[HN Gopher] GPS vs. Glonass vs. Galileo ___________________________________________________________________ GPS vs. Glonass vs. Galileo Author : cokernel_hacker Score : 147 points Date : 2022-11-27 17:51 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.gpsrchive.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.gpsrchive.com) | oddlama wrote: | If anyone wants to learn about GPS from the ground up, there's an | excellent website with interactive explanations by Bartosz | Ciechanowski that I can wholeheartedly recommend [1]. | | His blog also covers other topics in a similar style - it's a | real treasure trove. | | [1] https://ciechanow.ski/gps/ | ThePowerOfFuet wrote: | I knew that name sounded familiar! | | https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/ | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31261533 | rzimmerman wrote: | Interestingly despite becoming "fully operational" in 1995, GPS | was in use in the 1980s and played a huge part in the Gulf War in | 1990/1991. "Fully operational" probably means 12 satellites in | view at all times for any point on the earth between | 55degN/55degS, but it's still very useful even at lower levels of | service. | | It's pretty amazing that a system like that could be envisioned | in the 1970s and be fundamentally life-changing by the 1990s. | Truly a modern marvel of engineering that we rely upon for | precise timing, power grid synchronization, navigation, and a lot | more. | tzs wrote: | > "Fully operational" probably means 12 satellites in view at | all times for any point on the earth between 55degN/55degS | | Whenever I've checked how many are visible here (around 48degN) | I most commonly see 8 or 9, with 7 or 10 next most common. | jhugo wrote: | the 12 number probably assumes the middle of a flat plain | with no tall structures nearby. buildings, hills etc will | reduce the number. | dweekly wrote: | Fully operational in 93, but IMO the real slam dunk was | disabling of Selective Availability in 2000, which made GPS | significantly more useful. WAAS has been amazing for aviation, | allowing for RNAV instrument precision approaches to airports | with no RF equipment installation required onsite. And there | are still innovations getting rolled out, including L2C, L5 and | more! | | https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/civilsignals/ | 13of40 wrote: | IMO the secret sauce wasn't necessarily the precision but the | ability, granted by technology outside the GPS system, to put | a dot on a digital map versus your PLGR giving you a pair of | coordinates that you had to look up on a paper map. | smartmic wrote: | Unfortunately, as it is with many European projects, Galileo is | over-promised but yet under-delivered. Currently only 22 | satellites are usable: https://www.gsc-europa.eu/system-service- | status/constellatio... | wewxjfq wrote: | Care to enlighten us how the satellite failures of Galileo are | worse than the satellite failures of the other systems? | mrtksn wrote: | Here is an article explaining the 2019 outage and the issues | with the satellites: | https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/galileo-accident/ | | The article argues that the Galileo project has a bit too | many participants in the development. Europe does have some | hugely successful multi-participant international projects | like Airbus or CERN but it is indeed more challenging to run | projects funded by 30 countries each having different | culture, language and interests. | | It's really a re-occurring theme with no easy fix. The | European countries are too small to do such large projects by | themselves and our multi millennial history is about fighting | each other, so it's not always a smooth sail. | throw0101c wrote: | If anyone wants to get into the nitty-gritty details of GPS / | GNSS, there's a good series of lectures (course) available from | Standford University; playlist: | | * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Fyn_h6LKU&list=PLGvhNIiu1u... | | Topics include navigation message structure, signal encoding, | error budgets, Keplerian parameters, path loss/antenna gain/link | budget, plus orbital details of GLONASS/QZSS/BeiDou/Galileo. | AviationAtom wrote: | Mandatory mention of a cool related project: | https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.iiasa.cama... | rzimmerman wrote: | The Position Calculation and Satellite Selection sections are a | little over-simplified. It's not true that one satellite is used | for time synchronization and three are used for trilateration. In | a four-satellite case, all four are used to solve the four | dimensional problem of "where am I in time and space?" In | reality, upwards of 12 satellites are used to find a solution to | this problem and adding more data improves accuracy. | | It's true that satellites overhead provide better more vertical | position information and that satellites at low elevation are | more impacted by the atmosphere. But the math isn't that simple - | satellites aren't used for specific purposes. They all contribute | to a position solution and useful parameters like vertical and | horizontal uncertainty. | avianlyric wrote: | Out of interest are speaking from a position of authority as | someone who's implemented GPS receivers, or as someone who | understands the theory of GPS receivers? | | From my reading of the article, it sounded like the author was | commenting on an interesting implementation detail of GPS | receivers, and how they might deviate from their expected | theoretical implementation. Rather than describing how an ideal | GPS receiver is implemented. | rzimmerman wrote: | Fair question - I'm familiar with the theory of operation and | I've implemented toy receivers (on the software side). I will | say that even in the basic designs I worked with it made | sense (and was easier) to solve the system of equations and | not do something special like assign a "time satellite". It's | a much easier way to describe the system to someone without a | linear algebra background, so I bet that's the author's | intent. | onphonenow wrote: | As someone who did location work based on timing in another | context - picking 3 satellites straight above seems weird - | we had better accuracy when beacons were right angles - | basically if you have a timing error and sats are near each | other - the intersection of the two lines moves hugely | dataflow wrote: | How did L5 get enabled and still leave us with an accuracy worse | than 3.5m? Wasn't it supposed to give us 30cm? What happened to | that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System | macropin wrote: | GPS used in survey equipment is accurate to 2cm with ~5 second | acquisition time. | onphonenow wrote: | This may be differential gps with a local reference | killingtime74 wrote: | Don't quote me but I believe you have to use both bands to get | that accuracy. Some devices support it. | https://support.garmin.com/en-NZ/?faq=9NWiPDU4gM0JWMfdWFol7A. | | Real life test https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/04/garmin- | vertix-accuracy.h... | dataflow wrote: | Thanks. I've tried a phone with support for both L1 and L5 | (and other systems) and I don't notice any improvements over | my old phone. In fact it seems to take longer to get a fix. I | would love to hear if anyone has found a phone that actually | gets significantly better performance with L5. | pifm_guy wrote: | Time to get a fix is mostly what clever techniques the | receiver uses. There are various papers demonstrating | getting a fix that is probably correct with just a few | milliseconds of signal and then lots of processing. | | You also have to cut corners to get a (probably correct) | fix fast. Things like assuming the almanac hasn't changed | since last time, the user hasn't moved more than a few | hundred miles, the system clock hasn't drifted by more than | a second or so, and no satellites have become unhealthy. | chrisfosterelli wrote: | I've always noticed my Garmin watch gets a fix extremely | fast except for the first time I use it after traveling | somewhere new. That first one always takes several | minutes. | eru wrote: | > Things like assuming the almanac hasn't changed since | last time, the user hasn't moved more than a few hundred | miles, the system clock hasn't drifted by more than a | second or so, and no satellites have become unhealthy. | | If you are using a smartphone, you could probably | validate those assumptions via your other sensors? | sorenjan wrote: | Google hosted the Google decimeter challenge, which used | post processing of data from dual band phones to try and | get as good accuracy as possible. The top submissions got | an accuracy of just over one meter. | | I have a phone with dual band GNSS, and it's by far the | best location accuracy I've had in any device. I can see | which side of the cycle path I've been on, and it regularly | works indoors. I don't live where there are tall buildings | though, but even at fairly open space my older devices gave | worse results. And I get a fix within seconds thanks to | A-GPS. | | https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/smartphone- | decimeter-202... | reportingsjr wrote: | My pixel 6 pro has much, much better GPS accuracy than my | pixel 3 had. | | Here is a comparison between my pixel 6 and my S.O.'s pixel | 2, from a hike we did recently: https://imgur.com/a/5VibEUw | | This makes it pretty obvious how much the L5 band can | improve GPS. These were good conditions in general, but | just looking at the bottom right portion alone shows how | good L1 + L5 in a phone can get. I'm sure devices with | larger antennas (bike computers, larger handheld GPS units, | etc) can do even better in worse conditions as well. | dataflow wrote: | Interesting. Did you try comparing it against anything | other than a Pixel 2 by any chance (to rule out the Pixel | 2 just being worse than better L1 phones)? And have you | tried it in the city to see if L5 is any help there? | trollerator23 wrote: | Not all of the satellites have L5 either. As of today only | 16. | JCM9 wrote: | GPS can be much more accurate than what the article says. For | example, over the continental US the extra WAAS satellites | provide accuracy down to more like 3-4 feet for GPS based | aircraft navigation. These satellites broadcast correction | signals to allow receivers to adjust for small fluctuations in | the standard GPS signal. Using that system aircraft can navigate | in 3D down to about 200 ft off the ground for a landing approach | without the need for any ground-based equipment or transmitters | at the airport. | mastazi wrote: | To add to this, WAAS uses a combination of ground based | equipment and geostationary satellites. | | The ground based equipment is responsible for detecting the | necessary corrections, which are then sent up to the WAAS | satellites which will in turn broadcast those corrections. | | Unlike GPS satellites, WAAS satellites are always located over | North America due to the fact that they are in a much higher, | geostationary orbit. | | Edit - WAAS also provides GPS-based vertical navigation (e.g. | descent profile in an approach) - IIRC this is due to the fact | that the ground station transmit accurate atmospheric pressure | readings up to the geostationary satellites, then the GPS | receiver in the aircraft can use those to adjust altimeter | readings. GPS-based vertical navigation is a big deal, because | many airports don't have systems such as ILS. | nufflee wrote: | WAAS (and other SBAS constellations) are used for RNAV/RNP | LPV approaches indeed (for both lateral and vertical | navigation), but WAAS is only used to obtain atmospheric | corrections for the GPS signals, the WAAS ground stations do | not transmit atmospheric pressure. Furthermore, unlike GBAS | (Ground Based Augmentation Systems), SBAS ground stations are | not located at the airport, they can be dozens or hundreds of | kms away making the atmospheric pressure from there not very | useful. | | Good article on the topic by Airbus: https://aircraft.airbus. | com/en/newsroom/news/2022-06-satelli... | mastazi wrote: | Thank you for clarifying, I wasn't sure about that part. | Good link! The diagram is very clear. Basically WAAS allows | us to triangulate the vertical position of the aircraft. So | as you pointed out, it's not related to pressure readings. | dweekly wrote: | The cool part for me was realizing that the three WAAS | satellites not only broadcast the correction signals but also | act as position / constellation satellites! This adds an | additional 2-3 satellites to the "currently visible" mix and | helps ensure high availability location data at all times | over the continental US. | kentrf wrote: | My first years as a software developer, I worked with gathering | data from GPS, Glonass, BeiDou and Galileo for use in a DGNSS | product. It's been a while since that time, but I remember | implementing RTCM-v3 encoder and decoder, gathering signals from | all around the globe, and general TCP/IP/networking to ensure | high availability and so on. Oh the memories. | | But the thing that taught me most about orbital mechanics, is | still KSP (Kerbal Space Program). | jonathankoren wrote: | According to this paper, if you hook in all four sat nav systems, | you can achieve 10 cm accuracy in minutes, 5cm in 30 minutes, and | millimeter accuracy in a few hours. | | https://www.nature.com/articles/srep08328 | dismalpedigree wrote: | The Ublox ZED-F9P receiver is capable of leveraging dual band | across all 4 main GNSS systems to create its solution. It is | very accurate. If you combine it with RTK (either local, SBAS, | or NTRIP) you easily get sub 5cm accuracy in realtime with sub | 30 startup times. (Longer if its a really cold start) | Havoc wrote: | Around 250 bucks for those wondering. Bit heavy for a hobby | project but less than expected | edb_123 wrote: | You should also have a look at the much better performing | Septentrio Mosaic series of GNSS receiver boards. There are | dev kits available for a dual antenna heading RTK receiver | for around EUR750. And EUR645 for single antenna. Dizzyingly | cheap compared to what this class of receivers cost just a | few years back. | | These support all GNSS constellations and signals and do a | real 50 Hz PVT in RTK mode. And they even come with a built | in, quite useful web interface. | tdeck wrote: | If you're interested in this, you might be interested in the | terrestrial radio navigation systems that predated GPS: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_%28navigation_system%29 | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C#e_LORAN | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_navigation | ggm wrote: | on Android, the "locus" mapping app includes a really good | diagnostic on GPS reception which I still refer to in the edge | cases (inside trains, planes, where even with a window seat | reception can be marginal) to understand whats in the sky above | me right now | dale_glass wrote: | Those maps are interesting. | | So GPS doesn't work well in Greenland or a good chunk of Russia? | rzimmerman wrote: | You should still have (oblique) views of the constellation | above 55degN, partly due to the large altitude of the GPS | satellites. But you're not guaranteed to have 12 satellites in | view, so your solution may not be as accurate. There are polar | regions where you probably do lose service. It's interesting | (though not surprising!) that GLONASS has a slightly higher | inclination. | ck2 wrote: | Also interesting is the American extension to GPS called WAAS | which is used for aircraft precision. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System | ars wrote: | GPS and Galileo use the exact same frequencies, but call it | different things? L1 (1575.42 MHz) and L5 | (1176.45 MHz) E1 (1575.42 MHz) and E5a (1176.45 MHz) | | Is there a difference I'm not aware of? | ck2 wrote: | Another interesting tidbit is apparently Galileo cannot be | "seen" in the USA, not because of same frequency but because | the FCC forbids its license? | | https://galileognss.eu/why-galileo-is-not-seen-in-united-sta... | | https://barbeau.medium.com/where-is-the-world-is-galileo-6bb... | | At least as of 2019 but maybe has changed as we approach 2023? | | Firing up GPStest on various phones to see for myself. | detaro wrote: | literally the next blogpost on that blog is "FCC approves use | of Galileo in the US" ;) | ars wrote: | https://www.euspa.europa.eu/newsroom/news/fcc-approves- | use-g... is from 2018, before your date of 2019. | | But maybe the receivers need updated programming. | dismalpedigree wrote: | I was wondering the same. | ummonk wrote: | Kind of weird not to describe BeiDou as well... | danieldk wrote: | GPSrChive is very much focused on Garmin GPSr and I don't think | there are any Garmin devices that support BeiDou. | izzydata wrote: | There will be soon if not already, but they won't be | accessible without an Asian-specific variant of the device | and outside of specific Asian countries. | z2 wrote: | From Garmin, though without a breakdown of proportion of | devices: | | In addition to GPS, Garmin products utilize other global | navigation satellite systems (GNSS) including the Russian | Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), the European | Union Galileo system (Galileo), and the Chinese BeiDou | Navigation Satellite System (BDS), and satellite based | augmentation systems (SBAS) including the U.S. Wide Area | Augmentation System (WAAS), the Japanese MTSAT-based | Satellite Augmentation System (MSAS) and Quasi-Zenith | Satellite System (QZSS), and the European Geostationary | Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) aviation Safety of Life | (SoL) service. | | Though to the extent this is a US-centric site, the other | reason for not caring much about Beidou is that the FCC still | has a geofence block for Beidou, so that no signals may be | used in US territory: https://www.gps.gov/spectrum/foreign/. | It's as if Beidou doesn't exist in the US, and even a | receiver that supports it will only start using the signal | once it first confirms through other GNSS's that it's not | located in US. (Example: most phones made in the last 3-5 | years) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-28 05:00 UTC)