In-Depth Interview with Stefano Bertone – Advanced Planetary Science, Astrometry, and Space Exploration
Interviewer: Atty. Bilge Kaan ÖZKAN
Guest: Dr. Stefano Bertone – Planetary Science Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA
1. BKÖ: Mr. Bertone, when people hear “NASA scientist,” they imagine rockets and astronauts—but what does a normal working day actually look like for you?
Mr. Bertone: That perception is very understandable, because the most visible aspect of space exploration is indeed launches and human missions. However, for those of us working in planetary science and astrometry, a typical day is centered much more on data analysis, modeling, and interpretation than on anything directly related to rockets.
A significant part of my day involves working with datasets produced by space missions. These include radiometric tracking data, such as Doppler and range measurements, laser altimetry data that provide precise surface elevations, and high-resolution imagery. Before any scientific conclusions can be drawn, these datasets must be carefully processed. This includes calibration, noise reduction, time alignment, and corrections for physical effects such as relativistic signal propagation and environmental disturbances.
Once the data are properly prepared, we develop mathematical models to interpret them. For instance, we analyze how a spacecraft’s orbit deviates from an ideal trajectory in order to infer the gravitational field of a planetary body. This involves solving complex inverse problems and using numerical methods that often require high-performance computing resources.
Another important part of the work is validation. We compare results obtained from different instruments and independent datasets to ensure consistency. If discrepancies arise, they must be investigated thoroughly, as they may indicate either measurement errors or new physical phenomena. Collaboration is also essential—we regularly work with engineers, physicists, and mission planners to refine models and improve accuracy.
In summary, while the work may not involve standing near a launchpad, it plays a critical role in enabling those missions. The accuracy of our models directly affects spacecraft navigation, landing safety, and the scientific value of the mission.
2. BKÖ: One thing people often wonder is this: how can you trust data coming from millions of kilometers away?
Mr. Bertone: This is a fundamental question, and in practice, we do not simply “trust” the data—we validate it continuously. The reliability of space data is established through a combination of calibration, redundancy, and statistical analysis.
Before launch, every instrument is carefully calibrated under controlled conditions. We determine its sensitivity, its noise characteristics, and any systematic biases it may have. These calibration parameters are then incorporated into the data processing pipeline.
Once the spacecraft is in operation, we continuously monitor the data it produces. We compare observations with predictions based on physical models. For example, we know how a spacecraft should move under the influence of gravity. If the observed motion differs from the prediction, we analyze whether the difference is due to a real physical effect or a measurement artifact.
We also rely heavily on redundancy. Different instruments often measure related quantities in independent ways. For example, gravity field estimates derived from spacecraft tracking can be compared with surface topography obtained from laser altimetry. Consistency between these datasets increases confidence in the results.
Finally, every measurement is associated with an uncertainty estimate. Rather than treating data as exact, we quantify how reliable it is. This allows us to assess the robustness of our conclusions and to identify areas where improvements are needed.
3. BKÖ: How precise are your measurements really? Are we talking meters, centimeters, or even smaller?
Mr. Bertone: The level of precision we achieve can be extremely high, often beyond what people might expect. For example, using radiometric tracking techniques, we can detect changes in a spacecraft’s velocity on the order of micrometers per second. This level of sensitivity is essential for identifying small gravitational perturbations.
In terms of position, spacecraft orbits around planetary bodies can often be determined with meter-level accuracy, even at very large distances from Earth. Laser altimetry measurements can achieve vertical accuracies ranging from a few centimeters to a few meters, depending on the instrument and mission design.
However, achieving this level of precision requires accounting for many different factors. Signals traveling between Earth and a spacecraft are affected by relativistic effects, solar plasma, and instrumental noise. Even small timing errors can introduce significant uncertainties if not properly modeled.
Therefore, precision is not only a property of the instruments themselves but also of the models we use to interpret the data. Without detailed physical modeling, the raw measurements would not reach their full potential.
4. BKÖ: If something goes wrong in your calculations, what kind of consequences could that have in a real mission?
Mr. Bertone: Even small errors in calculations can have significant consequences in space missions because of the precision required. A minor error in velocity estimation, for example, can accumulate over time and lead to large deviations in position.
During critical phases such as orbital insertion, an incorrect estimate could result in the spacecraft missing the intended orbit. In landing scenarios, inaccuracies in gravity models or surface topography could affect descent trajectories, increasing the risk of mission failure.
To mitigate these risks, we use multiple layers of validation, redundancy, and simulation. We test models under a wide range of conditions and analyze how uncertainties propagate through the system. This approach allows us to design robust solutions that can tolerate small errors without compromising mission safety.
5. BKÖ: People often hear about “gravity anomalies.” Does that mean there are places where gravity behaves strangely?
Mr. Bertone: Gravity anomalies do not mean that gravity behaves unpredictably, but rather that it reflects variations in mass distribution within a planetary body. Real planets are not uniform; they contain regions of different density, which produce measurable variations in gravitational attraction.
By observing how a spacecraft’s trajectory changes as it passes over these regions, we can detect and map these anomalies. This provides valuable information about subsurface structures that cannot be observed directly.
In this sense, gravity anomalies are not irregularities in the laws of physics, but rather indicators of the internal complexity of planetary bodies.
6. BKÖ: How do you decide where a spacecraft should land on another planet or the Moon?
Mr. Bertone: Landing site selection is a complex process that involves balancing scientific goals with engineering constraints. We use high-resolution topographic data to evaluate surface slopes, roughness, and potential hazards such as craters or boulders.
Gravity models are also important, as they influence the spacecraft’s descent trajectory. Additionally, we consider environmental factors such as lighting conditions, temperature, and communication visibility.
The final decision is based on extensive simulations and analyses conducted by interdisciplinary teams, ensuring both safety and scientific value.
7. BKÖ: What makes a planet or moon “dangerous” for a spacecraft?
Mr. Bertone: Several factors can make a planetary body challenging or “dangerous” for spacecraft operations. One of the most critical is the gravitational environment. Unlike a perfectly uniform sphere, most planetary bodies have irregular mass distributions. These irregularities can perturb spacecraft orbits, especially at low altitudes, making precise navigation more difficult.
Surface conditions also play a major role. Rough terrain, steep slopes, and the presence of large craters can create hazards for landing. Even small surface features can pose significant risks if they are not properly characterized.
Additionally, environmental conditions such as extreme temperatures, radiation levels, and dust can affect spacecraft systems. For example, fine dust particles can interfere with instruments and mechanical components, while radiation can degrade electronics over time.
All these factors must be carefully modeled and accounted for during mission planning to ensure safe and reliable operations.
8. BKÖ: Why do space missions take so many years before they even launch?
Mr. Bertone: Space missions require long preparation times because of their complexity and the need for reliability. Every component must be designed, tested, and validated under conditions that simulate the space environment.
Scientific instruments must be carefully calibrated, and mission objectives must be clearly defined. In addition, spacecraft systems must be integrated and tested as a whole, which is a highly iterative process.
Trajectory design also plays a role. Launch windows depend on planetary alignment, which may only occur at specific times. All these factors contribute to the extended timelines.
9. BKÖ: How do you deal with uncertainty in your measurements?
Mr. Bertone: Uncertainty is an intrinsic aspect of any space-based measurement. We quantify it rigorously rather than attempting to “eliminate” it, because all observational data carry instrumental, environmental, and model-based errors.
For instance, when tracking a spacecraft’s orbit, uncertainties arise from several sources: timing jitter in Doppler measurements, phase noise in radio signals, ephemeris errors in planetary positions, and unmodeled thermal forces acting on the spacecraft. Each of these contributions is propagated through our computational models using covariance analysis and Monte Carlo simulations.
We also perform sensitivity studies to determine how variations in specific parameters affect mission-critical outputs, such as landing precision or gravitational field estimates. By integrating uncertainties into our numerical simulations, we can provide probabilistic confidence intervals for every derived quantity, allowing engineers and mission planners to design robust operational strategies that account for potential deviations.
10. BKÖ: What is the biggest challenge in exploring another planet?
Mr. Bertone: One of the greatest challenges is integrating multi-scale, multi-physics models in a planetary environment fundamentally different from Earth. Spacecraft operate under extreme thermal gradients, variable radiation environments, and highly irregular gravitational fields. Each of these factors can interact in non-linear ways that are difficult to predict.
For example, modeling a low-altitude orbit around a small, irregularly shaped moon requires simultaneously accounting for non-uniform gravity, solar radiation pressure, and tidal perturbations. Small miscalculations in these areas can significantly affect orbital stability. Additionally, we must translate sparse or indirect remote sensing data into actionable engineering constraints, which requires high-fidelity inversion techniques and numerical optimization.
The interplay of autonomous spacecraft systems, delayed communications, and uncertain environmental parameters makes planetary exploration a complex problem of both engineering and applied physics.
11. BKÖ: How do you test your models without actually going there?
Mr. Bertone: We rely on high-fidelity simulations, laboratory analogs, and historical mission datasets. For example, numerical models of a Martian landing site can be validated against topographic and gravity data from orbiters, while regolith interaction can be tested using terrestrial simulants under controlled vacuum and temperature conditions.
We also employ data assimilation techniques to fuse observations from multiple instruments, ensuring internal consistency and cross-validation. By running thousands of Monte Carlo scenarios, we can stress-test our models against extreme or unlikely events, giving confidence that the models will remain robust under real mission conditions.
12. BKÖ: Why is international collaboration so important in space science?
Mr. Bertone: Planetary exploration is inherently multidisciplinary and resource-intensive. No single institution can maintain the full range of expertise, instrumentation, and funding required for a modern mission.
Collaboration allows the sharing of high-resolution datasets, laboratory calibrations, advanced computational models, and unique spacecraft platforms. For instance, gravity field data collected by a NASA orbiter can be combined with imaging from ESA missions and geophysical experiments from JAXA landers to produce comprehensive planetary models that would otherwise be impossible.
Additionally, joint development accelerates innovation, mitigates risk, and ensures that discoveries benefit the global scientific community, rather than being siloed within a single organization.
13. BKÖ: How does your work support future human missions?
Mr. Bertone: Our models provide precise environmental characterization critical for human exploration. This includes gravity mapping to determine stable orbital paths, topography and slope analyses for safe landing site selection, and hazard identification such as boulder fields or dust storms.
By simulating spacecraft-environment interactions under probabilistic scenarios—including solar radiation pressure, regolith dust transport, and thermal cycling—we help define operational constraints for human missions. This information feeds directly into trajectory planning, autonomous navigation algorithms, and mission risk assessments, effectively reducing uncertainty for crewed operations.
14. BKÖ: What excites you most about the future of space exploration?
Mr. Bertone: The combination of unprecedented measurement precision and computational power is transforming our ability to explore and understand planetary systems. We are now capable of resolving gravitational anomalies on small moons, detecting centimeter-scale topographic variations from orbit, and modeling complex multi-body interactions with high fidelity.
Looking forward, I am particularly excited about missions that integrate in-situ and remote sensing data in real-time, enabling adaptive exploration strategies. The convergence of AI-driven autonomous navigation, advanced instrumentation, and predictive planetary modeling opens the door to missions that can operate safely in environments we have never directly observed before. This era will allow us not just to observe other worlds but to interact with them in ways previously thought impossible.
15. BKÖ: If you were given the opportunity to travel to space and set foot on a planet or moon you’ve been studying, what would you be most eager to see and why?
Mr. Bertone: That is a profoundly exciting hypothetical because it allows me to connect the abstract, numerical world of planetary science with the visceral, tangible experience of exploration. From a scientific perspective, the first thing I would be most eager to examine directly would be the surface heterogeneities and geophysical anomalies that our remote sensing data have indicated but which we can only infer indirectly from orbit. For example, variations in surface composition, subtle undulations in topography, or evidence of past tectonic or volcanic activity are precisely the features that can transform theoretical models into concrete understanding. Being there in person would allow direct sampling and high-resolution contextual observation, enabling us to validate decades of orbital measurements and refine gravity and thermal models with unprecedented precision.
I would also want to investigate the interaction between the planetary surface and its surrounding environment. For instance, observing regolith behavior under low gravity, examining dust transport during diurnal cycles, or measuring local electromagnetic interactions could provide critical insights that we currently approximate using simulations and Earth analogs. Even small-scale observations, such as the orientation of boulders, the porosity of surface soil, or the layering of sediment, can dramatically improve our understanding of the body’s geological history and potential habitability.
Moreover, being physically present on the surface allows for an intuitive sense of scale, context, and morphology that no remote dataset can fully convey. When you model a crater or ridge in software, you work with numerical representations and images, but seeing how sunlight interacts with terrain features, how shadows shift with the planet’s rotation, or how thermal gradients develop across a rock face gives you immediate feedback on the assumptions embedded in your models. This “ground truth” perspective would be invaluable, not just for my own research, but for calibrating instruments for future missions and training autonomous navigation systems for both robotic and human explorers. The human experience itself—walking on an alien landscape, feeling the gravity, sensing the horizon, and witnessing firsthand the geological processes you’ve only simulated—would fundamentally enrich the scientific imagination. Every theoretical construct we develop in planetary science is ultimately meant to describe and predict the natural world, and being there physically bridges the gap between abstraction and reality in ways that data alone cannot. It would be both humbling and inspiring, reinforcing why the meticulous, highly technical work we do in orbiting spacecraft, modeling, and remote sensing matters so profoundly for the broader endeavor of exploration.
Interview: Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez Casado on Ionospheric Disturbances and GNSS System Integrity
Interviewer: Atty. Bilge Kaan ÖZKAN
Guest: Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez Casado – Department of Mathematics
In-Depth Interview with Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez Casado – GNSS, Ionosphere, and Navigation Systems
BKÖ : Dr. Gonzalez Casado, could you describe your current research focus and its relevance to GNSS navigation?
Dr. Casado: My current research is primarily focused on analyzing and modeling the topside ionosphere and the bottom-side plasmasphere using GNSS radio occultation data. This is highly relevant for GNSS navigation because ionospheric conditions directly affect signal propagation, causing delays and phase fluctuations that impact positioning accuracy. By understanding and modeling these effects, we can improve the reliability of GNSS-based augmentation systems like SBAS (Satellite-Based Augmentation Systems) and GBAS (Ground-Based Augmentation Systems), which are critical for aviation, marine, and land navigation applications.In addition, our work seeks to develop more robust correction algorithms that can account for ionospheric variability on both regional and global scales, ultimately improving the stability and resilience of satellite navigation systems used in safety-critical operations.
BKÖ : Can you explain the principle behind GNSS radio occultations and why they are important for ionospheric research?
Dr. Casado: GNSS radio occultations involve observing signals from navigation satellites as they are occulted — that is, pass through the Earth’s atmosphere relative to a low-Earth orbiting satellite. By measuring the bending and delay of these signals, we can derive electron density profiles in the ionosphere and upper atmosphere. This technique provides global coverage and high vertical resolution, allowing us to monitor ionospheric variability in near real-time and to feed data into models that predict GNSS signal behavior.Because radio occultation measurements are relatively independent of ground infrastructure, they are particularly valuable for studying remote regions such as oceans and polar areas, where conventional monitoring networks are sparse.
BKÖ : How do ionospheric disturbances specifically impact SBAS and GBAS systems?
Dr. Casado: Ionospheric disturbances, including storms and scintillations, cause rapid changes in signal propagation speed and phase. For SBAS and GBAS, which rely on precise timing and positioning corrections, these disturbances can degrade accuracy and integrity. My research focuses on characterizing these anomalies and incorporating them into predictive models, so that augmentation systems can adapt their correction algorithms dynamically, maintaining safety and reliability for aviation and other critical applications.In severe conditions, such disturbances may even cause temporary loss of signal tracking, which is why improving the resilience of augmentation systems is a major objective of current GNSS research.
BKÖ : Your work mentions modeling ionospheric super-storms. What methodologies are used for this?
Dr. Casado: Modeling ionospheric super-storms involves combining observational data from GNSS, radio occultation satellites, and ground-based monitoring stations with physics-based and empirical models of the ionosphere. We analyze variations in Total Electron Content (TEC) and compare them with historical data to simulate extreme scenarios. These models help us assess the resilience of GNSS systems under unusual but possible space weather events.By studying these rare but intense disturbances, we can better understand the limits of existing navigation infrastructure and design mitigation strategies for extreme geomagnetic conditions.
BKÖ : What role does the plasmasphere play in GNSS signal propagation, and how is it analyzed in your studies?
Dr. Casado: The plasmasphere, a region of cold plasma extending above the ionosphere, influences GNSS signals indirectly by affecting the overall electron density gradient. Radio occultation data allows us to profile this region, and by combining these measurements with ionospheric data, we can create a full vertical model of the signal environment. This is crucial for accurate corrections in SBAS and GBAS systems, particularly during disturbed geomagnetic conditions.Understanding the interaction between the ionosphere and the plasmasphere is essential for building comprehensive models of the space environment through which GNSS signals propagate.
BKÖ : How do you approach real-time ionospheric monitoring and prediction?
Dr. Casado: Real-time monitoring requires integrating multiple data sources: GNSS networks, satellite occultations, and ground-based ionosondes. We employ advanced filtering and assimilation techniques to estimate current ionospheric conditions, then use physics-based and statistical models to forecast short-term changes. This allows augmentation systems to adjust their corrections proactively rather than reactively.The integration of real-time data streams significantly improves the responsiveness of monitoring systems, enabling faster detection of ionospheric anomalies and more reliable navigation services.
BKÖ : Could you elaborate on mapping functions for GNSS and their importance in your research?
Dr. Casado: Mapping functions relate slant-path delays observed by GNSS signals to vertical electron content along the line of sight. Accurate mapping is essential for converting raw GNSS observations into reliable positioning data. My work involves refining these functions, particularly under non-standard ionospheric conditions, to minimize errors in high-precision applications such as aviation navigation or geodetic surveys.By improving these mathematical transformations, we can better interpret GNSS measurements and enhance the accuracy of ionospheric corrections applied by navigation systems.
BKÖ : How do ionospheric scintillations affect signal integrity, and how are they modeled?
Dr. Casado: Scintillations are rapid fluctuations in signal amplitude and phase caused by small-scale irregularities in electron density. They can lead to loss of lock, measurement errors, or increased positioning uncertainty. We model these by combining empirical observations with simulations of plasma density irregularities, providing statistical forecasts for scintillation probability, duration, and intensity, which are then used in GNSS system risk assessments.These models help engineers design receivers and algorithms that are more robust against signal disruptions.
BKÖ : How does your background in astrophysics contribute to your ionospheric research?
Dr. Casado: My training in astrophysics, particularly in analyzing complex systems like galaxy clusters, has given me strong skills in modeling, statistical analysis, and interpreting sparse observational data. These skills translate directly to ionospheric studies, where we must combine limited measurements with physical models to predict GNSS signal behavior across large spatial scales.The interdisciplinary nature of astrophysics also encourages collaboration across different scientific fields, which is very valuable in space weather and navigation research.
BKÖ : What are the limitations of current ionospheric models, and how do you address them?
Dr. Casado: Current models often rely on historical averages and may not capture extreme events accurately. We address these limitations by integrating real-time GNSS observations and radio occultation data, improving model resolution and responsiveness. Machine learning techniques are increasingly applied to detect patterns and anomalies that traditional models might miss.By combining classical physics-based models with modern data-driven approaches, we aim to create more adaptive and reliable ionospheric prediction systems.
BKÖ : How do you validate your ionospheric models against real-world GNSS performance?
Dr. Casado: Validation involves comparing predicted TEC, delay, and scintillation values with observed GNSS data from multiple stations. We perform statistical analysis over extended periods and diverse geomagnetic conditions. Discrepancies inform model refinement, and successful predictions demonstrate the model’s applicability to operational augmentation systems like EGNOS.Continuous validation is essential to ensure that theoretical models remain consistent with real-world navigation performance.
BKÖ : Could you discuss the impact of your research on aviation navigation and safety-critical applications?
Dr. Casado: By improving the prediction and monitoring of ionospheric disturbances, my research directly enhances the reliability of SBAS and GBAS. This allows aircraft to rely on GNSS-based approaches even during space weather events, reducing risk and enabling more precise, efficient routing. Ultimately, this research supports global aviation safety standards and contributes to the development of next-generation satellite navigation infrastructure.
BKÖ : What advice would you give to young scientists interested in GNSS and ionospheric research?
Dr. Casado: Focus on building a strong foundation in physics, signal processing, and atmospheric science. Gain hands-on experience with GNSS data and satellite observations. Collaboration across disciplines is crucial, as the ionosphere is a complex system influenced by space weather, geophysics, and engineering constraints. Always combine theoretical modeling with real-world validation for impactful research.Curiosity, persistence, and interdisciplinary thinking are essential qualities for researchers who want to contribute meaningfully to this rapidly evolving field.
Interview: Krešimir Kuk on Earthquake Risks and Seismic Preparedness
Interviewer: Atty. Bilge Kaan ÖZKAN
Guest: Krešimir Kuk – Department of Geopyshics
1.
B.K.Ö:: Mr. Kuk, thank you for joining us. Could you briefly introduce yourself and your background in seismology?
Krešimir Kuk: Thank you for having me. I am a seismologist with over 20 years of experience in earthquake research and risk management. My work focuses on monitoring seismic activity, analyzing fault lines, and advising on disaster preparedness strategies both in Croatia and internationally.
2.
B.K.Ö:: How would you describe the earthquake risk in Hırvatistan compared to Türkiye?
K.K.: Both countries are seismically active but in different ways. Turkey sits on multiple major fault lines, including the North Anatolian Fault, making it prone to large magnitude earthquakes. Croatia, on the other hand, has moderate activity concentrated in regions like Zagreb and along the Dalmatian coast, with smaller but still significant seismic events.
3.
B.K.Ö:: Are there particular regions in Hırvatistan where earthquakes are more likely?
K.K.: Exactly, yes. Zagreb, the capital, sits near active fault lines and has experienced damaging earthquakes in the past, most notably the 2020 Petrinja earthquake. Coastal areas, especially Split and the Dalmatian islands, also experience occasional seismic activity due to the Adriatic tectonics.
4.
B.K.Ö:: Can we expect earthquakes of similar magnitude in Croatia as those in Türkiye?
K.K.: Major earthquakes in Croatia tend to be smaller than the largest ones in Türkiye, but they can still cause significant damage locally, particularly in older or unreinforced buildings. So while magnitudes may differ, the risk should not be underestimated.
5.
B.K.Ö:: How accurate are earthquake predictions, scientifically speaking?
K.K.: Predicting the exact time and magnitude of earthquakes is currently impossible. We can identify high-risk zones and the likelihood of future activity based on historical and geological data, but precise forecasts remain beyond our capabilities.
6.
B.K.Ö:: What lessons can Hırvatistan learn from Türkiye’s experience with earthquakes?
K.K.: Turkey has a long history of dealing with high seismic risk. One key lesson is the importance of strict building codes and retrofitting older structures. Another is public education on emergency preparedness, which significantly reduces casualties during major events.
7.
B.K.Ö:: How do modern monitoring systems improve earthquake preparedness?
K.K.: Seismic networks, GNSS sensors, and early warning systems allow us to detect tremors quickly and alert populations before the strongest shaking reaches them. This can save lives and protect critical infrastructure.
8.
B.K.Ö:: Have you observed any recent changes in seismic activity in the Adriatic region?
K.K.: There has been a slight increase in minor tremors in some areas, such as near Zadar and Berkovići. These events highlight the continuous activity along local faults, though they are mostly small and do not pose widespread danger.
9.
B.K.Ö:: How can cities like Zagreb prepare for future earthquakes?
K.K.: Urban planning must prioritize seismic resilience: retrofitting old buildings, enforcing modern construction standards, and designing evacuation routes.
Public drills and awareness campaigns are also crucial for community readiness.
10.
B.K.Ö:: What role does research play in mitigating earthquake damage?
K.K.: Research informs building codes, emergency protocols, and hazard maps. By understanding fault behavior and ground motion, we can better anticipate the impact of earthquakes and reduce risks to populations.
11.
B.K.Ö:: Are there technologies or innovations you see as game-changers for earthquake safety?
K.K.: Early warning systems and real-time monitoring via GNSS and IoT sensors are transformative. They can automatically shut down critical systems, alert emergency services, and provide seconds to minutes of warning before the main shock.
12.
B.K.Ö:: How do earthquakes affect local economies, even if the magnitude is moderate?
K.K.: Even moderate quakes can damage infrastructure, homes, and historic buildings. The economic cost includes repair, disruption to business, and long-term recovery. That’s why investing in prevention is far cheaper than post-disaster response.
13.
B.K.Ö:: What is the public perception of earthquake risk in Croatia?
K.K.: Many people underestimate the risk, especially in regions without recent major events. Raising awareness through education campaigns and regular drills is essential to foster a culture of preparedness.
14.
B.K.Ö:: What advice would you give to residents in earthquake-prone areas?
K.K.: Be proactive: secure furniture, know safe spots in your home, and have an emergency kit ready. Understand evacuation plans and participate in local drills. Knowledge and preparation can save lives.
15.
B.K.Ö:: Finally, what is your outlook for seismic activity in the next decade in both Türkiye and Croatia?
K.K.: Turkey will continue to face significant earthquake risk due to its major fault lines, so continuous vigilance is required. Croatia will likely experience smaller but still impactful events. Both countries must prioritize preparedness, infrastructure resilience, and public education to reduce risks.
16.
B.K.Ö: Many experts have been discussing the expected major earthquake in Istanbul along the North Anatolian Fault. From your perspective, what are the potential risks and necessary preparations?
K.K.: Istanbul is in a very high-risk zone due to the North Anatolian Fault. A major earthquake could affect millions of people, and older buildings are particularly vulnerable. Preparation should focus on retrofitting structures, strengthening emergency response systems, and educating the public. Early warning systems and community drills are also essential to reduce casualties and damage.
17.
Mr. Kuk, could you tell us which regions in the world are more likely to experience significant earthquakes in the near future?
KK: Earthquakes are most likely in areas located on active tectonic plate boundaries. For example, the Pacific “Ring of Fire” — stretching from Japan, Indonesia, Chile, Mexico, to the west coast of the United States — is one of the most seismically active regions. Large earthquakes are expected there simply because of the constant interaction between plates.
Q: And what about Europe, including Croatia?
KK:: In Europe, the Mediterranean region is most active. Turkey, Greece, Italy, and the Balkans all lie on complex fault systems where the African and Eurasian plates interact. For Croatia specifically, moderate earthquakes are always possible, particularly around Zagreb and the Adriatic coastal areas.
Q: People often ask if scientists can predict exactly when and where a major earthquake will occur. What is your response?
KK: Unfortunately, exact prediction is not possible with current science. What we can do is assess probabilities based on historical data, geology, and seismic monitoring. That’s why preparedness, resilient infrastructure, and public awareness are far more important than trying to guess the exact date of an earthquake.
Interview: The Future of GNSS Solutions and Its Impact on Industry
Interviewer: Atty. Bilge Kaan Özkan
Guest: Stéphanie Gosselin, Sales Consultant at Effigis
1.
Bilge Kaan Özkan: Ms. Gosselin, thank you for joining us. To begin, how would you define GNSS Solutions in the simplest terms?
Stéphanie Gosselin: Thank you for having me. GNSS Solutions is essentially a “positioning data processing software.” It takes raw data collected from GNSS satellites, processes it using mathematical and geodetic models, and delivers highly accurate coordinates to the user. In other words, it allows you to determine the position of a point in the field with centimeter-level accuracy. But it’s more than just a tool—it is a platform for positioning validation and analysis.
2.
B.K.Ö.: Who exactly is the target audience for GNSS Solutions? Is it exclusively for professional surveyors, or does it cater to a broader community?
S.G.: At first glance, it may seem like surveyors, geomatics engineers, and researchers are the primary users. But in reality, it serves a much wider community. Precision farmers, engineers in construction, archaeologists requiring accurate site mapping, and even energy companies rely on it. So, GNSS Solutions is not just an academic or technical product—it’s a multi-sector solution package.
3.
B.K.Ö.: What kind of feedback does Effigis receive from clients using this software in the field? Which features do they value most?
S.G.: The feedback we hear most often is about reliability and flexibility. Users typically work in challenging environments: dense urban areas, mountainous regions, or forests. GNSS Solutions, with its multi-constellation support, still manages to deliver. Clients also appreciate its user-friendly interface, which allows even non-engineers to get up to speed quickly. For us, the most rewarding feedback is that the software helps users save time and streamline their workflows.
4.
B.K.Ö.: GNSS Solutions supports multiple satellite constellations such as GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and BeiDou. How does multi-constellation use benefit field operations?
S.G.: Multi-constellation is essentially the guarantee of accuracy and continuity. Relying on a single system can be risky. For example, in urban canyons where GPS signals may reflect off buildings, Galileo or BeiDou signals can compensate. This reduces errors and ensures uninterrupted measurement capability.
5.
B.K.Ö.: The software can process both static and kinematic data. Could you explain this difference with practical examples?
S.G.: Of course. Static processing is typically used for long-term measurements, such as establishing geodetic networks or monitoring tectonic movements. Kinematic processing, on the other hand, is ideal for dynamic surveys. For example, during a drone flight, GNSS Solutions can calculate positions in real time, enabling the production of high-resolution maps. In short: static data ensures long-term accuracy, while kinematic data delivers real-time precision.
6.
B.K.Ö.: Positioning technologies are now used everywhere, from autonomous vehicles to agriculture. In your view, which industry benefits the most from GNSS Solutions today?
S.G.: It’s hard to single out just one, but agriculture and logistics are making remarkable progress. In agriculture, centimeter-level positioning prevents seed waste, optimizes fertilizer and pesticide use, and reduces costs. In logistics, GNSS Solutions helps validate fleet routes more efficiently, lowering fuel consumption and carbon emissions. So the benefits are not just economic, but also environmental.
7.
B.K.Ö.: In developing countries like Türkiye, where do you see GNSS solutions spreading most rapidly?
S.G.: Three sectors come to mind: infrastructure, agriculture, and energy. Türkiye’s geographical diversity makes accurate positioning critical. For example, in dam construction or highway projects, GNSS Solutions can form the backbone of the work. In agriculture, given Türkiye’s vast farmlands, I expect precision farming technologies to expand quickly.
8.
B.K.Ö.: What is Effigis’ vision in the GNSS field? What innovations can we expect to see in GNSS Solutions in the coming years?
S.G.: Our vision is to make GNSS data more accessible, faster, and more integrated. In the coming years, you will see more cloud-based versions of GNSS Solutions. This will allow users to process data directly from the field without having to return to the office. We are also working on AI-powered error analysis, which will guide users toward more accurate results in less time.
9.
B.K.Ö.: For those who want to learn GNSS Solutions, how do training and support systems work?
S.G.: At Effigis, we offer a comprehensive training ecosystem. There are online courses, video tutorials, and interactive workshops. We also provide on-site training when needed. On the support side, we run a 24/7 technical assistance line. So even if a user in Türkiye encounters a challenge in the middle of the night, they can count on us for immediate help.
10.
B.K.Ö.: Finally, what advice would you give to professionals who are new to GNSS Solutions or considering adopting it?
S.G.: My biggest advice would be: don’t look at GNSS Solutions as just “software.” Think of it as a platform that transforms your workflows. It doesn’t just validate coordinates; it accelerates decision-making processes. At first, it may seem complex, but once you understand the basics, you’ll see how much it simplifies your work. My recommendation for beginners is to start with small projects and gradually move on to more complex ones. This way, they can unlock the full potential step by step.
11.
B.K.Ö.: Recently, climate change and environmental sustainability have become global priorities. How can GNSS Solutions contribute to tackling these challenges?
S.G.: That’s a very important question. GNSS Solutions plays a direct role in sustainability. For example, in precision agriculture, farmers can reduce overuse of fertilizers and pesticides by applying them only where they are needed. In forestry, GNSS helps monitor deforestation and land degradation. In urban planning, it supports smarter infrastructure that minimizes environmental footprints. So, positioning accuracy translates directly into more responsible use of natural resources.
12.
B.K.Ö.: Autonomous vehicles are making headlines almost every week. Where does GNSS Solutions fit into this technological race?
S.G.: GNSS is one of the backbones of autonomous mobility. While sensors like LiDAR and cameras are crucial, they don’t work well in every condition—for example in fog or heavy snow. GNSS, on the other hand, provides reliable positioning regardless of visibility. GNSS Solutions ensures that autonomous vehicles can localize themselves with centimeter-level accuracy. This is critical for safety, traffic efficiency, and even insurance compliance in the future.
13.
B.K.Ö.: Security and data integrity are hot topics, especially with concerns over cyber threats. How does Effigis address these risks in GNSS Solutions?
S.G.: GNSS signals can indeed be vulnerable to spoofing or jamming. At Effigis, we take this very seriously. GNSS Solutions integrates advanced algorithms to detect anomalies in satellite data, helping users identify potential interference. We are also working on partnerships to integrate encrypted GNSS services, like Galileo’s Public Regulated Service (PRS). In other words, security is now part of accuracy.
14.
B.K.Ö.: With the rollout of 5G and the Internet of Things, location-based services are exploding. Do you see GNSS Solutions playing a role in this ecosystem?
S.G.: Absolutely. 5G enables ultra-low latency communication, and GNSS provides the precise positioning backbone. Together, they power next-generation applications: smart cities, connected logistics, drone delivery, and real-time asset tracking. GNSS Solutions ensures that the positioning side of this equation is reliable, which is fundamental for IoT scalability.
Interview: Prof. Dr. Götz Bokelmann on the Imminent Istanbul Earthquake
Interviewer: Atty. Bilge Kaan OZKAN
Guest: Prof. Dr. Götz Bokelmann, University of Vienna, Department of Geophysics
First Question:
Dear Professor; Turkey frequently experiences earthquakes, and Istanbul is often described as a ticking time bomb. How do you assess the situation scientifically?
Answer:
The scientific community is in broad consensus: the North Anatolian Fault is overdue for a major rupture beneath the Sea of Marmara. The question is not if but when. This accumulated stress does not simply vanish; it must eventually be released. Istanbul, with its dense population and vulnerable infrastructure, stands at the epicenter of a predictable disaster. Most of the recent earthquakes have occurred on the northern edge of the Anatolian Plate, the 1,500-kilometer-long North Anatolian Fault: “A major earthquake is feared there too, and it could affect Istanbul and the surrounding area.”
Second Question:
Is there any reliable timeframe for this expected earthquake?
Answer:
We cannot predict earthquakes to the day or year. But history offers a warning: the last major rupture on this fault occurred in 1766. Statistically, Istanbul is well beyond the average recurrence interval. When I say there is a 60% chance within 30 years, people often think, “That sounds far away.” But scientifically, it means the city is already living on borrowed time.
Third Question:
Which districts of Istanbul would be most severely affected?
Answer:
The impact will not be uniform. Low-lying coastal districts with weak soil—Avcılar, Zeytinburnu, parts of Fatih—are particularly fragile. On the Asian side, Kadıköy and Maltepe’s shoreline is at risk. However, I want to stress: even areas with solid ground can collapse if construction quality is poor. The built environment is as decisive as geology.
Forth Question:
In your view, is Istanbul’s current building stock prepared?
Answer:
Frankly, no. The 1999 earthquake should have been a turning point. New regulations were introduced, but enforcement was inconsistent. Thousands of buildings still stand that would not withstand strong shaking. It is not an issue of knowledge—we know what needs to be done. It is an issue of political will and societal priorities. Too often, short-term economic interests overshadow long-term safety.
Fifth Question:
How would you evaluate Turkey’s disaster management strategy?
Answer:
Turkey has impressive capacity for rapid response once disaster strikes, but prevention is the weak link. Earthquake preparedness is more than rescue operations; it is about reducing risk before tragedy occurs. I often compare it to medicine: would you prefer intensive care after a heart attack, or preventive care to avoid the heart attack altogether? The latter saves more lives and costs less.
Sixth Question:
What would be the broader consequences of an Istanbul earthquake?
Answer:
Istanbul is not only Turkey’s cultural heart but also its economic engine. A catastrophic earthquake would reverberate globally—through disrupted trade routes, financial markets, and energy corridors. This is why international cooperation matters: Istanbul’s safety is not only a national concern but a regional and global one.
Seventh Question:
Is there any hope of predicting earthquakes more precisely in the near future?
Answer:
Prediction in the strict sense remains impossible. But monitoring technologies are improving: satellite geodesy, GPS deformation networks, and ocean-bottom seismometers give us unprecedented insight. These do not prevent earthquakes, but they allow for risk maps, early-warning systems, and better-informed urban planning. The tragedy is that we often fail to act on the information we already have.
Eighth Question:
If you were in charge of Istanbul’s earthquake policy, what immediate steps would you take?
Answer:
Three priorities:
- Aggressive urban renewal—unsafe buildings must be demolished now, not after the disaster.
- Public spaces—secure and expand gathering areas instead of allowing them to be turned into commercial projects.
- Public education—turn earthquake drills into a culture, not a rare event. Prepared citizens are as vital as strong buildings.
Ninth Question:
Do you see enough collaboration between Turkish and international scientists?
Answer:
The collaboration is improving, but it is still too fragmented. The Marmara region is one of the world’s best natural laboratories for seismology. International teams are eager to cooperate, but data sharing is sometimes restricted by bureaucracy or politics. Science thrives on openness. Transparency here is not only academic courtesy—it could literally save lives.
Tenth and the Last Question:
Finally, what message would you like to give to Istanbul’s citizens?
Answer:
Istanbul is a magnificent city, but it is also fragile. The earthquake cannot be stopped, but the tragedy can be minimized. My message is simple: demand accountability, insist on safe housing, and treat earthquake preparedness as a daily responsibility, not a distant possibility. The real danger is not the earthquake itself—it is complacency.
