Slashdot Mirror
EU Presses Ahead With Galileo GPS System
philkerr writes "The BBC is reporting that European transport ministers have agreed to the 2008 deployment of the European controlled GPS system. Costing 2.1 billion euros and creating 150,000 jobs. Is this just a pork-barrel project, or something Europe really needs to break the reliance on U.S. space technology? This was discussed on Slashdot in June when the U.S. and EU reached an agreement on its deployment."
If not, why should France/ Estonia /Germany/ other EU nation rely on a US system? I can't imagine many heads of armed forces being too happy about relying on a foreign power's system that is out of their control.
It'll be nice to have a GPS system which won't be known for routine power-play dicking around.
The US is too unstable to hold the keys to a globally relied on tech...
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
I am one of those who is actually working on the EGNOS ground segment (something like the USA's WAAS). The current system test bed is designed to create a position-delta to feed with the GPS signal to make positioning more exact. Once all Galileo satellites are up, we do not rely on GPS data anymore, but we can fallback if it is possible. One thing to note, Galileo has indoor positioning.
:-)
(Yes, Galileo will be a really independent system, comprising of many different parts, under civil guidance for civil uses.)
One the political side, from a developers point of view, we really want to get this thing up as fast as possible because everyone I know who is developing is really really fed up with the way the US government tries to control our scientific and especially space-research specific endeavours. Since we have developed a system that is clearly superior to anything the USA have (never mind the 20 years of operation of GPS, you could have progressed too...) we really really hate it, when we get told to stop to work on it by a foreign government. To make things clear, no we don't hate Americans. We hate the way the American government is treating us, and the more they want to sabotage our projects the better our projects will be.
This isn't military, the system is being run by commercial companies. From the military point of view the system can be downgraded in areas of conflict. From the start, the driver for the European system was domestic use.
The main point behind this is the increased accuracy. The US GPS is almost useless in a lot of European cities (winding, narrow streets). In London, I sometimes get 300/400m accuracy on my Garmin (which is not much good for accurate navigation) and, 25% of the time, I get an unuseable signal ("Too weak").
And as for Europe declaring war on the US (with what, a very limited nuclear arsenal compared to the massive US stockpile?), nuclear systems use all sorts of other navigational aids besides GPS. Even 'ordinary' non-cruise missiles use other reasonably accurate methods which have been around long before GPS.
Did he inhale?
One of the most controversial aspects of this proposal is China's involvement. Although the EU maintains that Galileo is only for civilian use, it appears that China disagrees.
Russia and China each have a 20% stake in the Galileo project, having invested 200 million euros. India has also pledged 300 million euros.
Apparently the EU has promised India that Galileo would not be denied to them in the event of anything less than "global war", making its use available during more limited military conflicts. It is hard to imagine that China has negotiated anything less.
This had led to speculation that the USA would simply shoot it down to prevent its use by hostile military powers.
The EU Referendum blog has been covering this assiduously.
Is this just a pork-barrel project, or something Europe really needs to break the reliance on U.S. space technology?
If you missed everything else in the last few years, how about this one reminder: "freedom fries."
All the other good reasons for it aside, that one act by congress made it very clear to all Europe that they're not dealing with adults.
You grow up. Anybody with the technology to build a missile with enough range, payload and accuracy to hit those targets effectively has the ability to make a nuclear weapon - which makes the issue of accurate targetting moot.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Last time I checked, the USA did not own space. But I suppose my disagreement with the policy of the US makes me a hostile, so my opinion counts for nothing.
Well, they would probably grumble a little, then get to work on a way to figure out a way around it, just as they have been doing for decades.
Rubbish. The US military and government would throw a hissy fit, demanding this and that and threatening sanctions. Just like they've done when countires have threatened other US interests and resources in the past.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
By comparison the UK debt is 33% of GDP and the euro countries had deficit targets they had to meet (but often fudged) to join the single currency in the first place.
The next country to suffer reversal of fortunes and crippling problems is likely to be the US: no plans as to how to deal with your deficit, big costs coming up, and no good will around the world.
With USA being driven into the ground, The euro is quickly replacing the dollar as the stable money. With more money flowing to Europe, they will be able to afford large ticket items. This launch will give them a shot in the arm that they need to establish their rockets and truely create a space industry.
Our (US) system has the fault that the DOD can turn it off whenever they see fit. In particualar, one of the problems that we want to go to "free skies". That is the airplanes would be free to decide how and where to travel guided by GPS. Great concept, but one huge flaw. The DOD can turn off GPS whenever they see fit. So imagine the sky filled with planes and then the GPS goes off. Ooops. Europe's system is probably the one to go to.
This bad for us dominence, but great for business, Europe, and the World as a whole.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The USA shouldn't; and nor should Europe be forced to put the USA's interests above its own
Seeing that the USA spends $5Billion per month on the occupation of Iraq, I think we have very little grounds to call this a "pork barrel" project. These satellites will be undeniably useful to everyone in the world. Compared to other things that $2.1B buys you, this is a great deal.
What I don't get is why the EU had to reach an agreement with the US? The EU should just use GWB's strategy and do whatever the hell it wants.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Missles, missles, missles, MISSILES, always missles.
This isn't directed at you or even your post. It's just a scream. Bush and Reagan, the neocons, always obsessed with missle attacks, because they never think for even a few seconds. There's so much money in building a missles "shield", and so much inbred fear of missles in U.S. citizens, that we can't think properly.
WHY a missle to deliver a nuclear bomb? Use a cruise missle instead. OR, a commuter aircraft for an airburst. Or put it on a freight train. Or a container on a cargo freighter. Or just move it around in a U-Haul. Or just have a couple dozen in subbasements of the consular offices of the [fill in feared country of your choice here], ready to detonate at any time. There could be a nuke in the Russian embassy in Washington DC, disguised as a samovar.
I don't imagine missles hitting us; I never did, even in the terrorized commie-hystera of Reagan's era. NO COUNTRY IS GOING TO FIRE A MISSLE AT THE U.S.. Get over this insanity. No one is going to insure their nation's immediate suicide! Russia isn't going to kill itself. CHINA IS NOT GOING TO FIRE A MISSLE AT THE U.S. They are doing just fine, have no impulse to eliminate their civilization by frying Los Angeles. NO, THEY ARE NOT MADMEN, EVEN IF THEY ARE COMMUNISTS. They never were!
We have lived in a continuous state of hysteria since the forties. We've sapped our GDP by funding this imaginary war for decades. A lot of people are richer for it, of course.
The only real danger of a nuclear attack has been from extra-national agencies such as Al Qaeda; but they, no matter how fearful we are of them, aren't that interested in causing the nuclear annihilation of Islamic nations, which Bush and the U.S. would certainly cause if such an attack was launched. There's no strategic reason for such an attack. 9-11 was about provoking us into doing something stupid, which we of course did, as predicted. But a nuke? Why?
There should be a name for this syndrome. A belief that everyone else in the world is suicidally insane and incomprehensible.
the Spain governement has been overthrown during the last elections
Actually the incumbent party had a comfortable lead in the polls just before the election. Then they had tha Madrid bombings. What do you think they did ? They freaked out and immediately tried to blame it on the ETA (basque terrorists), without even a shred of evidence.
As it emerged that the bombs had been planted by Al Qaeda, the Spaniards got pretty pissed with their government and voted them out of office.
Compare with the US, where a government which actually lied not only to his own people but to the whole damn world has been easily re-elected.
most think that the UK government will pay in the near future too.
If elections took place today, Labour would win hands down. You underestimate Tony Blair's strategical masterpiece: the total occupation of the political center by the Labour party, which forced opposition either to the left of the left (LibDems) or to a growingly darker shade of the right. The Conservative party is not credible any more.
By the way, the conservative party supported the war too.
Thomas-