GPS Declassified

by Richard D. Easton

  China launched its sixteenth Beidou satellite in October 2012 and began offering service across the Asia-Pacific region in late December 2012.212 China plans to have thirty to thirty-five satellites in orbit by 2020, providing worldwide service.213 Beijing announced in August 2012 that it would build eight regional testing centers within three years to certify civilian equipment and five development hubs to spur innovation, incubate new enterprises, and accelerate industrial adoption.214 There are an estimated 30 million GPS navigation devices in use in China, compared to about 120,000 civilian and military Beidou users so far.215 Chinese officials say they will gain market share with lower prices and better accuracy.216

  Europe’s ESA meanwhile launched Galileo prototypes in 2005 and 2008, the first two operational satellites in 2011, and two more in late 2012.217 A fact sheet available at the ESA website provides an overview of the program: The agency currently launches satellites in pairs aboard Russian-made Soyuz rockets but plans to begin launching four at a time aboard Arianespace rockets starting in 2014. All launches take place from the European spaceport in French Guiana. After the first four satellites complete in-orbit validation tests, the schedule foresees eighteen satellites in orbit by 2015 and thirty by 2020. The Galileo constellation will have twenty-seven satellites and three spares in three orbital planes angled fifty-six degrees above the equator. They orbit a bit higher than GPS satellites, taking fourteen hours to circle the planet.218 Each satellite carries two atomic clocks—a rubidium frequency standard and a hydrogen maser, designated as the master clock.219 Galileo will offer five services. A basic open service, like GPS, will be free of charge for all users. Subscriber services include an encrypted commercial service with higher data throughput and better accuracy, a safety-of-life service with a built-in integrity feature to alert aviation and maritime users of system failures, and a public regulated service with controlled access for such users as police and first responders. It will also provide search-and-rescue service linked to an international distress system.220

  Each Galileo satellite will broadcast ten coded signals.221 Galileo’s Open Service and GPS are supposed to share a new common civilian signal, E1/L1C, on the same frequency by using a technique called multiplex binary offset carrier (MBOC), developed by a joint task force during the negotiations that produced the 2004 U.S.-European agreement. However, a transatlantic tempest erupted in April 2012 after the United Kingdom awarded a patent for MBOC to a wholly owned subsidiary of the British military’s UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.222 It listed the inventors as two British engineers who were part of the joint task force.223 A patent would force manufacturers to pay royalties and raise the prices of receivers designed for a taxpayer-funded free service. Even the U.S. military would pay more because it purchases many civilian devices for noncombat missions.224 The patent dispute appeared headed for resolution after the British secretary of state for defence in October 2012 asked the European Patent Office to revoke the patent.225

  There is also the matter of Galileo’s funding. Cost overruns, together with slow economic growth, monetary problems, and austerity measures among member nations, remain a challenge. The European Parliament approved €3.4 billion in late 2007 to cover the entire program through 2013, shifting a substantial sum from agriculture in the process.226 The total covers the first fourteen satellites and the ground control segment as well as the operation of the European Geostationary Overlay System (EGNOS), Europe’s version of the U.S. WAAS satellite augmentation system. Officials estimate that combined operating costs for Galileo, after completion, and EGNOS, declared operational for aviation in 2011, will be about €800 million annually.227 EU lawmakers began drafting proposals in spring 2012 allocating €7 billion (nearly $9 billion) for the program over the next EU budget period, 2014–20, to reach full operational capability with thirty satellites.228 In February 2013 the European Council trimmed the commission’s proposal by 10 percent, approving €6.3 billion for Galileo.229 However, the European Parliament, the third body in the EU’s complicated budget-making system, had not weighed in on the figure as this book went to production. The European Commission, which proposes and administers EU policies, estimated that satellite navigation accounted for about 7 percent of EU gross domestic product in 2009.230 It cited independent studies projecting €90 billion in direct and indirect economic benefits to the EU over Galileo’s first twenty years of operation.231 As part of the commission’s efforts to boost public enthusiasm, it sponsored an art competition for schoolchildren ages nine to eleven, with a satellite being named after the child whose drawing placed first in each nation.232

  Other navigation satellite systems being developed are regional in scope. The Japanese government in 2002 authorized the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS), led initially by a group of businesses that later pulled out of the project and were replaced in 2007 by the government-sponsored Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency.233 It launched one satellite in 2010, plans three more launches by the end of the decade, and envisions a constellation of seven satellites eventually.234 The government accelerated development in fall 2011, apparently motivated by the earthquake and tsunami.235 The system’s name derives from its highly elliptical orbits, which will keep three satellites over Japan more than twelve hours a day and at least one almost directly overhead at most times.236 This placement facilitates better visibility for car navigation in the urban canyons of Japanese cities.237 Japan also operates the Multifunctional Transport Satellite Augmentation System (MSAS), which, like WAAS and EGNOS, uses satellites to transmit signals enhanced by a network of ground reference stations.238 It became operational in 2007.239

  Less than a week after Russia offered India a joint development stake in upgrading GLONASS, India announced that it would launch in 2013 the first of seven satellites for its Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS).240 Although the two nations entered discussions at the end of 2010 about closer ties between their programs, it is unclear how India will proceed.241 Indian media have tended to highlight ending dependence on GPS and to overlook IRNSS’s regional limitations with such headlines as “Scientists Excited about India’s Own GPS. ”242 The government began the program in 2006, and the Indian Space Research Organization expects to complete the constellation in 2014, although the original first launch was supposed to occur in 2012.243 IRNSS will have a different architecture from any other GNSS. Three satellites will have geostationary orbits, traveling at the same rate as the earth’s rotation, so they will appear fixed in the sky like those used for satellite television. The other four will have geosynchronous orbits, circling the earth in twenty-four hours, but because they will be inclined twenty-nine degrees from the equator, their movement in the sky will resemble a figure eight.244 This arrangement will keep all seven satellites visible in the Indian region twenty-four hours a day.245 India, too, is developing a space-based augmentation system. The GPS-Aided Geo-Augmented Navigation system, or GAGAN, will consist of three geostationary satellites linked to a network of ground stations, which are in their final testing phase.246 After an initial launch failed in 2010, India placed the first GAGAN satellite in orbit in May 2011 and the second in September 2012.247

  Not to be outdone, Iran announced plans in May 2012 to develop Nasir 1, described as a “domestically designed and manufactured satellite navigation system. ”248 The director of Iran’s space agency said Iran was among a handful of nations capable of developing satellite technology but provided no details on the number of satellites, system design, or launch dates beyond hopes for “the near future. ” Curiously, the second sentence of the widely circulated report by the Mehr News Agency stated, “The satellite navigation system has been designed to find the precise locations of satellites moving in orbit. ” It is unclear whether this is a translation issue, incomplete reporting, or veiled bravado. Iran two weeks earlier had scheduled the launch of its Fajr (Dawn) reconnaissance satellite to coincide with the start of nuclear negotiations with six major powers.24
9 That day passed without a launch, and Iran announced a one-year postponement the day before the unveiling of its satellite navigation aspirations.250

  U.S. leaders can draw many lessons from what other nations or groups of nations are doing with GNSS. Here are three: First, delays caused by technical and financial challenges are common. Second, the United States cannot be complacent about upgrading GPS, because other GNSS developers are numerous, determined, and capable. Third, the United States must compete and cooperate simultaneously—practicing “co-opetition ”—and the best place to do that is from the lead.251 Thus, government officials frequently discuss maintaining GPS as the global “gold standard. ”252

  At this writing four GPS IIF satellites are in orbit and the prime contractor, Boeing, projects delivery of the twelfth and final IIF satellite in 2013.253 The Air Force plans to launch two IIF satellites per year through 2016.254 The IIF’s new features, such as the L5 signal, which the FAA will use for new flight procedures that accommodate more traffic and save fuel, require a sufficient number of satellites in orbit. The same situation existed before the original GPS constellation was completed, but with forthcoming Galileo satellites offering compatible L5 signals, there could be as many as thirty combined satellites broadcasting L5 by the end of 2015, rather than by 2019 under the GPS schedule alone.255

  For several years, the Air Force insisted that the first GPS III satellite would launch in April 2014. (The next chapter discusses GPS III features in detail.) Lockheed Martin officials have said their company is on track to deliver the first GPS III satellite “flight ready ” in 2014.256 The IIF delays that GAO criticized created this significant overlap of launch schedules. Fortunately, the Air Force has been able to manage the aging constellation in a manner that makes it unlikely that the number of satellites could fall below twenty-four before 2014. Having a backlog of satellites ready to go is obviously better than needing satellites that are not ready, but scheduling payloads on launch vehicles in available time slots could become an issue. That possibility is lessened because the Air Force is designing the block IIIs to fly aboard either Delta IV or Atlas V rockets and to be launched in pairs, either together or with other “dual manifest ” satellites.257

  More importantly, although the first GPS III satellite will be available for launch in April 2014, a new ground control system designed specifically for it will not be ready. Replacing the existing Boeing-built Operational Control System (OCS) with a Raytheon-built next generation Operational Control Segment (OCX) is about seventeen months behind schedule, and some independent observers estimate that upgrades required to fully utilize GPS III’s advanced features will not be complete until mid- to late 2017.258

  OCX is being phased in. The initial phase will provide launch and checkout capability for GPS III satellites. The second phase will merge command and control of older satellites and GPS IIIs, including new civilian signals. The third phase will accommodate new international and modernized military signals. The OCX delay has compelled the Air Force to postpone the first GPS III launch until May 2015, a schedule that depends on no additional problems slowing OCX development.259

  Homegrown Static

  Amid the IIF delays, brownout worries, and out-of-sync space and ground segment upgrades, the GPS industry suddenly faced a new challenge. A company named LightSquared announced plans to build a nationwide 4G mobile broadband network using radio spectrum adjacent to the frequencies GPS uses. Light-Squared formed in early 2010, when a New York hedge fund, Harbinger Capital Partners, acquired mobile satellite service provider SkyTerra.260 The FCC had given SkyTerra (under its previous name, Mobile Satellite Ventures) permission to build an ancillary terrestrial component—cellular ground stations—to augment coverage where satellite signals do not work well, such as urban areas. That authorization allowed a maximum of 2,415 ground stations in the United States.261 LightSquared conceived a plan to develop a network of forty thousand ground stations and provide wholesale broadband to wireless carriers—making almost the entire nation a Wi-Fi hotspot. It signed an eight-year, $7 billion deal with Nokia Siemens Networks in July 2010 to build the network and asked the FCC for approval in November.262

  What had been a mobile satellite service with a limited number of ground stations posing scattered risks of GPS interference morphed into a predominantly ground-based network with a minor satellite component posing potential interference problems nationwide. GPS experts said that LightSquared’s ground station signals, by some estimates five billion times more powerful than faint GPS signals from space, would disrupt receivers on the ground nearly six miles away and receivers in aircraft up to twelve miles away.263

  In late January 2011 the FCC gave LightSquared permission to proceed on the condition it allay interference concerns expressed by the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. GPS Industry Council.264 “Seething ” is how Inside GNSS reporter Dee Ann Divis described the reactions of people in the GPS community.265 When the FCC ordered LightSquared and industry representatives to form a joint working group, conduct interference tests, and present findings within five months, many perceived the FCC to be rushing the process, driven by political cronyism.266 The Center for Public Integrity, nonpartisan but sometimes accused of leaning left, compiled a report calling the connections between LightSquared and the Obama administration a clear example of political patronage.267 Among their findings: Billionaire Philip Falcone, head of Harbinger Capital, had previously contributed the maximum allowable to both Democratic and Republican Senate campaign committees, ensuring access. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski was one of the Obama 2008 campaign’s major fundraising “bundlers ” and served on the Obama transition team with Jeff Carlisle, LightSquared’s executive vice president for regulatory affairs, creating a too-cozy relationship between the regulator and the petitioner seeking a waiver.

  As technical studies proceeded in laboratories, the controversy played out in a public battle that lasted more than a year and attracted broader media coverage than perhaps any GPS issue to date. Both sides hired lobbyists and public relations firms.268 A group of industry leaders formed the Coalition to Save Our GPS in March 2011, gathering support from aviation, agriculture, transportation, construction, engineering, surveying, GPS equipment manufacturers, and service providers.269 Their efforts along with the concerns of federal agencies and the military soon brought elected officials into the fray. Thirty-four senators asked the FCC to rescind the waiver, and the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with a provision prohibiting the FCC from giving LightSquared final approval until the Defense Department’s concerns were satisfied.270 President Obama signed the NDAA and later included similar language in his budget concerning interference of commercial devices.271

  Responding to criticism from such major companies as General Motors and John Deere., LightSquared’s public relations campaign ran nationwide full-page ads in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and launched the supposedly grassroots Empower Rural America Initiative to bring broadband to the heartland.272 The tone of the company’s news releases ranged from cooperation to contempt. After tests confirmed interference, LightSquared offered in June 2011 to swap spectrum with another Harbinger-affiliated satellite provider and use a frequency farther from GPS signals at lower power until a technical solution emerged.273 When GPS manufacturers balked because they were unsure any technical remedy was possible, LightSquared blamed the industry for failing to build receivers with adequate noise filters and called the billions spent by government on GPS a “federal handout ” to them.274 The FCC ordered more tests.275 In October the company’s general counsel released a statement that seemed to lay the groundwork for litigation, and Carlisle, the executive vice president, accused National PNT Advisory Board members of bias due to their financial interests.276 As the January 26 anniversary of the FCC waiver approached, the company charged that GPS industry insiders had “rigged ” test results by using
obsolete receivers.277 Intense lobbying continued. The NTIA sent the FCC a letter on February 14, 2012, summarizing its review of tests by various federal agencies. “We conclude that LightSquared’s proposed mobile broadband network will impact GPS services and that there is no practical way to mitigate the potential interference at this time ,” it stated.278 Later that day the FCC issued a news release announcing its intention to vacate the conditional waiver and suspend indefinitely LightSquared’s authority to build more ground stations.279 Responding to the decision, LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja characterized the nationwide coverage requirements the FCC attached to the company’s original request as a government mandate that forced LightSquared to invest nearly $4 billion only to have the agency change its mind.280 The company vowed to fight on, but its finances were unraveling. Within two weeks a group of investors sued Harbinger Capital, and LightSquared defaulted on a $56 million payment to a satellite operator.281 A week later the company cut nearly half of its 330 employees and Ahuja stepped down as CEO.282 In March Sprint Nextel canceled a $9 billion, fifteen-year spectrum hosting agreement, and on May 14, 2012, LightSquared filed for bankruptcy, still vowing to reorganize and find a way to build its network.283

  The LightSquared controversy was costly and disruptive but may have long-term benefits. It significantly raised public awareness of the role GPS now plays in the U.S. economy and the nation’s security and prompted the National PNT Advisory Board to develop a series of recommendations about jamming. They include urging the executive branch to designate GPS as critical national infrastructure subject to Department of Homeland Security oversight, creating a system for reporting locations with persistent interference and eliminating them, cracking down on GPS jammers, strengthening receivers and antennas, and funding a national backup capability for PNT needs.284