Atmos. Meas. Tech.

, 7, 3801–3811, 2014
www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/
doi:10.5194/amt-7-3801-2014
© Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Potential radio frequency interference with the GPS L5 band for

radio occultation measurements
A. M. Wolff1 , D. M. Akos2 , and S. Lo3
1 Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
2 Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA
3 Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA

Correspondence to: A. M. Wolff (wolffam@stanford.edu)

Received: 19 February 2014 – Published in Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss.: 7 May 2014
Revised: 1 October 2014 – Accepted: 6 October 2014 – Published: 18 November 2014

Abstract. Future radio occultation (RO) receivers are 1 Introduction

planned to utilize the newly implemented Global Position-
ing System (GPS) L5 band centered at 1176.45 MHz. Since The Global Positioning System (GPS) L5 band centered at
there are currently no operational GPS L5 receivers used for 1176.45 MHz is now being transmitted with the latest IIF
space-based RO applications, the interference environment is satellite design (Van Dierendonck et al., 2000). This signal
unclear. Distance measuring equipment (DME) and tactical is part of the GPS modernization effort and offers civil users
air navigation (TACAN) stations share the same frequency additional power, a higher chipping rate, and an updated sig-
band as GPS L5. The signals from these stations have been nal modulation structure. As such, it is a promising signal
identified as possible sources of interference for any GPS L5 transmission for scientific applications of GPS.
receiver, including those used in RO applications. This study However, certain aeronautical navigation systems already
utilizes Systems Tools Kit (STK) simulations to gain insight occupy this frequency range. Distance measuring equipment
into the power received by a RO satellite in low Earth or- (DME) and tactical air navigation (TACAN) systems offer
bit (LEO) from a DME–TACAN transmission as well as the potential sources of interference due to coexistence within
amount of interfering stations. In order to confirm the valid- the L5 band (Kim and Grabowski, 2003). These systems are
ity of utilizing STK for communication purposes, a theoret- comprised of an airborne interrogator and a ground-based
ical scenario was recreated as a simulation and the results transponder. A TACAN system is essentially a higher pow-
were confirmed. Once the method was validated, STK was ered DME station used for military purposes. Due to the
used to output a received power level aboard a RO satellite limited placements available within the Aeronautical Radio
from a DME–TACAN station as well as a tool to detail the Navigation Services (ARNA) radio band for aviation use,
number of interfering DME–TACAN stations witnessed by the GPS L5 signal was placed within the already existing
a space-based RO receiver over time. The results indicated a DME–TACAN band. The premise was that an aircraft using
large number of DME–TACAN stations transmitting at sim- the system would only encounter a limited number of pulsed
ilar orientations as a receiving RO satellite, thereby leading interfering signals, thereby allowing the interoperability be-
to the possibility of signal degradation in an unclear interfer- tween a GPS L5 receiver and a DME–TACAN signal. How-
ence environment. ever, due to the higher number of interfering stations seen
by a GPS radio occultation (RO) satellite in low Earth Orbit
(LEO), the possibility for signal degradation for RO applica-
tions exists (Kim and Grabowski, 2003).
Interference incurred due to the coexistence of these sys-
tems degrades the carrier-to-noise ratio (C / No) of a GPS L5
receiver. However, the compatibility of these systems is suffi-
cient for most applications. The low power of a received GPS

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

3802 A. M. Wolff et al.: Radio occultation interference analysis

L5 signal for terrestrial users on Earth from the GPS satellites models when compared against the industry standard (Healy
has little if any impact for DME–TACAN operators. Further- et al., 2005). All previous missions have utilized the L1
more, the pulsed localized nature of the DME–TACAN sig- and L2 GPS frequencies and have exceeded expectations
nals has minimal impact on terrestrial GPS L5 users as there with respect to weather forecasting (Melbourne, 2004).
are limited DME–TACAN sources in close proximity to any However, the planned implementation of the L5 frequency
terrestrial user and code division multiple access (CDMA) in a dual-frequency configuration offers an opportunity to
modulation of GPS is robust against pulsed interference. improve upon these results. The Formosat-7 / COSMIC-2
While most users of GPS L5 will experience minimal (Constellation-Observing System for Meteorology, Iono-
degradation from DME–TACAN interference, GPS RO is sphere, and Climate) mission is a future joint mission be-
one such application in which even a slight degraded C / No tween Taiwan and the United States that aims to utilize
would have a significant impact on results. This system is im- L5 receivers for reasons of increased power, overall im-
plemented today for use in weather forecasting and has been provement of signal structure, and the civil designation of
proven to be a very powerful and reliable tool. The architec- the transmission (Mannucci et al., 2012). The TriG (Tri-
ture of a GPS RO system consists of a satellite in LEO receiv- GPS–GNSS–RO) receiver is one such receiver developed to
ing a signal from a GPS satellite. The LEO satellite houses utilize these characteristics of the L5 band (Esterhuizen et al.,
a set of antennas pointed towards the limb of the Earth in or- 2009).
der to detect and measure refraction as the signal propagates
through the Earth’s atmosphere. As a result of this directive 2.2 Distance measuring equipment
orientation of the receiving antenna, these satellites may in-
cur DME–TACAN interference that could obstruct RO data The architecture of the DME system offers a method to
collection. The architecture of GPS RO will be discussed in determine distance from an aircraft to a ground station
further detail in the following section. (Fisher, 2004). The DME architecture is comprised of an air-
borne interrogator and a ground-based transponder that op-
erates in four codes (X, Y , W , Z). However, the X code
2 Background is the only possible interferer with respect to the L5 fre-
quency. The aircraft interrogates within a frequency range of
2.1 Radio occultation 1025–1150 MHz, whereas the ground station transmits over
frequencies between 1151 and 1213 MHz within X mode
The utilization of GPS RO in weather forecasting has spurred (Bastide et al., 2004). Therefore, any airborne interroga-
a further advancement in forecasting accuracy. Utilizing the tion within this architecture does not directly impinge upon
GPS satellite network, RO techniques leverage the stabil- any signal transmitted over the L5 frequency. A number of
ity and global coverage of the GPS network in order to DME–TACAN ground stations, however, transmit within this
provide higher-accuracy temperature, pressure, and humid- frequency range and could become a source of interference
ity data (Healy et al., 2005). The process involves a sound- for L5 transmissions. For this reason, DME–TACAN ground
ing technique where a satellite emits a radio wave whose stations will be the focus for determining interoperability
path is then perturbed by an intervening planetary atmo- within the L5 frequency for GPS RO applications.
sphere before reaching the receiver (Kursinski et al., 1997). A DME ground station transmits in pulse pairs with a pulse
Earth-based RO specifically involves a GPS satellite trans- period of 12 µs and a half-amplitude pulse width of 3.5 µs
mitting a signal to a receiving satellite orbiting in LEO. After (Ostermeier, 2010). This signal structure can be seen in
the transmitted radio wave is refracted, phase and amplitude Fig. 1. In addition, DME stations either operate at a high
variation at the receiver is observed over time in order to de- power of 1000 W or at a low power of 100 W. During peak
fine the refractive properties of the surrounding atmosphere activity, a DME station transmits up to 2700 pulse pairs per
(Melbourne, 2004). The refraction of the signal causes an ex- second. The effective width of each pulse is defined to be 8 µs
cess phase in the dual-frequency carrier phase results as seen taking into account a 1 µs desaturation time for the receiver.
by the GPS receiver in LEO (Ware et al., 1996). By observ- Using this effective pulse width and the pulse pair rate pre-
ing the degree of refraction, one can gain insight into the ver- viously defined, a single DME pulse duty cycle is calculated
tical distribution of atmospheric pressure, temperature, and to be 0.0432 s−1 (Roturier, 2001). Therefore, a single DME
humidity. The atmospheric depth of RO retrievals is currently transmitter at its peak is seen 4.32 % of the time by an L5
limited by the available signal-to-noise Ratio (SNR). Addi- receiver.
tional SNR and increased signal-to-interference-plus-noise A TACAN station has many of the same characteristics as
ratio (SINR) would allow for lower atmospheric data to be a DME station. However, unlike DME stations which trans-
obtained. mit at a constant power of 100 or 1000 W, a TACAN station’s
Previous Earth-based occultation missions, such as transmission power ranges cyclically (sinusoidally at 135 and
GPS–Met and CHAMP (CHAllenging Minisatellite Pay- 15 Hz) up to 3500 W. These stations are consequently high-
load), improved upon numerical weather prediction (NWP) powered military versions of their DME counterpart.

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3801–3811, 2014 www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/

A. M. Wolff et al.: Radio occultation interference analysis 3803

Figure 1. DME pulse pair measured at the Green Bank Telescope

in West Virginia (Fisher, 2004).
Figure 2. Fourier transform of the time domain into the frequency
domain as seen by a helical antenna atop Pikes Peak after post-
processing. This measurement was taken on 21 October 2012 at
A standard ground-based DME antenna gain pattern is 17:30 UTC.
maximum at 4◦ in elevation above the horizon and is om-
nidirectional in the azimuth. This orientation slightly above
the horizon directly aligns with the directional gain pattern versity of Colorado Boulder with the intention of conducting
of a GPS RO satellite. The peak gain is +9.5 dBi and the a ground-based RO measurement (Griggs, 2012). This test
3 dB beamwidth is 6◦ in elevation with vertical linear po- scenario was constructed in order to gain an understanding of
larization (dB Systems Inc., 2013). As the orbiting satellite the potential of the new GPS L5 signal for space-based RO.
scans the limb of the Earth, gathering atmospheric data, it is Collections of data from L1, L2, and L5 frequencies were
in the main lobe of the directional beam of the DME station gathered with two separate antennas. The first was a hemi-
for a short period of time. spherical survey grade antenna oriented vertically with ap-
The United States and western Europe have high concen- proximately −3 dBi gain toward the azimuth. The second
trations of DME stations, possibly inhibiting a GPS L5 RO was a helical antenna oriented horizontally and pointed 38◦
receiver in LEO from properly functioning as the difference in the azimuth measured clockwise from north. The latter has
here is that the satellite will be illuminated by multiple DME a peak gain of +10 dBi and a 3 dB beamwidth of 45◦ . The
stations. In the United States alone there are approximately antenna used was the Q-par QHACP 1.2–1.6 GHz (Steatite
203 DME or TACAN ground stations that transmit within Ltd., 2014). Since the data sheet is no longer available, a
±10 MHz of the L5 center frequency of 1176.45 MHz. In as- comparable helical antenna is the HE-0238-6. (R. A. Mayes
sessing the impact to GPS RO, this is likely a conservative Company Inc., 2014). Although this test cannot directly rep-
approach due to the fact that some RO receivers have wider resent the results that a space-based receiver would yield, the
bandwidths than ±10 MHz (Esterhuizen et al., 2009). A re- data collected from this study have provided an insight into
ceiver with a wider bandwidth will encounter a higher num- the amplification of DME signals when a high-gain antenna
ber of interfering DME stations. This is troubling for GPS is employed. Further analysis seeking out the relative power
RO scenarios because it offers up the possibility of receiver values is currently ongoing.
saturation, a situation in which no valid atmospheric data can Although the strength of the interference will undoubtedly
be retrieved (ITU, 1998). Furthermore, the directive orienta- be weaker in space, there will be a sharp rise in the number of
tion of the receiver antenna pattern aboard a RO satellite with DME stations affecting the GPS RO receiver. Within the L5
respect to a DME station increases the received power level component of this collection, DME pulses can be seen within
from a DME station, increasing the cause for concern. the data set. Figure 2 offers a depiction of the frequency do-
main as seen by the helical antenna pointed approximately
northeast of Pikes Peak. Noting that the center frequency
3 Pikes Peak L5 data collection is 1176 MHz, DME stations transmitting at frequencies of
1176, 1178, and 1181 MHz can be seen within the collec-
In order to assess the degree to which a directive antenna am- tion. These frequencies correspond to DME stations in Gill,
plifies DME interference, it is useful to extract and analyze Colorado Plains, and Denver as shown in Fig. 3. On the other
a real-world interference environment in which two separate hand, DME interference is not directly observed in the data
antennas were compared. On 21 October 2011, data were set collected by a survey grade antenna. The reason for this
collected on top of Pikes Peak mountain in Colorado at an contrast is the differing orientations of the two antennas. The
elevation of approximately 4320 m by a team from the Uni- side-by-side comparison shown in Figs. 4 and 5 illuminates

www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/ Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3801–3811, 2014

3804 A. M. Wolff et al.: Radio occultation interference analysis

Figure 4. Time domain as seen by helical antenna atop Pikes Peak

after signal processing. Measurement taken on 21 October 2012 at
Figure 3. DME and TACAN stations encountered within Pikes Peak
17:30 UTC.
measurement as noted in Fig. 2. The helical antenna atop Pikes Peak
was pointed 38◦ in the azimuth relative to north.

this stark contrast of interference between the data gathered

by both antennas.
The interference experienced by the helical antenna reg-
istered considerably higher, greater than the thermal noise
floor. The helical antenna is focused on the area of interest
and therefore gathers visible DME interference. Similarly,
a GPS L5 receiver used for RO applications utilizes a high-
gain directive antenna whose gain is focused on the limb of
the Earth (Wu et al., 2005). Further analysis was conducted
in order to detail the interference that a GPS RO satellite may
encounter due to DME pulses.
Figure 5. Time domain as seen by a standard survey grade antenna
4 Systems Tool Kit validation (hemispherical) atop Pikes Peak after signal processing. Measure-
ment taken on 21 October 2012 at 17:30 UTC.
Systems Tool Kit (STK) was utilized to attain a link bud-
get for the received power of a DME station by a satellite
in LEO. In order to establish the credibility of a space-based
STK simulation, a scenario of a theoretical calculation was 
λ
2
reconstructed within STK, and the results were compared to P1 = Pe G (1)
the theoretical solution. Roturier (2001) calculates the mini- 4π d
mum pulse peak power at an aircraft’s GPS receiving antenna Although Roturier (2001) simplifies this scenario by using
under certain conditions. He defines the scenario as a receiv- isotropic antennas for both the DME stations and the GPS re-
ing aircraft flying at an altitude of 12 192 m and a transmit- ceiver, these identical parameters were recreated within STK
ting DME station located on the radio horizon from the air- and the results were compiled. The STK simulation outputted
craft’s perspective. Both antennas were modeled as isotropic, a value of −106.91 dBW for the minimum pulse peak power
and the DME radiated peak power, Pe , was set at 40 dBW. received. The accuracy of this result when compared to the
Inputting these specifications in Eq. (1) below yields an ap- theoretical value supplies a level of integrity for using STK
proximate minimum peak power received, P1 , of −107 dBW, to compute a communication link budget.
where G is the gain of the airborne GPS antenna set at 0 dB,
λ represents the signal’s wavelength equal to 25.5 cm, and d
is the distance between transmitter and receiver equivalent to 5 STK simulation and link budget results
246 NM.
In order to estimate the received power levels and range of
a DME ground station as seen by a satellite in LEO, a sim-
ulation modeling these conditions was constructed within

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3801–3811, 2014 www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/

A. M. Wolff et al.: Radio occultation interference analysis 3805

Figure 6. Systems Tool Kit model of dB Systems 5100A DME an-

tenna pattern (Systems Tool Kit, 2014). Figure 10 provides a plot of
the gain pattern with respect to elevation. Figure 7. Formosat-3 FM4 satellite received power from a single
DME station located at 39.8125◦ latitude and −104.661◦ longitude.
Results gathered from STK simulation.
STK. A satellite database within STK was used to insert the
Formosat-3 FM4 satellite into the simulation. This satellite
is one of six in a constellation currently commissioned un-
der the COSMIC-1 mission. The selection of this satellite
therefore lends an accurate portrayal of a satellite that would
house an L5 receiver for future RO missions. The gain pat-
tern for the satellite’s antenna was modeled in STK and the
fore and aft elevation angles were set at 27.38◦ and 27.16◦ ,
scanning the limb of the Earth (Griggs, 2012). A single DME
station was placed in Boulder, Colorado, for testing purposes,
and a custom antenna pattern was modeled after the dB Sys-
tems Inc. 5100A high-performance DME antenna available
on their website (dB Systems Inc., 2013). It should be noted
that this model was chosen only as a representative pattern.
Figure 8. Number of interfering DME stations with received
Figure 6 is an image of the modeled gain pattern within STK.
power levels above −125 dBW with respect to time as seen by
The transmission power of the DME station was set at
the Formosat-3 FM4 satellite on 8 January 2013 from 16:02:21
1000 W. This value was chosen based upon the fact that to 16:22:50 UTC. The figure details the satellites orbit across the
DME stations most commonly transmit at this high-power United States from New Mexico to North Dakota and reaches a
setting. It should be recalled that this model does not account maximum when the satellite is orbiting over Manitoba, Canada. Re-
for the low DME power setting of 100 W and the dynamic sults gathered from STK simulation.
power ranges of a TACAN that can reach 3500 W. With the
standard DME model in place, the simulation was progressed
over a period of 6 months within STK, and a plot of the re- ture of a DME signal, a GPS L5 receiver technically will
sults is illustrated in Fig. 7. not experience the DME transmission at all times. Recall-
The plot demonstrates a color-coded map of the received ing the calculated duty cycle of 4.3 % for a single DME sta-
power with respect to the COSMIC satellite’s position over tion offers an estimate for the maximum time a DME station
the United States. This simulation indicates that, under ideal may transmit every second. In order to estimate how many
conditions, a DME transmission is received by the satellite DME stations would be interfering with a receiver in LEO at
at a maximum power level of −123 dBW. This power level any given time, STK was utilized to provide the number of
reaches a maximum when the satellite is within the main stations whose received power was greater than −125 dBW,
beam of the DME antenna. The received power then lessens which was provided as an arbitrary constraint.
until it abruptly ends as the satellite loses line of sight with All 203 relevant DME stations were inserted into STK,
the DME station. and the number of interferers with respect to time was com-
In order to evaluate whether receiver saturation will be puted as the Formosat-3 FM4 satellite with the same antenna
a potential problem for GPS RO satellites, an estimation of parameters as the previous STK simulation starting in the
the time a single DME station interferes with a GPS L5 re- South Pacific Ocean traveled over the United States from
ceiver and the total number of DME stations interfering at New Mexico up towards North Dakota until all connections
a given point in time are required. Due to the pulsed na- were lost in northern Canada. See Table 1 for the list of the

www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/ Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3801–3811, 2014

3806 A. M. Wolff et al.: Radio occultation interference analysis

Figure 10. Plot of the gain pattern of 5100A DME antenna with
respect to elevation angle (dB Systems Inc., 2013).

Figure 9. Percentage of time interfered as a function of the number

of stations. This percentage is calculated through the use of Eq. (2).
obscure any reasonable result. Although a space-based test
cannot currently be conducted, other tests were undertaken
relevant DME stations. The resulting plot is shown in Fig. 8. in order to add to the credibility of the space-based STK sim-
This figure indicates a maximum number of 82 stations trans- ulation.
mitting with received powers of above −125 dBW. This ex- The single transmitting DME station and orbiting RO
treme case occurred when the satellite was over Manitoba, satellite simulation yielded a maximum received power level
Canada. Due to the orientation of the DME gain pattern, it is of −123 dBW. A separate STK simulation including all of
consistent with the results that the highest concentration of the relevant DME stations in the United States indicated that
signal is found on the edge of the network, not directly over- a GPS RO receiver in LEO may witness more than 80 stations
head. Due to the large amount of DME stations encountered at a time with received power levels above −125 dBW. This
by a space-based receiver, an overlap of the pulsed DME number of relatively high-powered transmissions may cause
transmissions will occur. A separate calculation was imple- substantial interference and possible saturation for a space-
mented to provide insight into this overlap of the pulsed sig- based GPS L5 receiver.
nals. The curves depicted in Fig. 9 illustrate the percentage The resultant maximum received power should be noted
of the time a receiver is being interfered with by DME and as a conservative estimate due to restricting the study of the
TACAN stations. The following equation defines this sce- RO receiver bandwidth to within ±10 MHz of the center fre-
nario as the number of interfering stations approaches 90, quency of 1176.45 MHz. Many RO receivers utilize a wide
where I is the percent of time interfered, D is the duty cycle bandwidth with limited filtering in order to optimize data col-
of a DME signal equivalent to 4.32 %, and N is the number lection. However, this study implies that this approach may
of DME stations. prove to have an adverse effect on the receivers’ ability to
gather data due to a greater number of interfering DME sta-
I = 1 − (1 − D)N (2) tions within the collected frequencies.
The resultant values may still not portray an entirely accu-
rate estimate due to possible inaccuracies embedded in cus-
tom antenna patterns as well as the specific orientations for
6 Conclusions the antennas. A detailed analysis specifying correct trans-
mission powers for each station could yield different results;
A real-world validation of any simulation within STK is cur- however, using a 1000 W transmission power appears to be
rently impossible due to the lack of space-based L5 GPS a suitable approach.
receivers with a representative RO pattern. With the future With these considerations in mind, the results gathered
implementation of L5 receivers in space, the opportunity from the STK simulations indicate that L5 GPS receivers
for experimental testing will be realized. However, without in LEO may experience interference caused by DME and
full knowledge of the parameters and conditions that a spe- TACAN stations, resulting in the possible saturation of
cific DME–TACAN station was operating under at the exact the receivers. For the application of radio occultation,
time of the data collection, any experiment will inherently be this interference could result in a loss of collected data
flawed. Uncertainties in specific antenna patterns, antenna ef- as the satellite orbits over regions highly populated with
ficiencies, receiver noise figure and other unknown variables DME stations, namely the United States and western Europe.

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3801–3811, 2014 www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/

A. M. Wolff et al.: Radio occultation interference analysis 3807

Table 1. Name, location, and corresponding transmission frequency of DME–TACAN stations within ±10 MHz of 1176.45 MHz in the
United States.

Name Symbol Freq (MHz) Latitude Longitude

ABILENE ABI 1171 32.481328 −99.863456
ALBUQUERQUE ABQ 1166 35.043797 −106.816314
AKRON ACO 1178 41.107903 −81.201511
AKRON AKO 1178 40.155578 −103.179739
ALAMOSA ALS 1173 37.349158 −105.815536
ALMA AMG 1185 31.536531 −82.508081
ARMEL AML 1169 38.934597 −77.466694
NAPOLEON ANX 1174 39.095425 −94.128836
WALNUT RIDGE ARG 1179 36.109997 −90.953669
ASTORIA AST 1174 46.161689 −123.880364
BALTIMORE BAL 1185 39.171064 −76.661256
BRADFORD BDF 1181 41.159731 −89.587872
BANGOR BGR 1182 44.8418 −68.873964
BIG SPRING BGS 1177 32.385589 −101.483683
BILLINGS BIL 1179 45.808561 −108.624669
NASHVILLE BNA 1175 36.136961 −86.684772
BOISE BOI 1167 43.552811 −116.192131
BEAUMONT BPT 1179 29.946056 −94.016222
BULLION BQU 1179 40.759675 −115.761367
BROOKE BRV 1179 38.336283 −77.352903
BIG SUR BSR 1174 36.181294 −121.642114
BEATTY BTY 1181 36.800583 −116.747647
BYERS BVR 1169 39.765833 −103.928044
BOILER BVT 1185 40.556119 −87.069319
BROADWAY BWZ 1176 40.798433 −74.821833
BURLEY BYI 1175 42.580244 −113.865853
BONHAM BYP 1180 33.537486 −96.234094
COLUMBIA CAE 1181 33.857247 −81.053906
CAMBRIDGE CAM 1184 42.994289 −73.344019
CHADRON CDR 1168 42.558772 −103.312147
CHICAGO HEIGHTS CGT 1176 41.510006 −87.571544
CHARLESTON CHS 1169 32.894319 −80.037814
CEDAR RAPIDS CID 1175 41.887533 −91.785706
CHEROKEE CKW 1184 41.755708 −107.581983
COLLEGE STATION CLL 1167 30.605003 −96.420681
CHARLOTTE CLT 1184 35.190472 −80.952
CEDAR CREEK CQY 1182 32.185722 −96.218103
CRAIG CRG 1179 30.338861 −81.509944
CUT BANK CTB 1178 48.564944 −112.34325
CHESTER CTR 1185 42.291319 −72.949394
DAVENPORT CVA 1172 41.708542 −90.483306
COFIELD CVI 1180 36.372914 −76.871544
COYLE CYN 1168 39.817314 −74.431622
DAGGETT DAG 1166 34.962458 −116.578167
DOLPHIN DHP 1173 25.799964 −80.349036
DRYER DJB 1170 41.358064 −82.161969
DAYTON DQN 1179 40.016419 −84.396872
DUPONT DQO 1174 39.678147 −75.607092
DRAKE DRK 1175 34.702583 −112.48025
DOVE CREEK DVC 1180 37.808739 −108.931272
MILE HIGH DVV 1181 39.894694 −104.624333
DETROIT DXO 1168 42.213136 −83.366664
PECK ECK 1174 43.255886 −82.717931
NEEDLES EED 1186 34.766003 −114.474103

www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/ Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3801–3811, 2014

3808 A. M. Wolff et al.: Radio occultation interference analysis

Table 1. Continued.

Name Symbol Freq (MHz) Latitude Longitude

ELKINS EKN 1176 38.914436 −80.099272
MEEKER EKR 1186 40.067472 −107.924881
EL PASO ELP 1186 31.815911 −106.281883
CENTRALIA ENL 1184 38.420022 −89.159017
PEOTONE EON 1166 41.269639 −87.791053
KEWANEE EWA 1172 32.366808 −88.458369
NEW BERN EWN 1170 35.073131 −77.045058
KEY WEST EYW 1169 24.585878 −81.800475
FLAT ROCK FAK 1167 37.528508 −77.828219
KALISPELL FCA 1166 48.214103 −114.175892
FORT LAUDERDALE FLL 1178 26.074739 −80.152472
FLORENCE FLO 1186 34.232933 −79.657114
FORT DODGE FOD 1169 42.611167 −94.294833
FORTUNA FOT 1174 40.671272 −124.234539
WILLIAMSPORT FQM 1178 41.338556 −76.774861
SIOUX FALLS FSD 1184 43.649531 −96.781164
GILLETTE GCC 1180 44.347772 −105.543486
GARDEN CITY GCK 1167 37.919053 −100.725064
GRAND FORKS GFK 1177 47.954833 −97.185369
GOFFS GFS 1178 35.131144 −115.176442
GLASGOW GGW 1173 48.215269 −106.625461
GOODLAND GLD 1185 39.387861 −101.692306
GILL GLL 1176 40.503869 −104.553014
GOSHEN GSH 1171 41.525186 −86.027972
GREAT FALLS GTF 1185 47.449981 −111.412164
GUTHRIE GTH 1179 33.778278 −100.336197
GALLUP GUP 1185 35.476 −108.872611
GAVIOTA GVO 1172 34.531308 −120.091083
BLUE MESA HBU 1183 38.452153 −107.039792
HARTFORD HFD 1183 41.641106 −72.547417
WHITEHALL HIA 1171 45.861797 −112.169597
HILL CITY HLC 1171 39.258747 −100.22585
HALLSVILLE HLV 1176 39.113542 −92.128233
HOLSTON MOUNTAIN HMV 1180 36.437056 −82.1296
HARVEY HRV 1175 29.850194 −90.002983
HAMPTON HTO 1170 40.919017 −72.316694
HUDSPETH HUP 1184 31.568703 −105.376319
SCREAMING EAGLE HXW 1183 36.675603 −87.495011
EL NIDO HYP 1176 37.219431 −120.400217
HAYWARD HYR 1168 46.019006 −91.4464
HAZEN HZN 1175 39.516414 −118.997689
WICHITA ICT 1172 37.745258 −97.583831
KINGFISHER IFI 1181 35.805267 −98.003917
LOUISVILLE IIU 1182 38.103464 −85.577436
WILLIAMS ILA 1178 39.07115 −122.027244
WILDHORSE ILR 1172 43.593122 −118.955044
KIRKSVILLE IRK 1180 40.135022 −92.591714
COLLIERS IRQ 1173 33.707353 −82.162064
WILL ROGERS IRW 1175 35.358589 −97.609233
WILLIE IWA 1167 33.303175 −111.651442
GLEN ROSE JEN 1184 32.159589 −97.877681
JEFFERSON JFN 1186 41.760122 −80.748106
JAMESTOWN JHW 1181 42.188608 −79.121306
JULIAN JLI 1174 33.140458 −116.585936
JAMESTOWN JMS 1179 46.932872 −98.678769

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3801–3811, 2014 www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/

A. M. Wolff et al.: Radio occultation interference analysis 3809

Table 1. Continued.

Name Symbol Freq (MHz) Latitude Longitude

JANESVILLE JVL 1177 42.557986 −89.105306
JUNIOR JYU 1170 32.344611 −86.991269
LOS ANGELES LAX 1170 33.933422 −118.432431
LAKE CHARLES LCH 1168 30.141514 −93.105569
LUCIN LCU 1170 41.362953 −113.840619
LINDEN LDN 1177 38.854392 −78.205556
LEBANON LEB 1171 43.679194 −72.215083
LEEVILLE LEV 1169 29.175231 −90.104019
MARCONI LFV 1181 42.017172 −70.037269
LINDEN LIN 1182 38.074589 −121.003858
LITTLE ROCK LIT 1173 34.677672 −92.180528
SALMON LKT 1169 45.021311 −114.084236
MIDLAND MAF 1182 32.009344 −102.190389
MARIANNA MAI 1174 30.786222 −85.12445
MAPLES MAP 1168 37.590767 −91.788569
MACON MCN 1176 32.691222 −83.647181
MASON CITY MCW 1183 43.094739 −93.329872
TRINITY MHF 1170 29.546344 −94.747514
MANCHESTER MHT 1178 42.868531 −71.369544
MUNCIE MIE 1178 40.237294 −85.394036
MUSKEGON MKG 1186 43.169242 −86.039383
MORMON MESA MMM 1177 36.769278 −114.277472
MODESTO MOD 1180 37.627375 −120.957867
MASSENA MSS 1175 44.914444 −74.722664
MINA MVA 1185 38.5653 −118.032853
MARTHAS VINEYARD MVY 1179 41.396211 −70.612722
MOSES LAKE MWH 1184 47.210864 −119.316817
MODENA MXE 1166 39.918053 −75.670797
MOLINE MZV 1178 41.321061 −90.638081
FALLON NFL 1169 39.416864 −118.704869
TRUAX NGP 1174 27.686278 −97.294742
BRUNSWICK NHZ 1186 43.873514 −69.921911
LEMOORE NLC 1167 36.344117 −119.966333
WHIDBEY ISLAND NUW 1172 48.354936 −122.661786
YUMA NYL 1171 32.6468 −114.613453
WOLBACH OBH 1182 41.375736 −98.353594
OCALA OCF 1171 29.177475 −82.226344
FOOTHILLS ODF 1168 34.695872 −83.297661
ROGUE VALLEY OED 1170 42.479575 −122.912933
KOKOMO OKK 1169 40.527789 −86.058017
OKMULGEE OKM 1183 35.693097 −95.865978
OLYMPIA OLM 1168 46.971639 −122.901833
O’NEILL ONL 1173 42.470503 −98.686922
CHICAGO O’HARE ORD 1173 41.987672 −87.904886
WOODSIDE OSI 1173 37.392672 −122.281828
VALDOSTA OTK 1182 30.780444 −83.279728
NOTTINGHAM OTT 1171 38.705867 −76.744744
PENDLETON PDT 1181 45.698419 −118.938703
PIONEER PER 1166 36.746531 −97.160156
PANAMA CITY PFN 1177 30.216256 −85.680942
RICH MOUNTAIN PGO 1169 34.680456 −94.609003
PEORIA PIA 1186 40.680067 −89.7928
PALMDALE PMD 1179 34.6314 −118.063822
PRINCETON PNN 1177 45.329197 −67.704203
PASO ROBLES PRB 1177 35.672469 −120.627111
PARIS PRX 1170 33.542378 −95.448292

www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/ Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3801–3811, 2014

3810 A. M. Wolff et al.: Radio occultation interference analysis

Table 1. Continued.

Name Symbol Freq (MHz) Latitude Longitude

PAWLING PWL 1177 41.769772 −73.600553
POCKET CITY PXV 1167 37.928319 −87.762381
POINT REYES PYE 1171 38.079756 −122.867828
RAVINE RAV 1180 40.553378 −76.599378
ROBBINSVILLE RBV 1172 40.202389 −74.495014
RICHMOND RIC 1175 37.50235 −77.320278
KREMMLING RLG 1172 40.002642 −106.442489
WORLAND RLY 1182 43.964139 −107.950833
REDWOOD FALLS RWF 1167 44.467275 −95.128231
SAN MARCUS RZS 1183 34.509528 −119.770992
SACRAMENTO SAC 1186 38.443658 −121.551622
SOD HOUSE SDO 1177 41.407056 −118.034722
SEA ISLE SIE 1182 39.095503 −74.800333
SAN JOSE SJC 1175 37.374711 −121.944667
SAN ANGELO SJT 1185 31.374953 −100.454875
SLATE RUN SLT 1173 41.512758 −77.970111
SIDON SQS 1181 33.463861 −90.277333
STONEWALL STV 1172 30.206758 −98.705756
SALEM SVM 1177 42.408869 −83.594189
SQUAW VALLEY SWR 1166 39.180322 −120.269614
SAYRE SYO 1186 35.345161 −99.635347
TUBA CITY TBC 1169 36.121325 −111.269586
TUCUMCARI TCC 1170 35.182139 −103.598519
STANFIELD TFD 1182 32.885856 −111.908733
ST THOMAS THS 1184 39.933228 −77.950944
TWENTYNINE PALMS TNP 1176 34.112236 −115.769908
TYRONE TON 1183 40.735117 −78.331294
TULSA TUL 1178 36.196261 −95.788108
TRAVERSE CITY TVC 1180 44.667919 −85.549958
QUITMAN UIM 1174 32.880403 −95.366753
QUINCY UIN 1170 39.847875 −91.278925
TEXOMA URH 1177 33.944186 −96.391836
CEDAR LAKE VCN 1186 39.537672 −74.967144
VANDALIA VLA 1177 39.093683 −89.162464
MOUNT VERNON VNN 1172 38.361953 −88.807336
VULCAN VUZ 1178 33.670186 −86.8998
FREEPORT ZFP 1166 26.555256 −78.69785
ZUNI ZUN 1168 34.965753 −109.154508

Occultation Space Receiver, Proceedings of the 22nd Interna-

Edited by: M. Nicolls tional Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Insti-
tute of Navigation, Savannah, GA, September 2009, 1442–1446,
2009.
Fisher, J. R.: Signal analysis and blanking experiments on DME in-
terference, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Electronics
References Division, Report 313, 2004.
Griggs, E.: Ground-based GPS occultation utilizing modernized
Bastide, F., Chatre, E., Macabiau, C., and Roturier, B.: GPS L5 and signals, in: Proceedings of IROWG-2, Estes Park, Colorado, 28
Galileo E5a/E5b signal-to-noise density ratio degradations due to March 2012, 2012.
DME / TACAN signals: simulations and theoretical derivation, J. Healy, S. B., Jupp, A. M., and Marquardt, C.: Forecast impact ex-
Inst. Navig., 26, 1049–1062, 2004. periment with GPS radio occultation measurements, Geophys.
dB Systems Inc.: available at: http://www.dbsant.com/5100A.php Res. Lett., 32, L03804, doi:10.1029/2004GL020806, 2005.
(last access: 20 June 2013), 2013. International Telecommunication Union (ITU): Feasibility of shar-
Esterhuizen, S., Franklin, G., Hurst, K., Mannucci, A., Meehan, T., ing between radionavigation-satellite service and the earth explo-
Webb, F., Young, L.: TriG – A GNSS Precise Orbit and Radio

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3801–3811, 2014 www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/

A. M. Wolff et al.: Radio occultation interference analysis 3811

ration satellite (active) and space research (active) services in the Roturier, B.: Report on DME interference on GPS/L5, Direc-
1 215-1 260 MHz BAND, Recommendation RS.1347-0, 1998. tion Generale de l’Aviation Civile, Report (Third Version), 9
Kim, T. and Grabowski, J.: Validation of GPS L5 coexistence March 2001.
with DME / TACAN and link-16 systems, J. Inst. Navig., 9, Steatite Ltd.: available at: http://www.steatiteqpar-antennas.co.uk/
1455–11469, 2003. (last access: 9 September 2014), 2014.
Kursinski, E. R., Hajj, G. A., Schofield, J. T., Linfield, R. P., and Systems Tool Kit: available at: https://www.agi.com/products/ (last
Hardy, K. R.: Observing Earth’s atmosphere with radio occulta- access: 2 April 2014), 2014.
tion measurements using the global positioning system, J. Geo- Van Dierendonck, A. J., Hegarty, C., Scales, W., and Ericson, S.:
phys. Res., 102, 23429–23465, 1997. Signal specification for the future GPS civil signal at L5, J. Inst.
Mannucci, A. J., Lowe, S. T., Franklin, G., Meehan, T. K., and Navig., 232–241, 2000.
Xie, F.: New science opportunities on COSMIC-2/FORMOSAT- Ware, R., Rocken, C., Solheim, F., Exner, M., Schreiner, W., An-
7, Sixth FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC Data Users’ Workshop, 30 Oc- thes, R., Feng, D., Herman, B., Gorbunov, M., Sokolovskiy,
tober 2012, Boulder, Colorado, 2012. S., Hardy, K., Kuo, Y., Zou, X., Trenberth, K., Mee-
Melbourne, W. G.: Radio occultations using earth satellites: A wave han, T., Melbourne, W., and Businger, S.: Gps sounding
theory treatment, Deep Space Communications and Navigation of the atmosphere from low earth orbit: preliminary re-
Series, Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology, sults, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77, 19–40, doi:10.1175/1520-
Monograph 6, 2004. 0477(1996)077<0019:GSOTAF>2.0.CO;2, 1996.
Ostermeier, J.: Test of DME / TACAN transponders application Wu, B., Chu, V., Chen, P., and Ting, T.: FORMOSAT-
note – 1GP74, Rohde and Schwarz Co., Munich, Germany, 5–9, 3/COSMIC science mission update, GPS Solut., 9, 111–121,
2010. doi:10.1007/s10291-005-0140-z, 2005.
R. A. Mayes Company Inc.: available at: http://www.ramayes.com/
helical_antennas.htm (last access: 9 September 2014), 2014.

www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3801/2014/ Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3801–3811, 2014