Slashdot Mirror


Galileo: Europe's Version of GPS Reaches Key Phase

another random user sends this quote from the BBC: "The third and fourth spacecraft in Europe's satellite navigation system have gone into orbit. The pair were launched on a Russian Soyuz rocket from French Guiana. It is an important milestone for the multi-billion-euro project to create a European version of the U.S. Global Positioning System. With four satellites now in orbit — the first and second spacecraft were launched in 2011 — it becomes possible to test Galileo end-to-end. That is because a minimum of four satellites are required in the sky for a smartphone or vehicle to use their signals to calculate a positional fix."

4 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Chicken::egg. by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Informative

    Are there any consumer gear that can receive Galileo?

    I don't see how this could possibly be called a Chicken and the Egg type problem, as the satellites are are already in space to support consumer devices. They obviously didn't need consumer device support to get things started at all.

  2. Re:...Why? by bertok · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please stop voting this guy up, while simultaneously voting down the numerous posts that are correct.

    Four satellites are required because there are four unknowns, and only one measurement per satellite available, irrespective of precision or lack thereof.

    Here's some quotes from Global Positioning System so we can all stop agreeing with the loudest person instead of the facts:

    "About nine satellites are visible from any point on the ground at any one time, ensuring considerable redundancy over the minimum four satellites needed for a position."

    "The receiver uses messages received from satellites to determine the satellite positions and time sent. The x, y, and z components of satellite position and the time sent are designated as [xi, yi, zi, ti] where the subscript i denotes the satellite and has the value 1, 2, ..., n, where n >= 4."

    "Although four satellites are required for normal operation, fewer apply in special cases. If one variable is already known, a receiver can determine its position using only three satellites. For example, a ship or aircraft may have known elevation.

    The time precision required for a fix of any reasonable accuracy requires atomic clocks. You can't carry atomic clocks in your pocket, they're a tad too big for that. There is no way to know the time on the satellites from the ground, because you don't know where you are, and hence how far the satellites are from you, and hence the delay added to the signals. You can use three satellites to figure out where you are, if you know what time it is, but you don't. Adding a fourth satellite in the mix lets you solve for all four unknowns in the equation. Note the exception in the wiki article applies only in some rare cases, like the GPS units used by ships, not the GPS units handed out to most military personnel.

    THIS HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SELECTIVE AVAILABILITY.

    The military encryption simply reduces the precision of the solution, it doesn't actually change the number of unknowns and hence the equations in any way. A civilian marine GPS could locate itself with just 3 satellites even with selective availability enabled, as long as it assumes that it's at 0 elevation. In all other cases, four satellites are required, even for military units.

  3. Let's go one satellite at a time... by Sanians · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let's go one satellite at a time...

    First satellite: You know approximately what time it is because the satellite tells you. You know the position of the satellite, and all of the other satellites, because it tells you in its signal. However, you don't know how far away the satellite is because you don't know the difference in time between when it sent its signal and when you received it. Thus, while one satellite tells you a lot, it does nothing at all to narrow down your position.

    Second satellite: Now you know the difference in time between when you heard the two satellites, and thus, you know how much further you are from one of them than you are from the other. So in 3D space, you can use this information to narrow down your position to a point that lies on a sphere. This sphere intersects the earth, forming a circle. Thus, you know a lot of place where you might be, but you still really don't know much.

    Third satellite: Now you're able to cut that huge sphere down to a circle. Where this circle intersects the earth, are two points. One point is flying around at high speed, the other relatively stationary. Thus, you kind of know where you are now. ...but only kind of. While the earth is a sphere and we intersected that with a circle to get two points, the places on the earth you might be aren't an infinitely thin mathematical sphere. There's thousands of feet of elevation in which you might exist. ...and worse than that, even if you don't care to know your elevation, the intersection of that circle with the atmosphere isn't straight up and down -- it's at some bizarre and slowly changing angle -- thus you can't ignore it because it isn't just your elevation you don't know, but rather, you're equally uncertain about your latitude and longitude. You know your position to within a mile or so, but if you want to be more accurate than that, you need to either know your elevation or find another satellite.

    Fourth satellite: That circle of possible locations is now narrowed down to two points. One is flying randomly through space, the other is near earth. You don't even need to find an intersection with the surface of the earth, unless by some odd chance you're having difficulty figuring out which of those two points is you.

    Fifth satellite: No longer any questions, you know exactly which point is you. ...but still, the math is only narrowing you down to about a 10 ft. radius...

    Sixth satellite: ...and so it's nice to have some additional data to average together for a slightly more accurate result.

    Seventh satellite: ...and it's nice to have some spares for when some become obstructed by trees or tall buildings.

    1. Re:Let's go one satellite at a time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It would be a nice explanation. Unfortunately it's not correct. It's all good until this part:

      Second satellite: Now you know the difference in time between when you heard the two satellites, and thus, you know how much further you are from one of them than you are from the other. So in 3D space, you can use this information to narrow down your position to a point that lies on a sphere.

      The set of points such that the difference between the distances to the two satellites is constant isn't a sphere. How to see this? Any point in space that satisfies the condition can be rotated around the axis through the two satellites. Since this doesn't change the distances to the satellites, the rotated point still satisfies the condition. The connection between the satellites is an axis of symmetry of the point set. There is one point on the axis which satisfies the condition: If the distance between the satellites is d, the point at distance d/2-a/2 from the first satellite is at distance d/2+a/2 from the second satellite and thus satisfies the condition. Since there are other points that satisfy the condition, the suspected sphere can't have radius 0. Together with the symmetry this tells us that there has to be a second point on the axis that satisfies the condition, but there is no such point, so the set of points can't be sphere. (Special case: a=0, you get the same time signal from both satellites at the same time. This puts you on a plane perpendicular to the axis halfway between the satellites.)

      So what is the shape of the point set satisfying the condition? It's a hyperboloid.