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.

46 of 201 comments (clear)

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

    to add more layers of foil to your hats folks!

    1. 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
  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 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.
    4. 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.
  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 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

    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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?
    12. 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.

  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.
  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.

  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.

  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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?
    5. 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?

  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.

  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

  11. 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!

  12. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  13. 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?
  14. 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?

  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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