Abstract: | Many manufacturers claim that their receivers are GNSS receivers. Some prove this by demonstrating how they track/use other-than-GPS signals. Others additionally demonstrate the user benefit (usually position accuracy/availability/reliability) an extra GNSS brings. And everyone concludes that GLONASS, Galileo, or Compass is (or at least can be) a good mate for GPS. The keyword here is “mate.” A mate is not a master; a mate is not an equal partner. A mate is someone who helps… but brings no value by itself.Have you ever asked yourself if your GNSS receiver can still work well without receiving GPS? Or in other words, is your GNSS receiver GPS-centric or not? This paper aims to show what the differences are between a GPS-centric and a non-GPS-centric GNSS solution, and we will focus on two principal issues: 1.The ability to provide a complete solution when one or more of the multiple GNSSs is unavailable, 2.Working in harsh conditions when any single GNSS is not able (even theoretically) to provide a position solution. Symbols ‘2+2’ and/or ‘3+3’ are used through the paper to point out conditionally such a GNSS environment. The paper addresses both standalone and differential types of positioning but we put the accent primarily on Fixed RTK performance. The quantitative results we report here were obtained with Ashtech GNSS receivers. |
Published in: |
Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2011) September 20 - 23, 2011 Oregon Convention Center, Portland, Oregon Portland, OR |
Pages: | 422 - 429 |
Cite this article: | Khazanov, Ilya, Kozlov, Dmitry, Osipov, Alexander, Zyryanov, Gleb, "Your GNSS Receiver is Really a GNSS Receiver: Isn't That So?," Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2011), Portland, OR, September 2011, pp. 422-429. |
Full Paper: |
ION Members/Non-Members: 1 Download Credit
Sign In |