GPS Test Successful From Outer Space 112
An anonymous reader writes: "AMSAT reports that the GPS experiment
on the international amateur radio spacecraft AO-40 has undergone successful testing." A note on the site reads in part: "This experiment supplied and sponsored by NASA, is to determine if it is possible to get positional data outside of the GPS ring of satellites.
There are two GPS receivers on AO-40, the A receiver for receiving signals around apogee and the B receiver for signal reception around perigee. ... A signal on the apogee receiver from about 52 Thousand Kilometres out with good signal levels has been received, further data is being gathered and those
downloaded so far are being analysed. If this experiment goes the way I expect, it will revolutionise the way we use GPS in Space. Many future HEO spacecraft will
be able to take advantage of GPS for autonomous navigation
and stationkeeping." This is one of the most interesting applications of GPS technology I've heard about -- nice way to reuse what was intended as a terrestrial navigation aid.
umm... (Score:1)
Re:umm... (Score:3, Informative)
Umm the gps satelites are not in geo they are orbiting at about 10K miles
This IS useful (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This IS useful (Score:2)
Unless, of course, there were multiple GPS satellites, and each satellite relyed on the positioning information returned by the majority of them. The odds of all of them being knocked out at once are much lower than just one being knocked out.
Still, if someone were interested in knocking out communications in the united states, they would still only have to knock out the GPS ones in order to knock out the rest. Not quite as bad as single point of failure, but close.
Re:This IS useful (Score:1, Informative)
The idea is that they transmit pseudorandom signals (transmitting some data) at a particular frequency (actually two) that receivers can lock onto. By having accurate locks onto several satellites and knowing the position of the satellites, it is then possible to determine your distance from each one and come up with a location.
Good receivers can lock on to 8 to 12 satellites at a time. Some receivers can also use the similar signals from the Russian equivalent GLONASS satellites. I think there are only 12 GLONASS satellites up there.
All that is from memory, so feel free to correct it or supplement it, but there is not really a single source of failure...the biggest problem is jamming from objects in your local area.
Re:This IS useful (Score:5, Informative)
Unless, of course, there were multiple GPS satellites, and each satellite relyed on the positioning information returned by the majority of them. The odds of all of them being knocked out at once are much lower than just one being knocked out.
There are 24 (plus or minus 1 or 2) GPS satellites in orbit at any one time. In order for your GPS receiver to work at all, it has to receive signals from a minimum of three satellites, four if you want to get a fix that includes altitude. My commercial-grade Garmin 12XL generally shows signals from 7-8, and I've seen as many as 12 at one time.
Still, if someone were interested in knocking out communications in the united states, they would still only have to knock out the GPS ones in order to knock out the rest.
Not hardly. Satellite designers are exceedingly paranoid, and they would never rely on a single method of positioning information.
Today's word is Triangulation (Score:5, Informative)
So how does GPS work on Earth? The Geometry of Triangles, be it distance, angles or whatever. In GPS, it is easier to use the differance in distance for multiple satellites. Note You need more than one.
Secondary neat important fact: The Satellites orbit around the earth, and do not stand still at all relative to the earth. They are NOT geosync at all.
The Question is one of elementary geometry.
Imagine the orbits as a circle on a piece of paper, and satellites as points on the circle. If you can use triangles to find the location of a point inside the circle using those points, you can also use triangle to find locations outside the circle.
In the case of GPS and the Earth the problem is mostly one of signal strength.
With slight modifications, the logic also works in 3D.
;-)
Re:umm... (Score:1)
Re:umm... (Score:2)
The test was to prove that you could use the signals from OUTSIDE the cloud, rather than just inside it, like we are used to down here on earth. The math to do it has always been there, but apparently nobody actually "walked the walk" before this test.
I suppose it's fortunate that there are many GPS birds in the constellation. One of the problems to solve WRT altitude is "am I inside or outside of the cloud"? It used to be true that you could assume you were inside...
John
bad for america? (Score:1, Funny)
Well then we must OUTLAW ALL FORMS OF IT and discontinue any research on the subject!!
...wait a second, you said terrestrial navigation aid. Heh. I thought it was terrorist navigation aid.
Rename it? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Rename it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically anything that requires live updating of on-orbit position data, which is a *lot*
Bear in mind, too, that even if you're going someplace where you *can't* get valid SGPS data, you still have to travel through a large region of space where you still *can* get valid data, which means your picture of your lunar transit or Hohmann transfer orbit is going to be that much more accurate. I'm still salivating over what this means for commercial lunar-earth orbit transits, now that getting into an accurate lunar transit doesn't take radar tracking and heavy CPU on the ground at JSC.
Now all we have to do is put a lunar orbit equivalent in place -- maybe with some telecom capability added in, call it something like Lunar Positioning and Communication System (LPCS) -- and you've got most of what it would take to get to the moon and back on a regular basis
Re:Rename it? (Score:2, Informative)
I think that's a little optimistic.
Seriously, this thing seems to have the potential to make space probe control and navigation much easier and more accurate. It should be very interesting to see what applications come of this.
I think it changes all the rules. Any platform that can figure out for itself where it is in orbit and go where it wants to go without a team of engineers on the ground driving it 24/7 is going to be a major step up in technology. The AO-40 experiment shows SGPS is good for position data out to and possibly beyond GEO (it was launched into GTO from Kourou and didn't get much delta-V before the propulsion systems failed, so its apogee is still about GEO altitude), so you can count on future sats having at least SGPS receive capability on board now that the technology's been demonstrated.
I wouldn't be surprised to see some SGPS capability and perhaps onboard orbital management added to ISS and/or STS in the near future as well
In short
Unfortunately, the /best/ name is already taken... (Score:2)
The Universal Position System would sound really cool, but there's a certain kickass delivery company that already has dibs on any decent acronym.
Nice.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This opens up so many possibilities! Like the article mentioned, satellite station keeping for one. Also, we would know exactly where they were (well, down to a few dozen meters at least) for avoidane and things like that.
Also, so much is said about the problems of space debris. GPS recievers can be small, small enough to attach to debris. Yes, placing it on every little thing could suck, but on the larger things that pose a real hazard. I know there is a project to map the sky's debris, forgot the link. Now, astronauts could know in real time where this stuff is.
Using this for navigation might not work now. As far out as you are, the satellites are really close together, and any errors you see now are going to be much larger. But, we could place GPS satellites orbiting other bodies to use for solar system navigation. LIke i said, lots of possibilites.
Re:Nice.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Also, so much is said about the problems of space debris. GPS recievers can be small, small enough to attach to debris. Yes, placing it on every little thing could suck, but on the larger things that pose a real hazard."
Several months ago, I listened to a radio show where they talked about space debris from all sorts of previous missions. As it turns out, they currently track objects that are quite large, as well as objects the size of a soda can. IIRC that's the smallest they can track. All space debris, even smaller than what they can track, poses a serious hazard to satellites and more so to larger vehicles. Imagine something the size of a golf ball hitting the space shuttle at the speed of a bullet and you've got an idea of the danger. Chances are, the shuttle is designed to get hit by all sorts of stuff, but it can still cause serious damage.
Destroying the space trash isn't the answer either, as it would simply smash larger pieces into smaller pieces, and that's an even bigger mess.
For some reason, I don't think a GPS receiver can be placed on all but the largest pieces of trash. It's like mice who wanted to place a bell around the cat's neck for advance warning. They all cheered about the great idea until an old, wise mouse came along and asked, "And who will put the bell on the cat?" Besides, to attach a receiver to a piece of space debris, you'd have to intercept the debris with a vehicle. If you're going to go through all that trouble, you may as well send a garbage truck^H^H^H^H^Hshuttle and collect all the pieces.
Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:2)
If you're going to get that fancy, then why not use the laser to disintegrate it? IIRC, there's this Star Wars fantasy in the military, involving big lasers used to destroy ICBMs.
If they figure they can destroy an ICBM using a laser, then certainly them must be able to destroy smaller debris.
Poof. Atomized.
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:2)
Again, it's important to keep debris together. Small pieces carry the same energy as big pieces (as an aggregate), and if in the same orbit as the original piece, might do as much damage.
Bruce
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:2)
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:1)
(Weight, perhaps? But that could have been resolved by bringing up single layers of kevlar during each shuttle flight. Layer 'em when it's time to get scooping.)
(There would, of course, need to be some way to maneuver the net around the good satellites!)
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:2)
You have to consider the volume in question. Imagine that there was an invisible pop can somewhere within a kilometer or so of the ground over your home country, floating exactly the way a brick doesn't. Your job is to scan the air with a net till you catch it. Even with a very large net, you could be out there for many years.
Now consider that the can is moving, so just because you didn't find it someplace yesterday doesn't mean it isn't there now.
Multiply in the fact that your country covers a very small fraction of the earth's surface (<<10%), and that the layer we are concerned about is many hundreds of kilometers thick--we aren't just concerned with things "in" the orbit we're trying to protect, but in anything that might cross that orbit...
Now consider that you don't know how many invisible pop cans you're after, and people keep sneaking up new invisible pop cans...I could go on, but I think you get the point.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:1)
Actually, I imagine that this is not really necessary, since most of it would be in decaying orbits anyway. By the time we had enough interest to undertake such a project, much of what is up there will have already fallen out of orbit. The real answer is to stop leaving the junk up there to begin with, and to develop some sort of better armor for the spacecraft. After all, space will not be truly colonized until the next BIG war (i.e., WW-III, not ``Die, Bin Laden, Die!''), and that will require armor to protect against the weapons of the other side. As it is right now, a modified pressure cannon (think big air rifle) could take out the shuttle.
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:1)
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:1)
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:2)
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:4, Insightful)
Great idea. One quibble though:
Push on the debris with the laser light from ahead of its orbit. The satellite gains some orbital energy, the debris loses some. Eventually, the debris deorbits.
If the goal is to deorbit the debris, we can take the fact that it loses energy as given. However, depending on the relative orbits, it isn't clear that the laser platform will gain energy. If they are appoching each other head on, for example, they both lose energy. In most cases, I suspect the effect on the platform would be a mild course correction with little change in total energy. One strategy might be:
Rule 1) Don't shoot at targets that would reduce our orbital energy (eliminating 1/2 the potential targets).
Rule 2) Only shoot at half the remaining targets, chosen so that we consistantly precess our orbit, bringing previously ignored targets onto our active list.
Another thought is that we get the delta-V even if we don't hit the target, so we can always shoot at nothing (after confirming that there is in fact nothing there) to adjust our course.
-- MarkusQ
I Like It. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Wild idea: How to deal with space debris. (Score:2)
Second response: wouldn't it, possibly, be simpler (though not simple of course) to attempt to fire projectiles (thinking using a magnetic "railgun" to do the firing) into highly calculated orbits with the sole purpose of the projectile hitting the piece of space junk, and deorbiting both itself and the object it is aimed at? This would seem like a slightly more feasible scheme. . . (though maybe just as pie-in-the-sky as Bruce's suggestion, hehe).
Cloth debris catchers (Score:1)
If nothing else the swept-up debris will be in a more convenient form to laser and deorbit.
Re:Nice.... (Score:1)
Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
If they know where the debris is to tag it, how come they don't know where it is before it hits something?
Also, although I am no expert, this sounds as feasible as keeping inventory of a wheat field.
It seems more feasible to advance our radar technology and evolve computers to track and keep tabs on potential collisions with unknown objects...
Re:Nice.... (Score:1)
SSTL [sstl.co.uk]'s nano/microsatellites might play a role here. SNAP-1 [sstl.co.uk] manouvered about a couple of satellites taking snaps [sstl.co.uk], Its due to rendezvous with another SSTL sat soon, one of its potential roles could be tagging/deorbiting junk.
Re:Nice.... (Score:2)
Ahh Man...! (Score:2)
But that would wreck that old cliche of Science Fiction: "Lost on an alien world, with no idea of how to get back to base."
And don't talk to me about Cell Phone satellites!
Re:Ahh Man...! (Score:2)
AAAAARGHHH (Score:3, Funny)
now what am I going to do?
now i am not safe anywhere from the government tracking me with GPS
They must have grown suspicous during my occasional trips to the mother ship
now we will be found out
*sigh*
i knew the anal probing days had to come to an end
Why _wouldn't_ if have been possible? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why _wouldn't_ if have been possible? (Score:3, Informative)
The antenna patterns of the GPS satellites are not in fact published. It's probably a safe assumption that they point at Earth, but the DoD have never published any specs.
There are a number of challenges to using GPS for satellite navigation. A terrestrial receiver isn't going to be in much trouble if it takes a few milliseconds to compute a fix. A satellite receiver will move an appreciable distance in the same time, rendering the fix meaningless.
AMSAT had to use a semi-custom GPS receiver to get around the anti-SCUD provisions that are mandated for commercial GPS receivers.
A propos DMCA: the GPS algorithms are all published. You can download them from the Internet.
...laura
Re:Why _wouldn't_ if have been possible? (Score:1)
And AMSAT did this as an amateur project.
Amsat = ham radio.
Re:Why _wouldn't_ if have been possible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Another consideration is the doppler effects from the movement, the GPS reciever might need a specially designed front end to account for the fun variations in timing signals.
GPS technology has some serious math and crypto 'hacks' going on. They've taken a technology designed in the 70's for military use and several meters accuracy and have gotten cheap consumer handheld recievers near that and they have enabled land surveyors to achieve sub centimeter accuracy with two recievers (enabling some unheard of accuracies in measuring the earth and making large scale engineering projects much easier to finish). I doubt that satellite tracking was in the original design documents either.
Re:Why _wouldn't_ if have been possible? (Score:3, Informative)
Think about AO-40 as its heading towards apogee. This is a high earth orbit satellite, peaking at 30,000km away from earth. I'm sure the 950mph was a speed rating in a flat plane. Lots of x and/or y, but very little z.
Rotate the frame of reference from a Concorde trying to get a GPS fix over the Atlantic at mach 2.0 to a Delta rocket lifting off from Kennedy trying to get one (pretending that liftoff is straight up from the ground with no arcing). My bet is the Delta rocket would get one while the Concorde would fail the 950mph limit you mention.
Just extend that Delta theory to 30,000km out and that's where AO-40 got its fix. I don't care how fast its going, in a straight line, the GPS sats see it as not changing x or y, just z. Track AO-40 on some sat tracking software sometime and you'll see that the orbit is so far out and so "vertical" to the earth at some points that the sat often appears to nearly stop right in its place on the map. That's when its moving directly away from or towards the surface of the earth.
Of course, I'm always willing to be wrong. It just seems like 17,000mph purely in the z direction would get the same sat exposure as a car sitting at a red light.
DMCA? (Score:1, Funny)
is the RIAA going to sue NASA now?
Debian played a part (Score:4, Interesting)
Bruce
Re:Debian played a part (Score:1)
just a thought.
Re:Debian played a part (Score:2)
Bruce
The future of Geo Caching (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The future of Geo Caching (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The future of Geo Caching (Score:1)
Great (Score:4, Funny)
How useful is this, really? (Score:1)
That works great when the distance between you and one of the satellites is the same or somewhat less than the distance between the satellites themselves. But out in space, even if they only go a small fraction of the way to the moon, the distance to ANY GPS satellite is going to be so much further that the difference in "ping" time from one satelitte to the next is going to be minimal.... which means your ability to triangulate where you are gets worse and worse. In fact, I don't think this would be reliable except for orbiting satellites. And I am sure orbiting satellites have been doing the same thing via ground stations (non-GPS signals) for years. So how useful is this? Unless we plan on setting up hundreds or thousands of GPS sattellites on the way to Mars (or to the moon for that matter)... but there's already this cool triangulation thing you can do with a few big natural satelittes... the sun, earth, and nearby planets. Last I checked that's totally free.
Re:How useful is this, really? (Score:1)
Re:How useful is this, really? (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't know much about how GPS works, but I have a basic idea. The system determines the time it takes to bounce signals to a few different satellites and then triangulates where you are based on the determined distance from each satellite.
That is not quite right. The don't bounce the signal to a few different satellites, they send the signal out to all the objects. The objects then take the signals from each satellite and use the varying differences in time (and knowledge of the satellites position) to calculate its position.
That works great when the distance between you and one of the satellites is the same or somewhat less than the distance between the satellites themselves. But out in space, even if they only go a small fraction of the way to the moon, the distance to ANY GPS satellite is going to be so much further that the difference in "ping" time from one satelitte to the next is going to be minimal.... which means your ability to triangulate where you are gets worse and worse. In fact, I don't think this would be reliable except for orbiting satellites. And I am sure orbiting satellites have been doing the same thing via ground stations (non-GPS signals) for years. So how useful is this? Unless we plan on setting up hundreds or thousands of GPS sattellites on the way to Mars (or to the moon for that matter)... but there's already this cool triangulation thing you can do with a few big natural satelittes... the sun, earth, and nearby planets. Last I checked that's totally free.
You are right the quality of the position fix degrades as you get further from the earth. Why is it useful? It is useful because most satellites orbit the earth and it works there. They have been doing similar things on the ground for many years, but if the satellite can take care of altitude and attitude adjustments itself, it can save a lot of money. The current ground station implementation is very expensive (a couple million?) and theoretically the cost of a space GPS receiver could get down to tens of thousands of dollars.
Most deep space missions will continue to use celestial bodies as their main navigation aids. But most space missions are not out of the Earth's orbit
Re:How useful is this, really? (Score:3, Informative)
GPS Satalites orbit on a 12hr schedule (I think). But 2 new satalites used for GPS are geosynchronous. (used for WAAS enabled receivers. They send atmospheric correction data to increase the accuracy, and as bonus can act as GPS satalites as well.).
By the way, GPS is 'free', there is no charge to use the service above buying a receiver. And if your going to use the sun/stars for navigation your still going to have to have somehting interpret the data...
Not our own satellites!! (Score:1)
Wow! (Score:3, Funny)
radiation-hardened devices (Score:3, Insightful)
Off-the-shelf components promise to decrease the cost of missions, but what risks are we taking by doing so?
Few companies use Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) as a substrate in the manufacture of their semiconductors due to its cost. It is brittle, and does not possess a native oxide (used as an insulating layer). Consequently most companies use good ol' Silicon (Si). One of the benefits of devices built on GaAs, is their capability to function normally in a high-radiation environment. They are said to be radiation-hardened.
Should a device need to be radiation-hardened, it would most likely need to be manufactured in another company's fab, using/developing a new process.
Even if the software was written today, and a satellite was ready to be deployed tomorrow, it'd be a long time before we had an autonomous and station-keeping satellite...simply due to the time needed to build a radiation-hardened device. It'd just be a matter of time (and statistics) before a Si-based device malfunctioned and took out several other satellites along with it.
Existing satellites will likely be fine, but as they are EOL'd I would expect their replacements to have this technology. In the interim, maybe satellites can be built with the capability for an upgrade module that NASA can intall for them at a later date? --providing another market and decrease TCO for companies/governmments that require satellites.
Second Tier Positioning System (Score:2)
I think this is something that needs to be done for the benefit of Man. With the advent of an effective and universal system of navigation in space, its privitization would be ever more likely.
Congratulations! Now get lost... (Score:2)
- Using software to wash SEU's out of cheap flight-RAM
- the use of the adapter-ring as a satellite in it's own right
- The entire MicroSat concept in toto
and etcetera, as one of the techniques routinely employed thruought the non-amateur aerospace industry. Thanks again.Now, get out of the way while we sell all your spectrum to the highest bidder!
73, de Gus
Eight Papa Six Sly Mongoose
How useful is this really? (Score:1)
By using GPS, you are limited to the locational accuracy of the GPS satellites. How old are those satellites? Surely some aspect of the technology they use to determine/maintain their own position has advanced in the time since they were launched. Hence, I would expect a new satellite to be better able to know its position without using GPS.
But hey. Research whatever you like, usually some good will come from it.
Re:How useful is this really? (Score:2)
They will autmaticly re-aquire on their own if you give them a chance, and they will then download new data from the satalites so it can better predict which satalites are in view next time.
Re:How useful is this really? (Score:2)
Usually, it's helpful to know what you're talking about before you start talking about it.
Some info on the first satellite GPS tests... (Score:4, Interesting)
Three major differences:
- speed and altitude limitations removed (the government doesn't want these guiding missles)
- satellite reacquisition time reduced. Going fast means that you'll have to change satellites used for the calculation much more often. Back in the day of single-channel receivers, this was a major concern.
- vehicle dynamics set to assume an orbit, not some low earth speed.
Here's a great page with some info & diagrams of what's going on. [titech.ac.jp] It also shows how a signal can be received from a higher orbit: it listens to satellites on the other side of the earth. This is refracted through the ionosphere, and a lot of math is probably used to compensate (actually the military version of gps uses two frequencies - the ionosphere modifies each one differently and, knowing this, can be corrected better).
The RADCAL satellite took measurements, but didn't use the GPS signal for navigation. REX-II actually used a closed loop system to stabilize the entire satellite. The attitude control system is an essential part of any satellite, since it points the antennas to the ground and the solar cells at the all-important sun. Usually, there are many different types of sensors (horizon sensors, magnetometers that compare the current field with a predetermied map of the earth, star sensors, and gyros), and typically none of these sensors alone provides a complete attitude. The fusion between all these sensors, with various levels of error and fault tolereance, is a really tough job! So, a small, light gps adds a lot of good information to the equation, and can serve as the primary sensor, or as a good backup.
We used a modified trimble gps unit with 4 antennas. This unit was originally designed to determine the attitude of fighter planes, but we used modified software to work in space. One antenna read the main GPS signal, while the other three measured the phase difference between themselves and the main signal to find the difference in distance to the satellites.
Side note about the fighter jet version of the software: The differential positions of the antennas were used to calculate the attitude. I know what you're thinking: why 4 antennas to solve 3 unknowns (pitch, yaw, roll)? It turns out that wing flex (since these were spread out as far as possible, which meant 2 were on the wings) had to be taken into account. Besides that, the extra antenna provided improved coverage in case the fuselage blocked an antenna.
We used these units sucessfully in many leo satellites...
Doppler effect (Score:1)
I wonder... (Score:1)
Other cool uses for GPS (Score:1)
2) GPS guided dead-fall bombs. These bombs have steering fins, but no propulsion. Drop them from a plane, and they steer their way towards the target.
3) GPS-giuded autopilots on Coast Guard helicopters. Searching at sea is very hard - with no landmarks, flying a consistent search pattern is extremely difficult. No problem - turn on autopilot, and it uses the GPS to automatically fly a perfect search pattern. As a bonus, the pilot can spend all his time looking out the window for any survivors, instead of having to fly the craft.
I wonder (Score:1)
Re:I wonder (Score:1, Informative)
I took the exam on the 22th
you took the exam but you don't know what class of license you need for 50MHz and above? WTF?!
frequencies and status of all amateur satellites, [amsat.org] updated weekly
a technician class license will give you all the ham bands 50MHz and up.
Re:I wonder (Score:1)
2nd thanks for the infomation. I have bookedmarked that site.