1 / 30

TOWARDS MULTI-FREQUENCY MULTI-CONSTELLATION GNSS AND SBAS

TOWARDS MULTI-FREQUENCY MULTI-CONSTELLATION GNSS AND SBAS. Guenter W. Hein Head of Galileo Operations and Evolution Department European Space Agency 2nd China Satellite Navigation Conference (CSNC), 2011 Shanghai, 18-20 May 2011. 2nd China Satellite Navigation Conference (CSNC), 2011

kirsten-damia
Download Presentation

TOWARDS MULTI-FREQUENCY MULTI-CONSTELLATION GNSS AND SBAS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TOWARDSMULTI-FREQUENCY MULTI-CONSTELLATION GNSS AND SBAS Guenter W. Hein Head of Galileo Operations and Evolution Department European Space Agency 2nd China Satellite Navigation Conference (CSNC), 2011 Shanghai, 18-20 May 2011 2nd China Satellite Navigation Conference (CSNC), 2011 Shanghai, 18-20 May 2011

  2. OVERVIEW • The World of GNSS • International GNSS Trends • Compatibility and Interoperability • New Signals and Frequency Bands • The More Satellites The Better…? • The Evolution of SBAS • Conclusions

  3. CURRENT AND PLANNED SATELLITE NAVIGATION SYSTEMS Global Regional Augmentation QZSS GPS EGNOS WAAS GLONASS IRNSS GAGAN MSAS Galileo MASS SDCM COMPASS GINS (?)

  4. International GNSS Systems Trends 1 • Flexibility, higher power, coverage, ... • Signal flexibility and general increase of power level.High increase of power level (>20 dBs) regionally • Alternative frequency bands • S-Band Satellite Navigation allocated in ITU Region 2 and 3, used and planned by IRNSS and perhaps others • Inter-Satellite Links (ISL) and better system autonomy • GPS includes ISL for autonomy and NAVWAR purposes.GPS III will use ISL to improve performance via faster navigation message updates to whole constellation • Glonass and Compass may include ISL in the future. Main interest is up-linking all satellites from national territory

  5. International GNSS Systems Trends 2 • System on-board integrity capabilities • GPS III plans on-board integrity monitoring in few seconds • Worldwide positioning performance improvement • GPS provides new signals L1C, L2C, L5 and faster refresh of navigation message for world-wide meter-level point positioning • Similar plans apply with different time scales to all the other systems: Glonass, Compass, IRNSS and QZSS • Alternative orbits • QZSS introducing HEOs for better visibility over urban areas • Compass and IRNSS are introducing GEOs and IGSOs to establish their own regional service

  6. COMPATIBILITY & INTEROPERABILITY • Compatibilityrefers to the ability of space-based positioning, navigation, and timing services to be used separately or together without interfering with each individual service or signal, and without adversely affecting national security • Interoperabilityrefers to the ability of civil space-based positioning, navigation, and timing services to be used together to provide better capabilities at the user level than would be achieved by relying solely on one service or signal *NSPD-39: U.S. Space-Based Position, Navigation, and Timing Policy, December 15, 2004

  7. Modernization of existing systems Deployment of new systems Intersystem interference is becoming an issue Particularly for authorized services Spectral separation plays a fundamental role But also for open services Galileo, GPS, Compass, QZSS, GLONASS (potentially) will provide interoperable signals increasing the noise floor and the consequent degradation of performance L-Band may not serve all users in an ideal way (indoor/single/frequency/ iono) NEW SIGNALS & FREQUENCY BANDSMOTIVATION Spectral resources get scarce

  8. C-BAND DOWN-LINK FREQUENCY • ITU Allocation C-Band (5010-5030) for RNSS since WRC 2000 • Technical difficulties and limitations in performance for that allocation • Advantages • Higher resolution • Smaller ionospheric impact • Smaller antennas at satellite • Drawbacks • Higher attenuation in atmosphere • Higher power at satellite or user array antennas needed • Studies indicate that C-band for mass market is not (yet) mature • C-band preferable for high-power signals and smaller antennas • Search for more bandwidth on C-band necessary

  9. S-Band (2483.5 – 2500 MHz) is RNSS regionally (Asia/America) S-Band already used today for telecommunication + WLAN + Bluetooth Advantage: Synergies between navigation & communication (front-end) Disadvantage: Harsh interference environment expected Clarity needs to be gained on the added value of combining navigation and communication in S-Band for mass market S-BAND DOWN-LINK FREQUENCY • ITU divides world into three regions for radio spectrum management • Region 1 • Europe, Africa, Middle East, west of the Persian Gulf, Russia • Region 2 • American continent, some eastern Pacific Islands • Region 3 • China, Japan, East Asia and most of Oceania

  10. INTEROPERABILITY TODAY Interoperability achieved Interoperability still to be achieved

  11. GDOP decreases as the inverse square root of the number of satellites Once GNSS interference is dominant, noise floor increases linearly proportional to the number of satellites THE MORE SATELLITES THE BETTER? Galileo Galileo Galileo Galileo Galileo GPS GPS GPS GPS GLONASS GLONASS GLONASS COMPASS COMPASS GINS ? ESA UNCLASSIFIED – Releasable to the Public

  12. THE FUTURE • Large number of GNSS satellites in visibility in future • The users will pick up the best GNSS signals based on: • Power level • Easy acquisition • Adherence to multi-constellation standards

  13. IS THE BATTLE REALLY LOST? Not really…fortunately! Conventional GPS receivers consist of several parallel scalar DLLs, which individually estimate the individual pseudoranges These measured pseudoranged are further fed to the Kalman Filter Estimator Conventional receivers assume thus truly independence of measurements As more satellites add to the noise floor, the lower will be the C/N0 of each individual acquisition/tracking channel At a certain number of satellites, the acquisition/tracking channel C/N0 will be below the required threshold Conventional GPS receivers could stop functioning Selection algorithms and Interference Cancellation help in mitigating higher interference

  14. SOME SOLUTIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL RECEIVERS At a certain number of satellites, some channels will have a too low individual C/N0to perform acquisition or tracking. This requires: Selection of individual channels to compute the navigation solution: Selection of channels with best C/N0 Selection of channels with best geometry Selection of channels with best error budget Additional constraints result from the fact that conventional receivers have a limited number of channels to process, resulting in Reduction of satellites to process using convex geometry theory * Maximization of polytope: Chan’s algorithm, Graham’s Scan algorithm, etc… Convex geometry selection is based on the approximate equivalence between minimizing the geometric dilution of precision (GDOP) and maximizing the size of the polytope (polyhedron in 3D or polygon in 2D) contained in the convex hull of all vector’s endpoints for the set of satellites in view * • Since conventional receivers might not be able to process all satellites in view, the assumption that the GDOP decreases as the inverse square root of the number of satellites is not any more valid • On the other hand the aggregate GNSS interference will still grow linearlyas the number of satellites increases regardless of how many are actually used for computing the navigation solution • As a result, at a certain number of satellites the number of channels with C/N0 above the acquisition or tracking threshold will be lower than 4, and conventional receivers that estimate individually the pseudoranges could unavoidably fail * Blanco Delgado, N. and Nunes, F. (2010), A Satellite Selection Method for Multi-Constellation GNSS Using Convex Geometry, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology ESA UNCLASSIFIED – Releasable to the Public

  15. VECTOR PROCESSING IS THE ANSWER Vector tracking (VDLL) estimates the signal delays of all satellites in view in a single processing loop Generalization of Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) Total noise is reduced by considering all channels together VDLL accounts for the actual correlation amongst channels Shannon-Theorem on GNSS channel capacity It is the total power received from all GNSS satellites what defines the capacity of a GNSS channel (!!) VDLL explodes the capacity increase from additional satellites “The use of signals from different satellites may provide enough total signal power to track successfully and to obtain position estimates under the same conditions where the signal strength from each individual satellite is so low that none of the individual scalar DLL can remain in lock” * * James J. Spilker Jr. Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications Vol. I, chapter 7

  16. SHANNON-THEOREM ON GNSS CHANNEL CAPACITY Total multiple access channel capacity C increases with number of signals N where Bis the bandwidth of the GNSS channel Piis the power of each received signal N0 is the one-sided noise density N is the number of GNSS signals received For PiB/N0>>1 the channel capacity increases in proportion to log2N The total information rate sought from the channel (x,y,z – navigation position) is a constant independent of N (!!!) where the desired information rate (rate distortion function) for three coordinates is being the rate at which measurements are sought 2W • High-speed and low-cost computer chips make this task more feasible now for tracking, whereas in the past it would have been too complex • BUT • VDLL requires relatively high speed since the computation delay must be small • In particular for acquisition, vector processing is still an issue today • As far as C>R(D), the more satellites the better * • With N satellites in sight with good geometry, it should be possible to operate with a signal power/satellite ratio that can decrease as N increases * * James J. Spilker Jr. Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications Vol. I, chapter 7

  17. OVERVIEW • The World of GNSS • International GNSS Trends • Compatibility and Interoperability • New Signals and Frequency Bands • The More Satellites The Better…? • The Evolution of SBAS • Conclusions

  18. OVERVIEW • The World of GNSS • The Evolution of SBAS • International SBAS Developments • EGNOS and SBAS Evolution • Arctic and Antarctic Coverage • Integrity • Conclusions

  19. Overview existing SBAS • EGNOS v2.3 being certified for APV-I, 2 GEO*, 38 RIMS, 4 MCC, 4 NLES. • WAAS operational LPV (250 ft), • 2 GEO**, 38 RIMS, 2 MCC, 4 NLES. • MSAS operational RNAV, • 2 GEO, 4 RIMS, 2 MCC, 4 NLES. • Combined GEO footprints cover most of world land areas. • SBAS looking ahead to LPV-200. * One GEO used for test purpose. ** Recent GEO failure CRW, planned to be replaced soon. SBAS Systems LPV-200 coverage analysis

  20. International SBAS developments • WAAS delivers full LPV-200 service in 2013 by enhancing the current system. • WAAS will deliver a dual frequency L1/L5 service by 2018; first upgrades ongoing. • FAA studies ARAIM dual frequency & constellation for the 2025-2030 timeframe. • MSAS faces obsolesce issues now, but plans to deliver LPV-200 in 2014. • GAGAN to be operational in 2012. Failed GEO launch in 2010 delayed the introduction. • Russia develops SDCM with 3 Luch GEO satellites (2011-13). High precision services will be included. • China develops MASS system; transmission by GEO and/or Compass. Augments GPS, Compass and Galileo. High precision services will be included.

  21. Upgrade Ground Segment to GPS/Galileo improves current EGNOS L1 service APV-I Coverage Performance for EGNOS GPS L1 users Current Performance Future Performance: GPS+Galileo G/S ESA UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use

  22. LPV-200 L1/L5 GPS Only

  23. LPV-200 L1/L5 GPS+ Galileo - Complete Coverage of Africa

  24. LPV-200 L1/L5 GPS+Galileo Multi-Regional

  25. CAT-I L1/L5 GPS + GAL

  26. ARCTIC COVERAGE STUDIED BY ESA • With only a few more RIMS in polar region LPV-200 service could be provided, but region outside of GEO coverage. Alternative orbits needed: • Polar Communication & Weather (PCW) HEO Molniya type satellite(s) • Alternative orbits like IGSO are also an option. Artemis could be test candidate. EGNOS /PCW LPV-200 L1/L5 Availability with +10 RIMS in Arctic

  27. INTEGRITY – From where?For whom? GNSS ? SBAS ? RAIM ?

  28. OVERVIEW • The World of GNSS • The Evolution of SBAS • Conclusions

  29. CONCLUSIONS 1 • After 2020: More than 40 MEO navigation satellites in view • Higher accuracy and availability (urban areas), redundancy allows more sophisticated methods • If signals RF compatible and interoperable • The more the better … right or wrong, questionable ? • Increase of noise floor • Conventional receivers and vector processing • Integrity: Global versus SBAS versus User Level • Multi-frequency/system regional SBAS can cover almost whole world and ARAIM may be a new concept • Just sophisticated RAIM for non-aviation integrity?

  30. CONCLUSIONS 2 • Radio Frequency spectrum is full • Intentional versus unintentional interference • Degradation of navigation performance • Security aspects for protected signals • No spectral overlap • New frequency bands, S-band, C-band ? • RF Interference might be the biggest GNSS problem in future

More Related