GPS Solutions

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 737–750 | Cite as

Orbital representations for the next generation of satellite-based augmentation systems

  • Tyler G. R. Reid
  • Todd Walter
  • Per K. Enge
  • Takeyasu Sakai
Original Article


The landscape of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is changing. New constellations are coming online, and a diversity of new signals are coming to the user space. Multi-frequency adds a means for ionospheric correction as well as robustness to jamming. Multi-constellation gives rise to better geometry and robustness to satellite failures. Systems which require a high degree of safety such as aviation require Satellite-Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) to be used in conjunction with GNSS. As such, SBAS standards must be modernized to reflect the evolving GNSS environment. SBAS will deliver additional service on a new frequency at L5, giving the ideal opportunity to modernize the SBAS Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). Geostationary (GEO) satellites currently comprise the space segment of SBAS. However, GEOs remain at the equator limiting their visibility at the Poles. As activity in the Arctic is increasing, SBAS service in this region is of utmost importance to ensure safety. As such, it is desired that the next-generation L5 MOPS allow for orbit classes other than GEO. Orbital diversity for the delivery of SBAS corrections will allow for better visibility of this service on all places on earth. Here, we discuss the design and qualification of the L5 MOPS orbit messages, namely the ephemeris and almanac. These will support a multitude of orbit classes including all of those used today by both GNSS and SBAS.


SBAS Multi-constellation Orbital mechanics QZSS Arctic 



The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of the Federal Aviation Administration Satellite Product Team under Cooperative Agreement 2012-G-003, Lockheed Martin, The Boeing Company, and the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada for supporting this work. The authors would also like to gratefully acknowledge the individual analysis centers of the IGS and its MGEX project for the precise GNSS orbit products used in this study.


  1. Bourbonnais P, Lasserre F (2015) Winter shipping in the Canadian Arctic: toward year-round traffic? Polar Geogr 38(1):70–88. doi: 10.1080/1088937X.2015.1006298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cavalieri DJ, Parkinson CL, Gloersen P, Zwally H (1996) Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS Passive Microwave Data. NASA DAAC at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  3. China Satellite Navigation Office (2012) BeiDou Navigation Satellite System Signal In Space Interface Control Document: Open Service Signal B1I, Version 1.0Google Scholar
  4. Dierendonck AJV, Russel SS, Kopitzke ER, Birnbaum M (1978) The GPS navigation message. Navigation 25(2):147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dow J, Neilan RE, Rizos C (2009) The international GNSS Service in a changing landscape of Global Navigation Satellite Systems. J Geod 83(3–4):191–198. doi: 10.1007/s00190-008-0300-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Union (2010) European GNSS (Galileo) Open Service. Signal In Space Interface Control Document, Issue 1.1Google Scholar
  7. Gao GX, Heng L, Walter T, Enge P (2011) Breaking the ice: navigating in the Arctic. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS 2011, Institute of Navigation, Portland, OR, pp 3767–3772Google Scholar
  8. Global Positioning System Directoriate (2014) Navstar GPS space/navigation user interfaces. Interface Specification IS-GPS-200, Revision HGoogle Scholar
  9. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (2012) Quasi-Zenith Satellite System Navigational Service. Interface Specification for QZSS, Version 1.4Google Scholar
  10. Killinger R, Kukies R, Surauer M, Tomasetto A, van Holtz L (2003) ARTEMIS orbit raising inflight experience with ion propulsion. Acta Astronaut 53(4):607–621. doi: 10.1016/S0094-5765(03)80022-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kogure S, Kishimoto M, Sawabe M, Terada K (2008) Performance Analysis of the QZSS SIS-URE and user positioning accuracy with GPS and QZSS. In: Proceedings of ION NTM 2008, Institute of Navigation, San Diego, CA, pp 452–457Google Scholar
  12. Kvam PE, Jeannot M (2013) The Arctic Testbed—oviding GNSS services in the Arctic Region. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS+ 2013, Institute of Navigation, Nashville, TN, pp 890–901Google Scholar
  13. Lasserre F, Pelletier S (2011) Polar super seaways? Maritime transport in the Arctic: an analysis of shipowners’ intentions. J Transp Geogr 19(6):1465–1473. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Løge L (2011) Assessment of satellite constellations for arctic broadband communications. Proc. AIAA ICSSC 2011, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nara, Japan, 2011Google Scholar
  15. Montenbruck O, Steigenberger P (2013) The BeiDou navigation message. J Glob Position Syst 12(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Montenbruck O, Steigenberger P, Hauschild A (2014) Broadcast versus precise ephemerides: a multi-GNSS perspective. GPS Solut 19(2):321–333. doi: 10.1007/s10291-014-0390-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Overland JE, Wang M (2013) When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free? Geophys Res Lett 40:2097–2101. doi: 10.1002/grl.50316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (2006) Minimum operational performance standards for global positioning system/wide area augmentation system airborne equipment, RTCA DO-229D. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Reid T, Walter T, Enge P (2013a) L1/L5 SBAS MOPS ephemeris message to support multiple orbit classes. In: Proceedings of ITM 2013, Institute of Navigation, San Diego, CA, pp 78–92Google Scholar
  20. Reid T, Walter T, Enge P (2013b) Qualifying an L5 SBAS MOPS ephemeris message to support multiple orbit classes. In: Proceedings ION GNSS + 2013, Insitute of Navigation, Nashville, TN, pp 825–843Google Scholar
  21. Reid T, Walter T, Enge P, Fowler A (2014) Crowdsourcing Arctic Navigation Using Multispectral Ice Classification and GNSS. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS + 2014, Institute of Navigation, Tampa, FL, pp 707–721Google Scholar
  22. Reid T, Blanch J, Walter T, Enge P (2015) GNSS Integrity in the Arctic. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS + 2015, Institute of Navigation, Tampa, FLGoogle Scholar
  23. Sakai T, Fukushima S, Takeichi N, Ito K (2008) Implementation of the QZSS L1-SAIF message generator. In: Proceedings of ION NTM 2008, Institute of Navigation, San Diego, CA, pp 464–476Google Scholar
  24. Schaad D (2012) EGNOS and WAAS—missing their potential in remote regions? The example of Greenland. Res Trans Bus Manag 4:29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.06.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith PL, Wickman LA, Min IA (2009) Future Space System support to US Military Operations in an Ice-Free Arctic: Broadband Satellite Communications Considerations. In: Proceedings of AIAA SPACE 2009, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Pasadena, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. Sundlisæter T, Reid T, Johnson C, Wan S (2012) GNSS and SBAS system of systems: considerations for applications in the Arctic. In: Proceedings of IAC 2012, International Astronautical Federation, Naples, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  27. Walter T, Blanch J, Enge P (2012) L1/L5 SBAS MOPS to support multiple constellations. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS 2012, Institute of Navigation, Nashville, TN, pp 1287–1297Google Scholar
  28. Walter T, Blanch J, Enge P (2013) Implementation of the L5 SBAS MOPS. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS + 2013, Institute of Navigation, Nashville, TN, pp 814–824Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler G. R. Reid
    • 1
  • Todd Walter
    • 1
  • Per K. Enge
    • 1
  • Takeyasu Sakai
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Aeronautics and AstronauticsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Electronic Navigation Research InstituteChofuJapan

Personalised recommendations