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.

Comments

End of GPS lockout?

[thedillybar]

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?

Re:End of GPS lockout?

[Gothmolly]

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.

Re:End of GPS lockout?

[Azghoul]

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.

Re:End of GPS lockout?

[Thomas Shaddack]

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

Re:Why duplication?

[Mondak]

....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.

Increase spatial resolution with dual systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Why duplication?

[Clinoti]

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

Raise your hand if you'd subscribe!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

What the compromise means

[jsebrech]

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.

Re:What the compromise means

[JollyRogerX]

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.

Re:What the compromise means

[philbert26]

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.

Re:What the compromise means

[jsebrech]

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.

competitive??

[theguywhosaid]

"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?

Galileo / GPS compatibility

[dfn5]

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.

The SS1 effect ?

[FauxPasIII]

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?

Re:Its about time

[justanyone]

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

Not switch, but use both

[yet another coward]

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

Re:Its about time

[Rei]

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)

Re:Why duplication?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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)

Re:Why duplication?

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

A question for GPS geeks...

[cr0sh]

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?

Re:Why duplication?

[BitterOak]

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.