New GPS Civil Signal Rollout Will Aid Spoofing Countermeasures

As reported by Aviation Week: The U.S. Air Force is set to start early implementation of the long-anticipated GPS Civil Navigation (CNAV) message at the end of this month, and will use the process to help develop new countermeasures against spoofing.

The GPS satellites will begin the early broadcast of more accurate navigation messages on the new civil L2C and L5 signals, mainly to aid development of compatible user equipment and CNAV operational procedures. However, according to the Air Force, an element of the pre-implementation phase will evaluate new ways to protect against the growing threat of spoofing, in which vehicles can be put off course by counterfeit signals. Spoofing is a more insidious threat than jamming because users are not aware that their navigation system is being misled.

The development of spoofing countermeasures is viewed as increasingly vital because of the “safety of life” applications at which the L5 signal is aimed. L5 is the third civilian GPS signal, and will be broadcast in a radio band reserved exclusively for aviation safety services. In the future, aircraft will use L5 in combination with L1 C/A to improve both accuracy and signal redundancy. L2C is the second civilian GPS signal, and when combined in a dual-frequency receiver with the legacy L1 C/A civil signal, enables ionospheric correction that will improve accuracy. The signal broadcasts at a higher effective power than L1 C/A, which will make it easier to receive in areas where reception can be poor, such as under trees or indoors.

Air Force Space and Missiles Systems Center (SMC) GPS chief engineer James Horejsi says “part of the reason to push out CNAV is we are evolving from a static code to a series of flexible codes. That allows you to put additional information out, and this month we will be starting to figure out if there is a way to take advantage of these messages to minimize spoofing on the civil side.” Speaking at the Space Tech Expo in Long Beach, Calif., Horejsi says: “How to do we begin evolving the GPS architecture to minimize the ability of someone to do this? There is no simple fix, but there are things we are doing to address [it]. We just have to get it out there and let the user come up with innovative ways of using augmented signals to prevent spoofing.”

Horejsi adds that “spoofing is not unknown or new, and from a military perspective that’s why we’re going to M-code (Military). But the problem is we've been doing it for years so that’s why there has been an agreement to pull the introduction of that forward by at least a year and a half.” M-code is the new highly secure, anti-jam signal designed for the GPS III constellation.

The planned pre-operational continuous broadcast is the next phase of CNAV development and follows initial testing done in June 2013. Although L2C and L5 signals have been transmitted by GPS satellites for several years, they have not included a navigation message. Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) acknowledged last year that implementation had been delayed because additional testing was required. Issues uncovered during the evaluation phase in 2013 have all now been addressed, AFSPC says. CNAV uploads are expected twice weekly, with current accuracy levels not due to be matched or exceeded until full implementation in December 2014. Seven GPS IIR-M satellites currently broadcast L2C, and four GPS IIF satellites broadcast L2C and L5.

With New Satellite In Space, India To Get 'Desi GPS'

As reported by NDTV:  India today successfully launched its second navigation satellite, sometimes dubbed the 'desi GPS', through its Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle or PSLV. The satellite navigation system is a fleet of seven satellites that will help provide precise locations within 20 meters. 

"PSLV, in its 25th successive successful flight, injected IRNSS-1B very precisely. I thank the entire ISRO team that made this major milestone for the country, thus proving again that India's PSLV has a place of pride," a beaming ISRO Chairman K Radhakrishnan announced.

The 44 meter, 320 ton rocket lifted off at 5.14 PM from Sriharikota and 'precisely' placed India's second navigation satellite in space. 

Till now most of us have relied on the American GPS or the Global Positioning System, very popular on smart phones but not good enough for military applications as it can't be relied upon for seamless coverage in times of war and the built-in error makes it unsuitable for precision strikes. 

India has become the sixth nation to embark on this after America, Russia, Europe, China and Japan. Some may ask, if this satellite navigation system by India were working would it have been possible to locate the lost Malaysian Airlines Flight 370. Unfortunately the answer is no. 

The satellites continuously beam down data that can be read by special hand held instruments which, when calibrated using sensors based on the ground, can help pin point location. 

India's satellite system is designed to cover a region of about 1500 km on either side of the border, essentially covering the geographical region from where India has a perception of threat, both Pakistan and China are within the footprint. 

Today in its 26 flight India's workhorse rocket the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle or PSLV is hoping to hoist a 1432 kilogram special satellite that carries on it a precision clock called an atomic clock and a set of other home-made instruments that beam down accurate time and location data. The entire fleet of seven satellites is likely to be ready by 2016 when Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System will become operational. The first Indian navigation satellite launched last year in July is working normally.

The term 'desi' is Sanskrit for the people, cultures, and products of the Indian subcontinent or for South Asia.  Desi nations include India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Maldives.

GLONASS Suffers Temporary System Wide Outage

As reported by Inside GNSS: Just when they thought it was safe to go back into space . . . .

The Russian GLONASS system, which had appeared to be recovering from a series of organizational and technical problems in recent years, appears to have suffered a systemic disruption during the past 24 hours — beginning just past 1 a.m. Moscow time on April 2 (UTC+4) — 6 p.m. EDT on Tuesday (April 1, 2014).

Outages continued for more than 10 hours, with the Russian GLONASS monitoring center showing satellites in unhealthy statuses: “failure” and “illegal ephemeris.” The accompanying figure from the Russian Federal Space Agency Information-Analytical Center website shows this history, with pink and purple colors representing failure and illegal ephemeris, respectively.

Because the failure was systemwide and simultaneous, some have speculated that an incorrect uploading of corrections to satellite ephermerides (orbital positions) occurred. The staggered restoration of satellite health in the hours following the outage reflects the need for GLONASS system operators to wait until each satellite passes within range of ground stations to be reset.

The problem marks another setback for the Russian GNSS program, which saw the system rebuilt and modernized over the past decade but has stumbled in recent years due to launch failures (including triple-satellite losses in July 2013 and December 2010) and organizational problems, including dismissal of high-ranking space officials in the wake of the launch failures and for charges of corruption. In one case, the Proton rocket failure was blamed on a premature launch and in another on overfilling of the launcher’s fuel tanks.

Successful launch of a GLONASS-M satellite just over a week ago had seemed to indicate that the program had regained its footing. Yesterday, Nikolai Testoyedov, director general of the GLONASS satellite manufacturer, JSC Reshetnev Information Satellite Systems, announced that the long-awaited launch of the second next-generation satellite — GLONASS-K — would occur at the end of this year.

Also yesterday, Russian lawmakers endorsed draft legislation to allow the country to set up a GLONASS monitoring facility in Nicaragua, according to the RIA Novosti news service. This would add to the handful of monitoring stations, including sites in Brazil and Antarctica, outside the Russian territory, which are essential to managing a constellation in situations such as just occurred with GLONASS.

An proposal to establish GLONASS monitoring stations in the United States was recently rebuffed by the U.S. Congress.

The U.S. Global Positioning System has never experienced a systemic outage as occurred with GLONASS and has a notable record of robustness, resilience, and rapid information dissemination. However, its space segment has not been flawless. GPS SVN49, a Block IIR-M satellite with the first L5 signals, experienced anomalies that have taken it out of healthy status since 2009 and incidents of satellite clock drift or runoff have occurred over the years that caused temporary degradation of user range error. But GPS system wide errors by the operator — the U.S. Air Force — have been essentially nonexistent, at least from the perspective of users.

A Flying Wind Turbine That Doubles As A WiFi Hotspot for Remote Areas

As reported by the Business Insider: We might be seeing wind turbines in the skies instead of fields soon. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology startup has come up with a new type of floating turbine that's more efficient — and can deliver power and WiFi connectivity to remote areas.

The invention could have a major impact in places like Alaska, with vast swaths of land that are off the grid, and without traditional sources of power and internet access.

The startup, Altaeros Energies, developed the BAT-Buoyant Airborne Turbine, which is filled with helium and can rise to 1,000 to 2,000 feet to generate power from strong, high-altitude winds. Because the turbines can access these high-altitude winds, they generate roughly double the energy of standard turbines.

In addition to generating lower-cost energy for remote areas, the turbines could serve as sources of internet connectivity and cellphone service. They'll also be able to provide weather data to communities.

The flying turbine transfers the energy through cables that tether it to the ground. This is what it looks like in action:

Altaeros hopes to deploy the new turbines near remote Alaska villages that are off the grid, according to the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. The company received a $1.3 million grant from the Alaska Energy Authority to test the turbine there.

Residents in these rural areas pay a high price for energy, and Altaeros could disrupt the $17 billion remote power and microgrid market.

Check out the video from Altaeros:

Disruptive Tech vs Established Power Systems: Peer-2-Peer Car Sharing Wars

As reported by Xconomy: When Rujul Zaparde started running his company’s new peer-to-peer car rental service at San Francisco International Airport last year, it came with a heavy dose of entrepreneurial hustle. Glitz and glamour, not so much.

“It was me, greeting you at the car in a terrible-looking green vest,” he says with a laugh. “It was pretty bad.”

Ten days later, the company got a cease-and-desist order from the airport, which was not pleased that FlightCar was operating without permission in one of its parking lots.

FlightCar fled, but didn't go away permanently. After relocating to a facility in nearby Millbrae, CA, the Y Combinator-backed startup continued doing business—FlightCar lets everyday customers park their wheels for free, and offers the chance to earn some money if another person rents the car while they’re away.

The change of scenery didn't satisfy airport officials. Since it was serving SFO travelers, the argument went, FlightCar had an obligation to operate under the airport’s strict rental car regime, which includes a 10 percent tax on revenues and a $20 fee for each rental.

In the 2012 fiscal year, SFO raked in more than $90 million from those charges,according to the lawsuit that SFO filed, accusing FlightCar of unfair business practices. The startup is fighting the case.

In November—about six months after the lawsuit against FlightCar and just in time for the start of holiday travel—another peer-to-peer car rental service came to San Francisco’s airport. This time, the reception was different: a glowing press release from SFO announcing the agreement it had reached with an innovative new company, RelayRides.

The deal allowed RelayRides to offer its customers free parking and a little payback if cars were rented out, similar to FlightCar’s offering. Instead of ferrying customers from the lot to the airport in local town car services, as FlightCar does, RelayRides would be using a local hotel’s shuttle bus. And it would be shelling out 10 percent of its sales and the $20 per-rental fee, just like the big rental companies.

“RelayRides, which offers a forward-looking new concept, has clearly taken the leadership position as the first such company to establish an authorized service with SFO. We applaud their proactive approach, and for providing an example for others to follow,” airport director John L. Martin said. 

Similar battles are becoming almost routine as startups born of the digital economy confront the real world’s established power systems, particularly in the emerging “sharing economy,” where online tools help networks of consumers rent things to each other. And as these young companies try to manage rapid growth and fend off threats to their survival, the decision about whether to fight regulators or accommodate them can become another way to gain a competitive edge.

RelayRides is a perfect example of the boom in sharing economy startups. The company was founded in 2009 in Boston before raising venture capital investment from August Capital and Google Ventures, and moving the company headquarters to San Francisco.

The original idea was to operate as an hourly car-rental service akin to Zipcar, but with a significant twist: instead of owning an inventory of cars, the company would let users rent their unused car hours to other people around town.

RelayRides’ strategy has shifted since then. The company ditched hourly rentals last fall, focusing instead on more lucrative long-term contracts, particularly for people away from home. “Our business is focused, right now, primarily on travelers,” community director Steven Webb says. 

RelayRides has expanded rapidly in the past two years, fueled by $18 million in venture investment. In the spring of 2012, RelayRides was still available in just two markets. Today, the system lists cars for rent in 1,900 cities and 287 airports across the country, Webb says.

Those airports are especially critical if RelayRides is going to continue growing. The company just started offering airport-specific rentals last summer, and “we expect it to be around half of our business within a year,” Webb says.

That tracks with the broader rental car market: airports provide about half of the revenue for the U.S. industry, which generated an estimated $24 billion in 2012.

“The average rental through an airport is a lot higher than the average rental to someone in your neighborhood,” Webb says. “Airports represent a lucrative opportunity for us, and they represent a lucrative opportunity for our members who are renting out their vehicles.”

But, since they’re typically built by public entities, many airports are also heavily regulated. If you want to build a business that taps into the lucrative stream of airport travelers, that often means getting permission from the airport’s bosses and paying significant fees and taxes for the privilege.

Getting more aggressive in the airport market meant another significant change in tactics for RelayRides. In almost all of its locations, including all the other airports it serves, the company works as a relatively passive online network connecting car owners and renters—it puts the two parties together, processes the transactions, provides some insurance, and takes its cut of the bill.

In striking its deal with SFO regulators, RelayRides put employees on the ground for the first time, Webb says. Now, instead of just listing where cars were located and letting the renter and owner meet up, RelayRides keeps the fleet in a central parking lot (provided by another business) and uses an airport shuttle bus, which is operated by a local hotel. To entice more owners to rent their cars, RelayRides also offers free parking at the airport lot, in addition to earning 10 cents a mile from any rentals. 

Essentially, it’s the same model used by FlightCar. And RelayRides plans to expand its footprint at other airports by following the same pattern, which includes playing nice with regulators.

Webb says RelayRides decided to go the regulated route at SFO because it would be easier and more sustainable. The company can still compete with traditional rental car behemoths after paying the fees, he notes, because it has lower costs from not owning and maintaining a large fleet of cars.

“We found when we were discussing with the authorities at SFO, we were able to create a very long-term, mutually beneficial agreement that, for us, represents a really solid way to grow the business elsewhere,” he says.

FlightCar’s approach to local regulations couldn’t be more different. Since getting booted out of the SFO parking lots in February 2013, the company has fought airport officials’ insistence that it is operating illegally.

In fact, co-founder and CEO Rujul Zaparde says, the public dustups with SFO has been good for business. “During that week, when the SFO litigation had come up, we actually had our best numbers up to that point,” he says.

The company’s decision to dig in for a legal battle is remarkable in the face of a growing competition with RelayRides, whose investment haul is about triple the size of FlightCar’s $6 million total venture capital backing.

FlightCar’s fundamental argument is that the old-fashioned regulations put in place for rental-car companies just shouldn't apply to its business. “We’re not a car rental company. We’re a peer-to-peer car sharing company,” Zaparde says.

It’s also aided by some quirks in the local geography—San Francisco County owns the airport itself, but the land is surrounded by neighboring San Mateo County. That means FlightCar’s Millbrae parking operation isn’t on any property regulated by San Francisco’s government.

And since the startup pays local car services to ferry customers to and from the airport, rather than running them to the designated rental car center on a shuttle bus, FlightCar is leaving airport officials no real way to track who is coming from or going to the startup’s location.

“If we were, say, an investment bank, and we regularly sent town cars to the airport to pick up our clients, would we have to run a branded shuttle and give you 10 percent of our revenue? That wouldn’t make any sense,” Zaparde says. “So, where does the airport’s jurisdiction really end?”

Zaparde points out that FlightCar isn't getting off without shelling out any fees to the airport. Since SFO charges for-hire cars a $3.75 toll for using the property to collect customers, the startup often winds up paying $15 in fees—two for the renter’s rides to and from the airport, and two more for the car owner. On a “ballpark figure” average of $100 per rental, the company is already paying 15 percent of its take in fees, Zaparde argues.

Of course, as revenue goes up with more expensive and profitable rentals, that toll cost stays the same. But Zaparde says FlightCar is getting less for its lower fees, too—it can’t advertise in the airport since it’s not an officially blessed vendor, or run branded shuttles without paying for use of the rental car center, he says.

San Francisco airport officials don’t buy those arguments, of course.

In its lawsuit accusing FlightCar of unfair business practices, the airport said FlightCar’s move to an off-airport location didn't matter, because “as an off-airport rental car company that catered primarily to individuals traveling to and from SFO, FlightCar was still subject to its regulations.” Other rental car companies operating outside the airport property had also paid the required fees, officials noted. 

Airport officials also say FlightCar’s town car service defeats the point of its $430 million AirTrain system, which is intended to cut down on traffic congestion and pollution by funneling rental car customers to and from the airport on automated people movers. There’s plenty at stake for SFO in this fight, even if FlightCar is a small company at the moment. As noted in its lawsuit, the airport collected about $94 million in fees from rental car companies in the facility’s 2012 fiscal year, which represents more than 10 percent of the airport’s operating budget.

If a scrappy upstart can find a way to dodge those fees, the bigger companies might seek to follow suit, unless SFO enforces the regulations they’d all agreed to. The airport is asking a local judge to shut down FlightCar’s operations, and fine it for the business it has already conducted.

Officials at Boston’s Logan airport, meanwhile, appear to be taking a wait-and-see attitude. The airport notes that FlightCar does not have a contract in place to operate at Logan or pay its share of rental car taxes, but it hasn't moved as aggressively as San Francisco officials.

“They’re just waiting, I think, to see how the SFO lawsuit plays out,” Zaparde says. In the meantime, Logan officials quietly amended their regulations last fall to make clear that they consider “car sharing” or “peer-to-peer car service” companies the same thing as traditional rental car companies. 

Zaparde acknowledges that, like RelayRides, FlightCar could still compete with bigger companies even if it paid the fees that regulators want and followed all the rules. For him, the SFO battle is worth fighting because it could win car-sharing companies, with all their ostensible economic and environmental benefits, the right to be treated differently from the established industry.

“This sets the precedent of what happens at all the other airports,” he says. “We really do not believe that we should be treated just like a car rental company … that’s why we’re willing to go all out here to see what happens.” 

Rental car challengers aren't the only sharing-economy startups getting sucked into these kinds of fights. Since their networks have the potential to grow at the exponential speeds previously seen only online, they can surprise regulators and established competitors by emerging at a substantial scale without getting their permits in order.

Startups like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar, which let people use their cars as unofficial taxi cabs, are some of the most prominent examples. Uber, which has raised more than $300 million in investment capital from big-name Silicon Valley backers, has caused a ruckus in many cities by taking on traditional taxi and town-car services. That’s brought battles with regulators and lawsuits from taxi companies around the country, upset that the startup doesn't follow the rules in a heavily regulated industry. 

Airbnb, a startup that has raised more than $325 million for its online platform that lets anybody rent out a room or their whole house to other consumers, has run into trouble with government officials who say the company is essentially operating an illegal hotel chain. New York’s state attorney general got serious about Airbnb’s operations, issuing a subpoena for the startup’s data last fall. 

The entrepreneurs behind these growing companies, inflamed by Silicon Valley’s libertarian-infused competitive attitude, have regularly rebelled against the regulators and competitors who want to rope them into the existing rules. But decisions like the one at RelayRides may also be signaling a new attitude of conciliation.

Just last week, Airbnb announced programs in New York and Portland, OR, in which the company would begin collecting lodging taxes from its hosts and sending the money on to state officials.

“This is new for us,” wrote Airbnb founder Brian Chesky, one of this generation’s iconic tech entrepreneurs. “And if it works well for our community and cities, we may replicate this project in other U.S. cities.”

Trial Car-2-Car System Helps To Anticipate Traffic Lights

As reported by Motor Authority: Car-2-Car and car-to-infrastructure technology will be a major factor in future autonomous driving systems, and several manufacturers have undertaken tests to get a handle on the technology. The latest to trial such systems is Honda, which is set to begin public road trials in Utsunomiya City, in the Tochigi Prefecture of Japan. Honda is one of several companies participating in a trial known as Universal Traffic Management Systems, which will eventually provide feedback on car-to-car and infrastructure systems before they go into practical use.  

As with other recent systems, one of the main functions is to pass traffic signal information between cars, feeding this back to the vehicle and the driver for more efficient travel through city environments. Using vehicle positioning and speed, as well as information on the next cycle of lights, a message can be sent to the driver suggesting the ideal speed to maintain to hit the next green light. If a red light is likely to show before the driver reaches an intersection, the system can advise the driver to slow down, conserving energy rather than having to brake at the last minute.

Like systems being tested by Audi, an indication can also be shown when the driver is waiting at a light, notifying them of when it will turn green. The driver can then be ready to pull away again before the light changes. The aim is to prevent unnecessary acceleration and deceleration--using extra fuel for little reason--and minimizing disrupted traffic flow in busy cities.

Honda's test will comprise five routes in the test city and as many as 100 vehicles. Honda has established that these routes are frequently used by commuters, providing realistic feedback on whether the car-to-infrastructure technology can make a real-world difference. By analyzing vehicle data, it'll also show whether any fuel or carbon dioxide savings result--a way of improving fuel consumption without any physical changes to the car.

Tesla Model S Is 'Low Hanging Fruit' For Hackers To Remotely Track Or Unlock Cars

As reported by Engadget: Tesla has toughened the Model S' underbody to help prevent any more fires, but apparently it needs to add some reinforcement to its network features too. An enterprising hacker can't quite drive one of the electric vehicles away (they'd need a key fob to start the car), but holes in the auto's security apparently allow a ne'er-do-well to locate the vehicle, unlock its doors and steal your belongings. As Tesla owner and corporate security consultant Nitesh Dhanjani tells it, this "low-hanging fruit" can be picked by brute-force attacking Tesla's relatively weak one-factor password system, exploiting loopholes in the iOS app's API and by accessing the ride's network-interface jack under the dashboard. Thankfully, he found that the Model S' major systems were safe from attack.

Dhanjani's submitted his findings to Musk and Co. and he advises current owners to take the precautions he's outlined to heart, specifically warning against using third-party apps. Tesla didn't respond directly to his concerns, but a spokesman has told Reuters that the company carefully reviews research provided by the security community.