- Analysis of DME signals
You might remember that back in July I made a recording of the DME ground-to-air and air-to-ground frequencies for a nearby VOR-DME station. In that post, I performed a preliminary analysis of the recording. I mentioned that I was interested in measuring the delay between the signals received directly from the aircraft and the ground transponder replies, and match these to the aircraft trajectories. This post is focused on that kind of study. I will present a GNU Radio out-of-tree module gr-dme that I have written to detect and measure DME pulses, and show a Jupyter notebook where I match aircraft pulses with their corresponding ground transponder replies and compare the delays to those calculated from the aircraft positions given in ADS-B data.
- Not-LoRa GRCon24 CTF challenge
This year I submitted a track of challenges called “Not-LoRa” to the GRCon 2024 Capture The Flag. The idea driving this challenge was to take some analog voice signals and apply chirp spread spectrum modulation to them. Solving the challenge would require the participants to identify the chirp parameters and dechirp the signal. This idea also provided the possibility of hiding weak signals that are below the noise floor until they are dechirped, which is a good way to add harder flags. This blog post is an in-depth explanation of the challenge. I have put the materials for this challenge in this Github repository.
To give participants a context they might already be familiar with, I took the chirp spread spectrum parameters from several common LoRa modulations. These ended up being 125 kHz SF9, SF11 and SF7. LoRa is somewhat popular within the open source SDR community, and often there are LoRa challenges or talks in GRCon. This year was no exception, with a Meshtastic packet in the Signal Identification 7 challenge, and talks about gr-lora_sdr and Meshtastic_SDR.
- Testing gr4-packet-modem through a GEO transponder
During the last few months, I have been working on gr4-packet-modem. This is a packet-based QPSK modem that I’m writing from scratch using the GNU Radio 4.0 runtime. The gr4-packet-modem project is funded by GNU Radio with an ARDC grant, and its goal is to produce a complete digital communications application in GNU Radio 4.0 that can serve to test how well the new runtime works in this context and also as a set of examples for people getting into GNU Radio 4.0 development. I have presented gr4-packet-modem in the EU GNU Radio days (see the recording in YouTube).
In July, Frank Zeppenfeldt, who works in the satellite communications group in ESA, got in touch with me regarding an opportunity to test gr4-packet-modem on a C-band transponder on Intelsat 37e. His group is running a project with industry about a test campaign of IoT communications over GEO satellites, and they have rented a 1 MHz C-band transponder on Intelsat 37e for some time. The uplink is somewhere around 5.9 GHz, and the downlink somewhere around 3.7 GHz. As part of the project, they have setup a PC and a USRP B200mini in a teleport in Germany that has a large antenna to receive the downlink. There is remote access to this PC, so all the downlink part of the experiments is taken care of: IQ recordings can be made and receiver software can be run in this PC. Therefore, if I could set up an uplink station at home in Madrid (which is actually slightly outside the edge of the Europe C-band beam, as it can be seen in this document), then I would be able to run some tests of gr4-packet-modem by running the transmitter in my laptop and the receiver in the remote PC at the teleport.
As I mentioned to Frank when he proposed this experiment, I haven’t implemented an FEC for the payload of the packets in gr4-packet-modem, because I wanted to have full freedom in setting the size of each packet (to test latency with different packet sizes), and a good FEC scheme usually constraints the possible packet sizes (see gr-packet-modem waveform design for more details). Testing a modem that uses uncoded QPSK over a GEO channel is somewhat pointless, but Frank and I agreed that this would be a fun experiment, even if not too interesting from the technical point of view. In the rest of the post I explain the test set up and results.
- JUICE Earth flyby
At the beginning of this week, JUICE, an ESA spacecraft that was launched in April 2023 and that will explore Jupiter’s icy moon, completed its lunar-Earth flyby. This is the first time that such a manoeuvre has been done. I’m far from an expert in orbital dynamics, but I hear that by doing a combined lunar-Earth flyby instead of the more traditional Earth flyby there can be delta-V savings for the mission. The IAC paper Improved interplanetary transfers with Lunar-Earth gravity assists seems to be the first that presented this idea, but I haven’t found the paper itself. The JUICE mission analysis report (CReMA) contains some more information, but it is not too detailed and somewhat outdated. Perhaps a good source to learn about this is a master’s thesis called Automatic extension of Earth and Earth-Moon resonant flybys, although I’ve only had time to read a small part of it.
The following image that I made in GMAT with the mission SPICE kernels illustrates the geometry of the flybys. The lunar flyby happened on 2024-08-19 21:15 UTC, and the Earth flyby happened on 2024-08-20 21:56 UTC.
JUICE lunar-Earth flyby The Earth flyby happened 6840 km above the north Pacific ocean, so the spacecraft was visible from the Allen Telescope Array, in northern California, starting some minutes after the flyby. I thus decided to observe JUICE with one of the 6.1 m dishes of the array and record its X-band telemetry signal roughly between 22:00 and 23:00 UTC. That would be a fun way of “saying hello” again to the spacecraft (see the post where I recorded and decoded its telemetry when it launched in April last year).
I prepared a tracking file for antenna pointing in the same way that I did for the OSIRIS-REx flyby during its sample capsule return. I used the SPICE kernels to compute a time series of azimuth and elevations for the antenna. For the spacecraft orbit I used the juice_orbc_000071_230414_310721_v01.bsp SPICE kernel, which was the latest available at the time. This kernel was created on 2024-08-15. The following plot shows the antenna azimuth and elevation and the distance to the spacecraft.
When I was about to begin observing, I saw a tweet from ESA Operations. Strangely the tweet has now been deleted. I hate it when information I once saw suddenly vanishes out of existence. I have the link to the tweet, but not a copy of it. It roughly said something along the lines of: “since JUICE is prepared for the cold thermal environment of Jupiter, to prevent it from overheating during the Earth flyby, data will not be transmitted to Earth until 2024-08-21 04:30 UTC”.
A problem with outreach communications is that they’re often vague with the hopes of simplifying to reach a wider audience. In this case, the context for the tweet was that ESA had run a livestream during the lunar flyby where they transmitted and showed images of the Moon in near-realtime. Postprocessed images with better quality were then released the next morning (see also this and related toots from Mark McCaughrean, who is one of the two persons responsible for the images). I think there was some word in social media that shortly after the Earth flyby some images would be shown, so the tweet served as a heads up that any images would need to wait until the next morning.
What wasn’t clear about the tweet is what this really meant about the spacecraft telemetry signal. Anyone familiar with spacecraft tracking will imagine that during the flyby there will be no groundstation coverage, because deep space stations can’t track that fast and probably won’t have the spacecraft in view. Therefore it’s clear that no images can be downloaded for some time around the flyby. But what about the telemetry signal? Does the tweet mean that there will be no housekeeping telemetry (which typically is sent all the time) either? Even no RF modulation at all? This might well be the case, especially since the tweet mentioned thermal reasons. If there isn’t going to be groundstation coverage for a while, why run the radio transmitter and generate more heat? But the way that the tweet was worded still made me doubt (I think the literal words were “it won’t transmit any more data”, but I don’t have the full sentence).
So after seeing that I wasn’t receiving any signal with the Allen Telescope Array, I wasn’t too surprised. I tweeted about this, as a quote tweet (repost) of the ESA Operations tweet.
I finished recording data at 22:30 UTC, since by then I was convinced that the transmitter was off and there was no point in continuing to record. I ran some additional tests to rule out a problem with the receiver. Unfortunately there were no good deep space X-band satellites in view at that time, since Mars was just setting. I tried with Parker Solar Probe, which was being tracked by Goldstone, but I didn’t know its frequency and didn’t have an estimate for how strong the signal should be. I didn’t see the signal. I also tried with ACE, which transmits at S-band and was also tracked by Goldstone. I could receive it just fine, so I don’t have much reason to suspect about the receiver.
Another potential reason why no signal could be detected is if there was an error in the ephemerides that caused a large enough antenna pointing error. I don’t think this was the case, even though the ephemerides were not updated after the lunar flyby. To make sure, I will rerun the pointing calculations with the next SPICE kernel that gets published and compare them. Pointing error is also the reason that I kept recording until 22:30 UTC. The effect of ephemerides error in pointing error would become smaller as the distance to the spacecraft increased with time.
Just in case there was a faint signal, I have processed the recording to compute a waterfall with a resolution of 93.75 Hz and 10 seconds. The following two plots definitely show that there is no signal.
So with this, I finish the post as a failed observation of JUICE. I’ve decided do this write up because I think that, in science, negative results can be as important as positive results. In this case, the observation provides good evidence (especially now that the ESA Operations tweet is misteriously gone) that JUICE had the RF transmitter turned off during the Earth flyby. This is nothing transcendental, but rather an interesting tidbit of spacecraft operations trivia. The lack to detect any signals also reminds me of many astronomical observations, particularly those done as a followup to some transient, where if no signal is detected, the conclusion is often stated as “we establish upper bounds for the flux radiated by this source”.
To close with something more positive, I’ll mention that Alan Antoine F4LAU had a much more successful time tracking the lunar flyby with the AMSAT-DL 20 m antenna at Bochum Observatory, and he even found and decoded many images transmitted in the telemetry.
The materials used in this post can be found in this repository.
- Final update for the Galileo GST-UTC anomaly
In September and October last year I was covering an anomaly with the Galileo GST-UTC offset (see also the update). I planned to keep posting updates as the event progressed, or at least once it was over, but I soon got distracted with other things, and this event didn’t get enough media coverage that would serve me as a reminder.
As a quick reminder, the Galileo GNSS maintains a timescale known as GST. This timescale is usually within a few nanoseconds of UTC, as is also the case for GPS time (although both GNSS systems give much larger margins when defining how much their timescales can deviate from UTC). In the beginning of September 2023, the GST-UTC offset reached a value of around 20 ns, much larger than it usually is. This surprised some people in the GNSS community, and I don’t recall there being a public explanation about what had happened.
Now this event is well past, so I can update my plots to show it in its full duration. For more details, refer to the first post. For this post I have used data ranging from 2023-07-16 to 2024-01-20. As in the previous posts, the data I’m using is the precise clock solution from CODE (the final products) and the broadcast ephemerides from IGS.
The difference between the broadcast ephemerides clock bias and the CODE precise clock bias is shown here. This quantity is a proxy for the GST-GPST offset, because CODE refers the timescale for its precise solutions to GPST. Since GPST is within a few ns of UTC, this is a good approximation for the GST-UTC offset.
There is a glitch in the data sometime in October. I haven’t investigated this, and we can safely ignored it. We can see that the GST-UTC reaches nearly -20 ns in the beginning of September, then swings in the opposite direction, reaching almost 20 ns in the beginning of October, and then it takes all October and part of November before resuming usual levels around zero. I have included some data before August to show how the offset behaved before the anomaly began. It is clear that the behaviour in July and December is similar, so we can say that the system was restored mid-November.
The second plot I had was a comparison of the three offsets that are included in the broadcast ephemerides (GST-UTC, GPST-UTC, and GST-UTC) with the curve obtained above as the average of all Galileo satellites (with the sign flipped, due to sign conventions in the biases).
Besides the fact that the broadcast GST-UTC and GST-GPST biases follow quite closely the curve of the CODE-BRDC clock, there are other details that are quite apparent in this long term plot.
The first is that the GPST-UTC is quite noisy. Note that this isn’t part of Galileo. It is transmitted by the GPS constellation. It also seems that there is a positive correlation between the sign of the GPST-UTC and the sign of its derivative (the derivative is represented by a short slanted line crossing the point in question). Certainly, if we subtract the GST-UTC and GST-GPST offsets provided by Galileo, we obtain something much smaller than what GPS broadcasts as GPST-UTC.
The second is that the GST-UTC offset is sometimes held constant for periods of several weeks. In comparison, the GST-GPST varies more quickly. This makes sense, because measuring GST-UTC requires processing data from stations that are equipped with a Galileo timing receiver and that also have traceability to UTC, while measuring GST-GPST is something that any GNSS receiver can do with the ephemerides of both systems and observations of satellites in the two constellations.
I have updated the Jupyter notebook and the data used for this post in the repository.
10ghz artemis1 astronomy astrophotography ATA ccsds ce5 contests digital modes doppler dslwp dsp eshail2 fec freedv frequency gmat gnss gnuradio gomx hermeslite hf jt kits lilacsat limesdr linrad lte microwaves mods moonbounce noise ofdm orbital dynamics outernet polarization radar radioastronomy radiosonde rust satellites sdr signal generators tianwen vhf & uhf