| Sam Wormley 2005-05-31, 10:56 pm |
| Ted wrote:
quote:
> Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
quote:
> You may indeed have to remind the memory challenged in this group (such as
> me) as to what the terms of the wager were??
>
Sam Wormley Feb 20 2001, 11:28 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.geo.satellite-nav
From: Sam Wormley <sworm...@cnde.iastate.edu> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:27:57 -0600
Local: Tues,Feb 20 2001 11:27 pm
Subject: New Wager: Galileo will never happen!
Ref: http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/...rmley-Wager.gif
Last year, in February, Marc Brett and I entered into a gentleman's
wager about the timing of the removal of Selective Availability (SA).
Marc, I would be willing to enter into a new wager with you. My
position is that "Galileo" will never happen as an independent space
based navigation system. I cannot see that there exists an economic,
political or military advantage in building another global satellite
navigation system. The news reports seem to indicate that the design,
planning, and proof of concept stages are moving forward, but without
a need, nor advantage, I can't see that it will ever make it to
completion.
Marc Brett Feb 21 2001, 11:58 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.geo.satellite-nav
From: Marc Brett <mbr...@rgs0.london.waii.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Feb 2001 16:49:38 GMT
Local: Wed,Feb 21 2001 11:49 am
Subject: Re: New Wager: Galileo will never happen!
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Sam,
I confess to being fairly ignorant about Galileo. Prompted by your
challenge, I found a fairly comprehensive defense of Galileo here:
http://www.nlr.nl/nin/Galileo.pdf
I can't say I'm convinced by their arguments. The financial
justification depends on legislation, which will probably mean
requiring Galileo equipment in EU projects, for getting insurance in EU
member states, and so forth. The cost of launching the system will be
largely borne by the taxpayer, but the commercial operators get the
revenue streams, and the citizens are bullied into using the system.
It's a liability black hole bigger than the asbestos disaster --
imagine the cost of damages if the "guaranteed" service goes south?
Who pays? The EU taxpayer of course -- potentially to a worldwide
subscriber base.
The military potential (and exposure) won't go unnoticed. The EU
fighting forces will have their finger on the "off" or "blur" button
much as the US has now, despite the "civilian" label. They will want
it (and will have it) shut down in times of emergency (and probably at
the same time and for the same reasons that GPS is affected). The
major reason for Galileo -- sovreignty and guarantee of service --
won't mean much then. On top of the cost of disruption, the EU will be
liable for the damages (see above) -- lose, lose!
There's a lot of arm waving about increasing the service levels (signal
strengths?) in urban canyons, etc. But it's the same MEO model that
GPS and GLONASS use, so I don't see how they'll deliver on that one.
The major civilian growth areas are identified as vehicle navigation
and fleet management. Other large percentage (but small absolute)
growth is agriculture and timing. The other markets are saturated
already by GPS. As a legislator, I might be tempted to say that EU
agriculture subsidies for SatNav-assisted projects would mandate
Galileo receivers, and, oh, Galileo-based fleet management would
qualify for tax breaks, and, umm, insurance surcharges would be
required for GPS-equipped private vehicles but not for Galileo-
equipped cars, and, err, how about requiring cell-phone licensees to
synchronize their systems with Galileo or face stiff penalties. I
dunno, but it just seems to me like an opportunity for the Government
to increase the costs of doing business in order to guarantee a revenue
stream for the Galileo operators -- which isn't even the Government!
What is this? Corporate welfare? A make-work project for
legislators? Surely not an opportunity for corruption(!) The citizenry
is a rock from which only so much blood can be squeezed. Lighten up
already!
On the other hand, having another 30 GPS-compatible satellites in orbit
will benefit all current GPS users, and will offer a counter to any
monopolistic tendencies of the US GPS operators (not that I've noticed
any to date). Having a military-grade signal available for the price
of a decryption key (or a good cryptanalyst!) must be tempting to
some.
As aerospace welfare projects go, 3 gigadollars isn't all that much.
It's money that will be spent in-country, and there's opportunity for
fine-grained citizen control which is like job security for the EU and
member politicians. It might stimulate a GPS-based industry
(especially if accompanied by draconian legislation). And it's
suitably mad and lacking in common sense to appeal to lots of decision
makers. It has corruption possibilites that will attract money
sniffers from miles around.
I agree with you, Sam, that it's completely daft, but it was just as
daft when the idea was first floated, and yet it attracted funding for
further study. A Yes vote would just make the comedy complete.
Sure, I'll shake on another tenner. My heart's not in it (I really
*want* for these clowns to say No). I live in a country where realists
predicted disaster for the Millenium Dome, and they were eventually
proved right. The project forged ahead anyway. Why can't the same
happen to Gallileo? The sponsors (aerospace companies in particular)
will win whatever happens, and the ones picking up the tab will hardly
notice the bill, buried as it is in all the other mountains of
mismanagement.
And unlike the Dome, it's not as if Galileo will be useless. Like
other high-profile European aerospace projects (eg. Concorde, Airbus)
it's an opportunity for a bit of flag waving and chest swelling that
may actually have economic (and other) benefits at the end of the road,
despite the absurdity of their initial conception. All US GPS users
stand to benefit from the extra coverage and potential accuracy bought
at someone else's expense, so you needn't shout it down too loudly.
Sam, how do you propose to tell when the wager is won or lost?
Sam responded:
Well I would hope that we will all know within a year or two whether
Galileo will become reality or not. You (Marc) bet that Galileo will
happen and I (Sam) bet that Galileo won't happen... because of certain
nebulosity in the definition and timing.... it could just be an
open ended bet until one of us concedes our position.
I pledge my tenner that Galileo won't happen. I might lose
this one, but perhaps our wager will influence world opinion
and outcome (har)!
-Sam Wormley
Iowa State University
|