[amsat-bb] Re: Galileo interference on L band

Thu Sep 21 09:54:59 PDT 2006

I understand this argument. BUT what i do not understand is the idea 
that an airliner would only be receiving one of the three bands that 
Galileo is saying that it intends to use for GPS. The L band is in 
just one of those three bands that the airplane would be receiving. 
Would the system not require the receiver to take data from the best 
signal? Could we not ask the FAA to require any airborne receiver 
that it certify must receive all three bands and switch bands if it 
receives any interference?

As a practical matter G GPS is not now in orbit, it would take years 
before it could be funded, launched and be operational. Then it would 
take the FAA probably another 10 years before they would certify it 
for use.  I see 10-15-20 years before Galileo might be a problem to hams.

Why not fly Eagle with a backup L/S linear and use C/X for the 
digital transponder?

Les

At 12:15 PM 9/21/2006, Bob McGwier wrote:
>Allow me  to add (AGAIN) for emphasis that the issue is the near/far
>problem.  Maybe I should explain this in more detail as I think John and
>I are assuming that while you might not necessarily be able to calculate
>the exact path loss,  you had an intutive understanding for the
>problem.  The differences in distances are ENORMOUS.  The Galileo
>satellites will typically be something like the circumference of the
>earth away from you and the best case is 1/2 the circumference of the earth.
>
>The path loss from Galileo to your location is in the very best case
>given the planned orbit is approximately 180 dB.
>
>The path loss from you to your neighbor a km away is about 93 dB.
>100km improves this by approximately 55  dB.  That is,   ANY
>interference from your station given equal powers is inherently 87 dB
>stronger at the ground station than Galileo at 1 km  and at 100 km, it
>is inherently ~30 dB stronger.   Even if you factor in different powers
>on the spacecraft and ground,  and losses from circularity,
>polarization,  sidelobes,  blah blah,   10^9  is a BILLION times
>advantage for your signal to clobber the Galileo signal before you take
>these into account.  This calculation does not include any shaping of
>the beam on your part so a few dB gain in the direction of the ground
>station and the problem is worse.     As the airplane approaches your
>location from 100 km,  you will overload the front end without drastic
>measures taken by the manufacturers.
>
>Please understand the engineers designing the Galileo system understand
>these issues well.  They will argue very strongly that the interference
>sources be removed since they do not wish to notch you by 90 dB!
>
>Bob
>N4HY
>
>John B. Stephensen wrote:
>
> >The article predicts that there may be limitations on the amateur service.
> >The biggest problem is sidelobes from the antenna that can be of either
> >polarization sense. A 16 kW EIRP uplink can easily generate 500 W EIRP
> >sidelobes (15 dB down) within the Galileo receiver passband and, 
> replicating
> >the calculations outlined in the article, they can cause interference from
> >42 km away.
> >
> >73,
> >
> >John
> >KD6OZH
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Marc Franco" <lu6dw at yahoo.com>
> >To: <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 19:03 UTC
> >Subject: [amsat-bb] Galileo interference on L band
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>John,
> >>
> >>Galileo is circularly polarized, so using the opposite
> >>polarization sense will help.
> >>
> >>An excellent paper on Galileo interference was written
> >>by Peter Blair, G3LTF, a well known moonbounce
> >>authority and outstanding engineer. The paper can be
> >>found following this link:
> >>
> >>http://www.southgatearc.org/articles/galileo.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>73, Marc N2UO
> >>
> >>
> >>--- "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Unfortunately, the Gaileo downlink covers 1258-1299
> >>>MHz, the first satellite
> >>>has been lanched and the satellites in the
> >>>constellation will be on over the
> >>>entire world. Our uplink antennas have sidelobes
> >>>that are 10-20 dB down, so
> >>>a 1 kW EIRP SSB uplink results in 10-100 W radiated
> >>>towards terrestrial
> >>>receivers. A 256 kbps uplink would require 16 kW
> >>>EIRP and be 0.5-1 MHz wide.
> >>>
> >>>P3E has a second L receiver tuned to a null in the
> >>>Galileo signal (there is
> >>>only one null in the 1260-1270 MHz band) but no one
> >>>knows if this will help.
> >>>SSB users can move to the U uplink if L is a
> >>>problem. However, this only
> >>>works for narrowband signals. A wideband uplink
> >>>won't fit in the null and
> >>>can't move down in frequency.
> >>>
> >>>73,
> >>>
> >>>John
> >>>KD6OZH
> >>>
> >>>
> >>__________________________________________________
> >>Do You Yahoo!?
> >>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >>http://mail.yahoo.com
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> >>Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> >>Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> >Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> >Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>Robert W. McGwier, Ph.D.
>Center for Communications Research
>805 Bunn Drive
>Princeton, NJ 08540
>(609)-924-4600
>(sig required by employer)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb