Slashdot Mirror
E.U. Agrees To Launch Galileo Satellite Location System
waimate writes "The European Union today decided to go ahead with Galileo, the constellation of 30 satellites which will compete with the U.S. GPS system.
The U.S. abolished selective availability three years ago partly to make GPS more useful for all mankind, but also to dissuade other countries from developing their own navigational satellite system, and thus be dependant on the U.S. for both peaceful and military purposes. Since the demise of the Russian GLONASS system, GPS is the only game in town. Evidently recent events make Europe feel less comfortable about such things, and so they're building their own. Good thing for commercialization of space, or bad thing for world peace?"
Typical horizontal accuracy with a GPS is variable, generally it can be with 3 meters horizontal resolution with WAAS. However elevation is always more dubious with GPS and anything that improves it is a genuine advance. Not having the US militiary "dithering" it is no loss either. "Too accurate" is silly. Yeah, you care about where your antenna is, but an error of 15 meters in your vehicle could quite readily add up to increased insurance costs and hospital bills. An altitude error of 15 meters in an aircraft could mean the difference between an emergency manuever and a crater. Any navigational system can be programmed to account for antenna position and vehicle or vessel configuration. The accuracy of the system needs to be based on the greatest demand that can be placed on it. Right now that can be an accuracy requirement within a meter, or even within a cm. Survey grade GPS can require sub-centimeter accuracy that is only available with post-processing at present. There are a lot of us who would like to collect mapping data with a handheld or rod unit that didn't cost ten grand.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
That's the typical american attitude; "We're the biggest and the best, and country is not as good as us, and they know it."
In practice, American arrogance is altogether ridiculous, and given recent and past behaviour, the US is, I would say, more than likely to do things like break GPS leaving everyone else in the lurch.
Contrary to what you may believe, the interest in a common EU isn't in competing with the US. You never know, there's a danger it may be that it's the best for all of Europe, and Europe knows it, and that's why we're doing it.
We would all love to get together with the US, and provide various decent global systems... But the US simply keeps proving that it isn't trustworthy.
Flamebait, I'm sure. But The arrogance I've witnessed in the 8 months since I moved here is beyond anything I had ever been able to imagine it would be. And yes, I'm pissed and even embarrassed to be an American citizen.
Gary (-;
Well, it isn't just European bombs that could be guided by the European satellite system, but anyone's bombs
I somehow doubt that the ultimate motivation for the system is for guiding bombs. Yes, of course it's a factor, but Europeans seem to be culturally more opposed to war than the US.
So, if the U.S. is in the middle of combat, and turns off public GPS to thwart emeny guided bombs, I can imagine a bunch of European beaurocrats sitting in Brussels trying to decide whether or not they should do the same.
Well, perhaps this will make the US think twice before going off to wage war that most of the rest of the world opposes. If Europe should choose to go to war (not very likely), I think that the decision would be made easily (if it will be possible to achieve at all).
Is it somehow better to have absolute power in the hands of some kid trying to play dad?
I doubt, therefore I may be.
You didn't in WWII the Rusians did by tying up the German forces on the Eastern front. By the time you turned up we'd won North Africa and the Battle of Britain, Hitler had given up on the invasion of Britain and had turned to the east hence the Russian involvment.
You did help financially because we were running out of money. Two and half years of fighting drains a country especially when it's being bombed regularly.
When you finally got involved, with typical US arogance and lack of control you cocked up. The Omaha beach landing was a fiasco because you ignored the advice of the Brits who had far more experience and who landed fairly safely. The scene at the start of Saving Private Ryan didn't happen elsewhere.
In the first Gulf war you did it again killing more Brits than the Iraqis and in the second you did it yet again.
From the Daily Mirror, Monday April 7th 2003
Brit Pilot's Punch-up
A Furious British Helicopter Pilot who came under "friendly fire" from American troops landed yards from them, leapt out and exchanged punches
with a US Marine.
The Chinook pilot shouted at him: "When was the last time you saw a f******* Iraqi in a helicopter?"
The pilot and the marine had to be pulled apart as American troops advanced on the north of Baghdad, according to US reports from US Central
Command in Qatar.
British military spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said: "I'm afraid it would be an RAF kind of thing to do. "These guys are not known for tolerating fools gladly."
And
The following was broadcast live on CNN on the 24th of March.
In front of camera is the CNN anchor. He is joined by three American military experts (one being a retired two-star general from the 'elite'
Delta Force) and an ex SAS soldier. Footage on side-screen shows Iraqi soldiers surrendering to coalition troops.
CNN Anchor: "We've no current verification as to whether these are US or British troops the Iraqis are surrendering to. "
Yank 1: "They look to be ours - only US troops wear boots like those."
Yank 2: "Indeed, and they appear to have the standard issue camouflage fatigues."
Yank 3 (Delta Force): "I'm not sure - we'll have to get close-up images of them to be 100%. We'll definitely be able to tell from the shape of their Kevlar helmets if they're ours."
Ex SAS: "I'm surprised to learn you're all experts. Since when did US forces carry the SA80 rifle as standard issue? Their DPMs could've been bought, as could their boots and webbing for that matter, so you're chasing rainbows if you can I.D them from their clothes!"
Anchor: "I think you're right."
Ex SAS: "Of course I'm bloody right - anyone with half a brain and basic military training worth their salt should be able to I.D a British soldier by his rifle unless he's special forces! Not to mention the fact that they're covering all their arcs of fire properly, not shouting "woo yeah!" randomly and haven't raised a flag in direct contravention of their orders!"
...At this point one of the Americans pulls his mic off and leaves the floor. The other two look very uncomfortable...
Anchor: "I think we can safely say that the soldiers on your screen are British. Now for these messages..."