GPS - NEWS ABOUT GALILEO REMAINS A HOT TOPIC

Author

NEWS ABOUT GALILEO REMAINS A HOT TOPIC

Sam Wormley

2007-06-11, 12:33 pm

June 11, 2007

NEWS ABOUT GALILEO REMAINS A HOT TOPIC

Read below the latest PNT Clips published by the Position, Navigation, and
Timing Committee related to the above mentioned subjects:
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Newsletter/060807.doc

LUXEMBOURG (Map, News) - As European Union ministers consider how to
get the problem-plagued Galileo satellite navigation system into orbit,
one man who has been there had some simple advice - do it fast, or the
Chinese will steal the show. Czech European Parliament member and
former cosmonaut Vladimir Remek warned of a blunder of cosmic
proportions - and a wasted business opportunity - if the multibillion
euro project fails to take off.

EU transport ministers will discuss on Friday whether to throw a
lifeline to Galileo by switching to full public funding of a project
now years behind schedule. Envisaged as a rival for the U.S.-run Global
Positioning System, or GPS.

Galileo would comprise a network of 30 satellites beaming radio signals
to receiving devices on the ground, helping users pinpoint their
location. The project faces major delays and even a collapse, however,
as a consortium of eight companies from France, Germany, Spain, Britain
and Italy squabbles over how to share the work.

The European Commission recommended that Galileo be taken away from the
companies after the consortium missed a May deadline to set up a joint
legal entity to run the project. The earliest projected date for
Galileo is now 2012. China's global positioning system is expected to
be operational by next year. Remek, who orbited aboard a Soviet
spaceship in 1978, said the delays are a nuisance not a catastrophe,
but warned European leaders of further impasses. "If the protraction
continues, it'll be a massive disgrace for Europe," said Remek. Remek,
an EU parliamentarian since 2004, warned that if the European Union
doesn't move fast, the global satellite market will be parceled out and
the EU positioning system will not be profitable

"China is a phenomenon which the world has not quite grasped. If their
system is as professional as GPS and comes much cheaper, a European
system will not be necessary," he told The Associated Press. Galileo -
which is interoperable with GPS - would more than double existing GPS
coverage. It is expected to improve coverage in high-latitude areas
such as northern Europe, and in big cities where skyscrapers can block
signals.

Public funds were originally set aside to cover around one-third of
Galileo, with the private sector penciled in to provide the rest. The
total price tag has been estimated at between 3.4 billion euros and 3.6
billion euros ($4.59-4.86 billion) by various EU institutions. The cost
would rise should the project suffer more delays, the EU warned. "We
need to determine the alternatives to finance this project, because
we're talking about huge additional sums," German Transport Minister
Wolfgang Tiefensee said. EU governments must decide if they are willing
to cover the full cost of constructing the system and, more
importantly, from where they would pull the money.

A final decision is likely to be made later this year. Only one of
Galileo's 30 planned satellites has been launched, in December 2005.
The second satellite missed its autumn 2006 launch date after it
short-circuited during final testing.

Will Military Interest Save Europe's Beleagured Navigation System?
Spiegel Online, June 8, 2007

The European Union's transport ministers are meeting to decide the
future of the Galileo navigation system this week. The stalled system
was originally intended for purely civilian purposes, but now the
military is getting interested, given the satellites' importance in
modern warfare.

The orginal plan was for the project to have a purely civilian purpose.
But now the military is interested. Pity the poor devil who finds
himself in the path of a "Taurus" remote-controlled missile. These new
European-made cruise missiles have a range of 350 kilometers (218
miles) and are exceedingly precicise -- capable of hitting a target as
small as a house at that range. This only possible because the missiles
are able to seek their targets with the aid of GPS satellite
navigation.

The popular navigation technology, commonly used by drivers to find
specific street addresses, also makes it possible to deliver bombs just
as precisely to targets like bridges and underground bunkers. But the
guidance mechanism is even more accurate in military technology,
because the military has reserved particularly precise locating signals
for itself. At a price of just under ?1 million apiece, arms producer
EADS has high hopes for turning a handsome profit with its "Taurus"
missiles. But the company is required to obtain US approval for each
and every sale. The US Army, which operates the GPS satellites, has
supremacy over all military GPS receivers on earth, including those
installed in "Taurus" missiles.

It therefore comes as no surprise that the European arms industry has
such high hopes for a satellite navigation system that does not rely on
the Americans. The Galileo system, touted as the better GPS for years,
is perfectly suited to European purposes, with its 30 satellites
serving as domestically-controlled guidance systems with unmatched
precision. Galileo, EADS CEO Thomas Enders said recently, must also be
made available to the military, partly to improve export sales.

Enders is certainly not the only one to have discovered Galileo's
military value. "There will be military users," European Union
Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot announced a few weeks ago. The
German government is also shifting its position on the system.
Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee, a Social Democrat, says that he
can imagine Galileo being used by the military "within the scope of
normal applications," pointing out that military trucks are also
permitted to use highways built with public funds.

This position is new. For years, the Galileo strategists insisted that
the European satellite navigation system would be used purely for
civilian purposes -- unlike GPS, which was originally developed for the
US military. Nevertheless, the United States eyed the preparations for
Galileo with a certain amount of suspicion from the start. Interests
within the EU also diverged. Great Britain, for example, is considered
a clear opponent of the military use of the technology, while France is
not.

Defining Galileo as a civilian system for Europe was the only way to
convince all parties involved to agree to the project in the first
place. But, as it appears, the old constraints are no longer quite so
strict. This comes as no surprise to weapons experts, who have seen a
sea change take place in their field within only a few years. "Almost
all new weapons systems are now equipped with satellite technology,"
says Bernd Eissfeller, a professor of navigation at the Bundeswehr
University in Munich.

Tanks, bombs and missiles are not the only devices that now depend on
precise navigation signals from space. Satellite navigation is also
used to guide the unmanned reconnaissance planes, known as drones, in
enemy territory from a safe distance, and soldiers are also now
carrying handheld navigation devices to guide them in unknown terrain.
At the same time the equipment transmits their positions to
headquarters, allowing commanders to monitor the movements of their
troops in real time.

This has serious consequences for the industry. Advanced weapons
technology without satellite receivers is as hard to sell today as a
rotary dial telephone. And because navigation is becoming more and more
precise, the military's dependency on the orbiting transmitters will
only grow, as will the fear of being denied access one day.

It is no coincidence that any power seeking global importance wants its
own navigation satellites. Russia doubled its budget for its GLONASS
navigation system, neglected until recently, and plans to increase the
number of satellites in the system from eight to 18. China, for its
part, is in a great hurry to launch its own satellite fleet, which it
calls Compass, into space. The Chinese satellites apparently contain
components made by Swiss firm Temex, which also supplies Galileo with
the extremely accurate atomic clocks used in the latest generation of
navigation satellites.

With all the new competition, Galileo could very well end up finishing
last. The launch, initially planned for 2008, will now probably not
take place until 2012 at the earliest. The delay was caused by the need
to present Galileo as a project intended for purely commercial
purposes. The intention was that the project would pay for itself, with
planners promising billions in profits. The beneficiaries would be a
consortium of European companies, which, in return, promised to build
26 satellites and assume two-thirds of the startup costs.

How the navigation technology can be used by the military. This was
bound to fail. With Galileo, just as with GPS, the base signal is
freely available. Money can only be made with particularly precise and
secured services. Glossy brochures explain the system's benefits for
business -- for freight forwarding companies, for example, which can
use the system to guide their truck fleets around the world more or
less down to the last centimeter, or for crop-dusting planes, that can
use it to spray pesticides over farmland in the straightest of lines.
Galileo even makes it possible to land commercial jets via remote
control. Unlike GPS, the quality of the signals used for such purposes
is guaranteed, and customers are notified immediately if there is a
problem.

NUMBER OF GLONASS SATELLITES REACHES 12
8 June 2007
SKRIN Newswire

A group of 11 operating GLONASS satellites has been widened by one,
which was put into operation after the orbit maintenance, ARMS-TASS
reported. Of 17 satellites that were on orbit in small hours of June 7,
2007, 12 were operating, one more was at the launching stage, three
satellites were being repaired and another one was being withdrawn from
the system.

Happy Trails

2007-06-11, 10:33 pm

Witty observations enclosed in ============ lines.

============
It is comforting in a way, that the Eurowienies still think they can
reduce global warming by launching satellites into space using nothing
more noxious than hot air, hahahahaha!

All the claims made in this article speak of Galileo as if it exists
already. None of the accuracy claims, or improvements over GPS, have
even been shown, except on paper - and probably will never be!

Now this clown states that Galileo will only be "profitable" if it is
kept moving along by using public funds immediately - now that's an
economics lesson I'd like to see explained a bit!
============

>"China is a phenomenon which the world has not quite grasped.

============
What's he saying here - only someone who has actually seen China from
space can understand its impact on the global society? His world,
maybe.
============

> If their
>system is as professional as GPS and comes much cheaper, a European
>system will not be necessary,

============
Comes much cheaper?
============

>It is expected to improve coverage in high-latitude areas
>such as northern Europe, and in big cities where skyscrapers can block
>signals.

============
Now, I've seen you guys quibble over a marginal upgrade price for a
map - who in his right mind would expect anyone other than perhaps Dan
Anderson to pay money for Galileo for a questionable but purported
slight increase in accuracy?
============

>It therefore comes as no surprise that the European arms industry has
>such high hopes for a satellite navigation system that does not rely on
>the Americans.

============
So someone finally admits it. They couldn't con the group of
companies into funding it, so they'll try to throw a fastball past the
Eurowienie public taxpayers?
============

>Enders is certainly not the only one to have discovered Galileo's
>military value. "There will be military users," European Union
>Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot announced a few weeks ago. The
>German government is also shifting its position on the system.
>Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee, a Social Democrat, says that he
>can imagine Galileo being used by the military "within the scope of
>normal applications," pointing out that military trucks are also
>permitted to use highways built with public funds.

>This position is new. For years, the Galileo strategists insisted that
>the European satellite navigation system would be used purely for
>civilian purposes -- unlike GPS, which was originally developed for the
>US military. Nevertheless, the United States eyed the preparations for
>Galileo with a certain amount of suspicion from the start. Interests
>within the EU also diverged. Great Britain, for example, is considered
>a clear opponent of the military use of the technology, while France is
>not.

============
France will sell weapons to anyone; of course they are not opposed!
============

>Defining Galileo as a civilian system for Europe was the only way to
>convince all parties involved to agree to the project in the first
>place.

>This has serious consequences for the industry. Advanced weapons
>technology without satellite receivers is as hard to sell today as a
>rotary dial telephone.

============
There was a time when I thought if any one country had control over
the world's supply of arms, it should be the USA, but after seeing
Johnson in Viet Nam, Nixon in Cambodia and Laos, and Bush everywhere
else, that thought scares me a lot!
============

>The delay was caused by the need
>to present Galileo as a project intended for purely commercial
>purposes. The intention was that the project would pay for itself, with
>planners promising billions in profits.

============
This must really piss the Eurowienie militaries off, having to
actually reveal their ulterior motives for Galileo just to get it paid
for by a different department, hahaha!
============

>Unlike GPS, the quality of the signals used for such purposes
>is guaranteed, and customers are notified immediately if there is a
>problem.

============
This is so totally laughable. "It can't fail! We guarantee it! But
if it does, we'll let you know - just as you are landing that jumbo in
a dense fog in Paris with the pilot getting honked by the cute
stewardess!".
============

What a load of crap!

============
============

Sam Wormley

2007-06-11, 10:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
> Witty observations enclosed in ============ lines.
>
> ============
> It is comforting in a way, that the Eurowienies still think they can
> reduce global warming by launching satellites into space using nothing
> more noxious than hot air, hahahahaha!
>
> All the claims made in this article speak of Galileo as if it exists
> already. None of the accuracy claims, or improvements over GPS, have
> even been shown, except on paper - and probably will never be!
>
> Now this clown states that Galileo will only be "profitable" if it is
> kept moving along by using public funds immediately - now that's an
> economics lesson I'd like to see explained a bit!
> ============
>
>
> ============
> What's he saying here - only someone who has actually seen China from
> space can understand its impact on the global society? His world,
> maybe.
> ============
>
>
> ============
> Comes much cheaper?
> ============
>
>
> ============
> Now, I've seen you guys quibble over a marginal upgrade price for a
> map - who in his right mind would expect anyone other than perhaps Dan
> Anderson to pay money for Galileo for a questionable but purported
> slight increase in accuracy?
> ============
>
>
> ============
> So someone finally admits it. They couldn't con the group of
> companies into funding it, so they'll try to throw a fastball past the
> Eurowienie public taxpayers?
> ============
>
>
>
> ============
> France will sell weapons to anyone; of course they are not opposed!
> ============
>
>
>
> ============
> There was a time when I thought if any one country had control over
> the world's supply of arms, it should be the USA, but after seeing
> Johnson in Viet Nam, Nixon in Cambodia and Laos, and Bush everywhere
> else, that thought scares me a lot!
> ============
>
>
> ============
> This must really piss the Eurowienie militaries off, having to
> actually reveal their ulterior motives for Galileo just to get it paid
> for by a different department, hahaha!
> ============
>
>
> ============
> This is so totally laughable. "It can't fail! We guarantee it! But
> if it does, we'll let you know - just as you are landing that jumbo in
> a dense fog in Paris with the pilot getting honked by the cute
> stewardess!".
> ============
>
> What a load of crap!
>
> ============
> ============
>

Expert Advice -- GNSS in the Year 2017
http://sidt.gpsworld.com/gpssidt/ar...l.jsp?id=421287

By: John W. Lavrakas
GPS World

What will GNSS service be like 10 years from now? Such a fascinating
question, especially for those who have over recent years witnessed
the explosion of GPS capabilities and applications!

For more than a decade, GPS has enriched our lives, bringing vast and
unexpected improvements in transportation, communications, military
effectiveness, scientific research, geographic data collection,
business applications, and recreation.

Nonetheless, further steps are being taken to improve satellite
navigation. GPS is being modernized to offer new signals and codes.
The European Union's Galileo program is poised to introduce its new
satellite navigation system by the year 2012, offering five levels of
service. The Russian Federation is committed to updating GLONASS with
new M- and K-class satellites offering additional capabilities for
civil users. Even China has announced plans to offer a worldwide
satellite navigation service, called Beidou Compass.

Billions of dollars, euros, and rubles are being spent on these
initiatives, with three, perhaps four, Global Navigation Satellite
Systems (GNSS) planned to be fielded in the next 10 years. How likely
is it that all these systems will be fielded? What will service
really be like in the year 2017? Let me try and look into the future
to answer this question. I will consider three possible scenarios: a
best-case scenario in which all schedules are met; a worst-case
scenario in which no schedules are met; and a reasonable scenario,
somewhere between the two, in which each program advances under
typical rates of progress.

Best Case: Everyone Meets Their Dates

Under this best-case scenario, by 2017 GPS Block IIRM and Block IIF
satellites have all been launched. The GPS Block III program is in
the middle of deployment and is four years away from completion.
Galileo has been operational for five years and GLONASS is fully
operational. Let's take a look at each system individually and then
at the total GNSS picture collectively.

GPS. Eight Block IIRM satellites will be deployed by 2008. Twelve
Block IIF satellites will be deployed between 2008 and 2016. In
addition to the L2C (dual-frequency) and M-code signals, these
satellites provide the L5 safety-of-life (SOL) signal, necessary for
aviation and other safety-of-life operations.

Block III satellites will be deployed between 2013 and 2021. These
satellites have crosslink communication, resulting in near zero age
of data and integrity monitoring/reporting capability. Block III
satellites are required for dual-frequency full operational
capability (FOC) and safety-of-life capability because only 20 Block
II-class satellites with L2C will be purchased, and only 12 of those
will have L5.

By following through on this schedule, the U.S. government launches
on capability, without regard to the performance of existing
satellites. Thus, if existing satellites are performing according to
their specifications, and a new satellite with added capability is
available, the new satellite will be launched. The net result is far
more satellites on orbit than the minimum required to meet today's
service commitments \u2014 in fact, more satellites than permitted
under the current specified maximum of 32 signals. This scenario
therefore assumes the control segment has been upgraded to
accommodate the extra signals being broadcast.

To sum up, the GPS system has 35 satellites, all providing L1,
M-code, and L2C signals. The L5 (safety-of-life signal) is available
on 27 satellites, with full operational capability. Near zero age of
data is available on 15 satellites due to crosslink communication on
the Block IIIs.

Galileo. Thirty operational satellites are launched by 2012. In this
best-case scenario, Galileo provides full operational capability with
open service, safety-of-life, commercial service, and public
regulated service on all 30 satellites.

GLONASS. GLONASS launches 24 K satellites by 2017. All 24 are
equipped with L1, L2 (dual-frequency), and L3 (an L5 safety-of-life
equivalent).

Awash in Signals. Under this best-case scenario, what kind of service
does the world have in satellite navigation in 2017?

GNSS users employing hybrid technology are awash in quality signals,
with 89 satellites on orbit (65 from GPS and Galileo alone). More
than 25 satellites are in view at any one time (20-plus from GPS and
Galileo alone). Aviation users, while not having a fully operational
safety-of-life service, are able to operate dual frequency worldwide
in test mode. Operational use of GNSS for landing is probably only a
few years away.

GPS provides three signals at no cost to users. Half of the GPS III
satellites have zero age of data, keeping range errors down.
Integrity, while not completely assured without augmentation, is
available on 15 of the satellites, giving a big boost to users
worldwide.

Galileo is offering its full service on all 30 satellites. GLONASS
users have the full 24-satellite service.

What I've just considered is the good news scenario, and what good
news it is! Now, I'd like to look at a worst-case scenario.

Worst Case: Nobody Meets Their Dates

Under this scenario, GPS III is never funded. Galileo and GLONASS
proceed with development but experience technical difficulties. For
example I assume that each of the programs has had a launch failure
(this is a worst case scenario, remember?). The GPS Block IIF program
moves forward, but is not completed until 2018. Although delayed,
Galileo is largely able to complete its constellation by 2017.
GLONASS also experiences delays.

GPS. In this scenario, GPS Block III is never completely funded and
no satellites are launched. The GPS Block IIF program is delayed from
the 2008-2016 schedule to a 2010-2018 schedule. This includes a
launch vehicle failure resulting in a one-year slip in new launches.

There are no more Block II/IIA satellites in service. Assuming Block
IIRs have a 50 percent mortality rate, by the year 2017, only six
remain. Eight Block IIRM satellites are completed and launched.
Twelve Block IIF satellites are purchased, but only eight are
launched by 2017 due to launch failure.

Under this scenario, L1 is available on all 22 satellites, the M-code
and L2C signals are available on 16 satellites; and L5 is available
on eight satellites.

Galileo. In this scenario, Galileo gets under way, but at a much
slower pace. There have been problems in funding the initial program,
and several years have been lost getting all the participants on
board for the development of the operational phase. A launch failure
has further delayed completion. For this scenario, it is assumed that
five satellites are launched at a time.

Because of funding and technical issues, only a partial constellation
has been launched. The first satellites were launched in 2009,
followed by a one-year checkout, then a launch failure resulting in
the loss of five satellites and delay of one year.

The original plan was 30 satellites launched in three years. In this
scenario, 25 satellites are launched over six years, with the first
launch occurring in 2009. Initial operational capabilities (IOC)
provide open service, safety-of-life, and commercial service on all
25 satellites, but public regulated service isn't defined early
enough to be incorporated into the first 10 satellites. It was only
added to later satellites, for a total of 15.

GLONASS. Under this scenario, the constellation is sustained at lower
levels due to inadequate funding and technical and programmatic
difficulties. Launches continue at a rate of one per year with three
satellites per launch. A launch failure further compounds deployment
difficulties. GLONASS M satellite production ends when the K
satellites become available in 2010.

Under this scenario, all original GLONASS satellites have died. All
GLONASS M satellites have been launched, and three remain
operational. Eighteen GLONASS K satellites have been launched
starting in 2010, with a one-year delay because of launch failure.

All 21 satellites provide the L1 and L2 (dual-frequency) signals. The
L3 safety-of-life signal is available on 18 satellites.

Hybrid Users Win. Under this worst-case scenario, in 2017 the world
has a seriously degraded GPS service, with only 22 satellites on
orbit. GPS-only users regularly have dilution of precision (DOP)
holes lasting for long periods of time worldwide. Even though
performance standards are being met, users are dropping GPS as their
preferred system.

Galileo is offering its full service on a short constellation of 25
satellites. Like GPS, its service isn't quite complete, but service
is adequate for most applications.

GLONASS users have dual-frequency service at the IOC level with 21
operational satellites on orbit.

Despite the shortcomings with individual systems, the GNSS users
employing hybrid technology have more than enough quality signals,
with 68 satellites on orbit (47 for GPS and Galileo alone) and more
than 20 satellites in view at any one time (more than 15 satellites
for GPS and Galileo alone).

Final Case: A Reasonable Outcome

I now consider a scenario that represents a reasonable outcome from
today's planning. The schedule has been adjusted to reflect typical
changes based on historical precedent.

For example, the U.S. government has delayed launches of the Block
IIRM satellites from its original schedule, in part because the
existing constellation continues to meet service goals and in part to
save money. The U.S. government has been reluctant to turn off useful
satellites even if the satellites are past their design life and have
aging components, single points of failure, and reduced performance.
This concept of launching only to replenish failed satellites is
called "launch on need," which contrasts with the "launch on
capability" strategy employed in the best-case scenario, and it forms
the underlying launch strategy used in this scenario. In general, the
government's approach is to sustain existing capability, not launch
to support new capability.

Under this scenario, Galileo has been up since 2015 (10 years after
launch of GIOVE-A). It has been only two years since full operational
capability. GLONASS has met its goal of full operational capability
for dual-frequency service while full operational capability on
safety-of-life service is still years away.

GPS. GPS follows through on commitments to complete the Block IIRM
and Block IIF programs and to develop the Block III program, but
deployment takes longer than originally envisioned. Six of the
remain-ing Block IIR satellites are still in orbit. Existing Block
II/IIA satellites have been removed from service, having all died
off.

All eight Block IIRM and 12 Block IIF satellites have been launched.

One launch vehicle failure results in a one-year slip in the new GPS
III launches, an assumption made because the GPS Block III program is
using a new class-of-launch vehicle different from those employed in
the Block II launches. GPS III has been funded, but is delayed
because the current constellation is meeting commitments. Two GPS III
satellites have been launched by 2017.

The L1 signal is available on all 28 satellites, while 22 of them
have the M-code and L2C dual-frequency signals. The L5 safety-of-life
signal is available on 14 satellites.

Galileo. Galileo moves forward, but at a slower pace than originally
planned. There have been problems in funding the initial program, and
several years have been lost getting all participants on board for
development of the operational phase.

A full constellation is up, but the constellation was late because of
funding and technical issues. The first satellites were launched in
2009, followed by a one-year checkout. Remember, the original plan
was 30 satellites launched in three years. In this scenario, 30
satellites are launched over six years, starting in 2009 and
completed in 2014.

As in the best-case scenario, Galileo provides full operational
capability with open service, safety-of-life, commercial service, and
public regulated service on all 30 satellites.

GLONASS. The constellation is complete, but not all improvements have
been implemented. All original GLONASS (pre-GLONASS M) satellites
have died. All GLONASS M satellites have been launched and 12 remain
operational. Twelve GLONASS K satellites have been launched to
sustain the constellation, starting in 2011, at a rate of two
satellites per year by 2017.

The 24-satellite constellation consists of 12 GLONASS M satellites
and 12 GLONASS K satellites. The L1 and L2 (dual-frequency) signals
are available on all 24 satellites, and 12 satellites provide the L3
safety-of-life signal.

Expected Service. Under this reasonable scenario, what kind of
service can we expect the world to have?

GPS provides service somewhat better than in 2007. Dual frequency
(L2C) has initial operational capability, but full operational
capability for both L2C and L5 (safety-of-life) is lacking. This
situation will continue at least three more years as the U.S.
government waits for enough Block IIR satellites to die off, creating
room for replenishment with Block IIIs. Integrity is still years away
with only two Block III satellites launched.

On the other hand, Galileo is offering its full service on all 30
satellites. GLONASS users have the full 24-satellite service with
dual frequency on all satellites. The third civil frequency is
available on only 12 satellites, and it will be years before this
service is offered.

Galileo service is complete, offering three frequencies of service
and guaranteed integrity, while GPS offers at best two frequencies.
Since the standalone GPS user experiences a service only slightly
better the service provided in 2007, and below the service levels of
Galileo, most GNSS users by now have migrated to Galileo only, or
hybrid GPS/Galileo technology.

The hybrid GNSS user is happy, of course, having access to 82
satellites on orbit (58 for GPS and Galileo alone) and more than 25
satellites in view at any one time (more than 15 for GPS and Galileo
alone). Aviation users are relying on Galileo for dual-frequency
operation, as well as using GPS receivers for single-frequency
operation when augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
and the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS).

GPS Eclipsed

Under this reasonable scenario, we have a most unexpected result,
namely the GPS service has been eclipsed by both Galileo and GLONASS.
How could this happen?

I see several reasons for this. In part, this has occurred because
GPS satellites last so long. Historically their life spans are far
greater than the design life of the satellite, and longer than the
satellite life span of GLONASS. With the "launch on need" strategy
employed by the U.S. government, however, it was only a matter of
time before competitive services moved ahead of GPS. Unlike GPS, the
two programs Galileo and GLONASS have essentially no service in 2007.
They are building from scratch, and must move as quickly as possible
to implement their service. This is not quite truly the case for
GLONASS, since it has more than a dozen satellites in orbit and a
complete ground control and monitoring capability in place. But even
GLONASS has much work to do to launch a full set of modernized
spacecraft to replace most of the first-generation satellites now in
its fleet.

Under this reasonable-outcome scenario, three systems now provide
various levels of service, which used to be provided by just one
system. What, then, is the effect on users?

For some, there is little change in 2017. For others, they are
beginning to adjust the source of their satellite navigation service.
Users in surveying, marine navigation, agriculture, and precision
mining shift to Galileo Open Service to take advantage of the dual
frequency.

Recreational users \u2014 boaters, hikers, sports clubs, youth
groups, and automobile navigation users \u2014 are content to keep
using their GPS receivers, lacking incentive to dispose of them. They
have already made their investment and the service is more than
adequate for their needs.

European and other national commercial vehicle operations are now
using Galileo commercial service.

Commercial transportation, taxis, emergency vehicles, and geographic
data collectors are switching to Galileo/GPS hybrids to get better
availability of service.

Aviation users are still relying on receiver autonomous integrity
monitoring with fault detection and exclusion for en route through
non-precision approach, but have expanded to include Galileo as well
as GPS operation. U.S. aviators use WAAS for non-precision approach,
while European aviators use EGNOS. Commercial aviators rarely if ever
use hybrid aviation receivers. These receivers are probably not yet
certified by 2017 or, if the units are certified, it will be several
years before they appear in significant numbers.

The future for GNSS is quite promising. Table 1 shows that the
service provided for the hybrid user in 2017 is always good,
regardless of how pessimistic the scenario. Even under the worst-case
scenario, there are no fewer than 68 satellites are on orbit, with
more than 20 satellites in view. Dual-frequency operation is
available. While safety-of-life service may not be fully operational,
an initial capability is very much available to users. The addition
of the Chinese Beidou system would only further improve service for
the hybrid user.

Whichever way each of the three systems advances, in 10 years we will
have a rich global capability for positioning, navigation, and
timing.

Users will no longer rely on a single system. Instead, they will
employ multiple systems to obtain the best service for their needs.
Depending on a single system is risky and reduces performance. Having
access to a diversity of systems results in improved accuracy and
increased availability, reliability, and integrity. As long as
systems are compatible, users can obtain the positioning and timing
service they need without significant increase in cost or risk.

Under each of the scenarios I've considered, all three satellite
navigation systems survive. They are all supported by their
respective governments and provide a steady service to their users.

Surprisingly, GPS could lose its place as the dominant satellite
navigation service by 2017. It will still be used by millions
worldwide, but it will now share the role of providing this most
valuable service to users across the globe. Because of this, the GNSS
providers would be wise to review their current policy toward
satellite navigation. Rather than assuming their service to be a
standalone service, at least from a civilian standpoint, they should
consider key issues and steps to integrate their service into the
larger hybrid GNSS world. Issues to consider include monitoring of
foreign GNSS services, performance assessment of hybrid services, and
sharing of information (including notification and characterization
of detected service anomalies and performance data). Steps to
consider would be development of hybrid monitoring capabilities and
implementation of information dissemination protocols.

Of course, no one can accurately predict the future. What actually
happens will be the result of decisions and actions taken by the
organizations that support each of these navigation systems. We can
only be grateful for the tremendous resources and commitment each
organization is applying to provide these valuable services that
benefit all of us. It surely isn't an easy task, but the rewards
justify the effort and investment.

JOHN W. LAVRAKAS is president of Advanced Research Corporation, where
he provides consulting and research and development services on
satellite navigation. He is the current president of the Institute of
Navigation. Over his 26-year career, he has provided technical
support to GPS initiatives such as Integrity Failure Modes and
Effects Analysis, Civil Performance Monitoring, and GPS Operations
Center. He has also supported development of the GPS Control Segment,
GPS user equipment for military range applications, GPS performance
analysis capabilities, and GPS-based commercial asset location
systems.

See: http://sidt.gpsworld.com/gpssidt/ar...l.jsp?id=421287

Happy Trails

2007-06-12, 12:33 pm

I guess the Astronut quoted in the previous post was right when he
stated that "China is a phenomenon which the world has not quite
grasped."

This expert does a complete analysis of the GNSS scene over the next
15 years and barely acknowledges the existence of a system that is
much more of a reality than Galileo.

Go figure!

Dan Anderson

2007-06-12, 12:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
> Now, I've seen you guys quibble over a marginal upgrade price for a
> map - who in his right mind would expect anyone other than perhaps Dan
> Anderson to pay money for Galileo for a questionable but purported
> slight increase in accuracy?

You like ignoring my comments as to why it is an
improvement and that it will help many others besides
myself. I gave you an example from a personal
perspective but anyone using a satellite
navigation system with a limited view of
the sky is affected. Those people range
from soldiers to surveyors to drivers
in urban canyons.

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

Happy Trails

2007-06-12, 12:33 pm

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:25:32 -0600, Dan Anderson
< danderson2001@hotmai
l.com> wrote:

>Happy Trails wrote:
>
>You like ignoring my comments as to why it is an
>improvement and that it will help many others besides
>myself. I gave you an example from a personal
>perspective but anyone using a satellite
>navigation system with a limited view of
>the sky is affected. Those people range
>from soldiers to surveyors to drivers
>in urban canyons.

You seem to have caught the Eurovirus - speaking of Galileo as if it
existed!

Not only did I not ignore your comments, I remembered them when
posting the stuff above!

The point I was making, to which mention of your name served only to
make it a functional comment to this group, was that 99.99999% of
people with a current gps receiver would either suffer the slight and
possibly temporary inaccuracies, or in your case plan your data
collection more efficiently, rather than pony up any amount of extra
cash to pay for Galileo's extra accuracy, either by paying them an as
yet undetermined or undisclosed service fee, or buying a new receiver
that might receive less accurate Galileo signals at some future era
when they might possibly be offered free at a low accuracy level.

In simpler words, yes, it "would" help many others, but they would not
use it, if and when it might become available, if it costs a nickel
more than gps, unless they had a real, commercial need for it, as you
seem to have.

Dan Anderson

2007-06-12, 3:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:25:32 -0600, Dan Anderson
> < danderson2001@hotmai
l.com> wrote:
>
>
> You seem to have caught the Eurovirus - speaking of Galileo as if it
> existed!

And where am I speaking of Galileo as if it existed? Projects
that have multiple entities in charge are likely
doomed to failure. I don't expect to ever use a multiple system
receiver.

> Not only did I not ignore your comments, I remembered them when
> posting the stuff above!
>
> The point I was making, to which mention of your name served only to
> make it a functional comment to this group, was that 99.99999% of
> people with a current gps receiver would either suffer the slight and
> possibly temporary inaccuracies, or in your case plan your data
> collection more efficiently, rather than pony up any amount of extra
> cash to pay for Galileo's extra accuracy, either by paying them an as
> yet undetermined or undisclosed service fee, or buying a new receiver
> that might receive less accurate Galileo signals at some future era
> when they might possibly be offered free at a low accuracy level.
>
> In simpler words, yes, it "would" help many others, but they would not
> use it, if and when it might become available, if it costs a nickel
> more than gps, unless they had a real, commercial need for it, as you
> seem to have.

If only .00001% of users have problems then SiRF's new SiRFDiRect™
technology was probably a waste of development money. I think
it was developed because many others recognize the problems
with the system as it currently stands and that many more than
..00001% of users are affected.

I hope it works well and can balance out some erratic
positions that the SiRF III can generate because of its
ability to pick up multipath.

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

Excerpt from SiRF news release:

SiRFDiRect™ technology, a portable navigation breakthrough that achieves
navigation accuracy and coverage previously available only in costly,
permanently installed in-car systems. Employing sophisticated algorithms that
take advantage of closely coupled GPS and dead-reckoning (DR) sensor
measurements, SiRFDiRect technology delivers very high quality positioning, even
in the worst GPS signal conditions, without the installation inconvenience and
high cost of traditional in-dash navigation systems. The first implementation
of SiRFDiRect technology integrates the award-winning SiRFstarIII® architecture
with low-cost heading and acceleration sensors to give portable devices
continuous and accurate navigation capabilities typically found in very high-end
in-car navigation systems.

“As the portable navigation devices are starting to address mainstream, it is
very important to meet consumer expectations of reliable positioning everywhere,
no matter what, and our SiRFDiRect technology is a major advance in that
direction,” said Kanwar Chadha, founder and vice president of marketing for
SiRF. “It gives our portable navigation device customers a competitive edge by
enabling them to provide in-car system navigation accuracy at lower cost while
retaining the advantages of portability and transferability.”

SiRFDiRect technology uses heading and acceleration data from the sensors to
boost the accuracy of portable navigation systems when GPS signals are weak or
blocked, such as in dense urban canyons and tunnels. Transitions between
combined GPS/DR and dead-reckoning-only operation are seamless and accurate
without operator intervention, and the closely coupled GPS/DR architecture of
SiRFDiRect technology continuously auto-calibrates the heading and acceleration
sensors, enabling high performance with low-cost, small-footprint sensors.

Happy Trails

2007-06-12, 3:33 pm

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:40:30 -0600, Dan Anderson
< danderson2001@hotmai
l.com> wrote:

>And where am I speaking of Galileo as if it existed?

You said, "You like ignoring my comments as to why it is an
improvement . . . ".

Dan, if you say ". . . it is . . . " then you are speaking of it as if
it existed.

The correct tense for speaking about Galileo is future conditional,
for example "It would . . ." not "It will . . .".

It you need any further help with this, take an English lesson, don't
ask me to explain it!

>Dan said:
>If only .00001% of users have problems then SiRF's new SiRFDiRect™
>technology was probably a waste of development money. I think
>it was developed because many others recognize the problems
>with the system as it currently stands and that many more than
>.00001% of users are affected.
>
>I hope it works well and can balance out some erratic
>positions that the SiRF III can generate because of its
>ability to pick up multipath.

I did not say only .00001% of users have problems, I said only
whatever very small percent will spend extra money on top of an
adequately working system to get that tiny bit of extra utility out of
it. I know I wouldn't on a handheld or vehicle-mounted receiver.

Geez, Dan, you can't write, and you can't read! You really ought to
take an English course, hahahahaha!

I have used a system several times over the past few years that does
receive satellites from both GPS and Glonass simultaneously - a Topcon
RTK precise survey system. And yes, at first it "seemed" handy on
occasion, when taking bottom-of-excavation elevations for deep bridge
footings, to have the few more satellites available compared to, for
example, a similar Trimble system that had only GPS satellites to work
from.

However, due I suppose to the mathematical intricacies of resolving
the clock differences between the 2 sets of satellites, you never knew
exactly how good a reading you were getting, and usually had to verify
the final cuts with a Total Station anyway. So why bother?

I love that sirf III stuff (if that's what's in my 76csx?) - I can
ride around on a little rented motorbike all day with the gps in my
pants pocket, or hike in dense forest, and it always gives me
positions. On later replay in GE, it sometimes shows me off the side
of the road or pathway 20 meters, but you know what . . . I know I was
on the road, so WTF do I care?

Sam Wormley

2007-06-12, 3:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:40:30 -0600, Dan Anderson
> < danderson2001@hotmai
l.com> wrote:
>
>
> You said, "You like ignoring my comments as to why it is an
> improvement . . . ".
>
> Dan, if you say ". . . it is . . . " then you are speaking of it as if
> it existed.
>
> The correct tense for speaking about Galileo is future conditional,
> for example "It would . . ." not "It will . . .".
>
> It you need any further help with this, take an English lesson, don't
> ask me to explain it!
>
>
> I did not say only .00001% of users have problems, I said only
> whatever very small percent will spend extra money on top of an
> adequately working system to get that tiny bit of extra utility out of
> it. I know I wouldn't on a handheld or vehicle-mounted receiver.
>
> Geez, Dan, you can't write, and you can't read! You really ought to
> take an English course, hahahahaha!
>
> I have used a system several times over the past few years that does
> receive satellites from both GPS and Glonass simultaneously - a Topcon
> RTK precise survey system. And yes, at first it "seemed" handy on
> occasion, when taking bottom-of-excavation elevations for deep bridge
> footings, to have the few more satellites available compared to, for
> example, a similar Trimble system that had only GPS satellites to work
> from.
>
> However, due I suppose to the mathematical intricacies of resolving
> the clock differences between the 2 sets of satellites, you never knew
> exactly how good a reading you were getting, and usually had to verify
> the final cuts with a Total Station anyway. So why bother?
>
> I love that sirf III stuff (if that's what's in my 76csx?) - I can
> ride around on a little rented motorbike all day with the gps in my
> pants pocket, or hike in dense forest, and it always gives me
> positions. On later replay in GE, it sometimes shows me off the side
> of the road or pathway 20 meters, but you know what . . . I know I was
> on the road, so WTF do I care?
>

It is possible to design a receiver to give reading under conditions
that another receiver might be designed to "not report" due to higher
error. Many of the professional mapping receivers can set by the user
to ensure a certain level of accuracy based of SNR, number of satellites
tracked, mask angle and HDOP/PDOP.

Some folks want a position regardless of accuracy... and others who
don't want to collect data that is inaccurate.

Happy Trails

2007-06-12, 10:33 pm

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:34:39 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
> It is possible to design a receiver to give reading under conditions
> that another receiver might be designed to "not report" due to higher
> error. Many of the professional mapping receivers can set by the user
> to ensure a certain level of accuracy based of SNR, number of satellites
> tracked, mask angle and HDOP/PDOP.
>
> Some folks want a position regardless of accuracy... and others who
> don't want to collect data that is inaccurate.
>

All of the RTK receivers I have used for construction layout and
automatic grading have these functions. The limits are typically
placed on HDOP and VDOP - we are concerned with the horizontal and
vertical errors. Typical limits used will be in the range of a few
centimeters.

Mask angle is another variable the user can control, but when using
RTK the number of satellites is a system function - you cannot do RTK
with less than 5 satellites tracked on both L1 and L2 at base and
mobile, so that item is usually not controllable by the user. We will
always allow tracking more sats so we do not drop positioning when a
satellite in use goes below the mask angle set.

Signal to noise ratio is usually an RTK system function also - not
played around with by the user. The system will do a comprehensive
filtering of signals over a short period of time before using a
satellite in its solution anyway, so this does not become a problem.

Usually you are farting around trying to get that one last required
satellite into the solution so you can pound another stake in the
ground - not looking for another centimeter of precision by - god
forbid - analysing SNR's in your head!

But of course we are not talking about your average consumer of gps
here - only a very small minority of overall gps users.

Sam Wormley

2007-06-12, 10:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:34:39 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> All of the RTK receivers I have used for construction layout and
> automatic grading have these functions. The limits are typically
> placed on HDOP and VDOP - we are concerned with the horizontal and
> vertical errors. Typical limits used will be in the range of a few
> centimeters.
>
> Mask angle is another variable the user can control, but when using
> RTK the number of satellites is a system function - you cannot do RTK
> with less than 5 satellites tracked on both L1 and L2 at base and
> mobile, so that item is usually not controllable by the user. We will
> always allow tracking more sats so we do not drop positioning when a
> satellite in use goes below the mask angle set.
>
> Signal to noise ratio is usually an RTK system function also - not
> played around with by the user. The system will do a comprehensive
> filtering of signals over a short period of time before using a
> satellite in its solution anyway, so this does not become a problem.
>
> Usually you are farting around trying to get that one last required
> satellite into the solution so you can pound another stake in the
> ground - not looking for another centimeter of precision by - god
> forbid - analysing SNR's in your head!
>
> But of course we are not talking about your average consumer of gps
> here - only a very small minority of overall gps users.
>

Thanks for that practical perspective, Happy.
-Sam

Dan Anderson

2007-06-13, 12:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
> The correct tense for speaking about Galileo is future conditional,
> for example "It would . . ." not "It will . . .".

For you, I would try to remember to write: "It would rain
tomorrow."

For others, I will try to remember to write: "It will rain
tomorrow." However, since I do a minimum of proofreading
for this medium, mistakes have been made and will be made.

Of course, some of us have different views of the
probability of certain events happening in the future.

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

LinkBot