Slashdot Mirror
European Space Agency Developing GPS Rival
nbrimhall writes "The International Herald Tribune has a story here about the European Space Agency's plans to create a alternative to the U.S. controlled GPS. It includes some interesting information regarding the cost and possible contributors (including Canada and Russia)."
I guess for the same reason monopolies make people antsy: the Europeans probably don't like their increasing dependence on a system administered by a single nation, especially one which, from time to time, trumpets "unilateralism".
There might be some concern, too, that the system would be suspectible to terrorist or other hostile action. Two systems might provide the redundancy to salvage a disaster.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The GPS system is controlled by the military (especially its precision) : until recently, the service was provided for free for civilian purposes with a low precision (I think it was 5 meters, or something like that). Today, the resolution is maximum, but they could decided to turn it back down, or stop civilian service altogether.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Hint: "US-controlled GPS". If you were a sovereign nation would you want to trust that the US would continue providing reasonable accurate signals globally, or would you want to have a multinational system that couldn't be turned off, or be switched to provide misleading information.
-a.e.mossberg
Instead of GPS, I think we should work on developing IPS (Interstellar Positioning System) We could do it with current GPS technology, just face the dishes away from the Earth... lose something on accuracy and we'd need a new coordinate system for space, but hey, we're gonna need it anyway in a few hundred years.
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague
I can see the comericals for the new system, there going to have Queen's Bohemian Rapsody playing: Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, magnifico... oh, oh, ohh, oh, oh, oh, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no mama mi-ia, mama-mi-ia, mama-mi-ia let me go...
You know who I think is crazy? All my ex-girlfriends!
I believe the Soviet Union once launched a system of satellites called GLONASS that worked like GPS. Are they planning to do an upgrade or repair of this system? The GPS FAQ has more information (see section 5.2).
Heck, it's understandable why they'd want to build an alternative GPS; the US Department of Defense could suddenly decide to turn selective availability back on again if they felt like it someday...
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Galileo is attempt to get around the "what if" questions however if the US shuts down the public GPS system, its also going to take out Glonass and any other location system.
When GPS was designed, they added a fudge factor in that would only allow civil recivers to get get a short term fix of about 100m but the military recivers should have been able to get under 10m but because of R&D money on the civil side, the non-military recivers would give much better results than the over priced military ones. With good differental systems you can now get sub meter precision and the fudge factor is pointless and has been turned off. It was the fudge factor that started the Galileo project in the first place.
I don't see Galileo going anywhere. It is a user pay system so are you going to use the euro system where you get to pay $30/yr on top of the reciver or the GPS system where its free thanks to the US tax payers? There will also be the problem that GPS recivers are commodity item and Galileo recivers won't be for at least a decade. Europe would be much better off provide a WAAS compatable sat system than doing their own GPS.
Get a clue, bro. You can buy this stuff from any Magellan GPS dealer. Almost every GPS has the ability to output coordinates over a serial port. Interface this with a guidance system and you're within 3 meters of your target.
The Europeans can't do anything which requires cooperation... What about ESA, the european space agency.. isn't that cooperation bettwen the European states, the European Commission.. ect
Carpe meam simiam!
It isn't quite like that. You have a station at a known position, and it broadcasts corrections to the position signal it receives from the GPS.
You can buy a prebuilt differential broadcast correction station for not much money -- no need to homebrew. Just set it up at a known location. You likely don't even need that: USGC differential beacons cover most of the country. However you get better repeatability if you are close to your differential station, so it may be worth your while if you are doing high precision work and aren't near a USCG beacon. I've heard it also helps if you have weak GPS signals (e.g. under tree cover with limited sky view) but I haven't seen it in action.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is due to ionospheric interference. When a radio signal travels through the free electrosn in the ionosphere, it experiences a certain amount of delay. Signals of different frequencies are delayed differently. So in creating the GPS system the military thought of using two signals when the satellites broadcast there info. Called L1 and L2 the military use both signals mesure the amount of delay between them and make corrections for the effect of the ionosphere. The Civilian receivers cannot correct for the ionospheric interference since it only picks up the L1 frequency.
So I guess there is a good, long explanation on
why to invest the capital. Or you could buy the
military reciver.
-Scott
It is said that a child learns wisdom from the parent,
but the truly wise parent learns joy from the child
I would imagine that most parts of the continental US have reception to at least two or three LORAN stations. IIRC, you need four vectors from LORAN station to get a reliable position. I'm not sure how many it would take to fix you to within 10 meters or so.
Placing the beacon at a known location would be pretty easy, I'd imagine. Let's say you wanted to target a certain government building in DC. Place the DGPS beacon at a known location (like the roof of a building down the street) and a receiver on your missle/plane/whatever, and I think you'd be able to hit your target quite accurately.
IIRC. I have a fairly low-end GPS receiver and I can regularly get accuracy within about 12-15 feet. To get any better, I think you need more expensive equipment, the acronym DGPS comes to mind, but I can't remember exactly what that is. I think it has to do with using two receivers to get a more accurate position.
Currently, when you use a GPS, the longer you stand still the more accurate it gets. This is because it can average out the errors that occur over time. However, once you start moving, it can't do that, because it has a hard time telling movements from measurement errors.
If on the other hand, they included an accelerometer in the GPS unit they could tell with great precision which changes were due to movements, and which were due to errors. Thus, with some algorithm changes, such a GPS unit could continue to refine its measurements to greater and greater precision as long as it was turned on, even if it was moving about.
Ideally, the accelerometer would be integrated on to the same chip as the GPS or Galeon reciever, along with the logic for coorelating the results as well. Accelerometers can be built entirely on-chip, so no extra parts would be needed. I believe modern accelerometers can achieve high accuracy over a very wide range of accelerations using just 2 square millimeters of chip area, so this shouldn't add much to the manufacturing cost.
This would also increase safety in a number of ways. If an airplane in flight lost GPS signal, perhaps due to flying into a low narrow valley, it could continue to navigate electronically for a while (albiert with less precision) using only the accelerometer. If for some reason the GPS or Galeon network became suddenly unavailable due to unforseen circumstances (US goverment getting pissed off, technical issues, bizarre weather, interference, terrorists, etc.), critical systems would have a little extra time to deal with the situation before global positioning equipment failed completely.
Does this make sense to people? Think it's a good idea / bad idea?
It might be cheaper to do navigation by sending out navigation signals on the major communications satellites. This won't provide global coverage, but it would cover all the places you can get satellite TV broadcasts. I'm surprised that INMARSAT doesn't do this as a matter of course.
The US and Europe are friendly tward each other when it comes to anything important. I mean it's not like Europe is going to be fighting a war against the US any time soon (or not so soon).
I can see some country like Iraq or China having good reasons for their own independant GPS system, but not Europe, they're more likely than anyone to be sided with the US during any event that may call for decreased GPS accuracy.
Who is going to pay that subscription fee while there is a free one in the sky? It's like web sites. Who is going to pay for content when there is more than you can read in a lifetime free?
I have a feeling that if the Europeans build a fee based GPS, nobody will come. What a waste of Euro taxpayer dollars.
>
Because we can?
(GPS+WAAS is good enough for accuracy in inches, even if they turn SA back on. WAAS will only work in the US though.)
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Actually, the U.S. Department of Defense has clearly outlined scenarios in which GPS would be locally shut down and/or jammed; Space.com had an interesting story about it earlier this month.
Another reason is the available of ultrawideband technology (UWB). It's really interesting, relatively inexpensive, and can provide tremendously accurate (1 centimeter) positioning.
No, I don't own stock in it or anything like that (although, as a U.S. citizen, I should).
The Europeans have found us out! The GPS is really a source of mind control rays that warp sensibilities. Why do you think Jerry Lewis is so popular in France?
To retaliate they are going to build their own, and make us think the European rock and roll is good, and like warm beer, too!
See http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html for the defence against this dastardly plot!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There's really no need to jam GPS. Europe has it's own equivalent of the FAA. It's simple to just give a preferential treatment to equipment that uses it's own GPS-like system.
The article mentioned that the U.S. Military was now capable of Jamming GPS signals so that is the reason they turned off Selective Availability. So why wouldn't it be possible for the enemy to make jammers to stop us from using our own system? (or any GPS system for that matter). From what I've heard GPS signals that finally make it to the receiver are very weak and therefore a stronger signal coming from somewhere on the ground would possibly interfere. Wouldn't this be a Denial of Service GPS style? Does the military signal have some sort of antijam feature? Lets hope so.
You can read a paper here about the date bug.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
The military GPS system had an encoded 'noise' generator in it sposition. For civilian use, it was designed to give accuracy within 100m, 95%of the time, and 200m 99% of the time. They also reserved the right to degrade civilian accuracy further (like, within several hundred meters only 50% of the time, or worse) at any time, to keep enemies from using it to lob missiles through windows. The base standard is perfectly adequate for most high-seas navigation, but sucks in tight channels or for any precision operations, like airplane taxiing or highway navigation.
Military GPS recievers had decoders built in, and were accurate to within a couple meters. This diffrence in accuracy was called 'selective availability.' BTW, during the gulf war, the military had a shortage of GPS recievers so they turned selecive availability off and used civilian recievers. Didnt seem to affect security all that much.
To get around the problem, ths US Coast Guard deployed a system called Differential GPS, or DGPS. Basically, they created fixed-position GPS recievers, which continuously compared the position derived from civilian-degraded GPS with a known position, and then broadcast the correction in real time. DGPS recievers applied the correction to the satellite position, and restored ccuracy to about 10-20 meters. In short, one branch of the military, (the coasties) were spending tens of millions to overcome the inaccuaracy included by another branch of the military.
During the Clinton administratioin, it bacame apparent that civilian uses of GPS were becoming signivicant to the economy, so Clinton ordered selective availability turned off (or turned down) to increase civilian accuracy. However, the military still reserves the right to degrade the civilian signal at any time without warning, if they percieve a national security risk.
So, the interest in a European GPS network is at least in part to remove the control from the US military, and remove the hreat of having the system degraded when they may want to use it.
The error addition for civilian use was phased out a couple of years ago. There was probably Slashdot discussion about it at the time.
./s here seem to forget the biggest benefit of a Euro-GPS -- redundacy.
You can't even fathom how dependant we are on GPS already. It's amazing.
* Ships use it as a replacement for LORAN (with LORAN being the redundancy).
*The whole telco industry uses it . Rather then sending a sync signal for long-distance serial lines (aka some T-1s, etc) they use GPS (with wire-sync being the redundancy).
* A good hunk of the computer industry uses it. GPS receivers are used for many NTP servers.
* The FAA is looking into using it (as a replacement for thier ground-based radar set up to allow pilots to autonomously plot thier poin-to-point flight plans).
* The military uses it in many ways including the self-guided smart bombs, etc.
We all know that a lot of people and companies do not build in redundancy until the sh*t hits the fan andsomthing goes down. If we loose a few GPS satellites the results for those that were not careful would be catastrophic. Having a second system in place, even at a subscription cost, is VERY valuable.
BTW I highly doubt the miltary would ever shut down civilian access to GPS in anything less then a world war. The US economy is WAY too dependant on it.
China is also attempting to launch their own GPS network, and infact, they are actually farther along then the EU, having launched their first sat.
e s/ flash2000-082.shtml
http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/flash-articl
There has also been talk of China financing the the Glonass system (Russia's GPS) for their own use.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-00h.html
[sarcasm]Just what we need!
GPS.Eu Version 0.1
GPS# whereami
Recieving response from GPS.Eu Sat #24
Response: "We'd tell you, but you have your own version of GPS, you American bloke!"
Seriously, whats wrong with the existing GPS system?
The problem with the 'just trust us' approach is that it is difficult to place great trust in a democratic country that no longer bothers to count the votes and is planing to do away with trials, replacing them by tribunals. Meanwhile the Bush admin. has declared that it will unilaterally withdraw from any agreements it finds to be inconvenient - including biggies like the ABM treaty.
The cost is not a major issue, $1Bn is not a huge amount in the EU budget, however it is not a negligible issue. The Brits would certainly not get bothered enough about the risks of a US monopoly, the French on the other hand can be relied upon to get into a galic stew over the issue.
The concern for the EU would be that a future US president might use the GPS selective availability system as a bargaining chip in future trade negotiations. The US has from time to time gone through protectionist cycles and a President Buchannan might well have tried to get his way through various types of blackmail. Or imagine Senator Jessie Helms putting a ridder on an appropriations bill ordering the Admin. to turn off GPS service to any country that does not toe the line on whatever idea the supporter of segregation happened to have that week.
Given the vagaries of the US political process it is not surprising that the dependence on the GPS system is being raised as an issue. It is very unlikely that the EU will go ahead and build a rival system, however it is very likely that the US will respond to the proposals with a set of diplomatic assurances over the use made of selective availabilty. And just as GWB has discovered that the ABM treaty matters after all a future president Buchanan would find that diplomatic assurances are kind of harder to renege on than US unilateralists tend to believe.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
yes, the US military can selectively jam GPS signals, or control the precision of the signals in certain geographic locations.. I actually worked on a project with the NAWC about 6 years ago to do this.. The jammers were small enough that they could fit in something about the size of a suitcase, and be dropped from a plane into enemy territory..
4 7_ STO65096,00.html
In fact, this article suggests that they're doing it now in Afghanistan:
http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV
If more satellites for a GPS-like system, wouldn't it be possible to get a more accurate fix on your location? According to this page, three satellites are required to get a fix on your location (four to perform time correction). However, a number of problems exist: (taken from above site)
1. The receiver clock is not exactly synchronized with the satellite clock so the time of flight will be imprecise.
2.The satellite and receiver are in different velocity reference frames and gravitational regimes so there are relativistic differences (both special and general)
3. The speed of light is 300,000 km/s in a vaccum. However, while travelling through the Earth Ionosphere and Troposphere, the radio waves travel at slightly slower speeds
4. Radio signals traveling through the atmosphere travel differents paths depending on the location of the receiver.
Although the first problem is correctable using a fourth satellite, the remaining three problems persist. However, if you receive signals from several satellites (not just your minimum 4), if you average your reported locations, you should be able to get a more accurate fix on your location.
Something like this was mooted a couple of years back. The main annoyance was the extra work in tying the two (somewhat different) methods together, I suspect that the integration isn't as neat as it could have been. I can't help thinking that it would be more productive to have an open standard for positioning information (including things like pseudo satellites) rather than gluing together different stuff.
:o)
And spheroids are calculable. Anyone doing surveying will be reading into a PDA or something anyway so they can transform coords into any space they want.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
I am an Engineering student at the University of Calgary, in Canada. As a writer for the student newspaper, I had the chance to write a story about a project called the AUTO21 project.
This is a multi-million dollar venture by the Canadian government that involves researchers in all fields, including sciences and humanities. Essentially what they are trying to achieve is a car that drives itself.
I interviewed the head of the U of C's Geomatics department, Dr. Gerard Lachapelle. He mentioned the European "rival" to GPS (he called it "Galileo"), but he did not seem to think of it as a rivalry at all. Quite on the contrary, he and his department plan on using both technologies extensively in their coming work on the project.
All the same, he seemed extremely excited about the prospect of a second system.
~windside
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
But, it's a free world! If the Europeans want to waste $3.6 billion (give or take another billion or two), they should go ahead! Higher taxes in Europe, increasing the attractiveness of American goods! If they waste enough, American manufacturers can stay on top of the economic battles for another generation!
Well, the difference is this.
We don't spend idiotic amounts of money on the military.
So, $ 3,6 billion is nothing compared to the US military budget.
O yeah, and that is also the reason that we have (almost) free healtcare
Don't forget that the military budget of the US is higher than that of China and the whole of Europe combined.
LORAN? I was pretty sure LORAN only covered coastal areas, and even then the coverage is not complete. LORAN is quite accurate, but it's a pain to use, and for full accuracy you do (or did) need special charts showing variations in the system.
What would be really cool would be a machine capable of doing fully automatic celestial navigation.
-----
Hardly comparable...if I take my cell phone to a country that is on a different standard, it won't work. If I take my GPS receiver to a country that uses a different standard, it will still work.
The problem wasn't that the votes were not counted. The problem was that they were counted over, and over, and over again. Even if the supreme court had allowed a several county recount bush still would have won. If the democrats had asked for an entire state recount and got it (which seemed like a bad idea at the time) Gore would have won. However, when it's so close, it's more important that somebody win sooner rather the right person 6 months after the election.
is planing to do away with trials, replacing them by tribunals.
Heh, but not for U.S. citizens. Only for alleged terrorists in a certain situation. Since 90% of americans probably think shooting them on sight is our the idea, a trial at all is pretty good.
Meanwhile the Bush admin. has declared that it will unilaterally withdraw from any agreements it finds to be inconvenient
First of all, the bush administration seems less likely to do this now that international support is more necessary for the war in afghanistan. Secondly, no countries ever follow treaties if it doesn't suit them. If any other country had the money lying around to develop an ABM system you bet your asteroids they would (except maybe switzerland).
I actually think that another system is a good idea, because american GPS systems are such a great military target, and redundancy is good. I just dislike half-informed country bashing.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Ever heard of geosynchronous and geostationary orbits?
The fast fix is because the calculation (satellites to position) can be reversed (rough position to which satellites are visible). Otherwise the receiver has to listen on each satellite's frequency in turn to determine if it is available.
The Magellan clip on GPS for PDAs has software which allows you to tap on a world map. This gets you an almost immediate fix. The cell network, which locates you to within 40km or less (depending on network density possibly much less) could do the same thing. Of course the magellan unit doesn't do differential.
I'm curious about the cell phones though. Are they using the USCG differential signal, or are the cell providers broadcasting their differential signal?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Galileo arose from European concerns about falling behind the United States technologically."
OK class, who can tell me when GPS was first deployed? And when will Galileo be deployed at its earliest?
Our next topic of discussion is the importantce of picking proper verb tense...
Kaplan's Understanding GPS: Principles and Applications asserts that GPS transmits Kepler elements whereas GLONASS transmits cartesian coordinates and derivatives. They also keep different time and use a different reference frame. Admittedly the book doesn't go into GLONASS in detail, however, is this information wrong?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});