Sharing new thoughts on three GPS segments

July 26, 2017  - By

Possibly during the course of last month’s editorial here, “‘Nearly Perfect’ Not Nearly,” in which I called out the U.S. Air Force for lauding itself a bit much, I veered across the line separating vehemence from over-vehemence. Just possibly. Over-vehemence is a professional hazard of journalism. A gentle reader wrote in to suggest as much. He began, in his polite way, with “As always, I enjoyed your article and it made me think.” Then he offered a few of his thoughts for me in turn to consider.

First, he urged me to weigh all three GPS segments. The space and control segments operate almost flawlessly, he averred. Except, I can’t refrain from riposting, for the times that they don’t.

The user segment, we can all agree, is a different story. Most current GPS user equipment can be jammed and spoofed, sometimes very easily, and some have difficulty handling leap seconds and GPS week rollovers.

The U.S. Air Force and the GPS program office cannot fix the problem with user equipment. This is up to those who manufacture, purchase, install and maintain the user equipment.

Fair enough.

Let’s not even get into mapping and guidance algorithms and obsolete data that generate multitudinous stories in mass media about drivers led astray and into danger “by GPS.” Those are the fault, not of the user equipment per se, but of software conjoined to a receiver in a navigation device or smartphone.

My column in June’s GNSS Design & Test enewsletter covered the same ground and then tackled the potential costs of GPS disruption, citing a study done by Innovate U.K., the U.K. Space Agency and the Royal Institute of Navigation. This included a pie chart of potential economic losses in the U.K. that would stem from a prolonged GNSS disruption. I really should have correleated these with, or at least mentioned in the same breath, the reports done for the National Space Based-PNT Advisory Board by Irv Leveson, because there were several mismatches. In particular, the PNT Advisory Board study concluded that more than 50 percent of the value of GPS to the U.S. economy lies in high-precision uses — substantially higher than estimated in the U.K.

Regardless of statistics, we should think, my correspondent reminded me, about the performance needs of different uses. It’s not just whether you have PNT or you don’t. The degree to which you have it is the key: accuracy, coverage, 3D versus 2D positioning and other factors determine if a technology can perform to meet a given need. Aviation requires 3D positioning for some operations. Surveying and machine control require submeter accuracy. Road use requires meter accuracy now, and submeter in the future for autonomous driving. Almost 50 percent of the U.K. pie chart, and more than 50 percent of GPS value to the U.S., requires meter or better accuracy. Except for other satnav systems, what known technology can provide this kind of performance over an area the size of a nation, whether U.K. or U.S.?

About the Author:

Alan Cameron is editor-in-chief and publisher of GPS World magazine, where he has worked since 2000. He also writes the monthly GNSS Design & Test e-Newsletter and the Wide Awake blog.

2 Comments on "Sharing new thoughts on three GPS segments"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Gordon reichal says:

    We built GPS for the military and those pesky users jumped in and got amazing with applications. Our ground pounder war fighters (I love ’em all) need not so much GPS accuracy at sub meter levels as much as what they told us they need is what is around the next street corner. Again, those pesky users (I love them as well) developed drones to do just that. User needs evolve and God Bless our Overwatchers helping keep users safer. ICS to OCS to AEP to OCX (I hope one day) exist for users. Otherwise GPS would be an expensive national hobby.

  2. GPS was a dual military civilian system from day 1. But in 1973, only the DOD was willing to fund it.