Plus, How to Create Long Term Monitoring Stability

Remote environmental monitoring systems rarely fail all at once. Performance erodes gradually; data gaps widen, devices fall offline intermittently, power budgets tighten, and maintenance intervals shrink. Over time, reliability drops below what the original design assumed. The infographic below summarizes the most common technical and operational factors behind that decline, based on long term field observations across utilities and remote environmental monitoring deployments.

Many of these patterns may be familiar to you, yet their cumulative impact over five to ten years is less visible. Long term degradation is typically captured in post-mortems, warranty data, and support logs rather than formal reporting, so systemic reliability issues are often inferred from truck rolls or unexplained data loss instead of addressed at the design stage. Connectivity selection, power design, enclosure strategy, and remote management capability all shape lifecycle performance. Understanding these failure modes helps frame more durable trade-offs early, particularly where hybrid cellular and satellite options are being considered.

Why remote environmental sensing projects fail infographic

 

Helping OEMs Choose

For sensor OEMs, long term reliability increasingly shapes product selection and channel acceptance. Coverage variability, power constraints, integration overhead, and regulatory requirements all influence whether satellite or hybrid connectivity is commercially viable within your portfolio.

Our Environmental Sensor OEM connectivity guide outlines practical integration models, device classes, lifecycle considerations, and where satellite and hybrid designs materially reduce field failure risk. It is structured to support internal technical and commercial evaluation.

View Guide
Environmental Monitoring. Sensor Brochure. Image of front cover.
EnviroBlog-Lifecycle-1 Image System degradation remote monitoring

Designing for Long Term Remote System Performance

If you’re designing for durable performance over the full deployment lifecycle of your remote environmental monitoring system, that means balancing coverage, power budget, data volume, enclosure design, remote management, and maintenance costs before scale amplifies weaknesses.

Satellite and hybrid architectures introduce different trade-offs depending on reporting frequency, firmware strategy, and site accessibility. Reviewing these options early helps reduce unplanned site visits and sustain data continuity over years, not quarters.

We’ve written more about this in our blog: Designing for Power and Reliable Data Delivery Under Uncertain Connectivity.

Find out more

If you are reviewing a current deployment or planning a new one, we can provide structured technical input based on your use case, power constraints, data profile, and coverage requirements. We design and manufacture our own devices and also support third party satellite hardware, so recommendations are aligned to lifecycle performance rather than a single product line.

If you complete the form with a brief outline of your application and constraints, a member of our engineering or technical support team will respond with impartial, practical guidance.

Name
Privacy Policy

Iridium have just announced that they’ll launch their latest satellite IoT transceiver, the Iridium 9604, in June 2026. We’re exploring how this differs from its immediate predecessor, the 9603, and its “big brother”, the Iridium Certus 9704 module.

What is the Iridium 9604 module?

Iridium 9604 is a satellite IoT transceiver that utilizes Iridium’s Short Burst Data (SBD) service to send small volumes of data from remote applications operating outside cellular coverage.

In addition to SBD the 9604 module can also transmit using LTE-M cellular connectivity, making it ideal for mobile applications that cross in and out of cellular coverage, or where cellular coverage is unreliable, so a satellite failover is beneficial. The device doesn’t force automatic switching; it’s up to application developers to enable either simple failover rules or more advanced routing logic.

The 9604 module also features integrated GNSS (multi-constellation: GPS/GLONASS/Galileo/BeiDou), making it well-suited for tracking as well as IoT applications.

What Applications are Suited to the 9604?

The new 9604 module is extremely small, measuring just 16 x 26 x 2.4 mm; the weight hasn’t yet been released but we can assume it will be similarly tiny. And while we don’t yet have detailed specifications,, Iridium have stated that it is designed for ultra low power applications.

Any mobile remote IoT application constrained by size, weight and power – e.g. drones/UAVs, animal tracking, data buoys, autonomous machinery – will benefit from the 9604’s form factor and dual-mode satellite/cellular capabilities.

How Does the 9604 Differ from the 9603 Transceiver?

  • Connectivity: the 9603N uses Iridium SBD (340 bytes transmit; 270 bytes receive), as does the 9604, however the 9604 also adds LTE-M connectivity.
  • Tracking: the 9603N needs to be paired with a separate GNSS receiver to transmit a location, whereas this capability is built into the 9604.
  • Form factor: the 9603N measures 31.5 mm × 29.6 mm × 8.1 mm vs. the 9604’s 16 x 26 x 2.4 mm.

Will it be Easy to Upgrade from 9603 to 9604?

We anticipate a lot of teams will want to keep their familiar SBD workflow, but add cellular opportunism. We will be available to help make this migration process simple. And for teams outgrowing SBD message sizes, we can help make the jump from SBD to IMT.

Iridium-9603N-vs-Iridium-9604-Module
Iridium-9604-vs-Iridium-Certus-9704-Module

How Does the 9604 Differ from the 9704 Transceiver?

Iridium relatively recently launched the Certus 9704 satellite IoT transceiver (December 2024), and the 9604 is not a direct competitor or successor to this device. 9604 is about hybrid connectivity for small messages, while 9704 is about bigger payloads.

The 9704 utilizes Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT), which will transmit up to 100 KB per message; up to the challenge of sending aggregated gateway data, audio, and compressed images. The 9604 uses Short Burst Data (SBD), which is intended for extremely small messages (340 bytes transmit / 270 bytes receive).

The 9704 module is larger – 31.5 mm × 42.0 mm × 3.8 mm – and does not have built-in GNSS or cellular capabilities; it is intended for fully remote deployments where you still need meaningful data volume.

Choose the 9604 if you’re sending small messages frequently; if you’ll benefit from its hybrid connectivity, and if your goal is optimized cost/performance in mixed coverage regions.

Which Devices Utilize the 9604 Transceiver?

We’re part of Iridium’s beta program, leveraging our decades of experience working with Iridium modules to build customer solutions that make it easy to benefit from the 9604’s extra capabilities – hybrid connectivity, low power consumption, and a tiny form factor.

Both the bare module and the Ground Control solutions will be integrated into Cloudloop, our cloud-based, API-first IoT platform which manages subscriptions, devices and data. Cloudloop Data is particularly useful for systems integrators, as it seamlessly routes uplinks and downlinks to your HTTPS or MQTT endpoint, and exposes a REST API and dashboard for device metadata, transmission status, and message history.

How to Get Started

We encourage you to contact us to discuss your application; we are Iridium experts, and will provide you with impartial advice on the best airtime, service and hardware to best meet your needs.

Fill in the form or email hello@groundcontrol.com, and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) such as GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, and BeiDou have driven navigation for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for decades. These satellite signals provide critical positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) data that inform core functions like waypoint navigation, path planning, dynamic obstacle avoidance, geofencing for airspace compliance, and failsafe behaviors such as Return to Home or auto landing. However, GNSS/GPS signals are inherently weak – designed to be received at the Earth’s surface from satellites tens of thousands of kilometers away – and as such, are vulnerable to interference, jamming, or deliberate PNT denial.

Particularly over conflict zones, but increasingly widespread, GNSS signals are being degraded, spoofed, or blocked, causing multipath errors and signal loss and leaving autonomous drones without reliable positioning or timing information. Reliance on GNSS alone subsequently becomes a single point of failure for safe, reliable and trusted and UAV operations.

This is why navigation resilience has become one of the most important technical and operational requirements for modern BVLOS UAV deployments, and why selecting the right navigation solution is no longer simply about accuracy, but about operational continuity, trust, and reliability when navigational conditions degrade.

In this blog, we’ll explore the satellite service that addresses GNSS/GPS overreliance, the onboard technology that delivers resilient UAV navigation in contested environments, and the key factors integrators should consider when choosing a navigation stack for BVLOS operations.

Continuity Challenges in Contested and Complex Environments

Studies on GNSS-denied navigation show that jamming can overwhelm genuine satellite frequencies, driving receivers into error or total loss of signal. Spoofing goes a step further by feeding convincing but false signals, tricking receivers into calculating an incorrect location and potentially sending autonomous systems off course. This isn’t theoretical – the mechanisms and impact of GNSS spoofing and jamming are well documented, with spoofing described as a more complex and deceptive threat than simple interference, because it actively misleads the navigator rather than just depriving it of data.

GNSS denial isn’t confined to military battlefields either. Complex civil environments present similar challenges. Urban canyons made of steel and glass can reflect, attenuate, and distort satellite signals. Industrial zones rife with electromagnetic activity can drown out weak satellite broadcasts. Remote farmlands, border regions, and mountainous terrain all produce signal shadows and multipath effects, and these are not edge cases; many operators encounter these conditions regularly.

Without trusted PNT, a drone’s ability to follow a flight plan, maintain orientation, and sense its environment becomes compromised. In military operations, this can mean the difference between mission success and failure when conducting reconnaissance, supply delivery, or coordinated swarm operations. In maritime environments far from land, relying solely on GNSS undermines situational awareness and safety. In these contested or degraded environments, drones that depend exclusively on GPS risk mission degradation, erratic navigation, or complete loss of control.

It’s worth noting, however, that when a UAV loses trusted PNT, it doesn’t necessarily lose the ability to fly. Rather, it loses confidence in where it is, and that uncertainty is enough to abort missions, degrade data quality, violate airspace restrictions, or erode operator trust. Without PNT, UAV missions fail not because the vehicle lacks propulsion or control, but because it cannot navigate with confidence. For BVLOS operations, this loss of confidence is especially critical. Unlike VLOS flights, BVLOS operations depend on automation, remote supervision, and regulatory compliance. A drone that cannot prove where it is – reliably and continuously – cannot safely remain in controlled airspace or operate near people, infrastructure, or other aircraft.

The Solution Beyond GPS

To address the vulnerabilities in GNSS/GPS, engineers and operators are turning to Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT).

A-PNT represents a layered approach in which GNSS is complemented, and in some cases temporarily replaced, by alternative sources that can provide trusted PNT data in environments where GPS is unavailable or untrusted. One alternative A-PNT source is derived from Iridium, and broadcast from a constellation of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. Because these satellites orbit significantly closer to Earth than traditional GNSS satellites, the downlink signals are up to 1,000 times stronger and more resistant to jamming or obstruction.

What makes Iridium’s PNT particularly effective is also its hybrid operation. When GNSS signals are present and reliable, an A-PNT system can blend that positioning data with Iridium PNT to maximise accuracy. When GNSS fails or is compromised, the system can continue operating on the stronger, authenticated Iridium PNT signals alone, preserving continuity of service and trusted navigation. This redundancy is key for autonomous systems that cannot afford to lose their bearings due to interference or contested signals.

In addition, the Iridium PNT signal incorporates cryptographic authentication that enables receivers to verify the integrity of their navigation signals and reject spoofed or tampered data. Whether operating at sea, in urban canyons, or in warfare environments, A-PNT provides a resilient and secure source of position and timing that can help autonomous drones sustain operations when GNSS cannot be trusted.

Why Antenna Positioning Still Matters in GNSS-Denied Scenarios

Even before GNSS is intentionally denied, the physical realities of a UAV or drone’s design can degrade satellite reception. The placement and orientation of antennas determine how effectively a platform can see the sky and receive navigation signals.

Placement near high current electronics, motors, or carbon fiber structures can block signals and create multipath interference, both of which erode signal quality. In contested environments, where robust reception is already tenuous, such degradation only exacerbates the problem. Careful antenna placement – including optimal sky visibility, proper ground planes, and physical isolation from noisy subsystems – remains foundational to any navigation strategy that seeks resilience when GNSS signals are challenged or absent. Further, incorporating A-PNT sources into those antenna systems becomes essential to maintaining navigation and timing.

 

RockBLOCK APNT for Autonomous and UAV Platforms

One of the standout implementations of this A-PNT approach is RockBLOCK APNT – a rugged, self-contained satellite device designed to deliver Iridium PNT-based positioning data even in GNSS-denied environments. RockBLOCK APNT integrates both Iridium PNT and multi-constellation GNSS reception into a compact device suitable for integration with drones and other unmanned systems. By leveraging Iridium’s globally available, authenticated PNT signals, RockBLOCK APNT delivers a level of navigational assurance that GPS alone cannot provide.

For UAV manufacturers and integrators, A-PNT needs to be both practical and reliable. Built with an IP66-rated rugged enclosure, RockBLOCK APNT withstands harsh operational conditions across land and aerial deployments, making it suitable for military, industrial, and maritime applications where environmental stresses and contested RF conditions are common.

The design is also considerate of OEM deployment, featuring a compact form factor with low size, weight, and power (SWaP) requirements, and standard interfaces that simplify integration into existing navigation stacks. It is designed to be both resilient and flexible, supporting serial, USB-C, and Bluetooth connectivity, and easily configurable with common development tools.

Notably, the device also operates with twin antennas to optimize sky visibility and signal resilience according to the drone’s design. In addition to delivering trusted PNT data, RockBLOCK APNT also provides two way satellite messaging up to 100 KB, offering a valuable fallback communications channel when other links fail.

Drone-with-GC-Circles

For UAVs and drones operating BVLOS, the ability to compare GNSS and Iridium PNT data streams is a powerful tool for detecting anomalies indicative of interference or spoofing. By validating position and timing against independent sources and reducing dependence on a single satellite navigation source, RockBLOCK APNT enhances navigational integrity and situational awareness. Operating on stronger Iridium PNT signals also expands the envelope of reliable navigation to areas where traditional GNSS geometry is poor or disrupted, such as high latitudes or deep urban corridors.

 

Future-Proofing UAV Operations With A-PNT

GPS and GNSS have served the world of autonomous navigation well, but they were never designed with modern contested environments in mind. As threats evolve and operations push into regions of intentional interference or obstructed signal conditions, autonomous systems must adapt.

If GNSS is your only source of PNT, your unmanned platform has a single point of failure. In environments where GNSS signals can be jammed, manipulated, or unavailable, this reliance represents a significant operational liability.

A-PNT, powered by strong alternative signals such as Iridium PNT and delivered through devices like RockBLOCK APNT, offers a practical, resilient path forward. By blending multiple navigation sources and validating integrity through authenticated signals, autonomous drones can maintain reliable PNT and continue operating effectively, even when GPS fails.

RockBLOCK APNT delivers UAVs a trusted, independent, and resilient source of positioning, navigation and timing. This enables UAVs to maintain autonomy under interference, preserve mission continuity, protect critical timing and coordination functions, and operate globally with confidence.

Trusted A-PNT For Resilient UAV and Drone Operations

Ground Control brings more than 20 years of experience delivering resilient satellite solutions for remote connectivity and secure communications. We provide expert guidance on deploying the right mix of A-PNT capabilities and reliable satellite connectivity options to ensure trusted positioning, navigation, and for autonomous drones, aircraft and UAVs.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

Remote IoT looks straightforward until you hit the realities of variable latency, tight data budgets, and devices you can’t easily reach once deployed.

This free and ungated eBook distills the integration pitfalls Ground Control sees most often, plus the practical patterns that help teams go live faster and stay operational long after launch.

It’s written for IoT product and platform teams, systems integrators and solution architects, operations and field deployment leaders, and security/IT stakeholders supporting remote infrastructure.

Read Free eBook
Cover-of-Six-Costliest-Mistakes-eBook

What’s Inside: The Six Costliest Integration Mistakes

1. Security & IT Reality Checks

Satellite links can be strongly encrypted, but risk often concentrates at the handoffs, where data routes from the ground segment into your cloud / application environment.

The eBook outlines common postures (VPN + firewalls, private circuits, or higher-isolation architectures) and the blockers that derail projects late.

Fast takeaway: map the end to end path, choose the security posture deliberately, define ownership, and pre-empt IP range conflicts/timeouts before they become downtime.

Security-Mistakes-Remote-IoT
Interoperability-is-not-automatic

2. Interoperability Isn’t Automatic

Remote IoT punishes cellular assumptions. The economics change when every transmission costs power, airtime, and often money.

This chapter shows how teams avoid brittle integrations by designing around constraints: a minimal payload strategy, a clear send policy, and ingestion built for compact messages.

Fast takeaway: prioritize purposeful messages and treat the translation layer as critical infrastructure – version it, test it, and monitor it.

3. The Field Will Prove You Wrong

Coverage maps don’t guarantee performance. Antenna placement, terrain, structures, and foliage create real world RF failure modes.

The eBook clarifies the difference between ‘clear view of the sky’ (LEO satellites) and ‘line of sight’ (GEO satellites), and why confusing these leads to broken installs.

Fast takeaway: validate sky view at the true install height, and test in the actual environment before you scale.

Antenna-Placement-Issues
Design-for-Delays-not-Perfection

4. Design For Delays, Not Perfection

Message-based satellite IoT doesn’t behave like web or cellular. Systems fail when they assume instant confirmation and tight timeouts.

This chapter explains the ‘accepted vs delivered’ distinction and why retries, buffering, and correct acknowledgements are foundational.

Fast takeaway: use jitter + backoff, implement store and forward properly, and only return ‘success’ after durable storage.

5. Lifecycle and Remote Device Management

Remote device management traffic competes with mission data – reboots, logs, config reads, and updates all consume power and paid data.

The eBook covers how teams avoid slow-motion failures by separating ‘alive’ from ‘healthy’, controlling configuration drift, and planning staged updates.

Fast takeaway: treat configuration like code, budget for ops traffic, and design a real end of life workflow.

Lifecycle-Management-Challenges
Data-Discipline-Constrained-Connectivity

6. Data Discipline in Constrained Connectivity

Most systems can produce far more telemetry than anyone will ever use, and ‘send everything’ is the fastest way to lose control of battery life and budgets.

This chapter gives practical patterns like exception reporting, edge summaries, payload compaction, and ruthless prioritization so you protect what matters most.

Fast takeaway: define the smallest information set that drives decisions, then budget size/frequency/retry rules by priority tier.

Key Outcomes You Can Expect

By the end, you’ll be able to spot the integration choices most likely to cause schedule slip and rework, set realistic expectations for latency, delivery confirmation, and retries, and build payload and send policies that scale economically.

You’ll also learn how to reduce truck rolls by designing lifecycle management in from day one, and how to pressure test your deployment plan before you scale it.

The core theme throughout is simple: design for operations, not just installation.

Read the eBook before you make your next integration decision

Get the PDF immediately (ungated). It covers security handoffs, interoperability, field RF realities, latency/retries, device lifecycle, and data discipline.

Read Free eBook

Want help pressure testing your integration plan?

If you’re planning a remote deployment and want to validate your architecture, data budget, or rollout approach, we can help you identify risk early – before it becomes field rework.

Contact Our Experts

FAQs

Is this eBook only about satellite IoT?

It’s written for remote deployments where constraints matter most – satellite and hybrid deployments in particular – but the integration lessons apply broadly to any system where latency, cost, power, and field access are real constraints.

Will this help if we’re already live?

Yes. Several chapters focus on operational issues that appear after launch (retries, lifecycle management, configuration drift, and data discipline).

Does it include practical checklists?

Yes. Each chapter ends with concrete takeaways (e.g., security mapping and ownership, field testing non-negotiables, ‘slow link’ checklist, and data discipline checklist).

Have a remote IoT project to discuss?

No need to contact us to read the eBook – but if you want to chat about your remote IoT project, we’d love to hear what you’re working on.

Complete the form or email hello@groundcontrol.com with your application details, and we’ll connect you with one of our expert team to see if we can support your goals.

Name
Privacy Policy

Cellular, Proprietary Satellite, and NTN in Remote Environmental Monitoring

If you integrate remote environmental monitoring systems, you will eventually encounter a site where connectivity becomes the dominant uncertainty. Sensors continue to sample correctly. Local electronics remain operational. Yet data delivery becomes intermittent or unpredictable. In many cases, the issue is not outright loss of coverage, but changing network conditions at sites that were always near the edge of what terrestrial connectivity could reliably support.

At that point, the problem shifts. It is no longer about sensor selection or firmware optimization. It becomes a system design question: how do you maintain low power operation and predictable data delivery when network behavior cannot be assumed to be stable over time? This is where system integrators typically start comparing architectural options rather than individual bearers.

The first of these options is terrestrial cellular, using LTE-M or NB-IoT, where coverage is stable and well characterised over time. The second is proprietary satellite connectivity, where coverage reach and low duty cycle operation are prioritized over throughput. The third, emerging option is Non Terrestrial Network (NTN) NB-IoT, defined in 3GPP Release 17, which aims to extend cellular standards beyond terrestrial infrastructure using satellite networks.

Each model behaves differently at the system level. None is universally good or bad. The challenge for the system integrator is determining which operating envelope matches the realities of a given deployment.

EnviroBlog-Diagram-1 System stack - remote environmental monitoring

A Practical Decision Framework for Remote Monitoring Sites

In practice, connectivity decisions are best framed around a small number of system-level criteria:

  • How stable is coverage over seasons, vegetation cycles, and weather, not just at installation?
  • How defensible does the connectivity choice need to be over a multi-year deployment?
  • Is the team building a custom node, or does it prefer an integrated monitoring device?
  • How constrained is power, and how expensive is site access if batteries deplete early?
  • What is the expected payload size per reporting interval?
  • How often does the device need to wake and transmit, and how tolerant is the application to latency?

In remote environmental monitoring, these questions are often more predictive of long term system than headline bandwidth figures or nominal coverage maps. They surface how connectivity behaves over time, how often radios wake, and how energy is actually consumed under real site conditions.

Technical Connectivity Matrix

The matrix below helps match connectivity options to their most defensible operating envelopes, and is most useful when applied to site conditions rather than connectivity technologies in isolation. In marginal or variable RF, devices may spend longer acquiring the network and retrying transmissions, which increases energy consumption and reduces delivery reliability / latency predictability. Those risks can matter as much as nominal coverage.

Cellular NB-IoT

Proprietary Satellite*

NTN NB-IoT**

Primary Strength

Lowest cost per KB; high throughput

Global reach; predictable power profile

Converged hardware model; emerging reach

Coverage Stability

Variable at cell edges; sensitive to vegetation

High, assuming hemispherical sky view

Emerging; constellation dependent

Low Power Operating Modes and Sleep Opportunity

Supports PSM (very low average possible), but sleep opportunity depends on operator timers + coverage

Supports true deep sleep via power gating between scheduled bursts (system design dependent)

Early estimates ~10–50 µA

Transmit Load Profile

TX current is variable (uplink power control, coverage enhancement). Worst case energy / on time can increase due to repetitions, attach / resume behavior, and retries

TX is typically short burst transmissions with an implementation defined retry cap; peak can be amp class depending on module / rail, but event duration and attempt count can be tightly bounded

Low power operation expected; current figures are highly implementation- and network-dependent

Max Practical Payload

1,400-1,600 bytes

100 KB

1,200 bytes

Min Practical Payload

30-50 bytes

10 bytes

10-30 bytes

Typical Latency

~100 ms to several seconds

~10 seconds

Medium (10 - 60s); MVNO scheduling could increase this to 2 - 5 mins)

Risk Factors

Network maintenance signalling and retries in marginal RF

Relatively high peak current; antenna placement and sky visibility

Immature ecosystem; coverage and delivery reliability still variable / under validation (latency and transaction timing may be less predictable than terrestrial)

Deployment Status

Mature and ubiquitous

Mature and proven

Early commercial trials

*Based on Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT)

**Based on Viasat NB-NTN service – specification subject to change

 

Why Connectivity Dominates Lifetime Uncertainty

EnviroBlog-Lifecycle-1 Image System degradation remote monitoring

Long life environmental monitoring nodes are designed to sleep almost all the time because field power is expensive; whether that’s truck rolls for batteries or solar constrained by canopy, weather, latitude, and vandalism risk.

In most deployments, the sensing and compute workload is predictable and easy to budget. What’s harder to budget is communications: acquisition time, repetitions / retries, and delivery uncertainty can swing dramatically with site RF conditions and seasonality. That variability often becomes the biggest driver of both battery life uncertainty and operational reliability, more so than the sensor workload itself.

How Terrestrial Cellular Behaves in Remote Environments

Cellular connectivity performs well when coverage is stable and predictable. In those conditions, LTE-M and NB-IoT are often the most cost effective and operationally simple choice.

Challenges arise in remote environments where coverage quality fluctuates rather than failing completely. Field experience from utilities, water monitoring, and environmental telemetry deployments shows that link conditions at unattended sites often vary over time due to terrain, vegetation growth, weather, and seasonal effects, even when initial installation is successful.

From a power perspective, this variability matters. Under marginal coverage conditions, devices may attempt repeated attachment or transmission cycles before successful delivery. These retries consume energy without proportional data transfer.

Operationally, this can result in systems that appear functional but are difficult to predict. Batteries deplete faster than expected, and data gaps are harder to diagnose remotely. This does not mean cellular is unsuitable for remote monitoring. It highlights the importance of understanding how cellular behavior evolves within a specific deployment context, particularly at marginal coverage sites where energy risk can be as significant as coverage risk.

If your design needs predictable energy and diagnosability under uncertain RF, you may prefer a connectivity model that is explicitly scheduled and bounded: this is the key shift introduced by satellite IoT.

How Satellite IoT Architectures Change System Assumptions

Satellite IoT spans two broad architectural models: message-based services (store and forward / burst messaging) and IP-based services. Message-based links are naturally aligned to low duty cycles: devices wake on an application defined schedule to transmit a small payload, optionally open a short receive window, and then return to deep sleep. In this model there is no requirement for continuous “always-on” participation, and average energy use is closely coupled to reporting cadence, retry policy, and power domain design.

IP-based satellite terminals can provide richer connectivity and more interactive downlink, but may incur additional idle overhead to maintain readiness or session behavior, even when user traffic is low.

For long life environmental monitoring, the most defensible operating envelope is typically scheduled messaging with deep sleep between sessions, not continuous reachability. The remainder of this post therefore focuses on message-based satellite IoT, and on implementation patterns that make the comms link behave like any other managed subsystem with predictable states and budgets. We start with Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT) via RockBLOCK modules (particularly the 9704), as it fits naturally into a wake > transmit > sleep design.

Implementation path one: Message-based satcom as a managed subsystem (RockBLOCK 9704)

Message-based satcom as a management subsystem

RockBLOCK 9704 is built around the Iridium Certus 9704 module and uses Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT): a cloud connected, two way messaging service for small to moderate payloads (up to ~100 KB) designed for IoT devices rather than continuous IP sessions.

In a long life monitoring node, it’s best treated as a schedulable subsystem inside a wider embedded design. In practice, integrators typically:

  • Power-gate the modem (load switch/PMIC) so “off” is truly off
  • Wake it only after sampling / validation, when there’s something worth sending
  • Transmit in short, scheduled sessions, with an explicit retry policy
  • Return to deep sleep (or fully unpowered) immediately after the exchange.

The key engineering advantage is boundedness: reporting cadence, session timing, and retry limits are largely under host control, so you can model energy around a small set of well defined states (off / boot / transmit / receive window).

Peak transmit current can be high because closing a link to a LEO constellation requires substantial instantaneous RF power. In a messaging oriented design this draw occurs in short, intentional transmit bursts with bounded duration. The design trade shifts from minimising peak current to ensuring the power system comfortably supports short peaks (battery internal resistance, regulator headroom, local capacitance), while keeping average energy dominated by how often you transmit.

RockBLOCK 9704 doesn’t manage your sensor rails or MCU sleep states – those remain the job of the embedded design – so standard low power techniques (switched sensor rails, unpowered analog front ends outside measurement windows) still apply.

Because IMT is a two way messaging service, you can make delivery outcomes explicit at the application layer: buffer locally, send, then check for confirmation on the next scheduled wake window, without keeping the node awake. This keeps reliability mechanisms aligned with the same duty cycled philosophy as sensing. The important caveat is that network availability (constellation / service uptime) is not the same as guaranteed delivery in every installation: local RF conditions still dominate, i.e. sky view, canopy, terrain, enclosure losses, and antenna placement.

That integration pattern works well when you’re building your own node around a messaging modem. When you’d rather avoid custom hardware and firmware integration, the same principles can be applied at the system level:

Implementation path two: RockBLOCK RTU as an integrated low power monitoring device

RockBLOCK RTU Device Environmental monitoring

If you don’t want to integrate and power manage a satcom module inside your own node, RockBLOCK RTU packages the same sleep dominant principles at the system level: sensing, scheduling, local buffering, and messaging in one device. RockBLOCK RTU uses Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD), Iridium’s classic two way short-packet messaging service, so it naturally fits duty cycled environmental monitoring workloads.

RockBLOCK RTU is designed around a sleep dominant lifecycle:

  • Extended low power sleep as the default state
  • Wake events driven by schedule, thresholds, or external triggers
  • Short transmission windows
  • Immediate return to sleep.

Sensor power is explicitly controlled so sensors are energised only during measurement windows, eliminating standing analog bias currents. This mirrors best practice low power sensor design without requiring custom analog switching. Because message-based satellite operation can be scheduled without continuous reachability, RockBLOCK RTU avoids some of the standing ‘network-reachable’ overhead that can appear in terrestrial designs (depending on configuration and coverage).

In addition to sensing, RockBLOCK RTU provides system level control and observability that are often important in unattended deployments. Configurable digital outputs can switch sensor power rails or external loads, and analog inputs can monitor system voltages (battery, supply rails, excitation lines).

This enables remote verification of power health, detection of brownout conditions, and confirmation that sensors are energised only when expected, helping distinguish sensing issues, power delivery problems, and comms failures without site access.

Time Alignment and Operational Visibility

A recurring operational challenge in unattended monitoring is ambiguity: when data is missing, it’s often unclear whether the system failed to measure or failed to report. RockBLOCK RTU reduces this ambiguity with an internal clock and UTC-aligned timestamps (GNSS when available), making it easier to correlate measurements with expected reporting intervals and separate sensing gaps from delivery failures.

When Proprietary Messaging Satcom is Usually the Wrong Tool

Message-based proprietary satellite IoT is optimized for predictable, low duty telemetry – not high volume data or near real time streaming. Where cellular coverage is stable and power is plentiful, terrestrial LPWAN/cellular often remains the simplest and most cost effective option.

The interesting middle ground is NTN NB-IoT, which aims to extend cellular-style connectivity via satellite, so it’s worth understanding how much of the terrestrial behavior (and variability) it inherits.

NTN NB-IoT as an Emerging Option

Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) NB-IoT, standardized in 3GPP Release 17, extends familiar NB-IoT device and core concepts to satellite links and is often framed as a bridge between terrestrial cellular and proprietary satellite IoT.

For environmental monitoring engineers, the key point is the capability shape: NTN NB-IoT is still fundamentally a low data, latency tolerant telemetry channel , not a streaming link , while aiming to preserve cellular style device models and tooling.

Commercially, it remains an emerging option: footprints, roaming models, and integration paths are operator and region dependent, and multi year public field data on power variance and failure modes is still limited compared with mature terrestrial PSM deployments. That doesn’t imply worse power performance; only that it’s harder (today) to treat it as a fully characterized default for unattended multi-year deployments.

Diagram-showing-3GPP-standards-enabled-IoT-devices

As an illustrative example, Viasat’s NB-NTN positioning is bidirectional messaging with practical payloads around 10–30 bytes up to ~1,200 bytes, typical latency on the order of 10–60 seconds (potentially minutes depending on scheduling), and cost optimized for very small monthly data volumes (e.g., <50 KB).

One implementation detail worth flagging is NIDD (Non-IP Data Delivery). Where supported end to end by the operator and device stack, NIDD can reduce protocol overhead for tiny messages versus UDP/IP, which can materially help battery life at scale; but it’s worth confirming early whether your chosen NTN integration path actually exposes it in practice.

RockBLOCK RTU and NTN Evaluation Paths

An NTN-enabled RockBLOCK RTU is being used in early programs on Viasat’s NB-NTN service. The point isn’t that NTN performance is already fully proven; it’s that you can test and measure it using a monitoring device with a known low power architecture and good instrumentation.

Because RockBLOCK RTU already implements a sleep-dominant lifecycle (scheduled wake, short transmit windows, controlled sensor power, UTC-aligned timestamps, and supply-voltage monitoring), it provides a consistent baseline for evaluating NTN energy use, delivery timing, and variability without redesigning the sensing node.

If you’re considering NTN NB-IoT for an environmental monitoring deployment, Ground Control can support trial deployments and share an evaluation plan.

Practical Implications for System Integrators

For system integrators working in remote environmental monitoring, connectivity decisions are rarely static. Alignment between duty cycle, power constraints, coverage stability, and operational risk tends to determine long term system performance.

Cellular, proprietary satellite messaging services, and NTN NB-IoT each occupy different operating envelopes. Understanding those differences enables decisions to be defended throughout the lifecycle of a deployment.

Where coverage stability cannot be assumed, satellite connectivity provides an architectural alternative that aligns well with how low power remote monitoring systems are typically designed to operate. NTN NB-IoT represents a promising but still emerging option, particularly in contexts where long-term unattended power and reliability characteristics are still being established.

Planning for Intermittent Connectivity is a System Decision.

If you’re assessing where proprietary satellite, NTN NB-IoT, or hybrid connectivity fits into your architecture, we can help you evaluate the trade offs early, before reliability or power becomes the constraint.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

GPS is so embedded in modern defense operations, commercial shipping, and aviation that it often fades into the background. It is assumed to be constant, accurate, and available, but GPS is not always guaranteed. It can be denied, degraded, jammed, or spoofed, and when that happens, the consequences are rarely limited to navigation problems; the expense can also be paramount.

Globally, over the last few years, there has been an alarming rise in deliberate GPS jamming and spoofing incidents. In 2024, over 1,000 commercial flights a day were affected by GPS spoofing, and in the Baltic Sea and Gulf of Finland, reports of jamming and spoofing incidents in 2025 increased by 127% in a three-month period.

In August 2025, the aircraft carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen experienced GPS jamming over Bulgaria and required backup navigation to land safely. Subsequently, a joint statement from the International Maritime Organization (IMO), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) warned about harmful interference, including jamming and spoofing, and called for action by Member States to strengthen the resilience of navigation, positioning, and timing systems.

As GNSS and GPS jamming and spoofing become more prevalent, organizations are increasingly operating blind and exposed to cascading costs relating to service disruption, safety hazards, regulatory non-compliance and reputational damage. This has accelerated the case for Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT), a resilient, layered approach to sustaining trusted timing and positioning when GPS is disrupted. A-PNT can combine multiple independent sources and techniques (satellite, terrestrial, and onboard) to preserve continuity and confidence. Without A-PNT, organizations don’t just lose a signal, they lose confidence, and when confidence disappears, operations slow, costs increase, schedules unravel, and risk rises.

This blog examines the impact of GPS denial, its associated financial implications, and why A-PNT is increasingly viewed as an essential tool for military and defense users, merchant fleets, and aviators who need to maintain safe and predictable movements even when GPS is unavailable.

Uncertainty is a Cost Center

The business case for A-PNT becomes clear when you treat GPS denial as a cost center. Every minute spent slowing down, verifying, rerouting, holding, or diverting is money. Every missed slot, aborted mission, or extended transit is money. Every safety incident, near miss, or compliance failure can be catastrophic in terms of money. If a military unit has to slow or hold position while verifying navigation integrity, it may be exposed longer than planned.

If a merchant ship loses reliable position awareness, it may reroute unnecessarily, increasing transit time and risk. If an unmanned system can’t maintain navigation confidence, it may be pulled from the mission entirely. Every one of these outcomes has a financial expression, whether that’s wasted flight hours, increased maintenance burden, higher fuel usage, or the opportunity cost of assets not being where they need to be. A-PNT reduces these losses by keeping operations predictable under pressure.

Impact of GNSS Degradation in Unmanned Operations

For unmanned operators, GNSS loss or manipulation can translate into constraints and costs within minutes, because GNSS often underpins not just navigation, but also autonomy behaviors (e.g., route keeping, loiter/hold, return to home logic), geofencing and time synchronised data capture. As interference has risen in multiple regions, aviation and maritime safety bodies have issued increasingly prominent warnings about GNSS jamming/spoofing and the need to plan for disrupted environments.

When GNSS is degraded or unavailable, unmanned systems typically shift into more conservative modes: tighter operating areas, lower speeds, increased standoff distances, more manual oversight, or mission aborts. In UAV operations, especially BVLOS and infrastructure / corridor missions, GNSS degradation can also force a reversion to non-GNSS navigation sources (inertial, vision, map matching, etc.) and raise integrity management requirements, because the problem isn’t only position error, it’s whether the system can trust its own PNT well enough to continue safely.

The cost stack for unmanned operations then shows up as lost mission time, rescheduling and re-flight costs, additional personnel oversight, payload / data re-collection, and, at the sharp end, asset loss or third party risk if interference causes navigation faults. In maritime-adjacent unmanned work (USVs and vessels supporting unmanned operations), the same GNSS interference trend is being treated as a growing safety risk, with advisories urging operators to anticipate disruption, report incidents, and implement mitigations.

In time sensitive logistics and security contexts, the margin for error tightens further. Small GNSS-driven slips can break delivery windows, compromise chain of custody or data integrity, and degrade service-level commitments, while in defence and critical infrastructure missions, GNSS degradation becomes a mission assurance and deconfliction risk in contested or degraded environments. That’s why the case for layered A-PNT resilience is strengthening across unmanned platforms: not as a single replacement signal, but as an architecture that preserves confidence through diversity, detection, and graceful degradation.

The Price of Losing Trusted Positioning at Sea

For shipping and merchant fleets, predictable timing is often as valuable as speed. But the most damaging failure mode isn’t always GPS disappears; it’s when crews can’t trust position, course, or time because GNSS is being jammed or spoofed. Industry and security advisories have highlighted corroborated reports of GPS interference affecting vessels in key waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz, and recommend mitigations for navigation planning.

When GNSS integrity is in doubt, ships don’t simply carry on as normal: operators typically respond by increasing watchkeeping, leaning harder on radar and visual fixes, slowing down, widening margins, delaying pilotage/approaches, and sometimes holding or anchoring until confidence returns.

In mid June 2025, reporting and analysis around the Strait of Hormuz described widespread GPS interference and its safety implications, including a high profile collision where erratic positioning signals were observed beforehand and experts suspected jamming/spoofing as a contributing factor (even if causality remains under investigation).

Operational disruption like this cascades quickly into cost: missed berth windows, re-booking and port side fees, delayed cargo availability, and schedule breakage across liner and charterparty commitments. At the same time, GNSS interference elevates high-severity safety risk – groundings, collisions, cargo damage – where a single incident can dwarf the costs of multiple disrupted transits.

A single collision or contact event through GNSS interference can expose shipowners to huge third-party liabilities – from damage to other vessels and port infrastructure, to cargo loss, pollution cleanup, medical and repatriation costs, and legal defence expenses. Typically, such costs are covered by ensuring Protection & Indemnity (P&I) insurance – the mutual liability cover marine operators carry to protect against such claims. P&I is designed to respond to these sorts of risks that Hull & Machinery (H&M) insurance does not, since H&M only covers damage to the ship itself. However, without adequate P&I cover, ship owners could face personal liability for collision and pollution costs that can reach into the tens of millions of dollars for a major incident, turning a moment of lost situational awareness into a long-term financial and insurance burden for shipowners and operators.

APNT-position-compared-to-GNSS-position

War risk insurance is also relevant here, because the same contested corridors where kinetic threats rise are often the places where electronic warfare (including GNSS interference) becomes part of the operating picture. In the London market, the Joint War Committee (JWC) publishes Listed Areas of perceived enhanced risk, which can trigger additional premium requirements depending on cover and voyage. In periods of heightened Red Sea risk, reported additional war risk pricing rose sharply, moving from low fractions of hull value to figures around the 0.5%-0.7% range by late 2023, with some quotes reported as high as ~1% in peak conditions. For a high-value vessel, that translates into hundreds of thousands to over a million dollars for a single transit before knock on costs are counted.

That’s why A-PNT isn’t just a technical upgrade; it’s a mission/operations enabler. The goal is to retain a trusted position and timing solution even when GNSS is denied, jammed, or spoofed, so crews and operators can keep moving safely with managed risk, rather than defaulting to delay, disruption, or avoidable exposure when the RF environment turns hostile.

Reputation Cost

There’s also a reputational dimension that doesn’t often present itself as a cost center for the cost of GPS denial. Defense organizations are measured by readiness and reliability, commercial fleets are measured by service performance and operational professionalism, and aviation operators are measured by safety and predictability. When GPS denial causes repeated disruptions, customers, partners, and leadership can begin to ask harder questions. The organizations that can demonstrate resilience; the ones that can say “GPS went down and we continued safely and predictably”, are the ones that win trust and contracts.

Resilience Through an Alternative Satellite Network

Iridium PNT delivers a key advantage in degraded GPS environments, chiefly due to signal strength at the receiver. Because the Iridium constellation operates in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) – roughly 25× closer than GNSS satellites in Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) – its downlink can be received at ground level at around 1,000 times (≈30 dB) stronger than traditional GNSS signals.

That higher received power materially improves resilience in the real world: it raises the bar for interference, supports operation in more obstructed environments, and helps sustain trusted timing and position when GNSS is being jammed or manipulated. It complements GPS / GNSS as part of a layered A-PNT approach, restoring operational confidence by providing an independent, authenticated PNT path when GNSS integrity can’t be assumed.

RockFLEET Assured for Merchant Shipping A-PNT Solution for GPS-Denied Environments

For organizations that require positioning, navigation and timing solutions that can be deployed quickly, the RockBLOCK APNT and RockFLEET Assured devices provide a path to delivering a resilient solution by encapsulating Iridium PNT, without redesigning an entire platform. The devices are built around the reality that fleets and squadrons don’t have the luxury of multi-year integration timelines when the threat – and cost – of GPS jamming, spoofing and denial is already here.

A-PNT for Vehicles & Drones

RockBLOCK APNT is a rugged, self-contained satellite device that leverages Iridium PNT signals to deliver resilient positioning, navigation, and timing. Its form factor is well suited to mounted vehicle platforms, unmanned systems, and mobile assets where trusted position and timing are mission critical.

Housed in a compact, IP66-rated aluminum enclosure, RockBLOCK APNT is engineered to withstand harsh operational conditions across land and aerial deployments. Its low power consumption (under 200 mW idle) makes it suitable for persistent, remote, or battery powered platforms, including unmanned ground and aerial vehicles.

By combining a robust physical design with Iridium’s globally available, authenticated signals, RockBLOCK APNT helps maintain navigational integrity and timing continuity even when GPS cannot be trusted.

RockBLOCK-Pro-Web-2

A-PNT for Maritime

RockFLEET Assured integrates Iridium’s PNT service into a rugged, compact maritime solution designed to perform under real world navigational stress. Instead of relying solely on open GNSS signals, RockFLEET Assured outputs A-PNT-derived position and time in standard NMEA format, with configurable integrity monitoring and time difference checks to help identify anomalous conditions, supporting operations with more trustworthy navigation data when GNSS can’t be relied upon.

Commercial ships transiting spoofing hotspots can maintain position awareness even as GNSS degrades, supporting safe and confident bridge operations. Naval platforms operating in electronic warfare environments retain the dependable timing and navigation required for mission coordination. And because integrity is monitored and anomalies are flagged, operators can respond early – before bad PNT propagates into bad decisions.

RockFLEET-Assured-in-Triton-Case-More-Padding

Protecting Time, Revenue, and Reputation

Organizations often underestimate the financial impact of GPS denial because it is rarely captured as a single line item or cost center. Instead, it appears as scattered costs that add up rapidly: additional fuel consumption, extra days at sea, schedule recovery actions, personnel overtime, unplanned port charges, and operational inefficiencies that ripple through multiple departments.

A-PNT is the difference between navigating uncertainty and being governed by it. It reduces the financial impact of delays caused by GPS denial, protects schedules from such cascading disruption, and strengthens safety margins in environments where navigation integrity cannot be assumed.

RockBLOCK APNT and RockFLEET Assured are rugged, reliable, and deployable A-PNT solutions that support continuity of operations by enabling resilient PNT in the field and at sea. For commercial shipping operators, this means more stable ETAs, reduced exposure to costly port and network disruptions and lower AWRPs. For defense operators, it means maintaining tempo, reducing mission risk, and preserving synchronization across assets and units. For drone operators, it means improved navigation integrity in degraded environments and fewer operational compromises when GPS is unreliable. RockBLOCK APNT and RockFLEET Assured exist for the moments when GPS goes dark and the mission, schedule, or flight still has to continue.

Trusted A-PNT Expertise To Reduce The Cost Of GPS Denial

Ground Control brings more than 20 years of experience delivering resilient satellite solutions for unmanned, maritime and critical communications. We understand that no two vessels, convoys, or operating environments are the same, which is why we provide expert guidance on deploying the right mix of A-PNT capabilities and reliable satellite connectivity options to ensure trusted positioning, navigation, and timing anywhere in the world.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

When OEM teams discuss satellite connectivity for UAVs, the conversation often defaults to IP. It feels familiar, maps neatly to ‘internet-like’ thinking, and enables genuinely interactive workflows. And if your primary link is cellular, you’re usually already living in an IP world, so using an IP-based satellite service can look like the cleanest way to add failover comms without changing the application stack.

There’s also a second, equally valid pattern that many UAV architectures underuse: message-based transport. Used intentionally, it gives you a delivery oriented path for critical data, well suited to situations where connectivity can be variable and you want the system to behave calmly through brief fades. Further, if you’re tight on payload and battery, messaging can be the better fit in practice because the terminals are typically smaller, lighter, and lower power.

In real operations, links do get imperfect; often briefly, sometimes repeatedly. The question isn’t whether IP or messaging is better. The question is: what should your system do when connectivity becomes intermittent?

Intermittency is Normal in UAV Satcom

Irrespective of your choice of satellite network, satellite connectivity is shaped by installation choices and the operational environment. You may see brief fades or dropouts caused by antenna placement and orientation (vehicle attitude, manoeuvring, installation constraints), airframe shadowing (the drone itself blocking sky view), and terrain or obstructions (especially at lower altitudes). These aren’t exotic edge cases; they’re part of the everyday reality of airborne links.

Designing for that reality is less about chasing a perfect connection, and more about choosing link behaviors that match the data you need to move.

IP (interactive session)

Messaging (queued delivery)

Best for

Operator driven workflows and interactive payload control

Delivery oriented updates and 'must get through' messages

Typical pattern

Continuous back and forth

Discrete messages sent in packets

When the link fades briefly

Sessions may need reconnection / state re-establishment before resuming

Messages can be queued and retried according to your policy / service behavior

How to think about it

“Stay connected”

“Deliver this information”

IP is Ideal for Interactive Sessions

An IP connection excels when you genuinely need an interactive session: operator driven workflows, higher touch payload control, and applications that depend on continuous back and forth.

Many IP applications also maintain session state and use keep-alives. When connectivity becomes intermittent, those session oriented behaviors may require reconnection and state re-establishment before the application resumes normal operation. That’s not a problem with IP; it’s simply how many interactive applications are designed.

In UAV satcom, where brief fades can be normal, it can be helpful to complement interactive IP workflows with a delivery oriented path for data that should still make progress even when the link isn’t perfectly continuous.

Messaging is Designed for Queued Delivery

Message-based transport starts from a different premise: you’re not trying to stay in an ongoing conversation. You’re trying to deliver discrete information, and you want the system to behave sensibly if conditions aren’t perfect at the moment you try to send.

In a well designed message-based workflow, you can queue data for delivery and apply an explicit retry policy, so brief fades don’t necessarily translate into a broken live session experience. Messaging doesn’t need to hold a session together to succeed; it just needs a window good enough to move the message, with delivery behavior determined by the service and by how you design your application logic.

Messaging is often a good fit for data types where you care about delivery and can tolerate brief delays, such as safety and control intents, periodic telemetry snapshots, mission state updates and compliance events, and ‘must get through’ alerts.

A useful practical point for OEMs: messaging aligns with how many UAV systems already work internally. Most aircraft already buffer, queue, and batch. Messaging extends that same logic across the link.

Treat Connectivity as Multiple Lanes, Not One Pipe

A helpful mental model is to stop choosing “IP vs messaging” as a single binary decision for the whole aircraft. Instead, choose by data type, and build lanes that match how that data behaves and what it’s worth.

Hardware reality (SWaP): These lanes often map to different terminal classes. Messaging modules can be palm sized and tens of grams, while IP terminals are commonly larger, heavier and higher peak power because they’re built to sustain a live session.

Lane 1: Tiny, decisive commands (SBD / RockBLOCK 9603)

Some messages are small because they should be small. When the message is ‘deliver the intent’, payload is not the point.

This is where Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD), delivered via RockBLOCK 9603, fits well: very small messages that can carry command and control intents such as stop, start, return to base, or critical state flags.

It’s an architecture move as much as a connectivity move: you’re creating a path for decisive actions that don’t require an ongoing live session to be valuable.

RockBLOCK-9603-Angled-crop

SWaP snapshot: RockBLOCK 9603 is 45 × 45 × 15 mm, 39 g (incl. antenna), max 450 mA; a good fit when you want deliver the intent with minimal payload and battery impact.

Lane 2: Larger discrete packets (IMT / RockBLOCK 9704)

Messaging becomes even more interesting when it isn’t constrained to tiny pings. With Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT), delivered via RockBLOCK 9704, you can work with larger messages (up to 100 KB). That’s enough to move more than bare minimum telemetry.

For many OEM designs, it opens the door to a straightforward pattern: collect richer data onboard (as you already do), then transmit it as structured packets – telemetry snapshots, compressed logs, payload summaries, detection events – according to a schedule and policy that fits the mission. Instead of ‘keep the pipe open’, the goal becomes ‘move the next packet when conditions allow’, with clear application logic around queueing, acknowledgement, and retry.

This approach can be a good match for how operators actually use data: many decisions don’t require millisecond streaming; they require timely, trustworthy updates that arrive consistently.

2025-9704-8

SWaP snapshot: RockBLOCK 9704 (SMA) is 48 × 52 × 16 mm, <35 g (excl. antenna), max 1.4 W; still firmly in the small and light messaging class.

Lane 3: Interactive workflows (Certus 100 / RockREMOTE UAV OEM)

When you truly need a live interactive link, IP is absolutely the right tool.

That’s where Iridium Certus 100, delivered via RockREMOTE UAV OEM, comes in. For OEMs, the appeal is flexibility at the system level: you can support an IP-based connection for interactive workflows, while also designing message-based IMT workflows for data types that benefit from queued, delivery oriented transport, without forcing every workload through a single paradigm.

The result is a more intentional architecture: interactive applications use IP when they need to, and delivery oriented data uses messaging patterns when that better matches the operational reality.

RockREMOTE UAV Image 3 or Drone device

Trade-off (SWaP): RockREMOTE UAV OEM is 175 × 60 × 37 mm, 287 g, peak <1.66 A @ 12 V or <833 mA @ 24 V (≈ 20 W peak); worth it when you truly need an interactive link, but a meaningful step up in size / weight / power versus messaging modules.

The OEM Decision: What Happens During a 30 Second Fade?

Here’s a simple test that clarifies architecture decisions fast. Picture a brief period where conditions degrade: antenna orientation changes during a manoeuvre, the airframe masks sky view, or the aircraft drops behind terrain. It’s not a total outage, but the link becomes unreliable.

Now ask: what should your system do? If the data is interactive, it’s reasonable for the experience to be interrupted. The operator understands that continuous live control isn’t guaranteed in all conditions.

If the data is delivery-oriented, especially safety, health, compliance, or mission state, then the system should behave calmly: queue, send when it can, and retry according to your service behaviour and your application’s retry policy.

That’s the core difference in mindset: designing for interactivity versus designing for delivery.

Messaging

Use messaging first when the requirement is: ‘this must get through, even if it arrives later than a live dashboard would prefer’.

IP

Use IP first when the requirement is: ‘a human or application must interact continuously’.

Combined

Use both when you want the best operational outcome: IP for interactivity, messaging for delivery oriented updates and structured packets.

The strongest OEM architectures rarely treat connectivity as one monolithic pipe. They treat it as a set of behaviors, each aligned to what the data is for.

Bottom Line: Choose by Data Type, and Design for Real Operations

IP is excellent when you need live interactivity. Messaging is well suited to delivery oriented updates when conditions are variable and you want a queued approach with an explicit retry policy. Hybrid designs let you use each where it fits best: IP for interactive moments, messaging patterns for critical updates and structured packets.

If you’re designing for real operations, and not just ideal lab conditions, message-based transport deserves consideration early in the architecture, alongside IP, rather than as an afterthought.

Disclaimer: real world performance depends on system design, antenna integration, operational environment, and service configuration; the right approach is mission- and data-dependent.

Talk through your satcom architecture with us

Email us at hello@groundcontrol.com, or complete the form, with your details and a couple of lines about your platform (airframe class, typical mission profile, and what data you need to move).

We’ll follow up with practical guidance on where SBD (RockBLOCK 9603), IMT (RockBLOCK 9704), and Certus 100 (RockREMOTE UAV OEM) fit in your architecture, and how to combine them for an operator-friendly design.

Name
Privacy Policy

Every few years, a disruptive technology emerges quietly but ultimately reshapes entire sectors. Today, Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (A-PNT) is gaining momentum, and Iridium’s Low Earth Orbit (LEO) PNT signal is one prominent space-based approach.

While most discussions around A-PNT focus on navigation, defense, or autonomous systems, one industry poised to benefit the most in financial significance is vessel insurance.

Shipowners and insurers face increasing pressure from unpredictable geopolitical risks, particularly in war-prone regions. The reliability of vessel position data has become a critical factor for insurers, who need to accurately assess risk in order to price policies and manage claims.

A-PNT technologies offer a solution to this long-standing challenge by providing trusted, tamper resistant, and independent positional data, which has the potential to transform how insurers evaluate and underwrite maritime risk.

Map-Plotter-on-Vessel

The War Risk Insurance Market is Under Pressure

War risk insurance premiums have skyrocketed in the past two years, reflecting heightened threats in key shipping corridors and merchant vessels navigating unpredictable geopolitical environments.

These premiums, known as Additional War Risk Premiums (AWRPs), are applied on top of normal insurance cover whenever a vessel enters a high risk “Listed Area” defined by the London insurance market’s Joint War Committee (JWC). These surcharges can represent hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of dollars per voyage, dramatically increasing operational costs for carriers.

One example is the Red Sea crisis caused by Houthi attacks in late 2023 and 2024. During this period, war risk premiums for a typical seven day transit of the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait surged from a nominal 0.05 percent to between 0.4 and 1.0 percent of the vessel’s hull and machinery value.

For a new high value container ship valued at approximately $150 million, this translates into an additional cost of roughly $665,000 per transit. Similarly, a Large Range 2 tanker valued at $105 million faces surcharges of around $420,000, while Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) with insured values near $100 million could see premiums reach $1-2 million for a single high risk seven day transit. These extreme costs, combined with the actual risks of attack, forced major carriers such as Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, adding 10 to 14 days to their journey and significant fuel costs.

The Black Sea, affected by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, represents another hotspot where war risk insurance costs have surged. The conflict has had significant impact on the grain export corridor. After Russian strikes on foreign vessels, war risk premiums reportedly increased by approximately $125,000 per voyage for a $50 million vessel. In response, insurers collaborated with the United Nations to create specialized grain corridor insurance solutions, enabling essential exports to continue despite elevated risk.

While exact invoices remain private, publicly available market data shows that transiting a war risk area can add a substantial percentage of a vessel’s value to the cost of a short transit. Insurers desperately need reliable, tamper-proof positional data to assess risk, and ships need better protection from spoofing and GNSS interference. That’s where Iridium PNT becomes invaluable.

Where Iridium PNT Fits In

Current methods for tracking vessels include AIS (Automatic Identification System), radar, and GNSS-based location tracking. However, each of these systems has limitations. AIS data can be spoofed, turned off, or manipulated. GNSS signals are vulnerable to jamming or spoofing, especially in conflict zones, and radar coverage is generally limited to coastal regions, leaving open ocean transits less secure. These limitations create blind spots between reported and actual vessel positions, increasing both operational and financial risk.

Iridium PNT addresses these challenges directly. By leveraging the global coverage of Iridium’s Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellation, Iridium PNT’s broadcast signal is up to 1,000 times stronger than GPS and transmitted from satellites 25 times closer to Earth. This makes it far more resilient to interference and reliable even when GNSS becomes unavailable.

GPS-RockFLEET-Assured-Diagram

Why Merchant Shipping Needs A-PNT

The modern maritime industry operates under increasing levels of risk and uncertainty. War risk premiums are fluctuating dramatically, GNSS vulnerabilities are increasing, and traditional tracking solutions leave critical blind spots. In a world where a single transit can cost $500k to $2 million in extra insurance, any technology that enhances trust and reduces risk has immediate economic value.

For shipowners, A-PNT is more than a navigation enhancement. The technology is a financial and operational safeguard, enabling vessels to demonstrate the integrity of their movements and providing insurers with verifiable data that can reduce positional uncertainty. This can translate directly into lower war risk premiums as carriers can prove their routes and positions without ambiguity. By offering immutable, timestamped movement logs that are resistant to spoofing or tampering, A-PNT enables maritime insurers to price risk with confidence and operators avoid unnecessary disputes.

Beyond insurance savings, A-PNT also enhances safety and operational resilience. In high-threat areas, accurate, verified location and timing information is essential for navigation, route optimization, and compliance with safety regulations. Fleet operations centers can maintain situational awareness, even under GNSS interference, while captains receive reliable guidance via A-PNT to avoid hazards or restricted zones. The combination of operational safety and financial prudence positions A-PNT as an essential tool for modern merchant shipping. Ultimately, if ships can prove their track, timing, and location with high integrity – independently of GNSS spoofing and jamming – insurers can price risk with confidence.

 

Bringing Iridium PNT to the Bridge with RockFLEET Assured

RockFLEET Assured harnesses Iridium’s PNT service into a rugged, compact maritime solution built for real-world navigational pressures. It provides an independent source of positioning and timing when GPS/GNSS is jammed, degraded, or spoofed. Rather than relying solely on open GNSS signals, RockFLEET Assured can output A-PNT-derived position/time in standard NMEA format and includes configurable integrity and time difference checks to help detect anomalous conditions, supporting operations based on more reliable information when GNSS can’t be trusted.

The combination of its resilient architecture and practical engineering makes RockFLEET Assured a strong choice for vessels facing GPS-denied conditions and AWRPs. Cargo ships transiting spoofing hotspots can maintain position awareness even when GNSS becomes unreliable, helping bridge teams maintain safe routing. Naval vessels operating amid electronic warfare retain dependable timing and navigation essential for mission coordination. And unmanned surface vessels benefit from uninterrupted PNT in high latitude regions where GNSS performance can be challenged.

By combining Iridium’s PNT service with RockFLEET Assured’s maritime-ready integration and onboard monitoring features, RockFLEET Assured provides a trusted positioning capability to mitigate the threats that contribute to rising war risk premiums in regions like the Red Sea and Black Sea.

RockFLEET-Assured-Installation-Transparent-BG

Reliable Navigation for Insurers and Shipowners

With millions at stake in AWRPs alone, Iridium PNT provides a new level of assurance for both insurers and vessel operators. For insurers, the technology reduces exposure to spoofing, improves positioning reliability, and enables more accurate data driven risk pricing. For shipowners and operators, APNT can lower war risk premiums, improve compliance, enhance safety, and ensure operational continuity in high-risk zones.

As the geopolitical risks continue to grow and GNSS vulnerabilities become more frequent, A-PNT is emerging not only as a navigation tool but as a business-critical tracking asset. It allows maritime stakeholders to operate with confidence, knowing that the positional data underpinning insurance decisions, operational planning, and safety compliance is reliable.

In this context, Iridium PNT and RockFLEET Assured represent a transformative solution, providing trusted, validated, and resilient positioning, navigation and timing data that benefits insurers, shipowners, and the broader shipping ecosystem. For stakeholders aiming to reduce financial exposure, enhance safety, and navigate conflict zones with confidence, RockBLOCK APNT is a reliable solution. By enabling a verifiable “source of truth” for vessel positioning, RockFLEET Assured enables more accurate, reliable and cost-effective maritime war risk insurance assessment for modern maritime operations.

Trusted A-PNT Expertise for Resilient Maritime Operations

Ground Control brings more than 20 years of experience delivering resilient satellite solutions for maritime and critical communications. We understand that no two vessels, fleets, or operating environments are the same, which is why we provide expert guidance on deploying the right mix of A-PNT capabilities and reliable satellite connectivity options to ensure trusted positioning, navigation, and timing at sea.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

When winter bites, the world doesn’t stop moving. Researchers crunch climate data at 6,500 meters. Ships weave through drifting icebergs. Volunteers groom snowmobile trails through the night. Pilots fly over whiteout terrain. Rivers swell with snowmelt and threaten nearby communities.

In all of these places, terrestrial connectivity is patchy, or simply doesn’t exist. From Himalayan glaciers to Arctic sea ice and winter trails, Ground Control’s satellite IoT and tracking services keep people, assets and data connected when the temperature drops and terrestrial networks disappear.

We’ve brought together five real world winter operations where satellite IoT quietly gets the job done.

Snow-Ice-No-Signal-Ground-Control-Infographic-2025

High Altitude Glacier Monitoring on Everest

At extreme elevations, there are no engineers on call, no cell towers on the skyline, and not much margin for error. Yet these are exactly the locations where climate scientists need reliable, continuous data.

On Himalayan glaciers, researchers are deploying autonomous stations that can operate for months at a time without human intervention.

Using Ground Control’s RockREMOTE Mini over the Iridium Certus 100 network, these stations send back daily information on ice temperature and local weather conditions.

That data helps scientists understand how fast glaciers are melting, how conditions are changing over time, and what that means for the communities that rely on these frozen reservoirs downstream.

Arctic Iceberg Tracking for Safer Seas

In the Arctic, winter never really leaves, and the landscape is in constant motion. Icebergs calve from glaciers and drift through busy shipping lanes and past critical offshore infrastructure. For vessels and platforms operating in these waters, knowing where the ice is, and where it’s heading, is essential.

Teams working in this environment are deploying low cost, open source beacons built around Ground Control’s RockBLOCK technology.

These compact devices are attached to icebergs and send regular position updates via satellite as the ice drifts. Operations teams use that data to build drift models, refine routes and maintain safe stand off distances from moving ice.

Snowmobile Trail Grooming Beyond Cellular Coverage

Further south, in dense forests and mountain passes, a different winter challenge unfolds. Snowmobile clubs rely on volunteer groomers to keep thousands of kilometers of trails in good condition, often working late into the night and far from any cellular signal.

To support these teams, clubs are equipping groomers with RockSTAR devices linked to Ground Control’s Cloudloop Tracking platform. As the groomers work, their position, distance travelled and speed are automatically logged.

This creates an accurate record of grooming activity that can be used for fair reimbursement and better planning, and it also provides real time visibility of where machines and operators are.

Search and Rescue Tracking in Winter Skies

When something goes wrong in winter, it can escalate quickly. For pilots flying over snowy valleys, mountain ridges and frozen lakes, situational awareness and communication are non-negotiable. Whiteout conditions, icing and rapidly changing weather can all conspire to make navigation and emergency response more difficult.

RockSTAR and RockAIR devices from Ground Control provide continuous satellite tracking and two-way messaging for aircraft operating beyond cellular coverage.

Each flight can be monitored in real time on a map, giving operations teams a clear picture of where aircraft are and how their routes are progressing. If the worst happens, SOS capabilities allow pilots to raise an alert and share their location, even when other communications have failed.

In one real world rescue, a pilot survived a crash in blizzard conditions and was located thanks to his satellite tracker, which continued to transmit his position. It’s a powerful illustration of how a small, rugged device can make a critical difference when conditions are at their most unforgiving.

Flood Risk Monitoring When Snow Turns to Floodwater

As temperatures rise, water from snow and ice makes its way into rivers, culverts and drainage systems, sometimes overwhelming infrastructure and threatening nearby homes and businesses. Being able to monitor these systems in real time is key to managing flood risk.

Partners like Obscape use RockBLOCK-enabled telemetry modules to connect water level gauges, rain gauges and cameras, even in remote or hard to reach locations.

These instruments send back frequent measurements and imagery via satellite, giving authorities and engineers an up to date view of catchment conditions. When indicators reach critical levels, teams can act quickly, whether that’s issuing warnings, closing roads, or checking vulnerable assets.

Because the connection does not rely on terrestrial networks, the system continues to function during storms and power outages, providing a resilient backbone for early warning and response.

Bring Your Winter Operations Online

Wherever snow and ice cut off regular networks, Ground Control keeps data and teams connected. From glacier monitoring and iceberg tracking to snowmobile trail grooming, aviation safety and flood risk management, satellite IoT ensures that critical information continues to flow, even when your signal bars vanish.

If your operations take you beyond cellular coverage, satellite connectivity doesn’t need to be complex or out of reach. Ground Control’s hardware, airtime and management platforms are designed to work together, so you can focus on outcomes rather than infrastructure.

Helping you stay connected

If your winter operations take you off the beaten track, we can help you stay connected.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day, connecting you with a team with over 20′ years experience of extracting data from the most remote places on Earth.

Name
Privacy Policy