GPS - Germany Confident EU Will Take Over Galileo Project

Author

Germany Confident EU Will Take Over Galileo Project

Sam Wormley

2007-05-08, 4:33 am

Germany Confident EU Will Take Over Galileo Project
http://www.gpsdaily.com/reports/ Ge...roject_999.html

The European Union's German presidency expressed confidence Monday
that the EU will take over the Galileo satellite project, faced with
demands for more time and money from private builders. "I am
confident we will reach a solution on that in June" when EU transport
ministers meet, said German Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee,
whose country holds the EU presidency until the end of next month.

"There will be greater participation by the public sector in the
construction phase of the system," he said, three days before a
deadline for the eight private builders to sort out their
differences.

The Galileo project is meant to compete with the US Global
Positioning Satellite (GPS) navigation system, which is free and used
in many vehicles, boats and aircraft, but has been accused of being
unreliable.

But almost two years after being named, a private consortium of
industry giants -- AENA, Alcatel, EADS, Finmeccanica, Hispasat,
Inmarsat, TeleOp and Thales -- has made little progress on the
project, angering the commission.

"Galileo is going through a deep and grave crisis," Tiefensee said.

He said it was probable that public funds would be used in the
"construction" of the system while the private partners would take
responsibility for the "exploitation phase".

One official has said that completely taking over Galileo would cost
a just less than two billion euros (2.7 billion dollars) on top of
the 1.5 billion euros the European Commission already allocated in
the 2007-2013 budget period.

EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot is due to present on May 16
a list of alternatives for the struggling project.

They are expected to range from totally taking over Galileo, a system
of some 30 satellites which could be operational as late as 2013,
partially financing the project or abandoning it altogether,
officials have said.

Source: Agence France-Presse

Runge1

2007-05-08, 7:33 am

Great crosspost news, Jimmy Olsen !

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
x%T%h.41626$n_.13416@attbi_s21...
> Germany Confident EU Will Take Over Galileo Project
>
> http://www.gpsdaily.com/reports/ Ge...roject_999.html
>
> The European Union's German presidency expressed confidence Monday
> that the EU will take over the Galileo satellite project, faced with
> demands for more time and money from private builders. "I am
> confident we will reach a solution on that in June" when EU transport
> ministers meet, said German Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee,
> whose country holds the EU presidency until the end of next month.
>
> "There will be greater participation by the public sector in the
> construction phase of the system," he said, three days before a
> deadline for the eight private builders to sort out their
> differences.
>
> The Galileo project is meant to compete with the US Global
> Positioning Satellite (GPS) navigation system, which is free and used
> in many vehicles, boats and aircraft, but has been accused of being
> unreliable.
>
> But almost two years after being named, a private consortium of
> industry giants -- AENA, Alcatel, EADS, Finmeccanica, Hispasat,
> Inmarsat, TeleOp and Thales -- has made little progress on the
> project, angering the commission.
>
> "Galileo is going through a deep and grave crisis," Tiefensee said.
>
> He said it was probable that public funds would be used in the
> "construction" of the system while the private partners would take
> responsibility for the "exploitation phase".
>
> One official has said that completely taking over Galileo would cost
> a just less than two billion euros (2.7 billion dollars) on top of
> the 1.5 billion euros the European Commission already allocated in
> the 2007-2013 budget period.
>
> EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot is due to present on May 16
> a list of alternatives for the struggling project.
>
> They are expected to range from totally taking over Galileo, a system
> of some 30 satellites which could be operational as late as 2013,
> partially financing the project or abandoning it altogether,
> officials have said.
>
> Source: Agence France-Presse
>

Happy Trails

2007-05-08, 10:33 am

> said German Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee,
> whose country holds the EU presidency until the end of next month.

> The Galileo project is meant to compete with the US Global
> Positioning Satellite (GPS) navigation system, which is free and used
> in many vehicles, boats and aircraft,

>but has been accused of being unreliable . . .

. . . by his Aunt Letitia's Dalmatian, Schpotz, for XXXXs sakes!

Prolong the Galileo agony - please - there's not enough humour in
these groups of late!

These comments, by this Dogpack Deepsea politico type, reminds me of
that children's story about the Emperor's New Clothes. I guess
nobody's told these guys that it's just a boondoggle purpetrated by
European rocket science scholars to create interesting, cushy jobs for
themselves, because the yanks won't let them work on the GPS.

Mark Crispin

2007-05-08, 3:33 pm

On Tue, 8 May 2007, Sam Wormley wrote:
> They are expected to range from totally taking over Galileo, a system
> of some 30 satellites which could be operational as late as 2013,
> partially financing the project or abandoning it altogether,
> officials have said.

Let's hope that they take it over, thus throwing even more money into that
bottomless pit.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Lezerdezes

2007-05-09, 12:33 pm

"Mark Crispin" <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> schreef in bericht
news:alpine.WNT.0.99.0705081217390.6036@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU...
> On Tue, 8 May 2007, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> Let's hope that they take it over, thus throwing even more money into that
> bottomless pit.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.

And that would be good because?

J. J. Lodder

2007-05-09, 10:33 pm

Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 May 2007, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> Let's hope that they take it over, thus throwing even more money into that
> bottomless pit.

You have reasons to suppose the Galileo pit
to be more bottomless than de GPS one?

Jan

Happy Trails

2007-05-09, 10:33 pm

The Dutch have more questions than answers. This could get funny?

Joop van der Velden

2007-05-11, 4:33 am

Happy Trails wrote:
> The Dutch have more questions than answers. This could get funny?

Ok. i'll try.

I'm always baffled by the opinion of US posters in this group about the
Galileo initiative.

Call me naive, but i would think that citizens of a society that is
almost purely driven by market forces, economic mechanisms and open
policy's would in fact welcome or even support a system that is also
driven by the same mechanisms, as opposed to a centrally regulated
non-transparant, non-democratic system.

--
Joop van der Velden - pe1dna@amsat.org

Happy Trails

2007-05-11, 4:33 am

On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:06:54 GMT, Joop van der Velden
<pe1dna@amsat.org> wrote:

>I'm always baffled by the opinion of US posters in this group about the
>Galileo initiative.

I'm always baffled by the opinion of the Europeans who jump to the
incorrect conclusion that everyone in the world who might poke fun at
them must be American.

>Call me naive, but i would think that citizens of a society that is
>almost purely driven by market forces, economic mechanisms and open
>policy's would in fact welcome or even support a system that is also
>driven by the same mechanisms, as opposed to a centrally regulated
>non-transparant, non-democratic system.

The funny thing here is that Galileo is indeed driven by market forces
- that is why it is going nowhere.

Using your logic one would have to conclude that the US military in
it's entirety should have no popular support. Oops - wait a minute -
bad example - it's driven by petro-dollars.

Let's stop bullshitting here. Who in his right mind sees a system
like Galileo as an opportunity to turn a profit?

Steve m...

2007-05-11, 10:33 am

I'm from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and I'm constantly baffled by the need for
it. Why would anyone want to spend a giant pile of money on sending
expensive, hard to maintain equipment into orbit. Especially when there's a
whole pile of hardware up there doing the same thing already. Yes, it might
make sense if the US gov had turned it off and on regularly on the users but
it hasn't and won't now that a lot of other users are on it. More likely
Bush will attack Iran than turn off the GPS.

Steve (who is sick of the Iraq oil conflict and reflects a lot of others
feelings here as well)
Ps. I do welcome market driven forces for a GPS system. But, making the
whole user group pay for it is a good idea too. Including those in the EU
in the case of american gps. Why not throw the $$$,$$$,$$$ this way and
we'll make ours better ? : ' )

"Joop van der Velden" <pe1dna@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:VA.00000232.0017bf58@amsat.org...
> Happy Trails wrote:
>
> Ok. i'll try.
>
> I'm always baffled by the opinion of US posters in this group about the
> Galileo initiative.
>
> Call me naive, but i would think that citizens of a society that is
> almost purely driven by market forces, economic mechanisms and open
> policy's would in fact welcome or even support a system that is also
> driven by the same mechanisms, as opposed to a centrally regulated
> non-transparant, non-democratic system.
>
> --
> Joop van der Velden - pe1dna@amsat.org
>
>

Holger Issle

2007-05-11, 10:33 am

Hi Steve,

> Why would anyone want to spend a giant pile of money on sending
> expensive, hard to maintain equipment into orbit.

I am German to start with, but I share your question to some extend.

In the end I hope with the availibility of 2 (or more) systems we get
better service at achievable prices - e.g. just think about all the
small 2 seater planes using 2 inch accuracy navigation devices could
reduce "getting lost" accidents to zero even in bad sight. Maybe air
control requires you to use them in the future? Today with GPS this is
a no way idea.
--

Ciao,
Holger (GUS-KOTAL, GUS#1100)

90-92 Honda CB400 10 Mm | 93-95 Yamaha TDM 850 26 Mm
95-97 KTM 620 LC4 13 Mm | seit 97 BMW R1100GS 50 Mm (Die Renndrecksau!)

cu @ http://www.issle.de

Happy Trails

2007-05-11, 12:33 pm

On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:11:49 +0200, Holger Issle <Holger@Issle.de>
wrote:

>In the end I hope with the availibility of 2 (or more) systems we get
>better service at achievable prices - e.g. just think about all the
>small 2 seater planes using 2 inch accuracy navigation devices could
>reduce "getting lost" accidents to zero even in bad sight. Maybe air
>control requires you to use them in the future? Today with GPS this is
>a no way idea.

You are wrong - it's a "yes way" idea - and has been for many years.

I am not a pilot, and have not kept up with the development of gps in
the aviation field, but I have been travelling offshore for many years
to oil exploration and production facilities by helicopter.

GPS has been used extensively in this application worldwide to locate
moveable destinations that are often difficult to find, expecially in
the bad weather conditions that would otherwise result in lost
aircraft and personnel.

You obviously are unaware of this, one of many examples of GPS's
revolutionary change to the operations of aircraft.

I guess you get your information from that same data bank as Tiefensee
and Barrot, nicht wahr?

Jack Yeazel

2007-05-11, 10:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:11:49 +0200, Holger Issle <Holger@Issle.de>
> wrote:
>
>
> You are wrong - it's a "yes way" idea - and has been for many years.
>
> I am not a pilot, and have not kept up with the development of gps in
> the aviation field, but I have been travelling offshore for many years
> to oil exploration and production facilities by helicopter.
>
> GPS has been used extensively in this application worldwide to locate
> moveable destinations that are often difficult to find, expecially in
> the bad weather conditions that would otherwise result in lost
> aircraft and personnel.
>
> You obviously are unaware of this, one of many examples of GPS's
> revolutionary change to the operations of aircraft.
>
> I guess you get your information from that same data bank as Tiefensee
> and Barrot, nicht wahr?

A-men... GPS is now certified for Cat-1 instrument
approaches (with WAAS corrections) in the US... If Europe
would ever get their EGNOS working, you could do it there
also...
--
Jack

Get general GPS information at:
http://www.gpsinformation.net/

Mark Crispin

2007-05-12, 4:33 am

On Wed, 9 May 2007, Lezerdezes wrote:
> And that would be good because?

It keeps the Europeans (specifically, the French and Germans) busy and
consumes their excess financial resources, thus ensuring that they will
never again be able to afford to launch another world war. Twice in one
century was enough.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Mark Crispin

2007-05-12, 4:33 am

On Wed, 9 May 2007, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> You have reasons to suppose the Galileo pit
> to be more bottomless than de GPS one?

GPS works and produces results.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Mark Crispin

2007-05-12, 4:33 am

On Fri, 11 May 2007, Joop van der Velden wrote:
> I'm always baffled by the opinion of US posters in this group about the
> Galileo initiative.

Galileo had no purpose other than to be an anti-US temper tantrum. It was
doomed from the start simply because it was a creation of the EU
bureaucracy.

The only reason why the Europeans stated Galileo is that the US refused to
turn GPS over to "international control", as did the Russians with
GLONASS.

Now, it's become a big pride factor for Europe. They can't admit that
Galileo was a mistake and shut it down without taking a huge loss of face.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Holger Issle

2007-05-13, 7:33 am

On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:35:55 -0400, Happy Trails wrote:

[color=darkred]
> GPS has been used extensively in this application worldwide to locate
> moveable destinations that are often difficult to find

Sure - but not with 2 inch accuracy. So it might be ok (and in the
discretion of the pilot) to land under such circumstances - but pretty
sure GPS is not used for final approach, at least not without
WAAS/EGNOS or other type of DGPS support. The latter is not available
outside the US to my knowledge... wit Galileo it will be worldwide,
due to the civial availibilty of what is today known as military code
on GPS.
--

Ciao,
Holger (GUS-KOTAL, GUS#1100)

90-92 Honda CB400 10 Mm | 93-95 Yamaha TDM 850 26 Mm
95-97 KTM 620 LC4 13 Mm | seit 97 BMW R1100GS 50 Mm (Die Renndrecksau!)

cu @ http://www.issle.de

Holger Issle

2007-05-13, 7:33 am

On Sat, 12 May 2007 01:31:55 -0700, Mark Crispin wrote:

> The only reason why the Europeans stated Galileo is that the US refused to
> turn GPS over to "international control", as did the Russians with
> GLONASS.

And thats not a bad idea, is it?

But, sorry, this is not alt.bash.politics but a GPS and/or navigation
group. As such this is clearly OT and for me EOT.
--

Ciao,
Holger (GUS-KOTAL, GUS#1100)

90-92 Honda CB400 10 Mm | 93-95 Yamaha TDM 850 26 Mm
95-97 KTM 620 LC4 13 Mm | seit 97 BMW R1100GS 50 Mm (Die Renndrecksau!)

cu @ http://www.issle.de

Happy Trails

2007-05-13, 10:33 am

On Sun, 13 May 2007 11:35:24 +0200, Holger Issle <Holger@Issle.de>
wrote:

>On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:35:55 -0400, Happy Trails wrote:
>
>
>
>Sure - but not with 2 inch accuracy. So it might be ok (and in the
>discretion of the pilot) to land under such circumstances - but pretty
>sure GPS is not used for final approach, at least not without
>WAAS/EGNOS or other type of DGPS support. The latter is not available
>outside the US to my knowledge... wit Galileo it will be worldwide,
>due to the civial availibilty of what is today known as military code
>on GPS.

Holger,

You said you favoured reducing "getting lost " accidents. You do not
need anything near 2 inch accuracy to do this, although RTK GPS will
provide this accuracy in 3 dimensions, and has been doing so for many
years in the survey and construction fields.

The pro-Galileo lobby always states some questionable, unsubstantiated
criticism of GPS, then counters with a totally theoretical wish like
yours above, - "With Galileo it will be . . . blah blah blah
whatever."

All I should bother to respond to this nonsense is "Okay - show me!".

And the reality of the situation is, you never will be able to.

Not that I think Europeans are not capable of eventually coming up
with something workable - given unlimited time and resources, of
course you can.

But at some point in the near future the guys dishing out the money
will tell the guys with the big ideas, "This is bullshit, and we are
not paying for it anymore!".

Because it is bullshit!

There is no economic justification for the creation of Galileo!

- Tom

Joop van der Velden

2007-05-13, 12:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:

> There is no economic justification for the creation of Galileo!

Maybe - as long as GPS stays free. And how long do you think that is
gonna stay that way?

Sooner or later GPS is going to be privatised.

--
Joop van der Velden - pe1dna@amsat.org

Sam Wormley

2007-05-13, 12:33 pm

Joop van der Velden wrote:
> Happy Trails wrote:
>
>
> Maybe - as long as GPS stays free. And how long do you think that is
> gonna stay that way?
>
> Sooner or later GPS is going to be privatised.
>

Going on two decades now, Joop. Not anytime soon!

GPS is a $30B+ industry, creating a global infrastructure benefiting
people all over the world. Aviation, shipping, asset management, survey,
mining, agriculture, time dissemination, communications networks...
and on and on!

Mark Crispin

2007-05-13, 12:33 pm

On Sun, 13 May 2007, Holger Issle wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 01:31:55 -0700, Mark Crispin wrote:
> And thats not a bad idea, is it?

It is not just a bad idea; it is a terrible idea. International
organizations (such as the UN) are hopelessly corrupt; witness the
deplorable UN "human rights" authority. The UN can not be trusted with
anything more important than a burnt-out match.

This attack on satellite navigation is no less evil than the corresponding
attack on the Internet. It's not about freeing non-US entities from US
government control; rather, it is about bringing US entities under foreign
government control.

The Russians are in no hurry to subject themselves to "international
control" either, for good reason.

> But, sorry, this is not alt.bash.politics but a GPS and/or navigation
> group. As such this is clearly OT and for me EOT.

So, you don't like it when Americans give you Europeans the same treatment
you've been dishing out to Americans for years?

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Mark Crispin

2007-05-13, 12:33 pm

On Sun, 13 May 2007, Joop van der Velden wrote:
> Maybe - as long as GPS stays free. And how long do you think that is
> gonna stay that way?

Forever.

> Sooner or later GPS is going to be privatised.

Privatization only makes sense with fee-based entities. GPS, not being a
fee-based entity, is not subject to privatization.

More importantly, GPS is an important military resource for the US.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Mark Crispin

2007-05-13, 12:33 pm

On Sun, 13 May 2007, Happy Trails wrote:
> The pro-Galileo lobby always states some questionable, unsubstantiated
> criticism of GPS, then counters with a totally theoretical wish like
> yours above, - "With Galileo it will be . . . blah blah blah
> whatever."

This is nothing new to anyone who has actually paid attention to European
rants over the years. 20 years ago, the Europeans were insisting that
they were going to create a wonderful OSI based network (remember TP4 and
X.400?) that would kill Internet. Central to all of this was a fee
structure that would deliver massive incomes to the government owned PTTs.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Holger Issle

2007-05-13, 3:33 pm

Hi Tom,

> You said you favoured reducing "getting lost " accidents. You do not
> need anything near 2 inch accuracy to do this

Well, not really 2 inch, but not crashing in a hill (or building)
falls under same category, and todays tolerance of 100 feet _can_ make
a diffenrence.

> although RTK GPS will
> provide this accuracy in 3 dimensions, and has been doing so for many
> years in the survey and construction fields.

I am not aware of a receiver I can purchase today as a simple person
(not a big US headed oil inc.) that delivers dual frequency signal
resolution going towards 2 inch without WAAS type of corrections.

[Galileo features]
> All I should bother to respond to this nonsense is "Okay - show me!".

Agree, they are overdue already.

> There is no economic justification for the creation of Galileo!

Agree as well, and I stated never something else on this.

On the other side I still believe the US approach to economy: Free
choice of suppliers creates a market and demands; and in the end
better solutions for the user. For all of us.

Simply consider a receiver in 10 years, that can receive and process
GPS and Galileo signals concurrently, and has the choice of best sat
geometry out of 50 instead 24 birds. The probability to have a
reasonable sat configuration to receive is just better than with the
24 we have today.
--

Ciao,
Holger (GUS-KOTAL, GUS#1100)

90-92 Honda CB400 10 Mm | 93-95 Yamaha TDM 850 26 Mm
95-97 KTM 620 LC4 13 Mm | seit 97 BMW R1100GS 50 Mm (Die Renndrecksau!)

cu @ http://www.issle.de

Mark Crispin

2007-05-14, 12:33 pm

On Sun, 13 May 2007, Holger Issle wrote:
> Simply consider a receiver in 10 years, that can receive and process
> GPS and Galileo signals concurrently, and has the choice of best sat
> geometry out of 50 instead 24 birds. The probability to have a
> reasonable sat configuration to receive is just better than with the
> 24 we have today.

That makes the false assumption that the EU will offer Galileo free of fee
(both to the consumer and to the receiver manufacturers) and will maintain
the system without any expectation of cost recovery from consumers (and
receiver manufacturers!).

Satellite navigation is not a money-making operation for the service
provider. It is a huge cash sink.

For the overwhelming majority of applications, a cheap GPS receiver that
works good enough will win out over a "better" GPS+Galileo receiver that
costs more because the manufacturer has to pay fees to the EU, or won't
work without monthly fees paid by the consumer.

For the small number people who need precise positioning, GPS+Galileo
isn't good enough. They need much better precision, and will spend the
big bucks for the equipment to provide it. Galileo is nice to have for
these people, and they would happily pay the fees; but it isn't necessary
or sufficient for them.

More to the point; the precise positioning folks aren't enough in number
to fund Galileo on their own.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Holger Issle

2007-05-15, 4:33 am

On Mon, 14 May 2007 09:04:07 -0700, Mark Crispin wrote:

> That makes the false assumption that the EU will offer Galileo free of fee

No, I never assumed that. What was in the media over here is that the
basic signal will be free, just as GPS, and the better precision will
be available to everyone for a fee.

Seems we agree on different developments of the market. And the market
will solve the issue.
--

Ciao,
Holger (GUS-KOTAL, GUS#1100)

90-92 Honda CB400 10 Mm | 93-95 Yamaha TDM 850 26 Mm
95-97 KTM 620 LC4 13 Mm | seit 97 BMW R1100GS 50 Mm (Die Renndrecksau!)

cu @ http://www.issle.de

John

2007-05-15, 7:33 am

> > Simply consider a receiver in 10 years, that can receive and process[color=darkre
d]

The receivers will be around sooner - we're just waiting for the
satellites.
The u-blox Antaris 5 chip is an inexpensive GPS/Galileo receiver
which should be out later this year.

http://www.u-blox.com/news/u-blox_5.html

The extra satellites make a huge difference for precise positioning,
One of the obstacles to single frequency RTK is detecting and
recovering from cycle slips. The more satellites you have, the easier
the job becomes. Cheap RTK might become possible with Galileo+GPS.

Happy Trails

2007-05-15, 7:33 am

On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:54:09 +0200, Holger Issle <Holger@Issle.de>
wrote:

>Simply consider a receiver in 10 years, that can receive and process
>GPS and Galileo signals concurrently, and has the choice of best sat
>geometry out of 50 instead 24 birds. The probability to have a
>reasonable sat configuration to receive is just better than with the
>24 we have today.

While the argument "50 or whatever, is better than 24, or whatever"
might sound good to the nooby in the outdoors store talking to the
slick salesman who doesn't know what the letters gps stand for, in
actual fact it doesn't quite work that way.

Checking back at the position solution arithmetic, we find there is an
item figured in there for time differential between the system of
satellites and the user's receiver clock.

Now who in their right mind would expect that the Eurowienies running
Galileo will bow to the point of synchronizing their time with the gps
satellites time?

So what you will have is a 50 or whatever channel receiver that is
capable of finding 2 different unreconcilable solutions for position.

What will it do then - run the coin toss algorithm?

For more accurate results, the "more-is-better" morons should practice
pulling their head out of their XXX more often!

Happy Trails

2007-05-15, 7:33 am

On 15 May 2007 03:04:41 -0700, John <google@coyotebush.net> wrote:

>One of the obstacles to single frequency RTK is detecting and
>recovering from cycle slips. The more satellites you have, the easier
>the job becomes. Cheap RTK might become possible with Galileo+GPS.
>

And just how, pray tell, does " single frequency RTK" work?

Jack Erbes

2007-05-15, 7:33 am

Holger Issle wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 09:04:07 -0700, Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>
> No, I never assumed that. What was in the media over here is that the
> basic signal will be free, just as GPS, and the better precision will
> be available to everyone for a fee.
>

Any plan to manage subscriptions would seem to complicate the
electronics package quite a bit I'd think. You have to have something
like the scheme used for satellite TV subscriptions where each receiver
has a MAC address or other unique I.D. and can be activated and
deactivated by a continuous data stream that is included in the TV
signals. For TV it takes few minutes to get a receiver activated (with
a continuous signal presence). On GPS satellites it could take quite a
bit longer, especially if that was not on every bird.

Do the British still have to pay a license fee for their TV sets? I
remember they used to have trucks that drove around over there looking
for emanations from TVs and trying to spot unlicensed ones.

Jack

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jackerbes at adelphia dot net
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine.com)

Dan Anderson

2007-05-15, 10:33 am

Happy Trails wrote:
& #91;snip]
> While the argument "50 or whatever, is better than 24, or whatever"
> might sound good to the nooby in the outdoors store talking to the
> slick salesman who doesn't know what the letters gps stand for, in
> actual fact it doesn't quite work that way.
>
> Checking back at the position solution arithmetic, we find there is an
> item figured in there for time differential between the system of
> satellites and the user's receiver clock.
>
> Now who in their right mind would expect that the Eurowienies running
> Galileo will bow to the point of synchronizing their time with the gps
> satellites time?

It's not a difficult engineering problem. Whatever the two (or more)
systems send can be handled in some way. The more "compatible" the
systems, the less receiver resources (programming, processor
time, etc.) needed.

> So what you will have is a 50 or whatever channel receiver that is
> capable of finding 2 different unreconcilable solutions for position.
>
> What will it do then - run the coin toss algorithm?

I use two (now three) receivers for mapping trails. I've gotten the
question "How do you know which one is right?" I don't. I average
the results.

The simple solution would be to compute the positions computed
from the two satellite systems and average the result but I doubt
I would do it that way. Obviously you only apply parameters
that apply to system A to system A.

There are receivers that use both GLONASS and GPS.

> For more accurate results, the "more-is-better" morons should practice
> pulling their head out of their XXX more often!

More satellites are better. It results in better DOP in areas
with a poor view of the sky.

One test run so far of the GPSmap 76Cx in a wooded canyon
gave the following results:

3566 trackpoints recorded at one per second with a good
cluster of overhead satellites
2DRMS error = 1.64 feet Easting ranged over 33 ft. Northing ranged over 46 ft.
Vertical standard deviation was 29 ft. and ranged over 194 ft.

4988 trackpoints recorded at one per second with a poor
cluster of overhead satellites
2DRMS error = 5.91 feet Easting ranged over 67 ft. Northing ranged over 291 ft.
Vertical standard deviation was 143 ft. and ranged over 905 ft.

Note that this is a very limited sample. The numbers would get bigger
with a larger sample size.

--
Dan
(email change 2001 to 2004)
(www.gpsmap.net)

Dale DePriest

2007-05-16, 10:33 pm

Holger Issle wrote:
>
> Simply consider a receiver in 10 years, that can receive and process
> GPS and Galileo signals concurrently, and has the choice of best sat
> geometry out of 50 instead 24 birds. The probability to have a
> reasonable sat configuration to receive is just better than with the
> 24 we have today.

I guess you are looking. Galileo folks always say GPS has 24 but last
time I checked it was 30 and actually pushing the 32 limit. In addition
there are several WAAS birds so the current constellation is more like 34.

Dale
--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

Happy Trails

2007-05-16, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:17:03 -0700, Dale DePriest
<Dale@gpsinformation.het> wrote:

>
>
>Holger Issle wrote:
>
>I guess you are looking. Galileo folks always say GPS has 24 but last
>time I checked it was 30 and actually pushing the 32 limit. In addition
>there are several WAAS birds so the current constellation is more like 34.
>
>Dale

Thanks Dale.

I knew this was just another moronic "head-up-their-XXX" incorrect
criticism of the GPS, but with all the other idiocy I couldn't even be
bothered looking up the right answer.

With all this misinformation, I'm wondering how the Eurowienies could
even put a kite in the sky, let alone a bunch of precisely
co-ordinated satellites.

- Tom

Philip Homburg

2007-05-17, 7:33 am

In article <alpine.WNT.0.99.0705130932300.4360@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>,
Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>It is not just a bad idea; it is a terrible idea. International
>organizations (such as the UN) are hopelessly corrupt; witness the
>deplorable UN "human rights" authority. The UN can not be trusted with
>anything more important than a burnt-out match.
>
>This attack on satellite navigation is no less evil than the corresponding
>attack on the Internet. It's not about freeing non-US entities from US
>government control; rather, it is about bringing US entities under foreign
>government control.
>
>The Russians are in no hurry to subject themselves to "international
>control" either, for good reason.

Ultimately, it is very likely that the EU doesn't really want international
control, they just want to be part of the loop. Making sure that nothing
happens to either GPS or the Internet without their approval.

When, for example, the introduction of a new TLD is treated by the US
government as just an internal political issue, it likely that other
governments will get nervous, and start thinking about their own Internet
root servers.

In the past, countries tried to make sure that key industries, etc. were
independent of other countries.

Certainly for something like Galileo which also has important military
implications, it is quite possible that some people just want to have
a system they control.

(Compared to the overall military spending, Galileo doesn't seem that
expensive).

--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Dan Anderson

2007-05-17, 3:33 pm

Dale DePriest wrote:
> I guess you are looking. Galileo folks always say GPS has 24 but last
> time I checked it was 30 and actually pushing the 32 limit. In addition
> there are several WAAS birds so the current constellation is more like 34.

Except that PRNs 6 & 7, PRNs 5 & 12, and PRNs 26, 29 are fairly
close so effective geometry is closer to 30 - 3 = 27 satellites
and some other spacing isn't the greatest (PRN 30 follows not far
from 5 & 12).

--
Dan
(email change 2001 to 2004)
(www.gpsmap.net)

Dan Anderson

2007-05-17, 3:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:17:03 -0700, Dale DePriest
> <Dale@gpsinformation.het> wrote:
& #91;snip][color=dark
red]
> I knew this was just another moronic "head-up-their-XXX" incorrect
> criticism of the GPS, but with all the other idiocy I couldn't even be
> bothered looking up the right answer.
>
> With all this misinformation, I'm wondering how the Eurowienies could
> even put a kite in the sky, let alone a bunch of precisely
> co-ordinated satellites.

If I went to Cheyenne Canyon today at 1:30, I'll find PRNs 14 & 22 at
an elevation of 60 deg. or above and would receive signals from
them. The next highest satellites, PRNs 1, 18, and 31 are around
30 deg. Once in a while the canyon alignment will probably let me
receive from one of those satellites. So I wouldn't get a lock for
part of the time and a poor 2D lock at other times. A second
system will reduce this problem.
Other times there are plenty of overhead satellites for
a decent position solution.

--
Dan
(email change 2001 to 2004)
(www.gpsmap.net)

sat_alight@yahoo.com

2007-05-17, 3:33 pm

Even if it was an effective 34, we're still fighting sat visibility
issues in the woods and near structures. That's where Galileo would
help significantly.

GPS/Galileo interoperability is not an issue. It's already been
planned for.

With Galileo, the number of applications for satellite positioning
would increase significantly.

> Dale DePriest wrote:
>
>
>
> Except that PRNs 6 & 7, PRNs 5 & 12, and PRNs 26, 29 are fairly
> close so effective geometry is closer to 30 - 3 = 27 satellites
> and some other spacing isn't the greatest (PRN 30 follows not far
> from 5 & 12).
>
> --
> Dan
> (email change 2001 to 2004)
> (www.gpsmap.net)

Dan Anderson

2007-05-17, 3:33 pm

sat_alight@yahoo.com wrote:
> Even if it was an effective 34, we're still fighting sat visibility
> issues in the woods and near structures. That's where Galileo would
> help significantly.

Yes, note my other post about PRNs 14 and 22 being the only ones
high in the sky. Deep wooded canyons are my biggest headache
and I wish a full dual GPS/Galileo system was closer to reality.

--
Dan
(email change 2001 to 2004)
(www.gpsmap.net)

Happy Trails

2007-05-17, 10:33 pm

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:14:51 -0600, Dan Anderson
< danderson2001@hotmai
l.com> wrote:

>If I went to Cheyenne Canyon today at 1:30, I'll find PRNs 14 & 22 at
>an elevation of 60 deg. or above and would receive signals from
>them. The next highest satellites, PRNs 1, 18, and 31 are around
>30 deg. Once in a while the canyon alignment will probably let me
>receive from one of those satellites. So I wouldn't get a lock for
>part of the time and a poor 2D lock at other times. A second
>system will reduce this problem.
>Other times there are plenty of overhead satellites for
>a decent position solution.

What's your point, Dan, - that you know how to pick the worst time of
day to get lost in a place you already know?

Do you use your gps to find where you are in relation to where you
want to be, or are you one of these guys that goes hiking to give
your gps a workout?

Dan Anderson

2007-05-18, 12:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:14:51 -0600, Dan Anderson
> < danderson2001@hotmai
l.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> What's your point, Dan, - that you know how to pick the worst time of
> day to get lost in a place you already know?
>
> Do you use your gps to find where you are in relation to where you
> want to be, or are you one of these guys that goes hiking to give
> your gps a workout?

I'm mapping the trails.

--
Dan
(email change 2001 to 2004)
(www.gpsmap.net)

Dan Anderson

2007-05-18, 12:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:14:51 -0600, Dan Anderson
> < danderson2001@hotmai
l.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> What's your point, Dan, - that you know how to pick the worst time of
> day to get lost in a place you already know?
>
> Do you use your gps to find where you are in relation to where you
> want to be, or are you one of these guys that goes hiking to give
> your gps a workout?

Besides the mapping for me...
The same is also true for urban canyons. Although a
SiRF III can pick up multipath from PRNs not in
view, it can produce high errors leading to missing
turns.

The point is that a second satellite system can
make a GPS receiver work better.

--
Dan
(email change 2001 to 2004)
(www.gpsmap.net)

Happy Trails

2007-05-18, 12:33 pm

On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:59:41 -0600, Dan Anderson
< danderson2001@hotmai
l.com> wrote:

>The point is that a second satellite system can
>make a GPS receiver work better.

What you are wishing for here is redundancy in a very high tech system
which will cost the community of mankind trillions more (pick your
cubic unit) of green house gas emission when there are many more
urgent projects, such as efficient energy usage in transportation for
example, on which the Euros could spend their resources, just so,
what, little Dannie can make a marginally more accurate map of a
canyon? Or people using gps around tall buildings will not only know
where they are, but their gps will agree with this knowledge exactly
at all times?

Galileo is a totally unnecessary boondoggle, and everyone here knows
that history will prove me correct - if it hasn't already!

Andrew

2007-05-18, 12:33 pm

On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:00:25 -0400, Happy Trails <nomail@myplace.com>
wrote:

>
>What you are wishing for here is redundancy in a very high tech system
>which will cost the community of mankind trillions more (pick your
>cubic unit) of green house gas emission

How? Does each satellite take a coal fired power station to power it
via a long bit of wire?

> when there are many more
>urgent projects, such as efficient energy usage in transportation for
>example

SatNav helps people makes efficient journeys.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

sat_alight@yahoo.com

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

The benefit of Galileo isn't redundancy. It's augmentation. In fact,
in 10 years I've never heard of it referred to as a redundant system.

If you want to look for wasted resources, you can look at a million
other projects before this one.

If all you see is providing a marginally more accurate map, then
you'll have an eye-opening experience. Fasten your seat belt and enjoy
the ride.

> What you are wishing for here is redundancy in a very high tech system
> which will cost the community of mankind trillions more (pick your
> cubic unit) of green house gas emission when there are many more
> urgent projects, such as efficient energy usage in transportation for
> example, on which the Euros could spend their resources, just so,
> what, little Dannie can make a marginally more accurate map of a
> canyon? Or people using gps around tall buildings will not only know
> where they are, but their gps will agree with this knowledge exactly
> at all times?
>
> Galileo is a totally unnecessary boondoggle, and everyone here knows
> that history will prove me correct - if it hasn't already!

Happy Trails

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:09:24 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>How? Does each satellite take a coal fired power station to power it
>via a long bit of wire?

No you shortsighted idiot. The development of all technology has an
energy cost, starting with the gas people use to drive to the lab
where they design the satellites and the rockets to launch them, and
extrapolated millions of levels from there.

Are you so effing dumb you can't see it?

>SatNav helps people makes efficient journeys.

I agree - and has been doing so for many years. What's your point?

Happy Trails

2007-05-18, 10:33 pm

On 18 May 2007 15:01:16 -0700, sat_alight@yahoo.com wrote:

>The benefit of Galileo isn't redundancy. It's augmentation. In fact,
>in 10 years I've never heard of it referred to as a redundant system.

It isn't a system at all! It's an idea.

>If you want to look for wasted resources, you can look at a million
>other projects before this one.

I'm limited by the topic of this newsgroup, as you should be.

>If all you see is providing a marginally more accurate map, then
>you'll have an eye-opening experience.

That was Dan's thought, not mine.

>Fasten your seat belt and enjoy
>the ride.

I guess I already am enjoying the ride (to obscurity for Galileo).

I stand by my prediction - Galileo is a totally unnecessary
boondoggle, and (almost) everyone here knows that history will prove
me correct - if it hasn't already!

Andrew

2007-05-19, 4:33 am

On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:11:24 -0400, Happy Trails <nomail@myplace.com>
wrote:

>
>No you shortsighted idiot. The development of all technology has an
>energy cost, starting with the gas people use to drive to the lab
>where they design the satellites and the rockets to launch them,

Okay

> and
>extrapolated millions of levels from there.

What is the basis for this extrapolation?

>Are you so effing dumb you can't see it?

Humour me, not everyone is a card carrying genius like you.

>
>I agree - and has been doing so for many years. What's your point?

GPS can be crap in built up cities. Augmenting receivers with Galileo
will help.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Hans-Georg Michna

2007-05-22, 4:33 am

On Wed, 16 May 2007 20:12:42 -0400, Happy Trails wrote:

>With all this misinformation, I'm wondering how the Eurowienies could
>even put a kite in the sky, let alone a bunch of precisely
>co-ordinated satellites.

Tom,

when I look at the eternal delay of EGNOS, the European WAAS,
that is still not operative years after its original deadline,
in spite of being a much tinier project than Galileo, I can rest
assured that Galileo will not come online before it is obsolete.

Hans-Georg (a sad European)
--
No mail, please.

Hans-Georg Michna

2007-05-22, 4:33 am

On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:59:41 -0600, Dan Anderson wrote:

>The point is that a second satellite system can
>make a GPS receiver work better.

Dan,

true, but there are several other ways to achieve the same thing
much more cheaply than by shooting more satellites into heaven.

Hans-Georg
--
No mail, please.

Hans-Georg Michna

2007-05-22, 4:33 am

On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:11:24 -0400, Happy Trails wrote:

>No you shortsighted idiot.

Ah, and I thought for a moment that you had real arguments.

Hans-Georg
--
No mail, please.

LinkBot