Galileo To Be Europe's Answer To US GPS 402
judgecorp writes "Two Galileo satellites that will signify the start of the European Union's answer to the American Global Positioning System will be launched into orbit on Thursday aboard a Russian Soyuz rocket. It's using Soyuz because it is cheaper than the French Ariane — and the satellite system is supposed to free Europe from dependence on a U.S.-controlled positioning system."
For such a vital system. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>>.. more redundancy is always better. This is probably some of my tax money that has been spent the best
GPS is great, sure, but IIRC Galileo isn't compatible without devices being modified to also accept Galileo signals. So this project is going to cost quite a bit of money in re-engineering and replacement costs for devices to use the new system in addition to GPS.
I don't buy that the stated purpose for the system (independence from the US's military) is very credible, given that the US is, you know
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
GPS devices have a limited usable life anyways, at least the consumer devices. As the satellites are being shot into space and the system becomes operational new devices start to include also Galileo capability. The basic technology isn't that different from GPS, it isn't like going back to the 80's to develop the first GPS receivers again.
Not all of EU is in NATO. And it wouldn't be impossible for some of the EU states to shoot down the GPS satellites either.
Re: (Score:3)
WTF are you on about? Not everyone on the planet is psychotic warmonger!
No they are not. But that does not mean you let them be the only one in control of important infrastructure. Its not like the US wouldn't do the same. Turning selective availability back on is not really a act of war... but rather a powerful negotiation tool if such a extreme situation comes up. With all the doom gloom and war that everyone here on /. predicts will result from AGW, then i think its prudent to have a backup.
Allies in one war are often enemies in the next.
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:5, Informative)
About redundancy, note that 2 other positioning systems are currently deployed :
Chinese Beidou : https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Beidou_navigation_system [wikimedia.org]
Russian GLONASS : https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/GLONASS [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Full precision has been in place for quite some time. I was one of the GPS operators (SSO) that basically began the process of this back in the mid-90s. This is total BS because the EU is going broke fast and they want to launch a billion dollar+ program (yes, Euro billion plus, whatever) for duplication? Not buying it. GLONASS is different because they don't pretend to be our friends. Their system declined due to funding, but now they have the money again. GLONASS birds launched in the 90s were garba
Re: (Score:2)
Its no secret that certain people in Europe (mostly politicians) want to be able to take unilateral military action. In the modern era, having your own GPS network is part of this.
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is total BS because the EU is going broke fast and they want to launch a billion dollar+ program (yes, Euro billion plus, whatever) for duplication?
No, they don't want to launch the programme. They launched the programme something like twenty years ago. They want to continue the programme, which is coming to fruition.
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:5, Informative)
For the comments, "We can shoot them down." Completely irresponsible. It's like saying, "If we want to destroy their bridge, we can just Nuke it." If you destroy a satellite, that position in space becomes unusable due to debris for centuries. We're not going to do it. This is why we were very angry with the Chinese for testing ASAT awhile back. Completely unnecessary and very irresponsible. We don't test GBU's on busy highways in the middle of urban cities (unless you include Iraq, but I kid).
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:4, Informative)
Fact remains that GPS is controlled by the US (military) and that restrictions are in place for civilian usage as far as accuracy, speed and altitude are concerned. I also still remember quite clearly that during the Iraq war all GPS receivers in Europe were off by about 100m at some point. I do not think that was an accident.
As far as shooting down GPS satellites is concerned: according to Wikipedia that completely irresponsible comment was a threat made by US officials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)#Tension_with_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:4, Insightful)
GPS includes a (currently disabled) feature called Selective Availability (SA) that adds intentional, time varying errors of up to 100 meters (328 ft) to the publicly available navigation signals. This was intended to deny an enemy the use of civilian GPS receivers for precision weapon guidance.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10140 [securityfocus.com]
President Bush has ordered plans for temporarily disabling the U.S. network of global positioning satellites during a national crisis to prevent terrorists from using the navigational technology, the White House said Wednesday.
So from what I understand, the accuracy of GPS can be degraded for civilians whenever the US government wishes to do it, and GWB tried to make it possible to switch off the network whenever a terrorist attack hits U.S. You have to admit that this doesn't make non-US users of the system feel very secure. I guess that in case of a terrorist attack, the US would not be very concerned about an ongoing French military operation in Ivory Coast for instance, and would switch off or degrade the system without a second thought.
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:5, Informative)
As much as GWB is everyone's new devil pariah most-loathed person, he can't rewire satellites already in space. And before you quote me Wiki again, no the space shuttle can't go out to 11,000 miles to do an upgrade. It's A) No longer flying B) Not capable of going even close to that distance.
Ignore every movie you've ever saw about space. We don't "flick stuff off and on" at a whim. We don't reposition satellites real time, at least not GPS, DSP, DMSP, or EHF (Milstar) birds. Spy satellites are even harder since they're in a highly elliptical orbit which is travelling at exceptionally high speeds when it's at perigee (the nearest point, which is usually where they're spying on). It's a matter of physics.
We've had many terrorist attacks since SA was turned off: Khobar Towers, USS Cole, 9/11, etc. Still off and no degradation.
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:4, Interesting)
I apologize if I gave an impression we physically go up. When I say, "Go up on a bird," it's meaning, contacting the Ground Antenna, establishing C2 (S-band) and going "active", which means transmitting S-bits, etc. At 11,000 miles (plus change) there's no practical way to ever physically get to one of the GPS satellites. When we're done iwht them, we spin them up for physical stability, and then boost them out of their operational orbit. It's also referred to as "super syncing a bird."
If we ever get to a point where the US is so unstable it can't Command and Control GPS satellites, the world will be worried about a ton more pressing things than our GPS satellites. For what it's worth a high school student with two week's pay at minimum wage could have the technical and fiscal ability to jam GPS for a large area. The US Gov isn't your boogey man in this scenario. If we didn't touch GPS on 9/11, I think it's a pretty clear indication it's not on the table.
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy that the stated purpose for the system (independence from the US's military) is very credible, given that the US is, you know, part of NATO and whatnot. And if the EU does turn hostile to the US in some sort of bizarro-world, the US possesses capabilities to shoot them down. So it doesn't make a lot of sense along those lines.
Military alliances like NATO have their place, but I think a major part of this is not about being America's enemy, only about independence. Is it in Europe's interest to not feel they have to bow to America's political pressure? I should certainly think so. America is far to much in the pockets of big corporations, and as long as that is so, I think a politically weaker America is in everybody elses interest - and possibly in the American people's interest as well.
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in Norway we're almost 5 million people and our largest military threat - despite it being post-Cold War is Russia, which is a huge country who could field more soldiers than we have people. If NATO won't help we're screwed anyway and if NATO comes people expect the cavalry to come charging to our rescue anyway. But is the US interested in protecting people that can't be bothered to have a decent defense of their own? If everybody is betting on NATO to aid them, who'll be the ones delivering all the aid? Would you seriously accept the logic on anything that "They have tanks, so we don't have to" "They have carriers, so we don't have to" "They have submarines, so we don't have to". No, Europe should have its Galileo because it's ours even though the US has theirs and we're allies. An alliance should come on top of your own defense, not instead of it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ShakaUVM says: I don't buy that the stated purpose for the system (independence from the US's military) is very credible, given that the US is, you know, part of NATO and whatnot
Well, you better buy it, because Galileo is an old project which so far was crippled solely due to politics. Already back in the days when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright [wikipedia.org] was secretary of state she was in Europe trying to stop the project using any pressure available. It was on the news.
Now, let us through away the p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy that the stated purpose for the system (independence from the US's military) is very credible, given that the US is, you know, part of NATO and whatnot. And if the EU does turn hostile to the US in some sort of bizarro-world, the US possesses capabilities to shoot them down. So it doesn't make a lot of sense along those lines.
And all you think about is war. Isn't it quite possible that one day the US will realise they can charge for GPS access? Maybe Europe doesn't want to risk being charged a fortune for something they have learned to depend on.
Re: (Score:3)
The other scenario is that the US can shut down GPS if it believes it is being used by terrorists. The EU might not agree with that assessment, and want to keep it open. Having Galileo gives them that option.
Re: (Score:2)
The other scenario is that the US can shut down GPS if it believes it is being used by terrorists. The EU might not agree with that assessment, and want to keep it open. Having Galileo gives them that option.
The US can shut down the Galileo system in a non-destructive manner, as well, if it wishes. This will happen in a real-life situation sooner rather than later.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Galileo isn't so much about military competition as commercial competition.
Not sure the numbers work there. Even if you ignore the approximately $5 billion in initial costs, it costs $750 million/year to maintain. Was the US really ever going to charge the EU $750 million/year?
Redundancy is fine, but I think this is mainly French nationalism and a reflection of the world's recent distrust of the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They only just shut off LORAN last year.
Re: (Score:3)
BINGO, active war between the US and EU seems rather unlikely but strained relationships seem far more reasonable and actively destroying or disabling another nations satellites is a FAR higher escalation than merely disabling a service you give the world for free.
The EU has become FAR too reliant on GPS service, a service that is only available due to the altruism of the US government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop spreading FUD. Europeans do not believe the EU is an evil institute. Sure, there are disagreements and minor political conflicts from time to time, just as there are elsewhere, but to imply that all Europeans think the EU is evil is going just a tad too far. At least we are not under the complete control of corporations as in the US. The EU still has a spine, at times, to stand up for what the citizens want in the face of corporate pressure. It's not perfect but it's far better than the US at the momen
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking as a European, I'd just like to say that you're talking out of your arse. Yes, some europeans oppose the EU, however the majority aren't that idiotic and see it for what it is - good for everyone involved. If it wasn't for the EU, the economic crisis would have been 10x worse.
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The EU also gains the UK a "sodding fortune". You might not have noticed that the migration laws work both ways. The company I work for (almost all of whose employees are British) works globally and gets a lot of its work from within the EU precisely because of EU procurement regulations, common European standards, ease of travel and working rights. You don't like immigration? Well, you need to send the Anglo Saxons and the Celts back: Keep Britain Beaker! (But wait! Oh noes! Even the beaker people came fro
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, nationalist movements gain consensus by opposing against yelding any sovereignty to the european institutions; this makes the EU weaker, which then allows themselves to point out the EU is just a bureaucratic superstructure with no decision power.
The nationalists whine against the EU when it's time for a state to offer its help to other countries in the union, and then whine again against the EU when it's time to get help from the union, and it doesn't arrive because the nationalists in the other states behave exactly in the same way as they did before (see what happens every time some states are hit by an immigration wave).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair the Euro was a fuckup (The problem wasn't the idea of creating a common currency, it was allowing the PIIGS into it) that's by now far beyond the control of the individual member states.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, this makes the EU all the more irritating to Euro-sceptics in the UK...
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK there seems to be a majority who thinks the EU is evil. This belief is fueled by a constant stream of anti-EU stories that are often nothing more than myths.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:For such a vital system. (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose is easy. Extract money from the citizens. That's the only purpose for which the EU exists.
Please spare us the "TAXES R T3H 3V1L" crap. I pay lots more tax here than I would in the US; however, unlike the case in the US, I find that at least some of the taxes get spent on things that tend to make life better for all.
It's sad that Europeans have to read this news on US sites.
Did you actually see where the links in TFS point to?
Maybe that explains why so many Europeans feel the EU is an evil institute. But I bet nobody outside the EU ever hears about tat.
"So many" = "a few right-wing nutjobs".
Nice attempt at trolling. Better luck next time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the EU can be perceived as an evil institute from a vantage point on the left too.
It could be characterized as a big fucking machine that can be used as tool for good, I guess, in opposition to other big fucking machines on this globe.
On the whole, I don't know if it's good or bad to have a big fucking machine like this. Good thing if we, the people, can wield it for democracy and good in the world, but really really bad if power is taken further away from the people and centralized to a big boot t
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that explains why so many Europeans feel the EU is an evil institute. But I bet nobody outside the EU ever hears about tat.
"So many" = "a few right-wing nut jobs".
To be fair that sentiment is shared by a few left wing nut jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
I pay lots more tax here than I would in the US; however, unlike the case in the US
That depends on where you live in the EU, but it's true for fewer than half of the members if you include everything (sales taxes, property taxes, and so on) and it's only true for a small handful of EU member states if you count the amount spent on healthcare in the 'tax' column.
Re: (Score:2)
This time, through extra car taxes, measuring exactly how many miles you have driven.
I hate to point out the obvious, but this isn't necessarily a bad idea. Let's reverse the analogy; Granny and grandp send emails to their kids and occasionally buy a SlapChop from Amazon. They pay for a broadband connection, £10 per month for 1GB data cap (numbers pulled out of my ar... errr the air). This is the equivalent of "old lady who only goes to the shop once a week" car driver who would pay very little road tax. Then you have the 2x year old who pounds the tubes day in, day out, unlimit
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, fuel tax does this quite effectively. Yes it's only a linear punishment, but then road tax in the UK certainly isn't (a high MPG diesel can easily be in the £20 a year tax band, but your thirsty V8 could easily be £445 a year). This'll mean taxation that varies based on your car and the time of day. But don't forget that high flyers will probably get this refunded through expenses. I think it's a lavishly expensive and over complicated solution for a problem that doesn't really exi
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is, someone driving an ultra efficient low emissions car pays less thanks to the higher mpg. In EU, the significant cost of the fuel per liter is taxes thus efficient car pays less tax. Linking the road tax (i.e., cost of the infrastructure) to the mileage actually makes it more balanced overall.
Currently in UK cars built after 2001 pay the road tax based on CO2 emissions. Anything older pays a flat rate based on the capacity of the engine.
They don't have to track down the cars. During MOT,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bureau of keeping track of weird things
I like that. We need one of those here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I very much doubt that the EU put a off switch in for the US. We just don't get along that well. See the leaked diplomatic cables for proof. And how can the US not allow Ga
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I don't doubt there is an 'off' switch. I'm not sure that it's hooked up to anything...
"Sorry sir, it's not responding!"
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I can tell the truth is this.
The US has the ability to override, switch off, lower accuracy etc with their GPS system.
They will not have the ability to do that with Galileo.
Originally the EU had also planned to have Galileo use the same frequency that GPS does, which means that not only could the US not turn it off, they couldn't jam it either because then they'd jam themselves too.
However after threatening to shoot any Galileo satellites using the GPS frequency down, the EU finally agreed to use
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, you do realise the US has several "viable launch vehicles"? They just ditched the only man rated one.
Re: (Score:2)
So they've moved on to lions now? I hear the chimpanzee thing didn't work out so great. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Private space sector? Really?
Because I could've *sworn* the clean room I saw a Galileo satellite being prepared in was owned by ESA...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may at a push be private sector, but its certainly not normal, commercial private sector.
Galileo is ultimately an ESA project, even if they contract out to the private sector. Hopefully, some of the revenue it generates will go into non-profit spaceflight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me, plenty of money is being directed into the private sector on this deal...
Re: (Score:2)
FYI Galileo is an EU project, subcontracted out to ESA and private companies. (And most of the "real" work of ESA is sub contacted out.) (EU and ESA doing mainly funding, project management, co-ordinating etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually GPS is by far not the only one. Russia currently overhauls its old Glonass System which should be up to par in a few years, and I assume China also is working on its own system.
And I agree the more the better to have redundancy.
Re: (Score:2)
As an European, who will be very poor pretty soon [in-other-news.com], I can only see this as a remnant of a pre-crisis pissing contest.
Just today the EU has blown up the Euro bailout-package from 400 to 2000 billion, which means that about 5000 Euros is taken via inflation from each EU-subject.
Of course our "representatives" have only agreed to the 400 billion package, so the step from 400 to 2000 is just the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
Competition will drive the prices down. As for keeping existing setup,. few keeps their existing equipment for very long. I certainly buy a new car GPS every few (5?) years, because (a) batteries sucks after a while and (b) they get better and (c) I am too lazy to buy new maps. Admittedly, (a) and (b) has a big influence on (c).
Launching from Kourou (Score:2)
This is the first Soyuz launch from French Guiana.
(And so this is the first launch of a possibly man-ratable launcher by ESA).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the Soyuz launch pad is 20km West of the Ariane launch pad, in Sinnamary.
CNES' web site about the event: http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-fr/4108-soyouz-en-guyane.php
Photo set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/esa_events/sets/72157627767903603/show/
Re: (Score:2)
Pedantry is the new trolling.
At least you stand in the great tradition of Futurama that "technically correct is the best kind of correct!".
And politically correct is the worst.
Independant of the US? (Score:2)
At least that's my memory from, I think, 2004.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
The US asked for the Galileo civilian signal to be moved so it didn't overlap with the US military one. In the original scheme, they wouldn't have been able to block civilian Galileo devices in warzones without blocking their own military signal.
The capabilities of Galileo are unaffected. The civilian accuracy is still better than US military accuracy, but now you wouldn't be able to use it anywhere the US military is fighting.
ACCURACY! (Score:2)
I read somewhere that Galileo is 10x more "accurate" than the U.S. GPS. Aside from what exactly does that mean (absolute positioning, relative positioning) does anyone know if this is true? I can think of a whole host of new applications or applications that could be made a lot cheaper/easier (like autonomous vehicles) if this is true.
And if it is true, how do they achieve it? Better atomic clocks (in orbit presumably)? Better algorithms? Better knowledge of the satellites positions? Better receivers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what would this do that GPS wouldn't?
Sounds like scaremongering to me. If they want to put a blackbox in your car, they just need to make it law. The technical way they do it is neither here nor there and does *not* require Galileo in any way. Hell, they could do it the same way London runs the Congestion Charge Zone, or the way the DART tag works for the Dartford tunnel, or a myriad European countries manage their motorways charging, or just putting 10p on petrol.
Stop spreading bullshit. Road taxat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
our local OWASP chapter had a great demo from a Cambridge university (UK) researcher who could effectively jam GPS signals and make the GPS receiver believe it was somewhere else. Very cool tech, using GNU-radio and a whole lot of talent. The basic theme was that the GPS protocols are not trustable and todays society places way too much trust in the system.
This also coincides with a major naval exercise off the north coast of Scotland (where extensive GPS jamming was taking place) which ended up with a fi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With a foreign power in control of GPS, the EU had to respond. The USA is not the closest allie to European countries (including the UK) as you would think. The USA stood by for 2 years whilst france & belgium were invaded and also stayed neutral when the UK administered Falkland islands (Islas malvinas) were invaded in 1981 by the argentians.
That's not quite fair. The WWI and WWII invasions of Belgium and France were pre-NATO and the USA had no obligations to intervene. The Falklands war placed the US in a pickle, firstly Argentina had some support in S-America and they could hardly intervene without creating a diplomatic mess, secondly any help from the USA for Britain would have been deeply humiliating to the latter. As it was the British succeeded by the skin of their teeth so no harm was done. The US also provided diplomatic help behind the
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that France was the world's foremost military power in 1940 and everybody expected her to beat the Germans handily, right? Furthermore, any theoretical American Expeditionary Force would have been routed by the Nazis just like the British were, and just clogged up the beaches at Dunkirk. I suppose that
Re: (Score:3)
The Galileo system is also an important part of the new car taxing scheme... Where you basicly pay taxes from the distance you drive
Which is a very sensible way to do i, since you are going to pay road tax anyway. To me it makes a lot of sense that Mr and Mrs Peterson, who drive about 5 miles every day, would pay less, whereas lorrydrivers and others who drive tens of thousands of miles every year whould pay a lot more. After all, they pollute more and they wear the road surfaces dwn more.
It seems so typically American to roll out the big scarecrows of "The Evil Government" and "The Evil Taxes" instead of stepping back and thinking abou
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind paying taxes, in fact I think the UK could do with a bit more tax at the higher end, but I don't trust David Cameron at all. Largely because he wants to privatise the NHS instead of raising taxes on the wealthy (low by European standards atm).
Also, he is a fucking lizard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
See the UK Department for Transport publications on Road Pricing [dft.gov.uk]
A quick search through documents, e.g. "Issue 4, dealing with potential fraud ... " reveals the "European Electronic Toll Service".
General reading through the documents will reveal this is a scheme for taxing road use via the use of a "black box" with a positioning system and a GSM cellular modem. I've seen other DfT documents which I can no longer locate which are clearer on the matter of integration with a European system.
Of course, any such
Re: (Score:2)
What’s especially funny is that by the time these toll systems gain wide adoption, they will become irrelevant.
I believe that in the next two decades we’re going to see really autonomous automobiles, i.e., self-driving cars. They will mark the beginning of the end of the era of a personally-owned vehicle, as well as parking space issues. These cars will have all it takes to become public transportation (also, automatic carpooling via mobile phone), with cars being owned by municipalities instead
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Duke Nukem forever has arrived (Score:5, Informative)
OK, I'm a European and not massively fond of the US military, but I am going to take exception to this.
The Galileo *civilian* band originally overlapped with the US *military* band. In other words, you could buy an over the counter device that could guide a weapon to a specific grid reference in an area the US was fighting a war. Remember the rocket forces Hezbollah were able to deploy against Israel? Imagine that with GPS targetting that you can't jam without blinding your own forces.
The US asked ESA to pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top not make consumer devices that had dual uses killing US servicemen. ESA said 'ooh, go on you old rascal' and moved the band.
Now, the situation is that both Navstar (the actual name for US GPS; GPS is just the generic name for such a system) and Galileo have civilian and military bands that don't overlap. Either the US and Europe can jam each others signals, completely, without affecting their own military band. Just as the US can achieve exclusive GPS access in Iraq and Afghanistan, France can do just the same when it unilaterally intervenes in one of its old African colonies.
All the change did was move us from a situation where we were screwing the Americans with our network, to one where we have equal power to screw each others network. This doesn't seem massively unreasonable of the US to ask for.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for debunking the whole "push-over" politicians angle. Let me just add that those old rascals over in the US are, after all, our allies. I for one, don't think avoiding needlessly killing our allies is the same as bending over to give them better access to our backside.
Re: (Score:2)
The US can disable Galileo in time of war. Europe can disable GPS in time of war. Europe wasn't screwed here.
Re: (Score:2)
The Galileo *civilian* band originally overlapped with the US *military* band. In other words, you could buy an over the counter device that could guide a weapon to a specific grid reference in an area the US was fighting a war. Remember the rocket forces Hezbollah were able to deploy against Israel? Imagine that with GPS targetting that you can't jam without blinding your own forces.
No you can't. Both GPS and Galileo civilian devices are speed, acceleration and altitude limited. No rocket would work with it. Even our armature rockets had too high acceleration and too high speeds to allow for GPS tracking through most of its flight trajectory.
However they did not ask nicely with the overlapping bands. The US was aggressive about it. Very aggressive. I didn't track the debate to its conclusion. I was still under the impression that the bands still overlap.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you can't work around speed limitations, just make a GPS guided drone from a model aircraft. Its still a danger in the hands of a competent and imaginative asymmetric opponent
It was quite an aggressive move to make our network attack the military utility of theirs in the first place. IIRC the whole thing was part of the spat between Bush and Chirac, both of whom are now out of office. Unsurprising that the issue is now resolved, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two points:
1. An overlapped would not have tied the hands of the US military that much anyway; in the face of any serious threat, if Galileo satellites were functioning as an enemy asset, they could fire ASAT weapons at them.
2. EU nations don't want to interfere with US military operations out of a sense of moral duty (at least their governments don't.) They want to secure deals they have made with enemies of the US. None of our governments asked for a mandate to engage in what would basically be proxy warf
Re: (Score:2)
Galileo is better (kind of inevitable, being about 30 years newer). Also, I believe the idea is that a GPS system can get back its launch and development costs by licensing receiver chips. This is a profit making enterprise, which hopefully will mean more money in the long run available for other European space endeavours.
Re: (Score:3)
Feeling a bit sore? America is neither our enemy nor our bestest friend ever. America is just a friendly nation; well, mostly friendly, and you guys have certainly always known how to look after your own interests, friendship or not. Which is why it makes sense for Europe not to be too dependent on America. We have our own interests to look after, and a closer relation with China ought to be very much in the cards for us. Being too dependent on America might be a hindrance.
Re: (Score:2)
"China has their own GPS network already up and operating. Why not use them, as they're Europe's new BFF?"
What part of his post did you not understand? If it makes sense not to be too reliant on our friend the US, it sure does not make sense to be too reliant on our new "friend", China.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow -- what a facetious and ignorant comment.
Actually, Europe would be quite happy to sponge off our GPS satellite network, except for the fact that it's run by our military and we reserve the right to downgrade it's accuracy or shut-off civilin use completely, at any time and for any reason.
So yeah, when you have the majority of the world living OUTSIDE the US and with no control, you can't fault them for wanting to come up with a system they can control.
Of course, just to show what good chums we are, we a
Re:Good news, bad news, worse news (Score:5, Informative)
Bad news - this likely won't mean it gets a lock on its position any quicker, due to technical reasons. Essentially, the device has to listen for a few seconds to receive the complete signal.
Worse news - each network will require its own proprietary chip, so increased access to GPS networks will come with increased cost, complexity, heat and power issues.
Good news -- you have been misinformed. Single chip GPS/Galileo IC with sub-1-second acquisition [prnewswire.co.uk] and similar power usage to current GPS-only chips.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever watch Air Crash Investigations (called Mayday in some countries)? Even with redundant GPS, getting rid of air corridors would be a terrible, terrible idea.
Re: (Score:2)