[time-nuts] DHS Resilient PNT Conformance Framework

[Magnus Danielson]

Hi Bob,

On 2020-12-19 00:15, Bob kb8tq wrote:
> Hi
>
> You can always cycle the power … :)
Comes to no relief for some cases, as they store state that keeps them
"killed". If it was as easy of cycle the power, it would not have been
an issue we discussed.
> ===========
>
> There also are the basic issues of 50 db gain antennas being attached to
> 20 db compatible modules. RF rich environments (even without Lightspeed …)
> will always be a challenge. Site design *is* part of this “mess”. 
For sure. At the same time, we find sites which has numerous GPSes, each
installed in a separate install campaign by different vendors/companies
and "good enough" for that contract which didn't go into detail, so
there is that too. That is for sure part of the problem the cross-hair
is on.
> =======
>
> At least from what I saw, *most* modules did a pretty good job of handling the 
> stuff they saw. You could always jam them if you had enough power. Most of 
> them recovered from that and went back to running correctly. 
>
> Indeed, a device that provided timing on a per band / per system basis would 
> probably have taken care of all the issues I saw. Back in the day, those devices
> …. not what you got in your low cost module ….

It's not necessarily of doing per band or per system receivers increase
your PNT capability. It could in fact reduce it as you can not use
remaining signals and combine them. I made this very point that it would
be unwise to limit in such ways. That was also the result of an
IT-security analysis gone wrong, without considering some basic facts
and low-hanging fruit in making that more robust.

Cheers,
Magnus