Project GALILEO

In article ,
Michael Smith wrote:
I think that most Americans who have heard of Galileo are surprised
that the Europeans are bothering to fund it. They see it as a free
service to anybody, so why develop a competing system?

Partly because the Americans have an unfortunate history of deciding that
services which are officially available to "anybody" should really be
available only to people the US happens to approve of this week. Europe
has gotten burned several times by relying on US assurances of that sort,
and has decided that it can no longer depend on them.

Other countries, including Europe, see global positioning primarily as
an important military asset, and would prefer to have their own system
for that reason.

Actually, the major country of that sort is the US, which is adamant that
nobody except the US military controls GPS. There are lots of pious
proclamations about how everyone is welcome to use it, but when anyone
asks about joint control, so that non-US-military users can have a voice
in how it's run and thus some real *assurance* of availability, the answer
is always "absolutely not, we make all the decisions, go away".

The European nations would probably have been perfectly happy to be
international partners in a jointly-run GPS system. But they are not
prepared to leave (e.g.) their civilian air traffic at the mercy of
someone else's military bureaucrats.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
Galileo is however, not a military system, but can be used for military
purposes, both by US friendly nations (such as the European NATO partners)
but more importantly, also by unfriendly nations (or at least adversaries).
That last point is the reason why the US is against Galileo. Why? Because
Galileo is guaranteed to operate even in times of war (whist GPS isn't).
That means that it's suitable for things like auto-navigation/auto-piloting
of aircraft and cars. Since GPS is switched off or into 'low-resolution'
mode during conflict, it can't be relied upon for critical tasks.

Fact is, those 'critical tasks' are few, and none are without backup.
Very few of them are actually 'critical'.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
Galileo is however, not a military system, but can be used for military
purposes, both by US friendly nations (such as the European NATO
partners)
but more importantly, also by unfriendly nations (or at least
adversaries).
That last point is the reason why the US is against Galileo. Why? Because
Galileo is guaranteed to operate even in times of war (whist GPS isn't).
That means that it's suitable for things like
auto-navigation/auto-piloting
of aircraft and cars. Since GPS is switched off or into 'low-resolution'
mode during conflict, it can't be relied upon for critical tasks.

Fact is, those 'critical tasks' are few, and none are without backup.
Very few of them are actually 'critical'.


Automatic guidance/piloting of commercial aeroplanes will require less than
1m of resolution at all times. Such as system would be impossible to do with
GPS and I don't think a backup system based on inertial guidance in
conjunction with radio-beacon navigation would work.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
Since GPS is switched off or into 'low-resolution'
mode during conflict, it can't be relied upon for critical tasks.

Fact is, those 'critical tasks' are few, and none are without backup.
Very few of them are actually 'critical'.


Automatic guidance/piloting of commercial aeroplanes will require less than
1m of resolution at all times.

Odd then that automatic pilots have been around for decades, and
widely used, despite not having an accuracy anywhere near that level.
(That requirement arises primarily from technocrats who refuse to
adopt an efficient solution, preferring a technological one that not
only pushes the need to solve the problem out a generation or two, but
introduces many new modes of failure as a bonus.)

Such as system would be impossible to do with GPS and I don't think a backup
system based on inertial guidance in conjunction with radio-beacon navigation
would work.

It's quite possible to do with differential GPS, even in degraded
mode.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
Since GPS is switched off or into 'low-resolution'
mode during conflict, it can't be relied upon for critical tasks.

Fact is, those 'critical tasks' are few, and none are without backup.
Very few of them are actually 'critical'.


Automatic guidance/piloting of commercial aeroplanes will require less
than
1m of resolution at all times.

Odd then that automatic pilots have been around for decades, and
widely used, despite not having an accuracy anywhere near that level.
(That requirement arises primarily from technocrats who refuse to
adopt an efficient solution, preferring a technological one that not
only pushes the need to solve the problem out a generation or two, but
introduces many new modes of failure as a bonus.)

Not if you want the entire flight to be automatic, including takeoff and
landing and taxiing. Also, I'll bet that any new system will need to
increase the airtraffic capacity markedly, which means more planes per
square mile, thus better accuracy.


Such as system would be impossible to do with GPS and I don't think a
backup
system based on inertial guidance in conjunction with radio-beacon
navigation
would work.

It's quite possible to do with differential GPS, even in degraded
mode.


Automatic car guidance (ACG) is another system which needs greater accuracy
plus 24/7 operation, regardless of the political situation in the world. If
the U.S. insists on crippling its GPS system its going to lose out in some
huge markets. A system such as ACG cannot function without Galileo and
Diff-GPS would be way too expensive.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message .. .
Automatic car guidance (ACG) is another system which needs greater accuracy
plus 24/7 operation, regardless of the political situation in the world. If
the U.S. insists on crippling its GPS system its going to lose out in some
huge markets. A system such as ACG cannot function without Galileo and
Diff-GPS would be way too expensive.

Automated car guidance requires very detailed environment sensing, so
as not to run into traffic cones, debris in the road, pedestrians,
animals, stopped or wrecked cars, and the like. Given that you need
that much local perception in the automatically guided car, ordinary
GPS will probably do just fine.

-jake

"Jake McGuire" wrote in message
om...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
.. .
Automatic car guidance (ACG) is another system which needs greater
accuracy
plus 24/7 operation, regardless of the political situation in the world.
If
the U.S. insists on crippling its GPS system its going to lose out in
some
huge markets. A system such as ACG cannot function without Galileo and
Diff-GPS would be way too expensive.

Automated car guidance requires very detailed environment sensing, so
as not to run into traffic cones, debris in the road, pedestrians,
animals, stopped or wrecked cars, and the like. Given that you need
that much local perception in the automatically guided car, ordinary
GPS will probably do just fine.

I don't think so. Perception of the environment can be done with current
radar technology. None of the ACG systems demonstrated so far use GPS. All
of them use Diff-GPS.

(may) wrote in message om...
hi

I am french and I discover the project galileo at school. I am a
student in Bordeaux.

And I want to know what you think about it, what is at stake with this
project, why some countries agree and other want to make it collapse.

I am above all interested by what americans thinks about it.
Here, some people say USA is afraid of Galileo project. Is it right?

thanks for answering me

May

You also have to think about the poor european tax payers, who are
being asked to pay out €5 billion to replicate a service provided for
free by the USA. That's despite budget problems in France and Germany.

That being said, Galileo does have some advantages - see the rest of
the posting.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message ...
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
Galileo is however, not a military system, but can be used for military
purposes, both by US friendly nations (such as the European NATO
partners)
but more importantly, also by unfriendly nations (or at least
adversaries).
That last point is the reason why the US is against Galileo. Why? Because
Galileo is guaranteed to operate even in times of war (whist GPS isn't).
That means that it's suitable for things like
auto-navigation/auto-piloting
of aircraft and cars. Since GPS is switched off or into 'low-resolution'
mode during conflict, it can't be relied upon for critical tasks.

Fact is, those 'critical tasks' are few, and none are without backup.
Very few of them are actually 'critical'.


Automatic guidance/piloting of commercial aeroplanes will require less than
1m of resolution at all times. Such as system would be impossible to do with
GPS and I don't think a backup system based on inertial guidance in
conjunction with radio-beacon navigation would work.

Road User Charging is a near term application that could be
problematic if based purely on GPS. Road User Charging needs to work
100% of the time, and requires a fair degree of accuracy - which GPS
struggles to provide even when working.

On the other hand, if say, Britain were involved in a mini war in a
far part of the world, it might be useful to have GPS denied to the
enemy. There would be more chance of the Pentagon helping out than a
European committee requiring unanomous voting.