GPS vs. Galileo; Where Are They Headed?

ben_ writes "This keynote speech from the recent European Navigation Conference talks about the history between the US military's GPS and the proposed EU Galileo system, as well as where they're both going. Interested in how you know where you are and what's going to happen to those satellites?"

Comments

Where are they going?

[Log from Blammo]

I'd say they'll be going in circles around the planet.

Re:Where are they going?

[-brazil-]

Talk about not knowing what you're talking about. Geostationary orbit is at 42,245km, can only be above the equator (so you wouldn't get a signal at the poles) and means (depending on how you define it) either one or no rotation per day. The GPS satellites are not in geostationary orbit.

More NAVSTAR GPS information

[daveschroeder]

The correct links for the US-administered GPS satellite constellation, known as NAVSTAR:

NAVSTAR GPS Joint Program Office - responsible for operational maintenance of NAVSTAR GPS equipment, services, and infrastructure

Interagency GPS Executive Board - executive management of NAVSTAR GPS

GPS fact sheet - US Air Force facts about NAVSTAR GPS

US Naval Observatory NAVSTAR GPS home page

Further information:

FAS GPS background info

Global Security GPS background info

Essential to Ending US Dominance

[Jameth]

As long as GPS is the only game in town, the US has a stranglehold on the superpower market. The US can regulate the GPS satellites and could cut off anyone else at any time. Seeing as GPS has revolutionized warfare, this means the US gets an automatic bonus in any war.

Until the EU has an alternative, it's military (should it form one) will be at a severe disadvantage in a theoretical conflict, and potential power in a theoretical conflict is a major bargaining chip. (It's a chip that's not talked about, but people pay attention to it on their own.)

Re:Essential to Ending US Dominance

[robslimo]

The paper says that by necessity, the two systems need be compatible on several fronts. OK, that is good, saves everyone money, too, by not obsoleting all your GPS hardware when the EU system goes live.

The EU system will also provide "additional commercial services, on a user-pays basis." That could be good too, but the basic "where am I now" function of GPS works fine for me. I'm leery of a govt body stacking commercial features on to a pretty well proven system.

"Galileo thus requires US cooperation for its commercial success, while at the same time apparently threatening US national security and industrial advantage!" To which I say Bah! Unless the US has really been dragging its heels in cooperating, I say, build your nav sat system and go for it! Our (the US) present obsession with security is mostly the work of a paranoid few. Let the US take care of itself and power to the EU for whatever they can do.

Sure, there may be a few Pentagon types who might drag their feet, but the timing and communications methods aren't rocket science... and even the rocket science part can be easily handled.

Re:Essential to Ending US Dominance

[PetoskeyGuy]

As long as GPS is the only game in town, the US has a stranglehold on the superpower market. The US can regulate the GPS satellites and could cut off anyone else at any time. Seeing as GPS has revolutionized warfare, this means the US gets an automatic bonus in any war.

That's right, they get a +5 accuracy on all medium and long range weapons.

Re:Essential to Ending US Dominance

[AKAImBatman]

The truly messed up part is that many European nations (*cough*Sweden*cough*) would need to rely on the US military in the case of a major assault. The EU has troops and weapon systems, but it's doubtful they would be sufficient to defend against a major superpower. While many Europeans are upset over Iraq, the US is unlikely to be the aggressor in any major European conflict. That leaves two other possibilities:

1. Someone more intelligent than Putin takes over Russia and uses Putin's communist-like infrastructure to once again impose a military state.
2. China decides that they have the most people in the world and that someone else should give up some land to support them.

While the second is more likely, either one would spell defeat for the European Union. Only the US currently has the necessary military power to stop another superpower. On the upside, China might be more inclined to take on the US first since we have more undeveloped land. It wouldn't be much of a war though. We'd fight until the Chinese start lobbing nukes. Once that happens, China can kiss their population goodbye when a few neutron bombs fall.

Re:Essential to Ending US Dominance

[Rhubarb Crumble]

1. Someone more intelligent than Putin takes over Russia and uses Putin's communist-like infrastructure to once again impose a military state.

Vlad Putin is a VERY smart guy. At the moment he's busy wresting control of the country back from the cowboy capitalists that Yeltsin and the IMF sold its natural resources to (as in 100 people own 1/4th of the country's wealth). This needs to happen before re-establishing the military's dominance can take place. The symbolism is already pointing that way, what with the red star being restored as the symbol of the Red Army, and the national anthem reverting to the Soviet one (but with new words). This is why eastern europe is so keen to join NATO, as they know very well that Russia the superpower is just taking a timeout...

2. China decides that they have the most people in the world and that someone else should give up some land to support them.

Ummm, China is very far away from Europe. If they want land from someone it'll be Russia....

Re:Essential to Ending US Dominance

[ldspartan]

You're mostly correct. Selective Availibility can be done region by region (I don't know the resolution of this), and the signal can be degraded with rather fine-grained control (the whole world was degraded to 200meter-ish accuracy until the late 90s). SA does not effect military recievers; when supplied with the days proper P(Y) code, they are as accurate as the GPS spec allows (~1 meter resolution, best case).

So the US can degrade the signal in a fine grained way, without affecting military / government systems.

--
Phil

Re:Essential to Ending US Dominance

[Dun Malg]

But if the US cut off the GPS, then they couldn't use it either, right?

It can be turned off selectively. Furthermore, as I understand it, "turned off" only means that the unencrypted data stream is gone. The military has the keys to the encrypted stream, so their GPS units still work.

I have also heard of GPS jammers, but anyone could use those, so that would effectively negate the US's GPS advantage.

GPS jammers are nearly useless. They are only powerful enough to cover a small area, so their only use is to protect a stationary target from attack by GPS guided bombs. Unfortunately, as demonstrated in the Iraq war last year, they don't even do that effectively. All six of the Russian-made GPS jammers fielded by Iraq were destroyed in short order, some of them by GPS guided missiles!

Re:Essential to Ending US Dominance

[meringuoid]

1: An EU-US war is madness plain and simple. It's not going to happen. Both sides are very happy to play the game of trade tariff arm-wrestling, but actually fight? Leave it out... Short of a fascist dictator coming to power in the US (no, Bush does not constitute one of these) this is absurd. It's just not a profitable business model.

2: The Russians storming west is more likely than (1), which isn't saying much. The Russian conventional army is really not what it used to be, after years of underfunding. A hypothetical Russian dictator would need to rearm a whole lot to make an invasion of Europe a practical proposition, and that would take a long time. Time enough for the Europeans to get their act together - note that most of Russia's former Warsaw Pact allies are now in NATO and the EU. In any case Russia is turning into a capitalist state like no other; they're more likely to see the EU as a huge, rich market on their doorstep, rather than as an opportunity for a scrap.

3) is just nuts. China decides to invade the EU for extra space? Picking out just about the only place on the planet more crowded than China itself? Entirely barmy. The only place China could realistically look for lebensraum is Siberia, and, er... well, I said the Russian conventional forces were not what they were, but that was an outlandish proposition when Tom Clancy tried it out, and it's no saner now.

If I was a European military planner I'd be worried about the dodgy nations on the doorstep, rather than the three other big players. Belarus, for instance, is ruled by a complete and utter fruitcake dictator. And as we expand we'll have more neighbours like that - if Turkey joins up we'll have Iraq right on the EU frontier. That's the sort of thing we'll need to be thinking about.

And as the expanding EU bumps up against such difficulties, we may need to conduct our own military operations, probably without American support - and sometimes, I would imagine, with outright opposition from Washington. That's why we need our own GPS-equivalent. It would be, at the very least, a diplomatic embarrassment to launch a war of which America disapproved, while relying on America's satellites to guide our missiles ;-)

Re:Essential to Ending US Dominance

[Lumpy]

HUH? are you nuts?

the GPS system CAN be turned off or rendered pretty much useless for anyone except the US troops. the DOP can be adjusted from zero to insanely high for non-military units. (DOP is dilution of Precision) I work with a guy that just came back from NORAD and his main job was dealing with the GPS systems. (Luetenant who is back only to gather his things and return back to full active duty due to an offer from the military he could not refuse)

the non-classified things he was able to tell me is that the DOP can be adjusted a very wide range to the point that even DGPS can be rendered pretty useless unless both recievers were in very close proximity.

if anyone ever thought that a military system would not have the ability to be disabled for all but military use they are horribly mistaken. the lives of the service men on the ground and the sucess of a mission is much more important than some businesses using it for navigation.

SA can be turned back on at any time if it is needed.

Competition vs monopoly

[magarity]

Most of the time competition is good: software, hardware, cola. Sometimes monopolies are more acceptable: stringing up electric transmission cables, streets to my (your) house, large constellations of bright satellites that interfere with astronomic studies and general enjoyment of the night sky. Sure, GPS is very handy but more than one system seems a little redundant.

Re:Competition vs monopoly

[Hamhock]

Well, it only seems redundant if you're the one controlling it. If you're not the U.S., then you might be concerned that the U.S.'s GPS system may not always be available to you.

We can't us the EU system

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

here in the US, how the hell would we read Metres and Kilometers, and hectares and such, give us our Miles.

Problem: Hmmm, Ive got 100 kilometers to my destination and 15 gallons of gas. I am driving an Hummer H2, that gets 9 miles a gallon, can I make it? Solution: It doesn't matter, the H2 can't drive around the corner before needing a refuel.

Re:We can't us the EU system

[AgentAce]

Most GPS receivers are able to switch between metric and imperial modes...all the satellite does is send a timing signal which the receiver interprets according to it's relative doppler shift...the satellite does not transmit *your* position based upon its own calculations, the receiver performs these calculations and displays them in whatever measurement you desire

Link to older Article on Slashdot

[CharonX]

For more information look at the Article featured on Slashdot about 6 months ago.
Galileo System To Include Jamming Capability
:)

Here's the big question:

[MtViewGuy]

Will the ESA Galileo satellite navigation system be sufficiently different that you'll need all-new receivers to pick up Galileo navigation information?

That could get VERY expensive as manufacturers of satellite navigation receivers will have to accommodate both systems for airplanes, automobiles, trucks, boats, etc.

Re:makes me wonder

[Rhubarb Crumble]

Makes me wonder if China is working on its own global positioning system (see previous slashdot story/thread)

They're in on Galileo: see here

Re:Where ever they are going...

[Lehk228]

would be too dangerous to the rest of the population.

Yup, broadcasting through hundreds of feet of rock would probably end up cooking everything on the surface

Re:Where ever they are going...

[MrIrwin]

How can cave exploring be dangerous to the rest of the population.

Mind you, a did see a documentry about the spielologists retained by the city of Naples to try and map it's enourmous network of caves and tunnels. These people keep turning up unexpectedly in peoples basements!

Don't forget about the Russians: GLONASS

[shoppa]

The Russians have had GLONASS for several years now.

Here is a technical comparison. They seem more alike than different to me.

I know of a few very high-powered geologists who cross-check GPS with GLONASS. Having a third system would seem to only help.

Re:Where ever they are going...

[Dun Malg]

I think that they will need to develop a system in the next 5-10 years that can be used through buildings and underground, otherwise it might be useless. I would think GPS devices would be useful for people like cave explorers, but maybe that's unreasonable or would be too dangerous to the rest of the population.

Forget it, man. You can't get EM radiation through solid rock from orbit. At least not without a lot of power, and then you're frying everything on the surfac. Wishing for an underground-capable GPS is like wishing for a lighthouse you can see through the hull of your boat. It's asking too much.

redundancy

[curator_thew]

This is also about global redundancy. The world increasingly depends upon navigational technologies like this. It's a little dangerous that there's only _one_ point of failure (whether technical, economic, political, etc).

Thomas Jefferson and Our Cultural Differences

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a great article and I'm encouraged that the US and EU are working together to ensure we'll eventually be able to get inexpensive GPS receivers that'll use both systems.

But alas there is this remark:

And, since US policy was to "limit availability of their radionavigation systems in the event of a real or potential threat of war or impairment to national security", Europe saw that its access to this vital new utility depended on the decisions of a single nation, with which it might well disagree on matters of national security. Recent event have given examples of just such disagreements. Europe's response was Galileo.

Alas, this cultural difference has been with us at least since the days of Thomas Jefferson and those earlier terrorists, the Barbary Pirates. European nations paid off the pirates rather than fight. Under Thomas Jefferson, the U.S. had a policy, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." It seems someone has posted more about that history at:

Barbary Pirates

Then as now, Europe thinks being nice to nasty folk is a better than getting tough, sending out the frigates, and making them behave. Hence their policy of leaning toward the Arabs. In contrast, the U.S. supports feisty little Israel, perhaps the only nation in history to fight four major wars in one lifetime with foes that outnumber them twenty to one and win every one. We back a democracy and a winner. They (particularly the French), back repressive dictatorships and losers.

In that context, it helps to remember what Churchill warned in 1939 after the Munich Agreement, "Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war."

In the end, every people gets the government they deserve. If the Europeans have so little sense of 'honor,' that they cannot defend their free and democratic societies from an ideology driven by hatred and revenge, then perhaps they deserve to drop into history's dustbin, always knowing precisely where they are thanks to a Galileo that will never be turned off to fight terrorism. And in their obsession with not fighting a few brush wars, they may lose a far greater and more critical cultural war. Europe may become Eurabia. In a generation, European women may only leave their homes clad in a sack from head to toe.

Am I the only one to catch the madness of all this? For perhaps two decades we've been told that there was a 'religious right' or 'fundamentalism' spanning from Jew and Christian to Arab that is a threat to free and democratic societies. But when push comes to shove, when religiously sanctioned terrorism and repression must be fought, it is the secular left who apologizes for religious repression and who wants little or nothing done to open up brutally repressive Arab societies. The left of western democracies is defending Saddam with all the zeal they once had for cruel Stalin.

All this brings to mind the Chinese proverb about the curse of living in "interesting times."

Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

Re:A Relativity Question

[blingbing]

I strongly recommend you read Brian Greene's "Fabrics of the Cosmos", the book explain in plain english the exact same question and much more.

What's to say that the spaceship is actually in geostationary orbit and not just STATIONARY if there is nothing else to measure their motion against? These two things are all that exist in this hypothetical universe and they are stationary relative to each other, so why aren't they 'absolutely' stationary, causing the spaceship just to fall? How do you know the moon is really even spinning?

I am no physics major, here's my amateurish understanding.

Newton pondered the same question, but he used a spinning water bucket as an example. suppose you are on the inner bucket wall, you know your are spinning because you can feel your back is pressed against the wall, even if you can see any motion relative to the wall or the center pole. but when the spinning stops, the force disappears. By the same token, we can deduce the spaceship is geostationary because it does't fall, a truly stationary spaceship will fall because of gravity.

The way I usually phrased this to physics professors was that if the spaceship, floating in space for all it knows, comes flying past the moon at near light speed, why do we assume the spaceship is moving at near lightspeed and therefore clocks on it run slower, rather than the moon is hurtling through space at near lightspeed past a stationary ship?

Einstein says you can see it either way, and both perspective are valid but they don't necessarily reconcile in a traditional sense. the distance and time measures differ depends on the observer's speed. In general, when you speed up and down, your space and time perspective dynamically changes. According to Einstein, it's perfectly valid for everyone on Earth to have a different time reading for the very same event, like exactly when Smarty Jones won the Kentucky Derby.