Slashdot Mirror


EU and US Agree on Galileo

An anonymous reader writes "The EU and USA have reached an agreement over the Galileo satellite positioning system, ending several years of negotiations." We had some good Galileo information in a story last month.

201 comments

  1. More reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    to add more layers of foil to your hats folks!

    1. Re:More reasons by boarder8925 · · Score: 0

      By the time you have enough tin foil, though, your neck will break because of the weight.

    2. Re:More reasons by Damiano · · Score: 1

      I'm switching to the previously posted RF proof wallpaper myself. Much more festive looking.

    3. Re:More reasons by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      And remember that tin foil makes you more easily detectible by radar. To be really safe, you should use a tin foil hat that has sharp angles instead of a smooth curve.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:More reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever since the government started using GPS, the mind-control signals have been largely sent by satellite. Naturally the best satellite receivers in the body are the patellae, which are outside the reach of a hat and can beam signals up through inside the body.

      So nowadays you additionally need tinfoil pants so the signals never reach your kneecaps.

    5. Re:More reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shape it into a corner reflector. Sure it'll return radar, but with a head your size it'll have a blinding RCS.

    6. Re:More reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they want you to think!

  2. Its about time by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's about time that the US give up on what was clearly becoming an impossible task: stopping the surge of demand for high accuracy civilian GPS. Kudos to them for reaching an agreement. :)

    --
    I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
    1. Re:Its about time by justanyone · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You touch on some issues:

      1. I believe (according to the article) the goal of US policy is preventing radio frequency (technical) interference with existing US GPS frequencies. These High Accuracy signals are separate from the main civilian ones and carry info that increases the signals' accuracy.
      2. The assertion that US policy is to restrict availability of high accuracy civilian-available positioning devices is not mentioned in the article. However, I believe you are probably correct. High accuracy civilian GPS could be used by foreign military/terrorists for dastredly effects.

      I have posted several questions to the site, including:
      1. Who is providing launch services for Galileo systems? Ariane? If so, was the contract bid competitively or is a juggernaut of NASA proportions (using semi-governmental agencies for semi-commercial purposes)?
      2. Who is manufacturing the actual satellites?
      3. What will the standard resolution ("PRS") of the Galileo system be?
      4. Is this agreement a treaty? It's happening at a 'summit'. Does this mean it will need to be ratified and carry the force of law in both the EU and the US?
      5. The article states they will 'cooperate' on 'standards' for timings, etc.
      6. Which exact EU body handles their standards?
      7. Where will Galileo operational control center be based (which country)?
      8. From a technical perspective, will the accuracy of a hand-held receiver that gets both GPS and Galileo signals be more accurate than existing GPS systems?
      9. Will they cost tons because of different technologies between the systems so unified handhelds are unlikely?

        If anyone can answer these questions, here is a good place to address them, methinks.

        -- Kevin J. Rice
    2. Re:Its about time by pbox · · Score: 3, Funny
      "Under the terms of the agreement, the two sides agreed on key points including:
      • a common signal structure for so-called "open" services, and a suitable signal structure for the Galileo Public Regulated Service (PRS).
      • a process allowing improvements, either jointly or individually, of the baseline signal structures in order to further improve performances.
      • confirmation of inter-operable time and standards to facilitate the joint use of GPS and Galileo."

      Now I am 100% sure that the above in plain Engrish just says: US is happy announce that they already have the technology to effectively suppress and/or interfere with the Galileo signals, so now these Franch bastard can proceed.
      --
      Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
    3. Re:Its about time by pbox · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      We could tell you this, but then we would have to kill you.

      (or)

      You think you can handle this information? You cannot handle this information!

      --
      Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
    4. Re:Its about time by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      US warns against European Satellite System

      While the squabbling may come down to technicalities, the core of the dispute always seems to come down to Europe not wanting to be dependant on the US (for good reason), and the US not wanting high-accuracy civilian GPS (especially at times when we plan to heavily degrade the signal, such as whenever we've picked our latest poor country to invade)

      --
      I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
    5. Re:Its about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      And are they using the metric system?

    6. Re:Its about time by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kudos to them for reaching an agreement. :)

      Bah. The entire spat was the US (my government) bitching about wanting control high resolution signals for military use and being able to shut down or jam the normal public signals.

      The US failed to stop the EU from putting up their own system, but did get the EU to "compromize" by redesigning the system the way the US wanted - to be a clone of the US design. That way the US and EU can either agree and both shut off the public signal or the non-encrypted public singnal can be unilaterally JAMMED.

      It was never about preventing interference or improving features of the public signal. Why the hell would you need to pressure the EU to "compromise" about improving the the system?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Its about time by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      You mean the same dastardly effects the US uses GPS for? Why would they use something so complicated as a cruise missile when they already can target anything they want with suicide bombers that are precise enough? BTW, American "precision" weapons all too often miss their target by miles.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    8. Re:Its about time by qwasty · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I feel much safer knowing that America has Europe by the balls. Heaven forbid that Europe should decide when they want to degrade their signals. That's a decision that should only be made by the US military.

  3. Why duplication? by Omega1045 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After ReadingTFA and looking at some of the past stuff on this issue, there is still not a clear reason (at least for me) to duplicate GPS. Why does Europe want to spend all that money? Couldn't they put up other sats with the money, like Internet, etc? Is it just a control thing i.e. the EU doesn't want to be at the mercy of the US on this (wouldn't blame them)?

    --

    Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

    1. Re:Why duplication? by Damiano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The base reason is that US wants the ability to turn off civilain GPS when they want to. If Europe puts up a system that US doesn't have control over than turning off GPS becomes useless and they lose )what they believe to be) a tactical advantage.

    2. Re:Why duplication? by Mondak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ....US State Department official told reporters, calling the deal a "landmark" accord that would reap "profound benefits" for both the United States and Europe in the highly competitive satellite positioning market. I am having trouble figuring out how this market is highly competitive. There is one system today and it is free to use. Where is the competition? I don't understand this official's point of view.

    3. Re:Why duplication? by zeux · · Score: 1

      GPS is not accurate enough for some critical operations like automated boats and trains.

      And IIRC GPS is less accurate in Europ than in US.

    4. Re:Why duplication? by penguinoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is it just a control thing i.e. the EU doesn't want to be at the mercy of the US on this (wouldn't blame them)?

      Correct. The US will gladly shut down civilian GPS in case of some "national emergency" so it wouldn't be used against them. If the US ever goes to war with the EU then they will need their own GPS to defend themselves with.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    5. Re:Why duplication? by Clinoti · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Politically, the EU despite it's slow start and setbacks is stepping up in it's own right as blocks of countries merge to become a formidable competitor/ally/balance for the U.S.

      Having them rely on an outside source for GPS, Military or other electronic systems places the disadvantage in their court. Also remember the havoc that went on in the EU when the US switched GPS channels for Iraq? Germany's reliance on the GPS system for their Mercedes cars were thrown off kilter for a bit.

      Having read the article, I wonder what the 'open' system will be like? Competition is the friend of all technology, so hopefully we will benefit rather than have 1cm rfid's. :) We will see. -eol

      --

      Let's keep in mind that patents are in place to keep lawyers employed and keep them litigating. -CatGrep

    6. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a control thing. But I think this system will not change much since the US government will force the controller of Galileo to make it inaccurate in case of war (and AFAIK for the US government this is 24/7).

    7. Re:Why duplication? by Keebler71 · · Score: 2, Funny


      Why do you need a GPS to surrender?
      </joke>

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    8. Re:Why duplication? by gsfprez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you think the US will gladly let anyone build a world-wide targeting system that anyone (North Korea, China, Iran, etc) can use at will, then you're dellusional.

      You don't know the whole story. I guarantee it.

      Besides - who's going to be able to build a guaranteed system? If you think the Euros can, then you're just fooling yourself further.

      --
      guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    9. Re:Why duplication? by Pixel_K · · Score: 5, Informative

      No they can't "just put up other sats".
      - The sats have to be daily checked and correted by people on earth, like giving to each sat the positions of others sats ( this information is transmitted to the GPS receiver, to know how much sats it should be able to "see" ). This need a common agreement and cooperation.
      - Signals must not overlaps or corrupt other signals ( not as easy as it seems, the usable frequency window is quite narrow ).
      - the EU Gallileo will be free for personal use. You must pay a fixed fee ( payed when you pruchase the receiver ) to use the US GPS
      - USA can decide at ANY TIME to reduce the precision of the GPS signal delivered to cityzens in any zone ( by a ratio of 1 to 100 ) making it totally useless.
      - GPS sats become older and older, their lifespan is limited and a few should be replaced ( 27 are needed to give a good global coverage, some of the ones in the sky are not fully functionnal anymore ). It would be a good time to change a few ( some don't even got a good ol' cesium atomic clock ).
      - Galileo will provide more different levels of precision than GPS with different prices and secured and garanteed precisions for the most expensive ones.

      --
      I'm not web-surfing at work, I conduct a very broad technological survey.
    10. Re:Why duplication? by Stack_13 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Being dependant on another nations goodwill on the accuracy of your navigation is most likely the primary reason for Galileo system . Granted, most of the EU is headed NATO way - but things may change, relationships can get cooler etc. EU wants to keep its options open.

      Another goal is to generate new EU aerospace and tech business. Wildest estimates are around $10bn of revenue per year, growing to $300bn by 2020

    11. Re:Why duplication? by donscarletti · · Score: 1
      Satellite positioning networks have many applications, but most of them are military. They are used to guide cruise missiles and modern smart bombs, they are used to coordinate air-strikes and artillery barrages. A modern armed force would be quite stuck without this technology. While it is not likely that there will be a war between any European country and the US any time soon, relations between these two areas have become fairly shaky of late. Many right wing US politicians denounce the French and German governments quite openly and therefore these governments are not really sure that if they needed to defend themselves by firing GPS guided munitions that the US would not simply turn the system off.

      While bush-walkers and sailors can safely rely on a foreign system to help them out, when you are going to war (as is disturbingly possible for almost any country at any point in time) it really helps to own your own equipment. I think this move to create their own system is very prudent.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    12. Re:Why duplication? by nono79 · · Score: 1

      most intersting: which countries are - according to you - likely aggressors. Has any of them fight you (or an ally) in the past?

    13. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why do you need a GPS to surrender?
      Well, the US didn't need GPS to surrender in Vietnam, so I guess you don't need it at all!
    14. Re:Why duplication? by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The base reason is that US wants the ability to turn off civilain GPS when they want to. If Europe puts up a system that US doesn't have control over than turning off GPS becomes useless and they lose )what they believe to be) a tactical advantage.

      I wouldn't be too surprised if signal degradation as reuqested by US officials were part of the current agreement.

    15. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duplication is good. With strong military and political ties both groups get to use both sets of systems, hence greater redundancy and a more robust deployment. In an ideal world of course.

    16. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're double-stupid.

      First, the EU has no interest in giving the 'bad guy' nations an advantage. Simply put, these 'bad guy' nations already know that civilian GPS can be disabled at a moments notice and they would assume the same about this new GPS. Ergo, they would totally ignore any GPS guided munitions and go with the dozen or so other guidance methods out there.

      Second, regarding that article you posted, GPS jammers are totally useless in a war. Here are the two scenarios you'll see with them in use at war:

      Scenario 1: A low-powered GPS jammer or 3 protects a small area. Inbound munitions will be perfectly guided until the last 30 seconds (probably closer to 10). And by then, it really doesn't matter if the GPS signal goes, you're already on target.

      Scenario 2: A high-powered GPS jammer or 3 blocks a really big area. HARM missiles will solve your problem.

    17. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As tiresome as the "French. Surrender. Haha." joke is, it turns into utter shite when applied to the entire EU.

      It just doesn't make any sense at all as a joke and, may even be offensive to many people.

    18. Re:Why duplication? by adeas · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to consider this: What was the original purpose of the US GPS system? Military applications - guiding missles, locating people, tanks, etc. By either having to use the US's system for military purposes, or developing alternative technologies, that limits them immensly. On the other hand, if they develope thier own, its lets them use it to whatever ends they wish - military or civilian. Not a bad idea too. Consider business - is there ever really just one person in on some business segment? No, that's bad for business and the consumer. If the consumer in this case is the European public and military infastructure, having the US be the one sending you proverbial invoices for using thier stuff isn't to your advantage.

    19. Re:Why duplication? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It is, the US gets the ability to degrade Galileos signal whenever they want, and Galileos owners dont get any such access to the US GPS system. Whey to fucking go, Europe!

    20. Re:Why duplication? by einhverfr · · Score: 1


      I wouldn't be too surprised if signal degradation as reuqested by US officials were part of the current agreement.


      That was my thought as well... But if it was, why would they be going ahead with the duplication? What sort of compromised was reached? I wish we could find that out. Of course, some sort of ratification process would be necessary if it was legally binding, and this would open it up to public scrutiny. Then I re-read the article....

      As far as I can tell, they are looking at interop standards, which would allow the US to *unilaterally* degrade the signal on a random basis by altering their satalites. Maybe Galilleo will also offer a separate civilian channel which could be used without such interference though.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    21. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We want accuracy for our civilians and military. We also really have no desire to depend on someone else's system that we have no control over. And why should we? The EU wants its own system.

      Why should Europe develop its own series of launchers (Ariane, Vega), or aeroplanes (Airbus, etc.), or manned space program (within the Aurora framework)? It's not only about independence - although that is certainly more than reason enough! - but it's also because it's good for Europe and its people. To keep us in the frontline of technology, to advance our science and knowledge, to provide good transportation, telecommunication and access to space, as well as possible spinoffs. In the end, it's going to be good for our trade, economy and jobs as well. Why should we buy everything from everyone else? Why should we rely on fickle allies that might turn against us within a few days? It's good for Europe in many, many ways.

      Of course, if everyone were equally dependant on each other, perhaps peace would be a reality...

    22. Re:Why duplication? by ryanmfw · · Score: 1
      What's to stop the EU from turning off Galileo? That's the other big question here. Galileo seems to be a response to the U.S. having total control over GPS, and being able to turn off civilian use on a whim. But, really, why is the EU *so* much better that they would not do the exact same thing?

      What happens when the EU starts a war? Are they not going to shut off Galileo? And what's to stop the EU and US from shutting off both at the same time during wars? It would make plenty of sense. Just don't think that the EU is perfect and would never do something so *awful* as turning of civilian galileo during a war to save their soldier's lives.

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    23. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having accurate maps and location of your units is one of the, if not the single, most important things in warfare. Of course the US gov doesn't want just anyone to have access to high precision GPS.

    24. Re:Why duplication? by Omega1045 · · Score: 1

      You didn't get my comment. The point was that the money could be spent on, say, communication satellites instead.

      --

      Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

    25. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap. France routinely gives weapons to 'bad guy' nations.

    26. Re:Why duplication? by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      Well, the US didn't need GPS to surrender in Vietnam, so I guess you don't need it at all!

      Troll. The U.S. never lost a single major battle in Vietnam. We lost ~ 50,000 troops compared to over a million North Vietnamese.

      The U.S. policy is what failed.

    27. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What munitions would the Germans or the French be firing off? How many countries do you think actually have GPS guided munitions (I can give you a hint, the answer is less than 3). GPS muntions are prohibitively expensive for just about everyone else except the US.

    28. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Troll. The U.S. never lost a single major battle in Vietnam. We lost ~ 50,000 troops compared to over a million North Vietnamese. The U.S. policy is what failed.
      Ooh, touchy! Its all "ha ha" when talking about France and WWII - but it suddenly isn't funny any more when the insult is returned.

      America lost the Vietnam War, deal with it.

    29. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for the record we didn't surrender in Vietnam, we just got tired of the game, picked up (most of) our toys and went home. If we had surrendered to Vietnam, I would now be living in "The People's Republic of America", and certainly not as well fed. That's generally how a surrender works, just ask the French, they know a lot about surrendering.

    30. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does the US. You were going to make a point when, exactly?

    31. Re:Why duplication? by Pixel_K · · Score: 1

      Well, there are alreaday lots of communication satellites and network. But there are only two Postioning system satellite network ( US GPS and Russian GLONASS ) wich both are made "by the army, for the army" and not focussed in any way at the average people asking for geo-localisation ( in their car, on vacation, etc ... ), that, in my point of view makes Galileo worth the millions Euros it will cost. It's just not the same thing : more communication sats won't give you your positions when the USA will decide to shut down/cripple GPS.

      --
      I'm not web-surfing at work, I conduct a very broad technological survey.
    32. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We lost ~ 50,000 troops compared to over a million North Vietnamese.
      You lost 50,000 troops (not including your South Vietnamese allies), at least 1/3rd of the Vietnamese deaths you are referring to were civilian.

      Doesn't it make you feel like a shit when you need to point to the number of civilians slaughtered in a war by US soldiers as justification that the US "won".

    33. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The U.S. will (eventually) stop selling to a county when we feel that they have become an international threat, France (and Russia) gets that market.

      That's how it works, if you can't buy (or afford) quality U.S. munitions, you purchase from "second rate" suppliers like France and Russia.

    34. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Idiot, that is hardly the point. It is not so that the EU can turn off your access, it is so no outside nation can turn off their access. Nothing would stop the EU and the US from shutting them both down, if they chose to. However it would stop the US from saying "If you don't follow our lead in this illegal war, we will shut you down". It is one thing to have the power to deny access to your own people, quite another to have to hope that an outside nation won't pull the plug on you. I don't think this has anything to do with the EU being perfect, or their ability to do something awful. Its about having control over your own services.

      Now, if you want your argument to hold any water, then ask why the US hasn't abandoned GPS in favour of Galileo, leaving their GPS services in the hands of some other government? Oh, they don't trust the EU with something as critical as precision weapon targeting? Hmm. Maybe the EU feels the same way?

      It never ceases to amaze me how an American can on one hand see the issue being discussed with themselves as the victim with total clarity, yet be incapable of seeing the exact same point from the other side.

    35. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your second statement is true, but the line about 'international threats' is a little off-base. Bad PR is more likely to stop the US from arming a particular faction than anything else.

      Think: Iran-Contra.

    36. Re:Why duplication? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1, Funny

      So you can make sure you're really in France!

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    37. Re:Why duplication? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      News flash: when your last military presence in a country in which you are fighting is Marine embassy guards trying to keep the crowds back from the evac helicopters, you have lost the war.

      We lost in Vietnam. And in so doing, we abandoned our allies to the tender mercies of the re-education camps. You can argue all day about why we lost, but that we lost -- and that we cut and run -- is undeniable. Only fools and fanatics feel otherwise.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    38. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "After ReadingTFA and looking at some of the past stuff on this issue, there is still not a clear reason (at least for me) to duplicate GPS. Why does Europe want to spend all that money?"

      So that you can land planes using it.

      GPS isn't accurate, reliable, or trustworthy enough (which is why it's forbidden for pilots rely on it for navigation). Lots of people would really like a navigation system reliable enough to use all the time, and with the centimetre-accuracy that lets you use it to auto-land cargo planes.

      (And to everyone who whines about not relying on technology, we currently use VORs and NDBs for air navigation, which technically, are only slightly more advanced than a lighthouse)

    39. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, lets take a look at this. Despite never losing a single major battle in Vietnam, it would appear that you did not in fact win the war. This leaves the posibility of a tie being in place. However, this usualy results in some kind of a DMZ being instituted to clearly mark the progress at the time that hostilities ceased, along with a signed agreement between parties to cease hostilities. Now, the agreement should not amount to a sign on your embassy gates that reads "Please forward all mail to Washington DC". Since the NVA took over the capital, and you left with your tails between your legs (ie couldn't stop it), and the DMZ actually turns out to be the international waters boundary surrounding the unified country of Vientam, it would appear that you did, in fact, LOSE the war. Blame it on the politicians if you want, blame it on ineffective drafted troops, blame it on arrogance, you can pick the excuse that best suits how you feel about this, but the fact remains, whether you ate your wheaties or not, YOU LOST.

      The real question remains, what are you going to do this time? Looks kind of apparent that you will lose no "major battles" this time either, yet it hardly looks like you are going to win this war. Maybe you should get your sign polished up and have it ready to hang on the embassy gates again?

      When this one ends, I can't wait for the new stream of jokes that can replace the "french surrender" jokes. I really like "Can't lose a battle, can't win a war", or how about "What peasant army do you feel like running from today?", or maybe a bumper sticker that reads "Hows my war mongering? Call 1-87SEE-ME-RUN".

      enjoy :)

    40. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least 1/3rd of the Vietnamese deaths you are referring to were civilian No such thing in a war. Its wishful thinking. Women and children could and would become bombs. Even today plain clothed people in the middle east waltz into area's as walking bombs. Don't kid yourself noone is innocent in a war zone. Anyways, The US lost the vietnam war because of political unrest at home vs. the desire of the people of that nation. We could of easily burned that entire country to the ground. But you can not defeat an unwilling people. They will fight back as long as one person still lives who belives in their cause. Look at the middle east for a example. People will never give up what they feel are real beliefs, and the cost of killing every man, woman, and child in vietnam was too great to the america people, causing political unrest. Thus we backed out. Would that war happen today, our country would have no problem opressing the rights of the people of vietnam.

    41. Re:Why duplication? by crotherm · · Score: 1

      Yes, the US lost that "Policing action". But remember, yet again, who it was we went there to help. Yep, the French. If France had been able to clean up their own mess, the USA would not have had to shed one drop of blood.

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    42. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so do the US and many other nations. The US even takes the no.1 spot when it comes to dealing in weapons. And if you think the weapons industry only deals with "good guy nations" you are very naive.

    43. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You did notice that what the French were saying about the war in Iraq turned out to be correct all along (namely that there wasn't sufficient evidence of WMDs)?

      Good, just checking.

    44. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it wasn't so obvious that you were trolling, I would point out that arguments like yours didn't work so well when the Nazis used them at the trials after WWII.

    45. Re:Why duplication? by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      We've never surrendered period (unless you count the civil war). Our military is the one thing we have that currently dominates the rest of the world.

      Touchy? Sure. On the other hand, a large fraction of Frenchmen still believe that they defeated the German army with just a little help from the rest of the Allies. This is an insult to my grandparents who were there.

    46. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just for the record we didn't surrender in Vietnam
      Does your record also include stuff about faked moon landings, UFO invasion, and evil communist plots to brainwash people by putting flouride in the water?
    47. Re:Why duplication? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Touchy? Sure. On the other hand, a large fraction of Frenchmen still believe that they defeated the German army with just a little help from the rest of the Allies. This is an insult to my grandparents who were there.

      Touchy? Sure. On the other hand, a large fraction of Americans still believe that they defeated the German army with just a little help from the rest of the Allies. This is an insult to my many relatives who were at Stalingrad, Kursk, and a thousand nameless battles from the Volga to Berlin.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    48. Re:Why duplication? by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I should have said "defeated the German army on the Western front". The Russians had a huge role in the overall victory. You should and do have a lot of pride in them

      The French had some underground operations that contributed to the success, however I can point you to stories...like how the French generals insisted on being the "liberators" of Paris while our Army stopped their advance to wait.

    49. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      But remember, yet again, who it was we went there to help. Yep, the French.
      Brrrrp. You just failed History 101. The French were long gone by the time the US moved in. The US was there to help Dinh Diem, who was a pretty nasty character, but at least he opposed Communism and that is all that mattered. In contrast, Ho Chi Minh , who the US was fighting against, was supported by about 80% of the Vietnamese population.

      Now, remind me, who are the good guys here? (Hint: Its not the US)

    50. Re:Why duplication? by BitterOak · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You must pay a fixed fee ( payed when you pruchase the receiver ) to use the US GPS

      Care to provide a reference for this assertion? Any documentation I've read says the civilian bands are free for anyone to use.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    51. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      your record also include stuff
      What are you trying to say, I can't understand your comment. What you mean I should read the whole comments, not just something that I think I can say something "smart" about. Lets' try this again, now in context...
      Does your record also include stuff about faked moon landings, UFO invasion, and evil communist plots to brainwash people by putting flouride in the water?
      Ahh... no, it doesn't, perhaps you can find someone else who shares thoses traits with you.
    52. Re:Why duplication? by donscarletti · · Score: 1
      GPS muntions are prohibitively expensive for just about everyone else except the US.

      No, you can build a satilite guided JDAM for less than $1K if you want. That is not the problem. The problem is that in order for them to be useful you need your own satilite navigation network which is where the prohibitive cost comes into it. There are only two such networks, GPS and GLONASS belonging to the two countries that have satilite guided bombs (as you would frigging expect). That is one of the main reasons that the EU is building this network at the moment, so that they can have a satilite coordinated military. The EU countries have no smart bombs and cruise missiles at the moment because they have no satilite network that they can rely on, no fucking dah! Why the hell else would they be building one?

      What sort of a moron am I talking to? Did you comment just in order to prove my argument or did you honestly think you were making a legitimate point?

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    53. Re:Why duplication? by lordholm · · Score: 1

      IIRC one of the main ideas with Galileo was to have precision, better than military GPS for civilian use, unaffected by US war-decisions.

      The thing is that the civilian sector will use this added precision, and in some case civilians lives will depend on the higher precision. It is thus not possible to degrade Galileo, even in order to save european soldiers lives since degrading would kill civilians.

      And by the way EU does not have a common army yet (although we will hopefully have one some day soon.)

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    54. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, a large fraction of Frenchmen still believe that they defeated the German army with just a little help from the rest of the Allies. This is an insult to my grandparents who were there.

      If we're talking about insults, let's look at the American myths. Look at films like Saving Private Ryan, which makes out that the troops who invaded France were 100% American, or U571, which makes out that it was American troops who seized an Enigma machine from the sub in question (uh, no, that would have been the British again).

      Hands up all the Americans who believe that the Pacific war was fought exclusively between America and Japan? Well done, you just insulted my British grandfather, who fought a bloody war in Burma, as well as all the Australians who were busy trying to prevent their country being invaded.

      My point is that everyone thinks their country won the war. Maybe the French have less claim to that belief than other allied nations, but maybe you should look to the speck in your eye before you try to remove the log in theirs.

    55. Re:Why duplication? by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try the same issue in reverse. Assuming that you are an American, would you want France or Germany to control the only GPS system in the world? Sure, they are your friends, but still.

      What I don't understand is why the European Union even cares what the US thinks. We're the ones paying for the bloody thing, don't tell us how to spend our money. The US don't seem to care much about the opinions of the EU, why should we care what you think? Just build Galileo as originaly planned, it's not like we don't know how.

    56. Re:Why duplication? by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      What I don't understand is why the European Union even cares what the US thinks.

      European politicians have seen Babylon 5... How are those death rays going at the moment? (Last I heard they were about 25% too heavy for a 747 to carry but they were working on it)...

    57. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be possible for the EU to change the way gallileo sats operate as they were originally intended to after launching them? I guess transponders are programmable ...

    58. Re:Why duplication? by rickbrodie · · Score: 1

      Please, will someone tell me. Why do the Americans feel so much animosity towards the French? Is it really because they did not fight to the death during The War? Or is there some deeper more fundamental cultural issue at work here?

    59. Re:Why duplication? by kir · · Score: 1

      OK. Before everyone starts posting their crazy ideas on Vietnam, do a little reading on the subject. What you've seen and heard in the movies (minus a few) is mostly rubbish (i.e. Most folks were not drafted, all races/ethnic groups were equally represented, a surprising percentage were career military, etc. etc.).

      Some interesting things to read (a beginning anyway):

      And if you can find this, watch it. It is outstanding.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    60. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason to have your own global positioning system is the civilian license costs. You have to pay money to whoever owns the gps you are using. If Europe has its own system, it will not need to pay the US a license fee (or whatever fee) in order to use it. In fact, other countries would pay EU to use their system, which is supposed to be 3 times more accurate than the US version. The US is worried about losing GPS business to Galileo because it is more accurate.

    61. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      - the EU Gallileo will be free for personal use. You must pay a fixed fee ( payed when you pruchase the receiver ) to use the US GPS

      Really? Someone better tell the government then because they've posted the specs online for free!!.

      -1, Disinformative

    62. Re:Why duplication? by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 1

      Damn! You convinced me! Pray tell, is there anything that isn't the Frenchs' fault???

    63. Re:Why duplication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I can provide a reference for the contradiction: ICD-200, the GPS Interface Control Document. This doc describes in exquisite detail exactly what the satellites are broadcasting, and between that and a little matrix algebra, anyone who wishes to can build a GPS receiver capable of getting the civilian signals.

      It also describes the military signals to sufficient precision that you could use them if they were unencoded. From that, all you need is the magic decoder ring and you can use the military signals, too.

      My university offers quite a few courses on GPS, including one in which the class builds a GPS receiver from scratch, and another one which I took in which we learned how to process the signals and get a position.

      ICD-200 is freely available (one click away from the link above), and anyone in the world is free to implement it. The fixed fee is paid when you pay your taxes, and is only paid by americans. It's not like Big Brother can detect who is using GPS, since they are receivers only. No one can meter or charge for the GPS signals, they fall to the ground, free for the taking by anyone who cares. The EUropeans are trying to charge for some Galileo services, but they do that by selling the magic decoder rings.

      If you don't believe me, and don't trust your GarminTM, use ICD-200 to build your own.

    64. Re:Why duplication? by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 1

      Actually, GPS (and for sure Galileo too) can decrease its precision or even its availability in certain regions. Of course the effect will be rather coarse, but it would be sufficient to effectively turn off GPS over Europe, while leaving the US unaffected. (And the same vice versa with Galileo.)

    65. Re:Why duplication? by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      I am well aware that many countries were involved in WWII.

      U571 is a lousy movie and I am well aware that the mission for which the movie was based on was carried out by the British.

      Saving Private Ryan depicted the landing at Omaha Beach which was entirely American. Turns out the British and Canadians suffered less losses at other beaches partly because of luck, partially because of skill, and a lot because they used innovated landing machines that the Americans scoffed at and ridiculed.

    66. Re:Why duplication? by ForThePeople · · Score: 1

      For the very same reason its good to have an alternative operating system available.
      Competitiveness.

      However, it appears the US is playing the role of MS on this one and has corrupted the only competitor.

      --
      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt. --E.C. Stanton
    67. Re:Why duplication? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      The EU countries have no smart bombs and cruise missiles at the moment

      Exactly what timeline are you writing from? The UK is not part of the EU? Storm Shadow/SCALP isn't being built?
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    68. Re:Why duplication? by berck · · Score: 1

      GPS isn't accurate, reliable, or trustworthy enough (which is why it's forbidden for pilots rely on it for navigation).

      You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. The FAA has been certifying GPS recievers for aviation use since at least 1993. There are plenty of published GPS approaches. The FAA is working on zero/zero GPS-WAAS approaches-- It's just a matter of time. The FAA very much hopes to phase out ILS and VOR systems because they're so expensive to maintain.

    69. Re:Why duplication? by crotherm · · Score: 1

      Its those poodles with their hair cuts... scary I tell ya!

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    70. Re:Why duplication? by crotherm · · Score: 1

      Pray tell, is there anything that isn't the Frenchs' fault?

      Yes, the Los Angeles Dodgers recent fall from first place. That would be the Dodgers' fault and not the French. Unless you consider losing games to Montreal to be the French's fault.. :)

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    71. Re:Why duplication? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      However it would stop the US from saying "If you don't follow our lead in this illegal war, we will shut you down".

      And how will Galileo help here? The US will just jam the signals.

      In fact, that was one of the main reasons the US asked them to make sure the frequencies don't conflict with GPS.

      Of course, even if the signal couldn't be jammed there would be nothing stopping the USA from just shooting down the offending satellites. If you provide location data to an army in a war, you are taking part in that war. The USA would obviously weigh carefully any decision to shoot down an EU satellite, but the fact is they are a lot cheaper to bring down than to put up there in the first place.

      I'm sure the USA has some kind of classified ASAT program - it seems like a glaring hole in US military capability, which makes me think that they have the capability but just want to keep it quiet. After all, in the event of a war they don't want a potential advesary to start taking evasive maneuvers with their satellites to make them hard to hit. They want the advesary to think the satellites are invincible, and then hit them all at once before they know what is happening...

  4. Interesting Development by mfh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "We have reached completion of a GPS-Galileo cooperation agreement," a US State Department official told reporters, calling the deal a "landmark" accord that would reap "profound benefits" for both the United States and Europe in the highly competitive satellite positioning market.

    Let me first say that it's nice to see the USA cooperating with Europe, but I have to wonder how much Blair's involvement in the Iraq war had to do with this agreement. Either way, it's nice to see the USA and other countries (like France) getting along.

    - a common signal structure for so-called "open" services, and a suitable signal structure for the Galileo Public Regulated Service (PRS).

    This should be nice to see at work. I'd like to hear more about those open services, and what they will be exactly.

    - a process allowing improvements, either jointly or individually, of the baseline signal structures in order to further improve performances.

    Nice feature of the agreement. I think this will benefit all involved if nobody tries to improve their side into incompatibility.

    - confirmation of inter-operable time and standards to facilitate the joint use of GPS and Galileo.

    Does this mean they'll use the UNIX timestamp, with micro time enabled? Or is this something else entirely?

    All in all, this almost appears like these governments are using the Open Source philosophy, or at least a small part of it. Hey, any step towards progress sounds great to me!

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Interesting Development by jd · · Score: 1

      Micro time? Nano time would be more fun. :) (And provide the potential for much better accuracy.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Interesting Development by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Doesnt the Unix timestamp run out of space sometime in the next 30 years? I think it would be stupid to put up a system that dies a death in just 30 years, I mean the GPS system has been going for 20 years now, 30 years would be nothing.

    3. Re:Interesting Development by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Only in a 32 bit system, and its not something that is overly hard to fix, just noone is bothering because of the predicted pervalence of 64 bit by that time. I'd be willing to bet that the any system designed for use longer than that is being build with a fix.

    4. Re:Interesting Development by amightywind · · Score: 1

      Let me first say that it's nice to see the USA cooperating with Europe, but I have to wonder how much Blair's involvement in the Iraq war had to do with this agreement. Either way, it's nice to see the USA and other countries (like France) getting along.

      I can assure you that it is not in the spirit of friendship that the US is cooperating. Galileo gives potential US adversaries like China assured precision weapons guidance. Since the US cannot prevent the system from being created it only makes sense for them to make sure that it does not interfere with the existing GPS. Galileo is the next step in the arms race. Happily Europe and China are stuck with the bill.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    5. Re:Interesting Development by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Wasnt that the mindset with y2k? ;)

    6. Re:Interesting Development by gedhrel · · Score: 1

      You assume (possibly in jest?) that a clock rollover is fatal. The GPS clock has already rolled over once. People held their breath, but in the end nobody really noticed.

    7. Re:Interesting Development by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Let me first say that it's nice to see the USA cooperating with Europe

      You mean bullying Europe.

      "- a common signal structure for so-called 'open' services, and a suitable signal structure for the Galileo Public Regulated Service (PRS)."
      This should be nice to see at work. I'd like to hear more about those open services, and what they will be exactly.


      Like the EU was opposed to any of that? No, that's not what they had to "compromise" about. It was about stuff like the Public Regulated Service - a completely NON-PUBLIC restricted and encrypted signal.

      "- confirmation of inter-operable time and standards to facilitate the joint use of GPS and Galileo."

      Like the EU was opposed to that either?

      All in all, this almost appears like these governments are using the Open Source philosophy, or at least a small part of it.

      LOL! The conflict and compromise as all about MILITARY issues and closed non-public ENCRYPTION.

      The US wanted to ensure that the US and EU could agree to turn off the public signals, or worst case in the absence of such agreement that the public signals could be JAMMED without interfering with the US miliraty signal. The EU jamming-resistant PRS signal is encrypted and access is tightly restricted.

      Even if you agree that there should be encrypted signals and that the non-encrypted signals need to be easily jammable, they are spewing pure PR-bullshit that it is about avoiding interference and improving open services. It is in no way about the "Open Source philosophy" and it is not some sort of step toward progress.

      Jeez! There are great things about my country, but I'm really getting fed up with the US bullying other countries and burying it under a ton of goody-goody spin. The Free Trade agreements are the worst though. Free trade my ass.

      White salmon, guaranteed not to go pink in the can!*

      * It's a P.T. Barnum / West Wing refference. Who the hell ever heard of white salmon? Who the hell would ever buy some mysterious white salmon? Slap the right label on it and the public will buy anything.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:Interesting Development by niew · · Score: 1
      Wasnt that the mindset with y2k? ;)

      Ya, and look at the *disaster* that turned out to be ;)

  5. A possibility of more competition now by vg30e · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As different systems evolve, maybe we will see more devices hit the civilian market and prices drop, which could mean a win-win for all consumers.

    1. Re:A possibility of more competition now by ericspinder · · Score: 1
      GPS equipment prices have been dropping already, many cell phones include it for emergency location.

      However, GPS has never been a subscription service, so having an additional system will only increase the cost of intergrating the new system. If anything this may temporally increase the price of GPS/Galileo equipement, as some manufacturers will try to build dual compatability. I predict that over the short term Galileo will be considered a commerical failure as it is commercially unneeded. It was built for political reasons and national pride. If we ever got into a major war with another world power, the first targets would be all of the navigational satalites.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
  6. Win-win scenario by zeux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a win-win scenario because Galileo will greatly improve GPS accuracy and Galileo will benefit from the experience of the GPS system.

    Too bad it took so long to reach an agreement and too bad the US never stopped to criticize a project that they are finally supporting.

    1. Re:Win-win scenario by Elenyon · · Score: 1

      It's a win-win scenario because Galileo will greatly improve GPS accuracy and Galileo will benefit from the experience of the GPS system.

      Since when was the accuracy of GPS bad

    2. Re:Win-win scenario by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      it's a win-win scenario because Galileo will greatly improve GPS accuracy and Galileo will benefit from the experience of the GPS system.

      Irony is: the Russian GLONASS system was always more accurate than GPS. Just those guys had a hard time fighting off the huge army of Super Reagans and couldn't implement it fully.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    3. Re:Win-win scenario by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Depends what you want to use it for. GPS accuracy with commercial receivers will usually get you within about 5 feet with 90%+ confidence. This is fine for a car navigation system. It leaves something to be desired if you are 1) Wanting to use it for aircraft/landing navigation and 5 feet can put you way off centerline on approach or 2) Are using it for surveying purposes and knocking off 5 feet off the width of a plot of land that is 60 feet wide is going to make a big difference in how much land is available to the owner (and his neighbor!). That said, there are professional-grade GPS systems that I understand are significantly more accurate and significantly more expensive.

      I don't know how this compares with the anticipated accuracy of Gailelo. It also sounds like Galielo's additional accuracy is only available if you want to pay the European piper a subscription fee while GPS accuracy is free of charge.

  7. End of GPS lockout? by thedillybar · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I hope that with the up-and-coming availability of accurate Galileo positioning, the US will finally give away it's "extra accuracy" currently available only through the "encrypted channels" to the US military. They have already moved towards this, but still have some distance to go (literally).

    If people can get very accurate readings with Galileo anyway, where's the problem with supplying GPS at the same level of accuracy?

    1. Re:End of GPS lockout? by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The "lockout" is already ended. During the first Gulf War, there was such a shortage of military GPS units that soldiers brought their own, and the military bought piles of civilian ones. At the same time, they turned off the intentional perterbatio of the signal, so that all the GPSes would work with the same degree of accuracy.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    2. Re:End of GPS lockout? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If people can get very accurate readings with Galileo anyway, where's the problem with supplying GPS at the same level of accuracy?

      If people can get quality cryptography outside the US anyway, why have export controls on software?

      Answer: Because our military leadership is made up of people who are almost as big fuckheads as our politicians.

    3. Re:End of GPS lockout? by Azghoul · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While I understand what you're trying to say, you're not entirely correct.

      The "lockout" is known as selective availability (SA) and has been shut off since 1996 or so, not "at the same time" as the first Gulf War.

      However, there is an extra band for military use only (someone else can get the exact details). There are also "survey grade" GPS devices that manage much greater accuracy than your $100 Garmin.

      All GPSes don't work with the same degree of accuracy.

    4. Re:End of GPS lockout? by Gumpmaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Selective Availability option is still enabled in certain parts of the world (the middle east). But even with the SA turned on, my Garmin GPS still has an accuracy of around 10m. The military also shifts satellites to provide the greatest accuracy in areas of conflict. This degrades accuracy in the rest of the world (another reason for the EU satellite cluster).

      --
      Pod Six was jerks- Capt. Murphy
    5. Re:End of GPS lockout? by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      If by literally, you mean not literally.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    6. Re:End of GPS lockout? by ApharmdB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite right.

      The "lockout" was known as selective availability which was used to intentionally make the civilian code, called C/A for coarse acquisition, less accurate than it could be.

      But there is still P(Y), p for precision, code which is military only. The encryption keys for using this code are classified. P(Y) code is more accurate than C/A code because it is a much, much longer sequence before it repeats.

      C/A code repeats every 1 ms. P(Y) code lasts 1 week (it doesn't repeat every week, but the difference is not important here). Therefore, the pseudorandom number sequence that the GPS receiver correlates against is much, much longer allowing for better accuracy.

    7. Re:End of GPS lockout? by booyah · · Score: 1

      I dont want to be a kill joy, but how accurate do you really need?

      I have the $100 garmin, and on a normal day reading from inside my car it can differentiate parking spots in the lot outside my office (total about 18 spots and it can tell me which i am in). it can tell the difference in which lane I drive home in, and can easily tell my front door from my garage door and tell me exactly where i would have to go to get to the other. in the little onboard map thingie, it picks up the size of my car if i walk around it holding it. I can watch the little box draw, and as best i can tell its perfect.

      I understand that for military and survey needs you may need a more accurate GPS, but when your that close, (within 10-15 feet) how precise do you need?

      Also, with the WAS enabled GPS units being even more accurate than my little yellow garmin, cant those deliver what you desire?

      --
      #include sig.h
    8. Re:End of GPS lockout? by 241comp · · Score: 1

      It's better than the $100 models, sure, however my $250 Garmin is just as accurate as those "survey-grade" GPS's you are talking about. My Garmin Rino 120 with WAAS support and a quad-helix antenna regularly picks up 8-10 satellites (translating to accuracy of ~2m).

      However, all you need to do is plug your GPS into your laptop and record all of the data it collects. Then you can purchase/download differential GPS correction data (roughly, this indicate how far off the GPS system was at a given time in a given location) in order to calculate a post-trip accuracy of ~1cm.

      The only group which (to my knowledge) has this accuracy capability in-the-field is the military.

    9. Re:End of GPS lockout? by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Can't argue what you've added, except to say that I wouldn't bet against the multi-thousand dollar devices. More powerful antennae, better in-the-field processing...

      If I'm building a railroad and I need to know exactly where the tracks are going, I don't think I'd buy a $250 Garmin to figure it out, DGPS notwithstanding.

    10. Re:End of GPS lockout? by Jodka · · Score: 1

      "There are also "survey grade" GPS devices that manage much greater accuracy than your $100 Garmin."

      I believe that's called "differential GPS". It exploits the fact that positional noise injected into the signal is correlated between receivers. That is, if receiver A gives an absolute positional error of 10 feet to the left at time t, then receiver B will give the same error at the same time. Thus even though the absolute positions reported by any pair of recievers will be inaccurate, at any given instant their reported relative positions with respect to each other will be quite accurate. Calculating that instantaneous difference relies on differential GPS recievers communicating between each other and that is achieved by broadcasting locally between receivers.

      Or so I've read. I've never actually used GPS surveying equipment myself. Maybe there is someone more expert here who could comment.

      I suppose that its because you need that local, secondary broadcast signal that the military is not working to shut out differential GPS. Maybe it's not adaptable to the battlefield and so not seen as a threat.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    11. Re:End of GPS lockout? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, my company uses this and also mixes in triangulation from GSM base stations. We get sun metre postions from this, but it costs a packet

    12. Re:End of GPS lockout? by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Informative
      But there is still P(Y), p for precision, code which is military only. The encryption keys for using this code are classified. P(Y) code is more accurate than C/A code because it is a much, much longer sequence before it repeats.

      You're partly correct. The P(Y) codes do allow greater precision in position, but not because the PRN codes are longer. The long PRN codes are primarily for security. The reason you get better accuracy with the P(Y) codes is they are dual frequency, unlike the C/A codes which operate on a single frequency. The dual freqency system allows the receiver to make corrections for ionospheric delays, as the two frequencies are delayed by different amounts by the ionosphere. By correcting for these delays, more accurate positioning is possible.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    13. Re:End of GPS lockout? by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If dual-frequency system is so significantly better, could similar approach be used to get higher precision from a dual GPS-Galileo system?

    14. Re:End of GPS lockout? by BitterOak · · Score: 1
      If dual-frequency system is so significantly better, could similar approach be used to get higher precision from a dual GPS-Galileo system?

      In principle yes, but even better is the fact that Galileo itself will offer dual frequency for civilian use.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    15. Re:End of GPS lockout? by iowannaski · · Score: 1

      Can your Garmin locate your keys in a cluttered apartment?

      --
      i forget
    16. Re:End of GPS lockout? by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      DGPS is indeed the basic way to achieve much higher accuracy, though getting it is any sort of real-time is very difficult, indeed (otherwise, all airlines would use it).

      There is also WAAS (Wide Area something something :)), which uses a number of other tricks to improve real-time accuracy so that airplanes can take advantage of it.

      Better GPS devices also have much more sensitive antennae, which makes a huge difference when you're GPSing in terrain other than a meadow.

      As for why DGPS is not a battlefield threat: Your base station must be a surveyed, precisely-positioned point. You have to know exactly where point X is before you can use it to measure error offsets for your roaming position Y.

  8. Increase spatial resolution with dual systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can easily see products that incorporate both systems and pull coordinates from both at the same time - any GPS types here want to theorize on what hypothetical dual system devices can do for spatial accuracy in the field without having to do the whole fixed station - correct back at the lab stuff to get sub-meter resolutions?

  9. Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Europe and the USA acting together could do this world a hell of a lot of good. Shame things have been so negative of late.

    What I'd really like to see is co-operation on reducing arms sales globally. The USA and Europe are currently the world's biggest arms merchants. And the mad thing is, we're selling them to countries that could easily turn around and bite us on the ass. Saudi Arabia for instance. If they turn against us - which isn't outside the realms of possibility at the moment - they will be able to put up one hell of a battle because we've been selling them advanced weaponary for decades. Madness.

    1. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but there's a catch..

      We've been giving them all the refurbished stuff.

    2. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.
      Modern weapon systems require so much support that selling them to a client gives you exact knowledge of how the systems work and where they are deployed, the ability to cut off spares and support, and the ability to design countermeasures.
      This does not work both ways, because of our vastly broader spectrum of weapon choices.
      For example, if Saudi were taken over by extremists, our intimate connections to their defense infrastructure would make it easy to collapse. :)

    3. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      If they turn against us - which isn't outside the realms of possibility at the moment - they will be able to put up one hell of a battle because we've been selling them advanced weaponary for decades.

      I'm sure that the contingency of American-weapons-buying friendly countries turning to enemies has been considered, if not from the beginning then since at least 1979, when the revolution in Iran occurred and replaced a pro-US government with a very anti-US one-- this after the Iranian Air Force had taken delivery of a bunch of F-14s. Those F-14s, by the way, were rendered useless via a US embargo that made obtaining spare parts very difficult, plus the planes were sabotaged so they couldn't fire missiles (it is still not known for certain who did the sabotaging).

      As for a European-owned GPS network, I believe there are already weapons in the US arsenal that are capable of taking out satellites-- From what I've read, I know the Soviets definitely had them 20 years ago or more, so it's a safe bet we've got them too and they'd just need to be taken out and "dusted off" if need be.

      ~Philly

    4. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      "What I'd really like to see is co-operation on reducing arms sales globally."

      I know you're a little off topic, buuuut,

      It all comes down to money. We get money selling weapons. There is nothing in the world that will stop the US and EU from selling weapons so long as they're making profits. That's actually what confuses me about the current move to make the galeleo sats. Unless they'll be able to sell missiles etc that use the galeleo protocol to compete with american versions. That's the only thing that makes sense. And if you spend some time to think about who they will sell to and why the people they are selling to might not want the united states to be able to screw up the guidance... it all seems pretty far from altruistic.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    5. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And despite all those super-duper weapons you can't control a little country like Iraq. Weird.

    6. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by ryanmfw · · Score: 1
      And of course, selling all of these weapons, which lead to wars, in which afterwards countries need weapons to defend themselves, and then wars start, and then they need more weapons....*

      *Gah, that was very badly written, but you all know what I mean right?

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    7. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Well, perhaps if GWB hadn't punked out and ducked going to Vietnam via his daddy's connections, maybe he would have learned that technological military might doesn't mean shit when you're fighting a band of guerillas.

      Doubly true in a country where the guerillas are only too happy to die for their cause.

      I'm just praying he gets tossed out in the November election. If the United States goes through the next four years with Bush, I don't think there will be much of a United States left.

    8. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      I need to learn to stop responding to trolls...

      The problem in Iraq is that we're not using our "super-duper" weapons so we avoid civilian casualties. We could have already turned the entire country into a lake of molten glass, but that doesn't do much to win people's hearts and minds...

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    9. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no country that will be able to buy more than a handful of GPS guided weapons, they are just too expensive. The US outspends the entire rest of the world on defense, that is how they can drop smart bomb after smart bomb. (There are even smart artillery shells, with a price tag of around 150,000 US a shell). So the selling of smart munitions is really a moot point here, for there would be no one to buy them.

    10. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by skaap · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you go and check most of the worlds weapons are designed & manufactured in South Africa. If the Iraqi military learnt how to aim the G5 cannon, the coalition would've been in a little bit of trouble, for those that dont know - the G5 is a ballistic cannon accurate to 1 square meter over 86km, i cant remember the shell size, but it's pretty big.

      --
      -Rob
    11. Re:Here's to more US/Europe co-operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A guided bomb can still do quite a lot of damage in a large area surrounding a target. The purpose of guided weapons is not to avoid civilians but to do damage a target with greater accuracy.

  10. Raise your hand if you'd subscribe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, I can understand Europe not wanting to be at the mercy of the US's whims for something that can become very important. But this is going to be a subscription service, and I can't imagine too many people are going to be willing to pay for something they already get free. Sure, they may have a slightly better accuracy, but I do not see that GPS is bad enough to be worth paying for slightly better service.

    aQazaQa

    1. Re:Raise your hand if you'd subscribe! by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Sure, they may have a slightly better accuracy, but I do not see that GPS is bad enough to be worth paying for slightly better service.

      But for some applications accuracy is very important. Think along the lines of GPS controlled airplanes, ships, and robotics. It would even be usable in construction if it were accurate enough (although a more local system is best for the latter).

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:Raise your hand if you'd subscribe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not supscription based, you can use it without one. You just need a subscription if you want higher accuracy and/or if you want to be sure you can still use it in a war zone.

      So without a subscription it isn't muc better than GPS but people who need more accuracy can get it cheaper than using a base station while the EU knows exactly who is using this extra accuracy.

  11. Sounds like an effort towards standardisation. by toesate · · Score: 0, Troll
    Under the terms of the agreement, the two sides agreed on key points including:

    - a common signal structure for so-called "open" services, and a suitable signal structure for the Galileo Public Regulated Service (PRS).

    - a process allowing improvements, either jointly or individually, of the baseline signal structures in order to further improve performances.

    - confirmation of inter-operable time and standards to facilitate the joint use of GPS and Galileo.

    This sounds like an effort towards standardisation. Something the EU and the rest of the world are pretty good at.

    See ITU and 3GPP. And of course IETF. ;)

    It is good to see that US is seeing the values and benefits of standardisation.

    --
    Hey, that's my password you are typing
    1. Re:Sounds like an effort towards standardisation. by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      Hey, the USA has got a standards agency of its own!

  12. Galileo Anniversary by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Funny

    My Despair, Inc. calendar indicates that today is an auspicious anniversary date for Galileo:

    "Galileo recants absurd theory about the Earth revolving around the sun. (June 22, 1633)"

    I guess the Vatican used it influence to get Galileo to revolve around the Earth!

  13. tinfoil hats are so 1990's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's why I wear a Faraday Cage Helmet.

  14. What the compromise means by jsebrech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Galileo used frequencies which were interleaved with the US military use of gps, meaning that the US couldn't jam galileo without jamming gps for their military at the same time. The US was adamant that this was unacceptable, that they wouldn't be able to disable galileo whenever they wanted, so the EU backed down, and promised to use frequencies which are more easily jammed.

    1. Re:What the compromise means by spacefight · · Score: 1

      Or in other words, the europeans didn't hold up against those U.S. suckers.

    2. Re:What the compromise means by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was more than that. The US was concerned that Galileo would interfere with the P-code portion of the GPS signal. It is one thing to claim that the decision was a cave allowing the US to 'jam' Galileo... quite a nother to point out that Galileo was designed to overlap channels with the US system, potentially interfering. How is this different than, say, another slashdot hot topic: the broadband over powerline controversy in that it interferes with HAM radio?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    3. Re:What the compromise means by JollyRogerX · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, it sounds as if this new galileo system will be reconfigurable once it is in orbit. They may be able to change their frequencies around a little. Also, any jamming can easily be taken out by a missle. They already have missles that take out radar installations by following the radio waves back to the radar dish. It would be fairly simple to adapt a longer range version to take out the jamming aircraft or other vehicles by following the jamming signal. They may even have these. I am not up to date on our arsenal.

    4. Re:What the compromise means by philbert26 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Galileo used frequencies which were interleaved with the US military use of gps, meaning that the US couldn't jam galileo without jamming gps for their military at the same time. The US was adamant that this was unacceptable, that they wouldn't be able to disable galileo whenever they wanted, so the EU backed down, and promised to use frequencies which are more easily jammed.

      I know that Europe doesn't want to depend on the US system and that's fine. The US could conceivably block European access to the system, and not just in the event of an (extremely unlikely) EU-USA war. If the EU got into a war that the US disapproved of, the US could withhold GPS services, just like the British have sometimes denied America the use of airbases to help the Israelis. It's good for Europe to have its own system, and not just for the military.

      That said, I would sleep better at night knowing that the US military could jam a DIY cruise missile should the need arise.

    5. Re:What the compromise means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For missiles used as terror weapons jamming wouldnt help a lot, anyone capable of DIYing a cruise missile can make an intertial based backup which would be accurate enough to hit a city ... even if it was to miss some particular building.

    6. Re:What the compromise means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couple years back the US WAS hit with 3 DIY cruise missles, had em on radar for over an hour, knew where they were going for over an hour, they still couldn't stop them. These DIYCM were fricken huge too, they even had transponders to help find them, and they flew at altitude, no attempt to deceive radar, they still couldn't stop them. You really think having the ability to "shut off" GPS would help, if the DIYCM was say 15 feet long (as opposed to the size of a 757), or if it was flying at say GL+50 instead of 20,000ft? I doubt they would even see them on radar, let alone react fast enough to prevent anything. Plus, how many people would you have to notify of a shut down to avoid serious issues (like positioning of an oil well in the gulf of mexico, tracking nuclear waste shipments, etc). There is no way you could just hit the "jam" button, the airforce alone would probably crash 15 aircraft on tanking missions with a no warning shut down.

    7. Re:What the compromise means by philbert26 · · Score: 1
      You really think having the ability to "shut off" GPS would help, if the DIYCM was say 15 feet long (as opposed to the size of a 757), or if it was flying at say GL+50 instead of 20,000ft? I doubt they would even see them on radar, let alone react fast enough to prevent anything. Plus, how many people would you have to notify of a shut down to avoid serious issues (like positioning of an oil well in the gulf of mexico, tracking nuclear waste shipments, etc). There is no way you could just hit the "jam" button, the airforce alone would probably crash 15 aircraft on tanking missions with a no warning shut down.

      All good points. Could the GPS signal be jammed locally? Would it be possible to broadcast fake signals that could divert a missile? If jamming the GPS signal was really useless, why are the US military so keen to be able to do it?

      I had imagined that the military would broadcast a jamming or false data signal over some small vicinity, such as a nuclear power plant, just enough to put a missile wide. I don't know how you'd go about activating it in time to help.

    8. Re:What the compromise means by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      Yes, the gps signal can be jammed locally, also, gps can be disabled or made less accurate for specific geographical regions.

      Also, as far as missiles are concerned, that's a phantom threat. Terrorists are not going to build or buy missiles to fire at the us, it is just not an efficient way of going about things. Why spend millions of dollars of hardware to deliver a bomb from the other side of the planet, when you can just as well send one guy with a backpack to do the exact same thing? The palestinians don't need missiles to do attacks on the israeli's, and israel has MUCH tighter security than the us. So, no, jamming gps is not relevant to the war on terror.

    9. Re:What the compromise means by jsebrech · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you have any sources for this? The way I understood it the timing on the shared channels was done in such a way that interference between gps and galileo was negligable.

    10. Re:What the compromise means by philbert26 · · Score: 1
      Also, as far as missiles are concerned, that's a phantom threat. Terrorists are not going to build or buy missiles to fire at the us, it is just not an efficient way of going about things. Why spend millions of dollars of hardware to deliver a bomb from the other side of the planet, when you can just as well send one guy with a backpack to do the exact same thing?

      You're right that no terrorist will have the resources to launch an ICBM. I was thinking more of a short range missile, launched from an isolated spot in the US countryside near a high value target that couldn't be reached by a suicide bomber.

      The guy from New Zealand that I mentioned in my earlier post claimed he could make a guided missile for $5,000. That's certainly within Bin Laden's price range. I agree that it's not the most likely avenue of attack, but why take the risk.

    11. Re:What the compromise means by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      GPS SA is more of use in a conventional war than against terrorists. GPS lets you position artillery and have tremendous accuracy. Artillery lets you drop thousands of pounds of explosive on a point with very little cost (maybe hundreds of dollars). It is also useful for guiding missles and bombs. You don't need GPS to fight a war, but it makes smart weapons cheaper - and cheaper smart weapons means fewer dumb ones used - which means fewer dead civilians.

      High-accuracy GPS is still a military advantage. It may go away some day, but it isn't gone yet...

  15. Agreement on Galileo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By "Agree on Galileo", did they mean compensation for diong this.

  16. Dual Band by chaffed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will be interesting because I think we will see dual band recievers. Often for one reason or another (interference most likely) GPS will give you incorrect position or non at all. However if you have a reciever that can switch over to galileo then this could greatly help all who use GPS. Just think of all the current applications currently using GPS. Shipping, personal aircraft, recreation, wardrivers! Suddenly WiGle will become a lot more accurate.

    --
    What could possibly go wrong?
  17. competitive?? by theguywhosaid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "highly competitive satellite positioning market"

    who else is in the market? dont you need at least two players actually in the market to call it a competitive one?

    1. Re:competitive?? by aCC · · Score: 1

      Well, it seems you don't know much about the market then. Otherwise you would know that there are two players in it.

      GPS (first launch in 1978) and GLONASS (first launch in 1982). Both still operational (although GPS is the better system now due to lack of money for GLONASS)

      Here is a comparison

  18. Galileo / GPS compatibility by dfn5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My impression from the article is that they want Galileo to interoperate with GPS. Does anyone know if this means that Galileo will work with existing GPS devices and that there will basically just be 60 GPS satelites in orbit? Or is it a completely seperate system that will require devices that support both? I'm hoping on the former.

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    1. Re:Galileo / GPS compatibility by Ion+Berkley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You will need new equipment, and please note that Galileo differs from GPS in that it offers a 'for money' commercial high accuracy signal also. But don't get upset and just blame the Europeans because the US is also about to change the GPS system, adding a new second civilan signal to the L2 band where there was formerly only only a secure (p-code) signal and also adding the new L5 frequency. In short if you want to work with all the new signals available by the end of the decade then you will be buying new hardware.

    2. Re:Galileo / GPS compatibility by dhuf · · Score: 1

      That could happen. When GLONASS (the Soviet knock-off of GPS) came out, a few companies came out with combination systems to try and get better accuracy. The main problem with those systems was that the Russian system is not as accurate as GPS. So yes, there will probably be dual GPS and Galileo systems, just don't expect them to be cheap. For those of you who aren't sure, google for "GLONASS"

  19. More like US demands, EU says yes by t_allardyce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whats the US going to do? shoot them down? I don't think so, Europe could have done better than this rather than just give in sheepishly. Ive seen bush standing next to the queen he looks a kid standing next to the head-mistress, she could have come in there and said "i think we would quite like these frequencies" and then just walked out. One of the major points of galileo is that it is a system not to undermined by the us gps, it needs an equal footing to say "were here, you're not the only country in the world, get over it".

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:More like US demands, EU says yes by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      >> Whats the US going to do? shoot them down? I don't think so...

      Wanna bet?

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:More like US demands, EU says yes by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Bring it on!

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:More like US demands, EU says yes by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

      Ive seen bush standing next to the queen ...

      Which queen? The queen of Europe?

  20. The SS1 effect ? by FauxPasIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how much this decision was spurred by the fact that, after yesterday's launch, the world's governments know
    that if they don't provide GPS someone else will?

    --
    25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    1. Re:The SS1 effect ? by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      Yesterday was only about Private manned launch. Private satellites have been going up for a long while.

    2. Re:The SS1 effect ? by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      On government rockets, yes no ?

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    3. Re:The SS1 effect ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes yes, most of the time no (at least not local government).

      Rockot for example is, as far as I know, a private launch provider.

  21. Military will need galileo jamming tech. by Gumpmaster · · Score: 1

    The Galileo system will drive the US Military to develop better jamming systems. The military will require information dominance in future conflicts which will require the degredation of the Galileo signal without damaging the GPS signal.

    --
    Pod Six was jerks- Capt. Murphy
  22. In the immortal words of Galileo by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    "A large sand hourglass timer, a sextant, a compass, several long pieces of rope and a reliable cabin boy to turn the hourglass over will be more than anyone ever needs to determine their position"

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:In the immortal words of Galileo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is a diffrence between need, and want. ALtho sadly in the modern world may people use, need, and want interchangably.

    2. Re:In the immortal words of Galileo by atomico · · Score: 1

      Ha! Just try to find a reliable cabin boy these days, my friend...

  23. Not switch, but use both by yet+another+coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While far from having detailed knowledge of GPS, I understand that it estimates position based on the delays of clock signals from the satellites. The more data available for the calculation, the better the estimate. Inaccuracy in the timing signals results in worse estimates. I believe that the degraded civilian GPS accuracy exists because satellites provide a less accurate time to civilian GPS receivers. A combined receiver using signals from both systems would yield higher accuracy, and a receiver can appropriately weight the different systems according to their known accuracy to calculate a better position estimate.

    Basically, it is not a matter of switching. For the best performance, use all available sources of information simultaneously.

    More satellites = more information = better GPS

  24. It seems to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That anything important enough to turn off GPS for is important enough to reduce another constellation of satellites which you don't own, should the owners find themselves in an uncooprative frame of mind.

  25. Jamming by flossie · · Score: 3, Informative
    The article doesn't mention the real argument between the EU and the US. The US didn't want Galileo to be on a similar frequency to the military GPS signal because they wanted to be able to jam it with impunity.

    One part of the article almost gets it right,

    "Late last year, the Europeans agreed to modify the modulation of Galileo signals intended for government use so they would not disrupt encrypted GPS signals to be used by the US military and NATO".

    Unfortunately, it looks like the EU caved in, so it will not be safe to assume that Galileo will be operational for the safety critical applications which it is designed for, such as air traffic control.

  26. Wake up, this is Bad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Galileo is bad news for Europeans. Imagine a future where you will be forced to install Galileo devices in your cars (at your expense, of course) for the purpose of taxing you for every mile that you travel. We can all look forward to receiving an itemised account of our journeys at the end of every month. Think I'm exaggerating? I quote from BBC concerning Britain: "Transport Secretary Alistair Darling wants to set pay-as-you-drive charges using satellite tracking devices fixed to cars. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2972430.stm Furthermore, with the accuracy of Galileo, it will then be possible to automatically issue speeding fines (lets say 1 fine incurred per every 5 seconds of speeding) etc - because Galileo will be accurate enough to know when you are on a main road, not a parallel side road etc. Won't that be fun on a long holiday journey - apart from your per-mile tax, you could incur $1000's in extra fines automatically! Better stay at home... Thanks, Galileo! Come on, don't be naive - don't support Galileo just because the technology is "cool" or just because it is not American or some stupid reason like that.

    1. Re:Wake up, this is Bad News by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      GPS is already accurate enough for most of what you are suggesting.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  27. A question for GPS geeks... by cr0sh · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A friend of mine and I had a discussion recently about what was available to cheaply and reliably implement a system to track in 3 dimensions muliple sensors (50-100 sensors) over a large area (say 100 x 100 x 30 feet in volume), with an accuracy of at least 1 foot (the smaller the better - a few inches would be perfect).

    We discussed RF tags, GPS, optical, ultrasonic. We discussed sensor costs ($50.00-100.00 per sensor seemed reasonable) and size (they need to be small and rugged). We discussed limiting the environment that the system would be used in to come up with a cheaper system. The system also couldn't interfere with other people outside the volume, nor did we want outside interference to be a problem. Non line-of-sight is also a priority (thus ruling out optical systems).

    Thinking about it, GPS seems like the only real option - but it seems to have its own set of issues: speed is an issue (update rates aren't that fast - the more samples-per-second, the better), accuracy for civilian use is poor, and it may not work in the indoors environment we are envisioning the system being used in (which is part of the application).

    It does have a pro side: Garmin makes small and cheap matchbook-sized OEM components which can send a serial stream to a microcontroller or PC via a serial port.

    Can a differential GPS signal be put in the area to increase the accuracy just for the volume being measured?

    Is there another solution? Because of the line-of-sight requirement, optical tracking solutions, while cheap and allowing for high-speed, large volume scanning - are not sufficient for our application.

    Something else I have thought about, similar to RF tag location (which seems to have dodgy accuracy and speed), is using radio (active FM) sensors, and low-power FM transmitters placed in the four corners of the upper portion of the volume - and measuring gain to compute intersection spheres to get the position (but I doubt it would be accurate).

    Can anybody tell me if such a system as needed, or technology, or white papers, etc - are available for such a system? I only need X/Y/Z coordinates, yaw/pitch/roll attitude measurements are not really needed.

    It seems like large volume position tracking (with fast sampling, great accuracy, and multitudes of sensors) is something that either doesn't exist - or that would satisfy a major market. GPS seems like the only possibility - am I missing something?

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    1. Re:A question for GPS geeks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Googling for "3D position tracking RF" turns up a number of companies.

      You didn't mention inertial tracking; calibrate a start position and then just measure movement.

      Differential GPS doesn't use a second location reference signal per se. It places a GPS unit at a known location (say, on top of a USGS survey marker). Then, you can measure the difference between the GPS reported position and actual position. Make the assumption that any nearby GPS receiver will have much the same error, and subtract that error from the position reported on the second receiver.

    2. Re:A question for GPS geeks... by aCC · · Score: 1

      Google for "realtime kinetic GPS" or "RTK GPS"

      For your accuracy, it depends a bit if you want to have it *really* real-time or if it's ok to look at the data later (post-processing). You can get the GPS signals from your sensors and have another static GPS station with a powerful computer for doing the differential stuff.

    3. Re:A question for GPS geeks... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      I have done this - but thanks for the words "inertial tracking" - I will have to look into this.

      Of the RF systems I have seen, most seem to require a lot of transmitters, and the reciever/sensor packages either have to be slow moving or not moving at all to gain any sort of accurracy.

      The application I am driving toward, to give an idea - would be akin to motion tracking all the joints for all the players on a football team, in real-time, in an area the size of an arena football field (this *is not* the application). This is the constraint - a lot of sensors, several each attached to single "actors", moving in a very large area (both on the ground and vertically - running, jumping, etc) - and needing near-real time data sampling rates.

      I am not even sure such devices exist.

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    4. Re:A question for GPS geeks... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      Thank you - I will look into that.

      Unfortunately, the application has to be real-time, or near real-time sampling rates, for a large number of sensors. Post-processing the data is not an option.

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  28. Sorry, won't happen again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scene: American spy plane strays over Chinese airspace & then collides with Chinese interceptor sent to check it out; killing the Chinese pilot. American plane crash lands & it & it's crew are arrested by the Chinese.

    Americans: "Give us our plane back!"

    Chinese: "No."

    Americans: "Give us our damn plane back; now!"

    Chinese: "No; you were in our airspace & you have caused the death of one of our pilots. Perhaps you might like to apologise."

    Americans: "Give it back, damn you, goddamit, give it back!"

    Chinese: "No."

    Americans: "Give it back, or we'll... we'll... Just give it back."

    Chinese: "No."

    Americans: "Look, we want our people to come home"

    Chinese: "Say sorry then"

    Americans: "Do you know who we are! Give it back!"

    Chinese: :-|

    Americans: "sorry"

    Chinese: "Pardon"

    Americans: "SORRY alright!"

    Chinese give back plane & aircrew.

    1. Re:Sorry, won't happen again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Scene: American spy plane strays over Chinese airspace & then collides with Chinese interceptor sent to check it out; killing the Chinese pilot. American plane crash lands & it & it's crew are arrested by the Chinese...
      You must have been saving that comment up for "just the right time", you have put so much though into it. Your research is complete and non-debatable. You are a god among men and your words are law...

      Change that to "hot-dogging" chinese pilot tries to force a larger aircraft in International territory away, in the process killing himself (it is a game that has been played many times). U.S. plane is crippled and in accordance to Signed International Agreements limps to the nearest airfield (in China). The Chinese keep crew and aircraft illegally. U.S. protests, China caves and even returns the plane, which the U.S. reconstucted and is now flying.

    2. Re:Sorry, won't happen again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have been saving that comment up for "just the right time",

      Yes, very intuitive.

      you have put so much though into it. Your research is complete and non-debatable. You are a god among men and your words are law..

      No, that bit's wrong. Like most of the rest of the world I'm just sick to death of you pricks, so I thought (note the 't' on the end) that I'd take the piss out of you.

  29. Re:End of GPS lockout? -- what nonsense! by spankus · · Score: 1

    I'll give you a billion dollars if you can prove this, because it quite simply isn't true. Take it from someone who used to work at 2SOPS (The military unit in charge of care and feeding of the satellites). To be honest, the only change in GPS performance over the last few years is to make it better!

    Can you imagine the legal ramifications if the government was to degrade the performance selectively without notifying users properly? What if an airplane crashed?

  30. why does the USA have to cooperate with Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Im not saying they shouldn't work together and build a better system. But alot of people said it was nice that for the USA to cooperate with Europe. I see it the other way around, its nice Europe cooperates with the USA. The USA has the system up and running already and Europe wants to piggy back un the USA GPS system. They need to use the same frequency so thats what I read. So if anything they got to work with the Americans.

    Question?? The Americans and Europeans will be combining together into one system. But what happened to the Russian system? Why hasn't that gone commericial?

  31. Re: Saudi weapon - shut off oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Title says it all. Then if we go in there and try to start it up again by force, we wind up shutting it down even worse because we blow it all up.
    Doug Coulter, lost my pword.

  32. "America First" + who cares about Geneva? by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 1

    Funny, how international law suddenly matters when it's in favor of US interests.

  33. Galileo is free, more accurate by yudan · · Score: 1

    Why bother a dual band receiver, when you can have one Galileo band receiver with more accuracy and lower price?

  34. It depends on the task. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A dual band will be more accurate than a single one for obvious reasons. For the cheapest possible receiver, a Galileo receiver might be good enough in accuracy.

  35. "disrupt" by dekeji · · Score: 1

    A major US worry has been that when the US goes to war, the US controls the availability of GPS.

    Has that demand been dropped? Or is this language about Galileo "not disrupting" the US military signal a codeword for saying that the US military gets the same control over Galileo as it has over the US system?

  36. I never mentioned guided weapons by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    The problem is not the accuracy of our weapons, it's our withholding of force. When the insurrection started in Fallujah by slaughtering four contracters and dragging their bodies through the street, we could have responded by simply leveling the city with a single bomb. No sensible person, however, thinks of this as a good solution. So, instead, we send in the Marines with the intention of engaging the "bad guys" one on one. In the process it takes longer and has less of a lasting effect on potential problems.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them