, across a myriad of burgeoning sectors from car-sharing platforms, intelligent logistics solutions, autonomous transit systems (e.g., vehicles, vessels, and aircraft), geolocation-based applications, precision agriculture and more. Perhaps more importantly, vital infrastructures, deemed strategic linchpins for modern societal operations, leverage PNT services, particularly the timing proficiencies. These include telecommunications, energy, finance and a spectrum of transportation modalities (road, maritime and aviation). The need for, and the characteristics of, likely user communities who need A-PNT/CNPT are very similar globally.

With regard to the European front, the JRC Report indicated that an uptick in GNSS jamming and spoofing incidents presents a threat to the GNSS-driven EUR 2 trillion socio-economic boom across Europe (the EU27, UK, Norway and Switzerland) projected by 2027. In terms of dollars and sense, the U.S. and United Kingdom (U.K.) threat assessments have posited that the economic detriment of GNSS unavailability could approximate a EUR 1 billion daily.

These threat estimates do not include GPS jamming incidents in or around the eight countries still pending EU membership, most notably Ukraine.(4) Spillover GPS jamming effects from Russian electronic warfare (EW) has already adversely impacted commercial airlines and shipping in both Bulgaria and Romania. Some have posited that this war-related EW activity has significant potential to destabilize the entire Black Sea region.(5)

In response to these ever-increasing vulnerabilities, to bolster the resilience and ensure the continuity of critical operations, the U.S., the European Union (EU) and U.K., among others, look to find and implement robust and resilient PNT services, whether as alternatives, backups to or completely autonomous-from-but-interoperable-with conventional GNSS services on their own home fronts.

So, does the JRC Report provide any relevant insights for a DOT CPNT solution? Answer: a few.

Some Clues

While the EC characterizes its test results as a “qualitative assessment,” rather than a benchmark, some things in the JRC Report nevertheless can provide a bit of insight into some of the technologies the DOT may be eyeballing for holistic U.S. CPNT system-of-systems solutions. (Previous IG coverage provides a detailed explanation as to how the JRC demos were conducted: https://insidegnss.com/backing-up-gnss/).

Let’s focus on the capabilities to knock out a few contenders right away, at least in terms of independent tech that can act as more than just a back up to GPS, meaning one that could go it alone (while also working well with others). The JRC demonstrations involved seven selected providers. OPNT, 7 Solutions SL, SCPTime and GMV focused on timing services only. That makes them interesting but not the final answer. Satelles, Locata and NextNav successfully demonstrated both positioning and timing. That puts them in the ring.

Next, let’s use the TRL level to show that at least one contender remains down for the count and show our Top 3 are still in the fight. As noted, the EC only required a TRL greater than 5 for position/navigation services or greater than 6 for timing services; DOT seeks a TRL of 8 or higher.

Based on the TRL alone, the DOT RFI’s more stringent criteria GMV Aerospace and Defence SAU is K.O.’d. Although the key technologies used in the company’s WANtime solution all have a high TRL (minimum 6), which qualifies it for the JRC project, each technology individually has a different TRL. Combined their average TRL levels put GMV Aero’s tech at an estimated overall TRL of 7. (6) For example, its atomic clocks, clock modeling and steering and time transfer technology, based in GNSS or TWSTFT and used in the operational generation of Galileo System Time (GST) in the Galileo Precise Timing Facilities (PTFs), can all be considered TRL 9. The company gave its White Rabbit (WR) a TRL of 8, as it noted that “especially long-range WR, poses quite a few challenges and requires careful network engineering.” The application of DTM, packet-exchange network technology, to timing applications is still under development and comes in at TRL 7. Higher-precision network time protocol (NTP) is a relatively new, experimental area and can be considered TRL 6.

On the other hand, Satelle’s LEO satellites for satellite timing and location (7), NextNav’s TerraPoiNT ground-based solution that leverages existing cellular LTE/5G signals and dedicated Signal Sensors and/or TerraPoiNT transmitters (8) are both reported as TRL 9.

While the TRL level for Locata’s LocataNets, a system of terrestrial beacons to provide PNT signals to dedicated receivers in a localized area, were not readily accessible, its commercial deployment in different environments like open-cut mines and harbors, combined with its testing by significant entities like the U.S. Air Force at the White Sands Missile Range, suggests its mature stage in the TRL spectrum, possibly at or near TRL 9. This pseudolite alternative uses multiple, geographically dispersed, terrestrial transmitters to provide passive or pseudo ranging signals that can be used to accurately calculate position. Notably, the EU ranks pseudolites in general at a TRL of 9. (9)

Assuming Satelles, Locata and NextNav have thrown their hats in the ring for DOT’s RFI, and that they can meet DOT’s security and interoperability requirements, their tech illustrates a sea change from reliance on middle earth orbit (MEO) satellites for PNT. Satelles’ solution orbits in LEO, while Locata and NextNav are both terrestrial based. The times (no pun) they may be a changin’.

Next Steps

So, where do we go from here? In Europe, even though the EC just put out its European Radio Navigation Plan 2023 in June, it already has plans in the works to update it. Europe also intends to evolve Galileo and EGNOS and issue new regulations. What exactly it intends to do with the JRC 7, if you will, remains a mystery.

But likely at least 3 of those 7 companies may have a real shot here in the U.S. The DOT’s recent RFI. That’s the first step. The next would be the issuance of a request for proposal (RFP) to actually make that testing a reality. Applying the tech to real world use cases would be the goal. To do that, as noted way back in Volpe’s 2021 report, and now the JRC report, also requires the creation of standards.

For now, who’s really positioned to navigate DOT’s process, and what’s the timing? We may have teased out a few clues here, but, in the end, only time will tell.

References:

1. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientific-activities-z/alternative-pnt_en#:~:text=To%20address%20this%20threat%2C%20it,or%20A%2DPNT%20for%20short.
2. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-01/FY%2718%20NDAA%20Section%201606%20DOT%20Report%20to%20Congress_Combinedv2_January%202021.pdf
3. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-09/DOT%20Complementary%20PNT%20Action%20Plan_Final.pdf
4. https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/joining-eu_en
5. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-gps-jamming-black-sea-romania-bulgaria-ukraine/32655397.html
6. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-02/Report_GMV.pdf
7. https://satelles.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Satelles-STL-Data-Sheet.pdf
8. https://nextnav.com/gps-alternative/
9. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10259-2023-INIT/en/pdf
10. https://www.minalogic.com/en/member-news/scptime-selected-by-the-european-commission/
11. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-02/Report_7Sol.pdf

The post The CPNT Contenders? appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

Through the deal, SpaceX will send two rockets into orbit with each one carrying two Galileo satellites, ESA Director of Navigation Javier Benedicto said, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. The European Commission (EC) and European Union (EU) member states are expected to grant final approval for the deal by the end of the year.

The ESA had to look to alternatives to launch its Galileo satellites after continued delays with European options. Earlier this year, Politico reported that the EC was looking to work with American space companies, including Elon Musk’s SpaceX, to complete satellite launches as delays to local rocket systems continue.

The Ariane 6, for example, was supposed to make its debut in 2023, but after delays to the short hotfire of the Vulcain 2.1 engine and a long-duration static-fire test was pushed back from October to late November, that first launch is now slated for 2024.

Another local option, the Vega-C, has been delayed until late 2024, according to the ESA. The rocket experienced a failure during its launch last December, after its Zefiro40 second stage engine ignited. In June, a static firing test of the modified Zefiro40 engine caused significant damage to the motor. Recommendations to address the issue include improving the nozzle design of the Zefiro40 motor, calibrating numerical models to predict behavior and conducting two more firing tests to verify performance.

Soyuz, Russia’s rocket, was once an option, but the ongoing war in Ukraine changed that.

So, Galileo satellites will be launched from U.S. territory next year, which is a first. All others have been launched from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana, via Soyuz rockets and the Ariane 5, the Ariane 6’s predecessor that was recently retired. The launches will also mark the first time SpaceX has sent EU satellites containing classified equipment into space. The satellites can produce encrypted navigation communications for European military uses.

There are other European options in the works, however, with startups looking to provide solutions to the ongoing launch issues, according to an article on the Payload website. For instance, Spanish launch startup PLD Space recently flew its Miura-1 suborbital rocket. Skyrora, Orbex, Rocket Factory Augsburg, HyImpulse and Isar are among other startups that could help fill the need moving forward.

For now, though, the plan is to work with SpaceX to get more Galileo satellites into orbit, with two launches on the books for 2024.

The post SpaceX to Launch Galileo Satellites Next Year appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

At the Munich Satellite Summit opening plenary, Paraskevi Papantoniou, acting director for Space at the European Commission, discussed steps forward in a ‘crisis context’: “We continue to work toward our main EU objectives, of which there are three: the establishment of new data services, achieving net zero emissions and digitalization of the economy. We have some key space initiatives, including the development of new data services, and we have IRIS squared.” IRIS2 is the new European multi-orbital satellite constellation, put together in record time and offering enhanced communication capacities, including broadband, high-speed internet, to governmental users and businesses.

“We have launched the Galileo high accuracy service [HAS],” Papantoniou said, “with accuracy level of a few decimeters, for compatible receivers worldwide. This is the first ever free, global, precise positioning service and we’re inviting receiver manufacturers and app developers to use it.” Add the free OSNMA Galileo authentication service and the now running encrypted public regulated service (PRS) and you have a nice array of GNSS-alone-based services to brag about, if you’re the European Commission.

“We’ve been testing and tuning the OSNMA for the last few years,” Papantoniou said, “and we are confident that it is reliable and performing well. Our plan is to officially declare initial operations by the end of this year, but we know some manufacturers are already implementing this service, for both indoor and outside apps, for example trucks in Europe using the smart tachograph.”

Security Sooner Rather Than Later

As for the PRS, Papantoniou said, “We plan to declare PRS initial service next year. Together with ESA [European Space Agency], EUSPA [European Agency for the Space Program] and with industry, we are moving full speed. This is the last mile for us. In the current crisis context, it is important to have this governmental service fully operational.” Here, we suppose, Papantoniou, by ‘crisis context,’ was referring to the war in Ukraine.

“And of course,” Papantoniou said, “next to everything I’ve mentioned, in parallel, we are developing the second generation of Galileo satellites, with new and robust features, relying on ESA for design and also supervising industry. All of this ensures that Galileo will remain the top GNSS in the world, for ground, sea and air applications, but also providing services for space applications, for the GNSS space service volume.”

The absence of Russians, not only in Munich but more essentially at the European spaceport in Kourou, French Guyana, is indeed a crisis-level problem for the EU. As everyone knows by now, the Union has allowed itself to become heavily reliant on Russia’s Soyuz launch services over the years. Finding a way to get into space is now an immediate concern for the EU space program, while political principles continue to constrain its options.

“We want to rely on European suppliers for our flagship programs. This is enshrined,” Papantoniou said. “At the same time, in our EU space program regulation, one of the key objectives is to ensure autonomous access to space, through European Union providers. This is how we launch our satellites. There is also a strong governmental component, for example with the PRS, so we need to have the right security assurances. We are working very closely with our European service provider Arianespace, to see when we will be able to launch our next Galileo satellites, but for now, today, we are in a difficult situation, in a crisis situation.”

A Place for High Accuracy

Representing the U.S. GPS program, Harold ‘Stormy’ Martin, director of the National Coordination Office for Space-Based PNT in Washington, responded to the announcement of the new Galileo HAS: “The U.S. has long held the position that high-accuracy, precise point positioning [PPP] services should be provided by commercial services, so for decades U.S. companies have built PPP systems to meet the needs of their users. The U.S. belief is that the commercial market is best suited to adapt to those changing customer needs and provide the best product, so that customers can buy the level of accuracy that they desire, even if that desire changes over time.”

The Galileo HAS is delivered via the E6 radio frequency band, but the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not granted access to the Galileo E6 signal in the U.S., arguing that doing so could constrain its spectrum management in the future. The FCC last ruled on this in 2018, and its position continues to be a point of contention for the Galileo program.

“Spectrum use in the U.S. is a complicated issue,” Martin said, “involving multiple government agencies and commercial interests that are ultimately adjudicated by the FCC, which is an independent body. We can’t predict what the FCC would do in any given situation, but for context, E6 is not specifically allocated for radionavigation service in the U.S., and we do not have a GPS signal in the E6 band, so we can’t provide the protections for using Galileo E6 safely in that band. In the U.S. spectrum allocation process there is an allowance for submission of a reconsideration, but there is no guarantee that there will be a different outcome.”

A Place for Russia?

As widely reported, China and Russia signed contracts in 2022 to host ground stations for their respective GNSS, BeiDou and GLONASS. Beijing will place new ground monitoring stations at different locations in Russia, while Moscow will do the same in China. The two sides also recently signed a statement on the joint provision of support services to their customers. New ground infrastructure will likely boost the performance of both Chinese and Russian systems, enabling them to exploit new GNSS-based applications in areas such as precision farming, transportation and unmanned vehicles. Improved PNT services also will certainly benefit Chinese and Russian military users. Chinese-Russian GNSS cooperation is part of a broader partnership in space, which seemed to gather pace after the Western backlash against Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

Jiang De, of the China Satellite Navigation Office in Beijing, was asked by session moderator Claus Kruesken to explain China’s ongoing cooperation with Russia, even as that country engages in aggressive warfare in Europe. His answer, though not exactly to the point, was an answer: “BeiDou adheres to the principle of cooperation,” he said. “China’s BeiDou is the world’s BeiDou, and so we cooperate with Russia, just as we promote cooperation and negotiation on satellite navigation applications and satellite communication with other systems, especially on the issue of compatibility and interoperability. I also believe that cooperation between different systems provides better services and applications to the global users. Again, we are not neglecting multi-lateral cooperation. We are doing joint performance assessment with other systems, and we are pushing to join more international organizations. We are implementing education and training programs to cultivate talents across the world. In a word, BeiDou has always promoted the capability, construction and technology development of satellite navigation.”

Stormy Martin told Inside GNSS he felt no awkwardness in sharing a stage with China at what could be seen as a fragile time in U.S.-Chinese relations. “I think it’s important to realize that there are a lot of users out there that use all of these systems every day,” he said. “They may not realize it, but if you go into the guts of cell phones, for instance, a lot of them have a chip that uses GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou and Galileo. Now, in different countries, different parts of that chip may be activated or may not. It depends on exactly what location they’re in and what the manufacturer of the cell phone decides to enable, but there are people all over the world that use all of these systems, so it’s important to focus on those customers. What can we do to make our systems better for them, because they rely on us for safety-of-life response, fire, ambulance, police, safety of aviation, in the air, and then all of the commercial uses which have changed our lives dramatically.” So the American and Chinese delegations, at least in Munich, seemed not to be of a mind to bicker. “And meanwhile,” Martin said, “we can continue to hope the world becomes a more peaceful place.”

Galileo PRS Push

As it waits for the world to become more peaceful, the European Union is forging ahead with its plans to beef up GNSS security. The characteristics and architecture of the Galileo PRS have already been outlined elsewhere. Fabien Frossard, service engineering manager at EUSPA, said, “The Galileo dual frequency, E1 and E6, certified and accredited PNT service, what we call the PRS, is managed by EU member states, accessible to them as well as to third countries and international organizations, subject to conditions.” Third countries currently enjoying access to the PRS include Norway and the U.S., and we have it on good authority that Great Britain also will be granted access in the near future, subject to the outcome of ongoing negotiations.

“We have been in the initial service phase since 2016, when we started to broadcast the signal in space,” Frossard said. “Right now, we are preparing the operational qualification of the new PRS release. That’s to say we are about to finalize the deployment of system build 2.0. And of course we manage the PRS access control from the Galileo Security Monitoring Centers in France and in Spain.”

Frossard outlined a number of current tasks being undertaken by EUSPA in its push toward PRS full operational capability. One of these entails providing PRS expertise to member states. “And we are doing the same on the other side for industry,” he said. “We are also helping to fund and coordinate R&D projects. We are now deploying across Europe a Galileo robust operational network [GRON]. This is a classified network used to disseminate the PRS keys all across Europe, giving users access to PRS signal.”

Next steps include supporting more R&D projects, for example toward the development of new PRS receiver
prototypes. One project, designated P3RS2, has already produced a prototype. “This was our first one,” Frossard said. “It’s a sort of shoe box unit, and we’re now going deeper, step by step, to reduce the form factor. We have another one under development, with the Leonardo-designed project P3RSE. This is a compact, dual-constellation receiver, much smaller than the first one.” The new prototype is designed for both land and maritime tactical platforms. It is tamper proof and it hosts Galileo PRS compact secure receiver type I (GSRT1) using Galileo OS and PRS, and GPS C/A, and there is an option for military GPS (SAASM).

“We are also preparing a radio frequency constellation simulator [RFCS],” Frossard said, “for which we have published a tender. This will simulate the constellation signals in space in different environments, as received at a specific position and date, to test and validate receivers and security modules before mass production, and for the investigation of incidents.” The unit will have full simulation capabilities in all Galileo bands, plus GPS and others.

Finally, a new project with Airbus and Fraunhofer is developing a test vector generator. “This is an ongoing project,” Frossard said. “It will give us a simulation tool for the whole industry that can be used by member states to simulate PRS orders and messages, for the development of PRS receivers and security modules.”

More Coming

“For the future, we will continue to support member states’ competent PRS authorities [CPAs],” Frossard said, “and of course we have many activities on the user segment aimed at promoting ease of access to the PRS. We are keen to be supportive to PRS uptake, and EUSPA’s idea is to help member states and the industry to propose innovative solutions for the PRS user segment. Therefore, we are launching a number of actions through the Horizon program [the EU’s R&D funding framework] and to develop PRS-based applications with the competent PRS CPAs.”

Following Frossard, Frank Wilms of FDC and Ronald Nippold of DLR presented work under ongoing EU-funded R&D projects, aimed at developing and demonstrating a range of new PRS-based technologies and applications.

There were many other extremely enlightening presentations given at the Munich Satellite Navigation Summit. In all, the event felt a bit like a class reunion. After an extended break, due to health concerns, the Bavarian capital was found to be everything that it had been before. The summit featured familiar faces and some fresh ones, and in spite of the missing GLONASS delegation, the event was informative and encouraging, and one could hardly have wished for more than that.

The post Brussels View: Highlights From the Satellite Navigation Summit appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

One subject, more than any other, preoccupied attendees of this year’s European Space Conference. In a stirring welcome address, High-Representative/Vice-President of the European Commission Josep Borrell Fontelles told the assembly, “One year ago, we were just on the eve of war. Now, we are in the middle of a war, so the security of Europe in space is a very timely subject.” Our regular readers know that subject has been very timely for a while.

“Last year,” Borrell continued, “we stressed the increased level of threats in the space domain, and we now believe we need a change of paradigm. Space will become a kind of battlefield, of competition and confrontation. Satellite imagery and communications have proved to be game changers for the Ukrainian armed forces and the civilian population.”

Borrell recalled the cyber-attack on Viasat on the night of the Russian invasion that knocked out communications for several days, affecting neighboring countries as well as Ukraine. “This has revealed our own vulnerabilities,” Borrell said, “affecting our own member states. These are critical infrastructures that we need. If they fail, our economies, our entire lives, will be disrupted. In 2021, Russia tested a kinetic anti-satellite weapon. It was an irresponsible act that signaled to anyone that Russia is prepared to put anyone’s satellites at risk.”

Timo Pesonen, director-general, DG DEFIS, European Commission, also recalled the days just before the start of the war. “A year ago, if somebody in this room had asked who thought Putin was going to attack the capital of Ukraine in one month’s time, I’m not so sure how many of us would have raised our hands. Of course, there was intelligence information around that he was gathering troops at the border, but I think we were all hoping for a miracle to happen.”

What They Thought About That

The 15th edition of the conference was a return to form, that is to say a return to format. Two years ago, In 2021, the conference was mostly a ‘virtual’ online affair, due to the crisis we need not name. Then, in 2022, it went back to being held in person, but many habitual attendees stayed home, choosing to keep their distance until the coast was well and truly clear. By all accounts, that edition was a rather forlorn affair.

This year’s event felt like old times. The big plenary room was full to bursting, everyone was breathing deeply and the lunch hall, lobbies, corridors and side rooms were abuzz. And, as they will, fresh from the affray in the big room, people exchanged views candidly once outside. Having heard a number of high-profile presenters expressing their surprise and dismay at the events of February 2022, more than one corridor commentator expressed their own surprise at the surprise. “Didn’t Russia invade Georgia a few years ago?” said one, off the record. “Didn’t they just annex Crimea?”

Another well-known personality at the conference whispered, confidentially, “We were hearing every day from the intelligence experts. Of course we could see what was about to happen. There was no surprise.” Still another participant cited the regime in question’s repeated past “criminal” actions, saying the surprise was perhaps more about the absolute scale of the thing.

In 2017, Inside GNSS published an article titled, “EU and Russia: Lost in Space?” that questioned the advisability of maintaining a dependent relationship with Russia in the wake of that country’s aggressive actions against a familiar target. According to the article:

In April, the United States officially pulled the plug on almost all space cooperation with Russia as a result of the latter nation’s intervention in Ukraine.

According to a Space News report, cited in the 2017 article, Europe did not follow suit:

At the height of the bloodletting in eastern Ukraine last June, ESA [European Space Agency] Director-General Jean-Jaques Dordain said, “The European Space Agency has seen no signs that its relations with Russia will be curtailed as a result of the confrontation between Russia and the West concerning Russia’s actions in Ukraine.”

Even though:

Speaking in Brussels, one unnamed European official said, “The situation in Ukraine is very tense indeed, with many obvious consequences on the relationship between Russia and Europe.”

The Launcher Crisis

So much for warning signs. Europe now has a very present situation to contend with. In an era of ever-accumulating crises, we may add another: ‘The European Launcher Crisis.’ Borrell said, “This war was a wake-up call. We are becoming much more aware of the dependencies on foreign suppliers. For example, when the Russian Soyuz teams suddenly left the spaceport of Kourou, they put in danger our launch capabilities.”

“WE BUILT GALILEO IN RESPONSE TO AN EXISTING NAVIGATION NETWORK THAT WE ALL KNOW VERY WELL. TODAY, GALILEO IS PROVIDING THE MOST ACCURATE SIGNAL FOR NAVIGATION, FOR POSITIONING, AND THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE EUROPE CAN BE VERY PROUD.”

Josef Aschbacher, high-representative/vice-president, director general, ESA

But war isn’t the only problem. Josef Aschbacher, Director General of ESA, in his presentation of 2022 highlights, acknowledged other setbacks: “We had the successful launch of our MTG satellite on the 13th of December [onboard Ariane 5], but also just before Christmas, on the 20th of December, we had the failure of our Vega-C launcher, after we had had a successful inaugural flight in July, earlier in the year.”

According to reports, the Vega-C’s Zefiro 40 second stage deviated from its intended trajectory following a loss of pressure, resulting in reentry over the Atlantic, less than 1,000 km from its launch site. Two Airbus Defence and Space dual-use Pléiades satellites were lost in the misfire. Zefiro is a family of solid-fuel rocket motors developed by Avio.

“And this puts Europe in a very critical situation on launchers,” Aschbacher said, “due to the situation of our delays on Ariane 6.” Also in 2022, ESA again delayed the first flight of Europe’s Ariane 6 launcher, this time to late 2023.

“With this, and with the halt of the Soyuz launches from Kourou and the Vega-C failure, Europe is in a very serious situation. Guaranteed access to space is a top priority for Europe, for ESA, for all of us, because if we cannot guarantee access to space, we will seriously shut down launching of infrastructure on which we depend.” That includes completed Galileo satellites currently sitting on the ground, ready for launch.

Aschbacher said it is crucial to get Ariane 6 and a safe and functioning Vega-C onto the launch pad as quickly as possible, “but we also need to invest in the future, to engage a new group of launchers, micro-launchers, mini-launchers. And later we will need reusable launchers, after Ariane 6 and Vega-C. This is a weakness of Europe today.” Stéphane Israël, CEO of Arianespace, agreed: “In the long term, we will need a heavy, reusable launcher. For the European flagship programs, Galileo and so on, you will need a big launcher, no doubt.”

For now, the waiting goes on. A spokesperson for ESA told Inside GNSS the agency is actively seeking a solution for launching grounded Galileo satellites, which can include non-European (and non-Soyuz) launchers.

Self-Reliance Versus Dependency

An unintentionally provocative take: For all its ingenuity and scientific excellence, and in spite of Jules Verne, Europe has lagged behind as a source of inspiration in space. At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union drew the hearts and minds of the world toward the stars, on the tails of their military-fueled space race. Today, the Chinese government has managed to link its space program to the country’s immense sense of pride and their belief in its extraordinary destiny. Europe, on the other hand, for all its technical achievements and steady reliability, has remained a rather polite, very competent but otherwise low-key partner seeker. Not, one should add, without success.

Aschbacher said, “We built Galileo in response to an existing navigation network that we all know very well. Today, Galileo is providing the most accurate signal for navigation, for positioning, and this is something where Europe can be very proud.”

Miguel Romay, general manager navigation systems, GMV said, “When I started in navigation more than 30 years ago, Europe was completely out of the game. We had GPS, GLONASS and nothing from Europe. We started to move toward satellite navigation, dreaming about having something similar to what the Americans had.”

Must Europe always turn to others for inspiration? In this time of geopolitical turmoil and economic uncertainty, who will serve as Europe’s model? And on whom will it depend for help?

”EIGHT YEARS AGO, I FLEW TO SPACE ON A RUSSIAN VEHICLE, THE SOYUZ. A YEAR AGO, I FLEW ON A U.S. VEHICLE, NOT EVEN A GOVERNMENT VEHICLE BUT A VEHICLE PROVIDED BY A PRIVATE COMPANY AS A SERVICE. YOU HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE AND YOU START TO SCRATCH YOUR HEAD, AND THINK, ‘WELL, THIS IS GREAT. I LIKE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, BUT WHAT ABOUT FLYING IN A EUROPEAN VEHICLE?’”

Samantha Cristoforetti, ESA Astronaut

“We cannot implement the U.S. model,” Israël said. “The U.S. spends five times more on space than Europe. We can take some lessons, but the copycat strategy will not work. And this should not be about Europeans competing against each other. This is the U.S. and China competing against Europe. It’s time to organize the industrial base in order to compete. We see how it goes in the U.S., with the Inflation Reduction Act, how they have changed overnight the competitiveness of their companies against us. Let’s not be naive, let’s take the bull by the horns and make it happen.”

André-Hubert Roussel, president of Eurospace, said, “We don’t benefit from the measures that have been put in place by some of our competing nations, specifically for the U.S. industry. We are facing nearly 10% inflation in Europe. It’s going to cost our space industry 500-750 million euros in extra costs this year. We have to tackle this with our partners, starting with ESA and the EC [European Commission]. We need venture capitalists, and we need to make sure we have a level playing field with the U.S.”

Aschbacher said, “Today, Europe is not capable of launching its own astronauts, with its own capabilities, into space, because we are flying with our good friends and strong partners of NASA, the Americans. In the past few years, we were flying with Russia, but if you look 10 years into the future, I think Europe should seriously consider having its own capability. This is much bigger than space. It is geopolitical, it is societal, it is about the unity of Europe. We are not fast enough and we are not bold enough.”

Speaking of astronauts, ESA Astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti said, “Eight years ago, I flew to space on a Russian vehicle, the Soyuz. A year ago, I flew on a U.S. vehicle, not even a government vehicle but a vehicle provided by a private company as a service. You have that experience and you start to scratch your head, and think, ‘Well, this is great. I like international cooperation, but what about flying in a European vehicle?’ At this point, the question is what’s wrong with us? Why do we not have that ambition?”

”GALILEO HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO BE VERY ROBUST.
THE SPECTRUM OF SERVICES THAT ARE BEING DEPLOYED, STARTING FROM THE BASIC SERVICE, ADDING AUTHENTICATION, THE HIGH-ACCURACY SERVICE, THE PRS [PUBLIC REGULATED SERVICE], EMERGENCY SERVICES THAT WILL BE DEPLOYED IN THE FUTURE, SAFETY-OF-LIFE, WHICH IS PROVIDED BY EGNOS, ALL THIS NEEDS TO BE ASSURED.”

Javier Benedicto, director of navigation, ESA

“We live at the end of an era of happy globalization,” said Thomas Dermine, Belgium’s State Secretary for Economic Recovery and Strategic Investments, in charge of Science Policy. “We see a rise in geopolitical tension, we see commercial tension, we see a rise in protectionism. If you look at the American Inflation Reduction Act, it impacts all sectors. It is going to impact the space industry. A few years ago, we were seeing all kinds of cooperation with other parts of the world. We see today that our cooperation with Russia is completely ended. In China we see rising tension, and even with the Americans. We need to rely more on our own capabilities, because you don’t know what the future will be.”

Then Came PNT

Amid all the soul-searching, conference attendees suddenly found themselves faced with a series of presentations on what it all means for the positioning, navigation and timing troops. “It was already there before the war,” Pesonen said, “but the war has certainly underlined it. Resilience is a key word for us.”

”WE ARE OFFERING SERVICES THROUGH DIFFERENT SIGNALS, AT DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES, AND THIS IS PRETTY GOOD AGAINST INTERFERENCE. THEN WE HAVE OUR AUTHENTICATION SERVICE, WHICH IS COMING UP THIS YEAR, AND THERE WE WILL BE PRETTY GOOD AGAINST SPOOFING. WE CAN SPEAK ABOUT THE SECOND-GENERATION SATELLITES, WHICH ARE GOING TO PROVIDE MORE ROBUST SIGNALS.”

Paul Flamant, Head of Unit, Satellite Navigation, DG DEFIS, European Commission

Paul Flamant, Head of Unit, Satellite Navigation, DG DEFIS, European Commission, assessed the state of resiliency of Europe’s GNSS systems: “We are offering services through different signals, at different frequencies, and this is pretty good against interference. Then we have our authentication service, which is coming up this year, and there we will be pretty good against spoofing. We can speak about the second-generation satellites, which are going to provide more robust signals.

“But also,” he said, “it’s very important in terms of satellite navigation resilience that we keep our good agreements with those brilliant people that are on the other side of the Atlantic. We have agreements with the Americans, and it is very important that we continue this collaboration.”

Flamant also cited the EU’s European Radio Navigation Plan. “I invite people to read it,” he said. “In it, we call on people to come up with new resilience solutions, and we’ve been trying to see what really needs to be done, in terms of navigation but also in terms of timing. There were the workshops organized recently at the Joint Research Center at ISPRA, where we could see what other timing and navigation systems exist.”

“From the point of view of operations,” EUSPA Executive Director Rodrigo da Costa said, “we have two control centers, we have two security monitoring centers, so there’s a lot of resilience in there, but we also exercise that resilience. We carry out simulations, a number of simulated situations, working with our external action service, where we simulate techniques and responses. This is incredibly important in order to ensure the preparedness of our operational teams.”

A New Architecture

ESA Director of Navigation Javier Benedicto said, “Satellite navigation really has a very strategic dimension for all of us. It has become a commodity with respect to our daily life. It contributes to economy, but also to implementing government policy. This fundamental nature creates a notion of dependency. We depend every minute on it, and therefore there is an expectation on the part of users. These are systems that have to work all the time.

“This in turn creates responsibility, for the people who conceive the system,” Benedicto said. “Galileo has been designed to be very robust. The spectrum of services that are being deployed, starting from the basic service, adding authentication, the High-Accuracy Service, the PRS [public regulated service], emergency services that will be deployed in the future, safety-of-life, which is provided by EGNOS, all this needs to be assured.”

Benedicto outlined the new LEO PNT program adopted at the most recent ESA ministerial conference. “This program is the largest in the world of its nature,” he said. “It brings a new dimension, not based anymore on geostationary or MEO satellites but also on LEO satellites. The trick of the business is to interconnect all that from the user perspective. The user does not know or care if the signal is coming from a LEO or a MEO or GEO satellite.

“We will also see an evolution affecting the EGNOS service, today based on geostationary signal broadcast, but in the future also to be broadcast most probably from MEO and LEO satellites. And we see a future in deploying navigation signals in new frequency bands, not only in the L band but also in lower bands and higher bands. All this leads to a multi-layered PNT architecture.”

A Constellation for Digital Resilience

IRIS2 (Infrastructure for resilience, interconnectivity and security by satellite) is the EU’s newest space-based infrastructure, being mounted in record time and offering enhanced communication capacities to governmental users and businesses, and delivering high-speed internet broadband in connectivity dead zones. Initial services are scheduled for launch as early as 2024, with full operational capability by 2027.

Benedicto said, “IRIS2, Galileo and EGNOS all have to be connected, because, at the end of the day, we want to reach the smartphone, we want to reach the airplane cockpit, the dashboard of the autonomous vehicle, and this requires a combination of sensors and techniques for both communication and navigation. This will require the use of optical technologies, quantum communication, quantum encryption, and with all of this, I am sure that Europe will remain at the forefront of resilient PNT.”

On that very inspiring note, we leave the 15th European Space Conference, with apologies to all who were not cited. We will meet again, and so say not adieu, but au revoir. Until next time…

The post Brussels View: European Space Conference 2023 Takes a Hard Look appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

“This would work as a general-purpose service, or it could be focused on critical infrastructure,” said Píriz, “and different networks can be used, giving different accuracy levels.”

GMV AD was selected under a European Commission (EC) call for tenders to demonstrate mature, alternative PNT technologies, in view of some of the inherent vulnerabilities of GNSS. The company already provides a time service called WANTime in its home city of Madrid, distributed over optical fiber using the White-Rabbit network protocol. The service is based on two parallel and independent time generation chains, each driven by a highly stable passive hydrogen maser atomic clock. The clocks can be synchronized to UTC by means of GNSS time-transfer to any national timing laboratory. At the JRC event, GMV demonstrated how a similar technology, dubbed WANTime4EU, can be adapted to function over different existing networks across different countries.

“Using a typical FTTH [fiber to the home] infrastructure, like the one we employed in Spain, we showed good general stability,” Píriz said, “considering the inexpensive nature of this network service.” Observed jitter was 1 µs (1-sigma) over one day, and a ‘bump’ was observed once a day at nighttime. “Jitter, outside the bump, was 150 ns, 1-sigma,” said Píriz, “which exceeded the EC requirement of 1 µs at 3- sigma.” There was an occasional loss of lock, and there was a large mean offset due to network asymmetry. “This is unavoidable in FTTH,” Píriz said, “so there is a link calibration required, and we can see occasional jumps in the link after several days, due to network reconfiguration.”

GMV also demonstrated time synchronization using dynamic synchronous transfer mode (DTM) technology by Nimbra, over a moderately priced, multi-protocol label switching (MPLS) network service. This system is currently operating over distances up to 300 km in Germany. Píriz reported, “We showed excellent results over the MPLS, with very good stability over many days.” Maximum error was 500 ns, again exceeding EC requirements for the demonstration. The mean offset was a very small 240 ns, requiring no link calibration, and jitter was 140 ns (1-sigma).

Hardware used in the demonstration included, on the server side, a Passive Hydrogen Maser, a frequency stepper, a provision for GNSS time transfer against UTC(k), a Nimbra box for DTM, and the network links. On the client side, required hardware included a Nimbra box, a WANtime GNSS receiver and a time interval counter.

The post GMV Aerospace and Defense alternative timing for the EU appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

The October 11 announcement caps a year of submissions and review since the tender for the project was published in October of last year by the European Commission’s Directorate Generaal for Defence, Industry and Space. The goal of the process is “to analyse the technologies, which could deliver positioning, and/or timing information, independently from GNSS, to be effective backup in the event of GNSS disruption, and if possible to be able to provide PNT in the environments where GNSS cannot be delivered.”

Each company received a slightly different amount, all of the equal to or a little less than 70,000 Euros ($81,180). Locata received two awards because it submitted separate proposals for positioning and timing. The estimated total budget for the undertaking is 500,000 Euros ($580,000).

The evaluation will last for several months and culminate with a public event at the EC Joint Research Centre (photo above courtesy EC) in Ispra, Italy, northwest of Milan, in either April or May 2021. A report detailing the EU’s conclusions from the demonstration is expected to be published about one month after the public event.

The post Six Companies to Demonstrate Alternative PNT to European Union appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

Final details were agreed upon at a September 24 conference in Prague of EC Director General for Defence Industry and Space (DEFIS) Timo Pesonen, EUSPA Executive Director Rodrigo da Costa and ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher, shown left to right in the photo above (courtesy EUSPA). This was the first in-person meeting of the three leaders.

The Joint Office will support the Commission in the management of Galileo and facilitate coordination with ESA and EUSPA, specifically coordinating program-level risk management, ensuring that risks can be treated without delays or cost overruns. Characterized as “a fresh start of collaboration between the Commission, ESA and EUSPA,” it will be composed of three staff members of each organization, working under the leadership of the Commission.

In the coming years, the EU space industry will see many developments in the area of satellite navigation, satellite communication or Earth observation. Europe must team up to deliver innovative, value-adding applications based on EU Space technologies to compete worldwide. Cooperation between all the partners of the EU Space Programme is thus essential.

The purpose of the collaborative over-umbrellaing is “to streamline the programmatic and administrative processes and ensure the smooth delivery of the Union’s first ever integrated space programme,” according to Rodrigo da Costa.

“Time has come to combine forces and talents!’’ added Timo Pesonen.

Attracting Entrepreneurial Spirit

The move presumably reflects a desire on the part of the Commission, the most authoritative and powerful of the three organizations, to exert even tighter control over Europe’s largest space program, and one of its, if not the, largest overall collaborative undertaking.  It also points clearly at “a fast-moving and competitive environment” that is the space sector, and a very strong desire, a requirement actually, that the massive investment in Galileo turn out to significantly stimulate and benefit European industry.

In that light, the second half of the September 24 visit was dedicated to interacting with entrepreneurs and innovators from EUSPA host country the Czech Republic. An ecosystem of start-ups and small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) has sprung up in that country, and in nearly every European Union member state, applying EU space technology in their operations. A recent examples of a Czech space start-ups is the #MyGalileoDrone winner, ThunderFly, an unmanned aerial vehicle designed to operate in unfavorable weather conditions using Galileo’s positioning services and data from Copernicus to perform atmosphere measurements.

“Boosting the market uptake of all the EU Space Programme components is within EUSPA’s extended mandate. With #myEUspace we will provide funding to more than 50 start-ups and entrepreneurs to develop products that use EU Space data and technology. I encourage innovators from all backgrounds to apply. Space is ubiquitous and you do not need to be a rocket scientist to make use of it, so go for it!” concluded da Costa.

The post New Galileo Joint Office Pools Oversight Efforts of EC, ESA and EUSPA appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

The Galileo program brings together three principal collaborators. The European Space Agency (ESA) carries out satellite and ground system design and development, while the European Union Agency for the Space Program (EUSPA) is in charge of service provision, operational security and market development. The third crucial partner is the European Commission, which oversees and manages the program as a whole. The Commission also plays a limited technical role that is sometimes overlooked, that of defining Galileo services.

Ignacio Fernández Hernández is Galileo Authentication and High Accuracy Service Manager, European Commission. “Our efforts in recent years have produced very encouraging results,” he told Inside GNSS, “and will make Galileo the first GNSS to provide authentication and high-accuracy data.” The European Commission, he said, expects both the Open Service Navigation Message Authentication (OSNMA) and the High-Accuracy Service (HAS) to be available soon.

“The OSNMA signal in space was transmitted by Galileo satellites between November 2020 and April 2021,” Hernández said. “The results of testing have been thoroughly analyzed and we see no degradation of accuracy or availability of the standard Open Service (OS) position fix due to OSNMA. Regarding HAS, testing of the signal-in-space started in May 2021, and has demonstrated a remarkable few-centimeter-level accuracy in the orbit and clock corrections, for both Galileo and GPS.”

History and Current Status

Galileo service definitions have evolved over time, starting in 2013, when the Commission first defined the Commercial Service as an added-value service to be provided by Galileo. Eventually, the concept was resolved into three separate services. These are: the OSNMA, authenticating the Galileo open service message to protect it from spoofing attacks; the HAS, providing corrections to allow PPP worldwide, and; a Commercial Authentication Service (CAS), providing signal authentication through an as-yet-to-be-defined commercial framework.

“The first priority was to define the OSNMA and HAS services,” said Hernández, “including the signal-in-space message and high-level specification. We then shifted to prototyping OSNMA and HAS modules.”

Among the particular challenges associated with adding OSNMA and HAS to Galileo was the fact that the ground and space infrastructure and the signals were already defined. “To speed up development,” said Hernández, “the new functionalities have been integrated in such a way as to maximally exploit current capabilities while limiting changes in Galileo’s core infrastructure.”

Signal Specifics

“OSNMA is a first-of-its-kind,” said Hernández. “We are defining a GNSS signal authentication protocol for potentially billions of users worldwide, as well as the receiver logic, adapting cryptographic protocols and functions, all with no impact on Galileo’s accuracy and availability.

“Over the next few months, we will fine-tune OSNMA infrastructure and protocol configurations. Then we will have a public observation phase, planned for autumn 2021, when OSNMA specifications, receiver guidelines and cryptographic keys will be made publicly available. Then, following service validation and tuning of the key management functions, an initial Galileo OSNMA service should be operational by early 2023.”

Regarding HAS, a key challenge has been the transition from a fee-based service, as initially conceived, to a free service. “Originally it was to be an external service transmitted by Galileo,” Hernández said. “Now it will be a free service offered by the Galileo infrastructure. Galileo has only 14 monitoring stations worldwide, while PPP providers generally use many more. In spite of these limitations, early tests show that the corrections are in line with the target of 20 cm horizontal accuracy for 95% of the time.”

The plan is to publish an HAS Interface Control Document (ICD) before the end of the year. That will lead to a service validation phase, with the HAS signal publicly available, and later service declaration by 2022. “In the subsequent two to three years, more stations will be added to achieve worldwide coverage and an ionospheric correction service in Europe,” Hernández said.

As for the CAS, he added, “it is still about a couple of years behind its counterparts. There is a service proposal; the short-term priority is to formalize it and then start the process already completed for OSNMA and HAS.” An early service is expected by 2024, based on the encrypted Galileo E6C signal, and a so-called ‘semi-assisted’ signal authentication scheme, also relying on OSNMA.

Broad Collaboration

“As a multi-national program with a certain organizational complexity, Galileo has some inertia,” Hernández admitted, with a wink (Galileo, the scientist and historical figure, being traditionally credited as the first to formalize the concept of inertia). “It has been a challenge for the Commission to undertake this technical role of defining services, which does go beyond its typical oversight role as program manager.”

Nevertheless, he said, the program continues to be characterized by a remarkably level of cooperation. “Many relevant European companies and research teams have contributed to the definition of HAS/OSNMA/CAS services,” said Hernández, “not only from the GNSS side but also from the cryptology domain. The Commission’s Joint Research Centre has been supportive, being involved in the early proposals and recent testing, and EU member state research centers have also supported OSNMA testing.”

Looking beyond the Commission’s European partners, authentication and high accuracy are certainly of interest to the broader GNSS community, and the Commission has found eager partners among international groups, including the US-EU Working Group C (WGC) on future GNSS services and the International Committee for GNSS (ICG). There have also been bilateral discussions with Japan.

Hernández noted that the WGC is proposing a similar solution to OSNMA for SBAS authentication, and the HAS protocol uses a format compatible with Japan’s Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS). He said, “Ideas coming out of the HAS specification, as well as from QZSS’s Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services – Compact State-Space Representation (RTCM CSSR), may influence future RTCM standards. Furthermore, an ICG task force has recently been created for promoting PPP interoperability.”

In terms of applications, said Hernández, “The three services can reinforce the navigation performance and resilience of many different users, in automotive, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), maritime, or location-based services in general, and this is something almost everyone will understand and be affected by.”

The post Galileo Authentication and High-Accuracy Service: Coming on Fast appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.

The news was reported by space journalist Peter de Selding in his Space Intel Report. The award for a dozen second-generation Galileo satellites envisions new technologies such as digitally configurable antennas; inter-satellite links for ranging, mission dissemination, command and control; new atomic clock technologies; and use of full electric propulsion systems, for satellites scheduled to start orbiting in 2024. Altogether, these innovations are foreseen to improve Galileo’s accuracy as well as the robustness and resilience of its signal, key to security and military usage..

The suit by OHB, maker of 38 Galileo satellites to date, was filed end of January and based on “allegations of theft of trade secrets,” de Selding wrote.

The post Galileo Satellite Contract Award Suspended in Mid-Air appeared first on Inside GNSS - Global Navigation Satellite Systems Engineering, Policy, and Design.