Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

European Space Agency Developing GPS Rival 360

Posted by chrisd from the gps-makes-sdi-missles-happy dept.
nbrimhall writes "The International Herald Tribune has a story here about the European Space Agency's plans to create a alternative to the U.S. controlled GPS. It includes some interesting information regarding the cost and possible contributors (including Canada and Russia)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

European Space Agency Developing GPS Rival More

European Space Agency Developing GPS Rival

Comments Filter:
  • Why create a competing system? Are there flaws in existing GPS? I'm honestly curious, someone explain to me why someone would go through the time/money/trouble to create a competing system.
    • public GPS has a built in "fuzzifier" that purposely gives false data off by like 100 yards or so i guess.

      military GPS receivers don't have that 'flaw'.

      there are already like 6 other satellites run by europe that when used with GPS together offer accurate results, and i can do it all with my magellan on my palm, so it obviously isn't just for the military anymore
      • IIRC. I have a fairly low-end GPS receiver and I can regularly get accuracy within about 12-15 feet. To get any better, I think you need more expensive equipment, the acronym DGPS comes to mind, but I can't remember exactly what that is. I think it has to do with using two receivers to get a more accurate position.

      • Selective Availability (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 26, 2001 @11:44PM (#2617686)
        The military GPS system had an encoded 'noise' generator in it sposition. For civilian use, it was designed to give accuracy within 100m, 95%of the time, and 200m 99% of the time. They also reserved the right to degrade civilian accuracy further (like, within several hundred meters only 50% of the time, or worse) at any time, to keep enemies from using it to lob missiles through windows. The base standard is perfectly adequate for most high-seas navigation, but sucks in tight channels or for any precision operations, like airplane taxiing or highway navigation.

        Military GPS recievers had decoders built in, and were accurate to within a couple meters. This diffrence in accuracy was called 'selective availability.' BTW, during the gulf war, the military had a shortage of GPS recievers so they turned selecive availability off and used civilian recievers. Didnt seem to affect security all that much.

        To get around the problem, ths US Coast Guard deployed a system called Differential GPS, or DGPS. Basically, they created fixed-position GPS recievers, which continuously compared the position derived from civilian-degraded GPS with a known position, and then broadcast the correction in real time. DGPS recievers applied the correction to the satellite position, and restored ccuracy to about 10-20 meters. In short, one branch of the military, (the coasties) were spending tens of millions to overcome the inaccuaracy included by another branch of the military.

        During the Clinton administratioin, it bacame apparent that civilian uses of GPS were becoming signivicant to the economy, so Clinton ordered selective availability turned off (or turned down) to increase civilian accuracy. However, the military still reserves the right to degrade the civilian signal at any time without warning, if they percieve a national security risk.

        So, the interest in a European GPS network is at least in part to remove the control from the US military, and remove the hreat of having the system degraded when they may want to use it.
        • In short, one branch of the military, (the coasties) were spending tens of millions to overcome the inaccuaracy included by another branch of the military.

          The CG is part of the dept of transportation. They spent money to improve resolution within the range of the coastal transmitters. In other words shipping related to American trade. Also, it might have been easier than you make it seem since the infrastructure was already there from the existing loran transmitters.

      • The error addition for civilian use was phased out a couple of years ago. There was probably Slashdot discussion about it at the time.

    • Re:Isn't using GPS free? if so why spend capital? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gilroy ( 155262 ) on Monday November 26, 2001 @10:06PM (#2617341) Homepage Journal
      Blockquoth the poster:

      I'm honestly curious, someone explain to me why someone would go through the time/money/trouble to create a competing system.

      I guess for the same reason monopolies make people antsy: the Europeans probably don't like their increasing dependence on a system administered by a single nation, especially one which, from time to time, trumpets "unilateralism".


      There might be some concern, too, that the system would be suspectible to terrorist or other hostile action. Two systems might provide the redundancy to salvage a disaster.

    • The GPS system is controlled by the military (especially its precision) : until recently, the service was provided for free for civilian purposes with a low precision (I think it was 5 meters, or something like that). Today, the resolution is maximum, but they could decided to turn it back down, or stop civilian service altogether.

      • Re:Isn't using GPS free? if so why spend capital? (Score:5, Informative)

        by stoney27 ( 36372 ) on Monday November 26, 2001 @10:31PM (#2617450) Homepage
        The resolution that the civilian receivers still are not as good as the military ones. Even with out Selective Availability the civilian receiver accuracy is about 15m (49') where the Military is about 1m (3.3').


        This is due to ionospheric interference. When a radio signal travels through the free electrosn in the ionosphere, it experiences a certain amount of delay. Signals of different frequencies are delayed differently. So in creating the GPS system the military thought of using two signals when the satellites broadcast there info. Called L1 and L2 the military use both signals mesure the amount of delay between them and make corrections for the effect of the ionosphere. The Civilian receivers cannot correct for the ionospheric interference since it only picks up the L1 frequency.


        So I guess there is a good, long explanation on
        why to invest the capital. Or you could buy the
        military reciver. :)


        -Scott

      • The US and Europe are friendly tward each other when it comes to anything important. I mean it's not like Europe is going to be fighting a war against the US any time soon (or not so soon).

        I can see some country like Iraq or China having good reasons for their own independant GPS system, but not Europe, they're more likely than anyone to be sided with the US during any event that may call for decreased GPS accuracy.
        • They are now, but what about in the future? The political landscape of Europe has changed a lot in the last 15 years, and will continue to change. A more powerful European Union may eventually threaten the interests of the US, which could cool off our relations.

          I doubt that the US and the EU will have serious problems in the near future, but the military has a different way of looking at things. They deal with "threats" and "risks", and they generally see the glass as half-empty (especially when looking at their budget). A separate satellite navigation system could resolve a risk and a budget problem at the same time.

      • Re:Isn't using GPS free? if so why spend capital? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by phliar ( 87116 ) on Monday November 26, 2001 @11:13PM (#2617595) Homepage
        until recently, the service was provided for free for civilian purposes with a low precision (I think it was 5 meters, or something like that).
        It still is free for civilian use - the L1 signal without SA (Selective Availablity - a deliberate coarsening of the accuracy that can be obtained - this was turned off by the Clinton administration) is good for about 15m. The military gets to use the L1 signal as well as L2, which allows them to correct for ionospheric delays (which are variable) and they get meter accuracies. Crypto keys are required to use the L2 signal.

        but they could decided to ... stop civilian service altogether.
        Not bloody likely! The FAA has been decommissioning (not repairing) lots of terrestrial navigation systems (like VORs and NDBs) based on "everyone has GPS". Additionally, with the deployment of WAAS - Wide-Area Augmentation System, a network of ground stations that calculates errors for each satellite and uses a geostationary satellite to send these corrections to aircraft in real-time - US civil aviation becomes even more dependent on GPS. They can turn GPS off only by [effectively] grounding the airlines.

        (GPS+WAAS is good enough for accuracy in inches, even if they turn SA back on. WAAS will only work in the US though.)

    • Hint: "US-controlled GPS". If you were a sovereign nation would you want to trust that the US would continue providing reasonable accurate signals globally, or would you want to have a multinational system that couldn't be turned off, or be switched to provide misleading information.
    • I think the recurring suspicions that the U.S. used Echelon to help American companies win contracts at the expense of their European conterparts comes to mind....

      -Maher-
  • I suppose that having cell phones on different standards wasn't enough... now we have to have our GPS'es on different standards too?
  • There's really no need to build your own GPS network. It's easy enough (for a foreign country) to get the accuracy they need by using differential GPS. Very simplified, you put several GPSes (or their antennae) in different places, take readings and figure out the average location.
    • Yes, but why rely on a system designed by another country? If the EU or whatever developes their own they can have complete control and wouldnt be controled by the US whenever they decide to turn it off for whatever reason.
    • There's really no need to build your own GPS network. It's easy enough (for a foreign country) to get the accuracy they need by using differential GPS.

      It wouldn't surprise me if the US military could turn-off the GPS over selected parts of the globe. I recall hearing rumors of the signal from the GPS satellites disappearing in some parts of the country a few years ago, perhaps they were testing their ability to selectively disable GPS satellite transmissions.


      The only thing that surprises me is that it's taken the rest of the world this long to start developing a replacement system (except for the Russian GLOSAT(?) system of course). Think about it, every airline in the world (for example) is dependent on a navagation system run by the US military. Nothing against them, they seem to be running it on the up-and-up, but is it a good strategy to depend on a navagation system run by a potential enemy or even a competitor?

      • > airline in the world (for example) is dependent
        > on a navagation system run by the US military

        What are you talking about???? until just a few years ago (5) no plane in the sky could "officially" use gps as a positional aid. Admittedly, gps has RECENTLY opened up many additional runways and airports to instrument approaches (when the weather's too bad to land visually) but the majority of approaches in use today still don't use GPS. And the majority of in flight navigation is also NOT based on GPS. I don't know this for fact, but I'd be suprised if even 1 commercial flight out of 10 uses GPS as a primary navigation aid. Beleive me, the FAA and other countries' equivalents has long had a system in place without the use of GPS and it's still going strong today.
    • This is not what differential GPS is. Differential GPS relies on a GPS receiver at a known, precisely surveyed location (Lat/Long/Elevation) and a link to a relatively nearby mobile GPS unit. GPS position errors in the era of Selective Availability were highly correlated, so the error vector of the GPS reading at the surveyed location was approximately the same as the error vector of the relatively nearby mobile unit. Towit, you could dramatically improve accuracy using DGPS correction by incorporating the error vector. Not sure if it really matters much in the era of no-more SA. WAAS is a new technology that does improve GPS accuracy. Turning on a receiver and letting it sit in one place for a long time will improve accuracy. I don't know what you mean about putting them in different locations and "averaging locations". Put one in Minneapolis, one in Dallas, and conclude you're in Omaha?
    • It isn't quite like that. You have a station at a known position, and it broadcasts corrections to the position signal it receives from the GPS.

      You can buy a prebuilt differential broadcast correction station for not much money -- no need to homebrew. Just set it up at a known location. You likely don't even need that: USGC differential beacons cover most of the country. However you get better repeatability if you are close to your differential station, so it may be worth your while if you are doing high precision work and aren't near a USCG beacon. I've heard it also helps if you have weak GPS signals (e.g. under tree cover with limited sky view) but I haven't seen it in action.

      • I would imagine that most parts of the continental US have reception to at least two or three LORAN stations. IIRC, you need four vectors from LORAN station to get a reliable position. I'm not sure how many it would take to fix you to within 10 meters or so.

        Placing the beacon at a known location would be pretty easy, I'd imagine. Let's say you wanted to target a certain government building in DC. Place the DGPS beacon at a known location (like the roof of a building down the street) and a receiver on your missle/plane/whatever, and I think you'd be able to hit your target quite accurately.
        • LORAN? I was pretty sure LORAN only covered coastal areas, and even then the coverage is not complete. LORAN is quite accurate, but it's a pain to use, and for full accuracy you do (or did) need special charts showing variations in the system.

          What would be really cool would be a machine capable of doing fully automatic celestial navigation.
  • Instead of GPS, I think we should work on developing IPS (Interstellar Positioning System) We could do it with current GPS technology, just face the dishes away from the Earth... lose something on accuracy and we'd need a new coordinate system for space, but hey, we're gonna need it anyway in a few hundred years.
  • Hopefully this will create a surplus of receivers and these things will become cheaper for the average user.

    • You can already pick up GPS receivers for under $100, so I'm not quite sure what you're waiting for. If you mean with onboard mapping, colour display, etc, well that isn't costly because of GPS.

  • "Europe plans to spend billions assembling a civil satellite system called Galileo, scheduled to be in operation by 2008."

    I can see the comericals for the new system, there going to have Queen's Bohemian Rapsody playing: Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, magnifico... oh, oh, ohh, oh, oh, oh, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no mama mi-ia, mama-mi-ia, mama-mi-ia let me go...

  • Looking at the article, am I to understand that they are trying to make a subscription alternative to GPS? Maybe I am just a trusting American, but does it really make sense to pay a monthly subscription fee 'just in case' America decides to turn off the GPS system?
  • Damn.. the last time they contributed to something they had to send an american to space and spend his money.

  • GLONASS, the Russian GPS (Score:5, Informative)

    by dido ( 9125 ) <dido@NoSpAM.imperium.ph> on Monday November 26, 2001 @10:19PM (#2617399)

    I believe the Soviet Union once launched a system of satellites called GLONASS that worked like GPS. Are they planning to do an upgrade or repair of this system? The GPS FAQ [vancouver-webpages.com] has more information (see section 5.2).

    Heck, it's understandable why they'd want to build an alternative GPS; the US Department of Defense could suddenly decide to turn selective availability back on again if they felt like it someday...

    • We need to make the most of GPS while we can. For the amount of money the Europeans are considering, they could employ thousands of people to walk around the globe, write down GPS coordinates at each location, and stick them onto the ground on Post-It notes (tm).

      Hurry - we don't have much time to finish this task before the US government switches off the GPS system!

  • Its about control... (Score:5, Informative)

    by thogard ( 43403 ) on Monday November 26, 2001 @10:21PM (#2617405) Homepage
    Galileo is attempt to get around the "what if" questions however if the US shuts down the public GPS system, its also going to take out Glonass and any other location system.

    When GPS was designed, they added a fudge factor in that would only allow civil recivers to get get a short term fix of about 100m but the military recivers should have been able to get under 10m but because of R&D money on the civil side, the non-military recivers would give much better results than the over priced military ones. With good differental systems you can now get sub meter precision and the fudge factor is pointless and has been turned off. It was the fudge factor that started the Galileo project in the first place.

    I don't see Galileo going anywhere. It is a user pay system so are you going to use the euro system where you get to pay $30/yr on top of the reciver or the GPS system where its free thanks to the US tax payers? There will also be the problem that GPS recivers are commodity item and Galileo recivers won't be for at least a decade. Europe would be much better off provide a WAAS compatable sat system than doing their own GPS.
    • Umm, I think a little more explanation is called for here:
      however if the US shuts down the public GPS system, its also going to take out Glonass and any other location system
      How exactly do they plan on doing this??
  • I can understand the European desire to avoid dependence on a U.S. military system, but I think this is misplaced. Given the increasing civilian uses for GPS, including the proposed "next-generation" air traffic control system that would rely on GPS, the only way the military could turn it off now would be if the U.S. were under missile attack. At that point, the first strike or retaliatory (nuclear) strike would probably wipe out all civilian satellites anyways.

    But, it's a free world! If the Europeans want to waste $3.6 billion (give or take another billion or two), they should go ahead! Higher taxes in Europe, increasing the attractiveness of American goods! If they waste enough, American manufacturers can stay on top of the economic battles for another generation!

    BTW, paid vs. free doesn't always matter. Look at the world's largest software monopoly, and all the PCs everybody's going to buy this Christmas loaded with what operating system? (But just in case, maybe Garmin just needs to start contributing to some political campaigns on the other side of the pond...)


    • But, it's a free world! If the Europeans want to waste $3.6 billion (give or take another billion or two), they should go ahead! Higher taxes in Europe, increasing the attractiveness of American goods! If they waste enough, American manufacturers can stay on top of the economic battles for another generation!


      Well, the difference is this.
      We don't spend idiotic amounts of money on the military.
      So, $ 3,6 billion is nothing compared to the US military budget.
      O yeah, and that is also the reason that we have (almost) free healtcare
      Don't forget that the military budget of the US is higher than that of China and the whole of Europe combined.
  • They have Canadarm now! They're unstoppable!
  • We're going to rule the world with our superior ... um... our superior mapping technology? At least that's what the implication is in the article. Oooh, look out! If we decide we don't like you we'll make all the Germans drive their nice BMW's right in to a river with our
    evil American GPS signals! [google.com]

    • Many other countries, however, see the system as an American monopoly intent on reinforcing U.S. dominion.


    Not that I have a problem with a parallel system. More power to anyone who wants to go for it, but "U.S. dominion" seems like kind of a silly justification.
  • It might be cheaper for everyone if the US agreed to make GPS an accurate, permanent system, independent of political events.

    Becuase anytime real GPS gets scrambled, the US would probably also take any rival system down by force.

    Would you like to be in an airliner that makes a 100m vertical postioning error in foggy weather ?
  • The rest of the world pays the US (say) $3B, and the US relinquishes any capability for military control of the system. As was pointed out elsewhere, there's no strong US military argument for retaining control over GPS transmissions. This would avoid most of that wasted EU investment, and the US would get some of its R&D investment back at a time when cash would come in handy. There's no reason I can think of that we need multiple incompatible geopositioning systems around this planet.

    Come to think of it, bundle in a satellite warning system while we're at it, and make the whole package available to all nations. :)

  • One thing I'd like to see (Score:5, Informative)

    by orz ( 88387 ) on Monday November 26, 2001 @10:45PM (#2617509)
    Currently, when you use a GPS, the longer you stand still the more accurate it gets. This is because it can average out the errors that occur over time. However, once you start moving, it can't do that, because it has a hard time telling movements from measurement errors.

    If on the other hand, they included an accelerometer in the GPS unit they could tell with great precision which changes were due to movements, and which were due to errors. Thus, with some algorithm changes, such a GPS unit could continue to refine its measurements to greater and greater precision as long as it was turned on, even if it was moving about.

    Ideally, the accelerometer would be integrated on to the same chip as the GPS or Galeon reciever, along with the logic for coorelating the results as well. Accelerometers can be built entirely on-chip, so no extra parts would be needed. I believe modern accelerometers can achieve high accuracy over a very wide range of accelerations using just 2 square millimeters of chip area, so this shouldn't add much to the manufacturing cost.

    This would also increase safety in a number of ways. If an airplane in flight lost GPS signal, perhaps due to flying into a low narrow valley, it could continue to navigate electronically for a while (albiert with less precision) using only the accelerometer. If for some reason the GPS or Galeon network became suddenly unavailable due to unforseen circumstances (US goverment getting pissed off, technical issues, bizarre weather, interference, terrorists, etc.), critical systems would have a little extra time to deal with the situation before global positioning equipment failed completely.

    Does this make sense to people? Think it's a good idea / bad idea?
    • On-chip accelerometers are great, but last I looked, much of the decent chip-based accelerometer tech was classified and military use only due to its ability to be readily applied to create sophisticated missle guidance systems. 'tis unfortunate, as there are any number of really cool (and non-lethal..) applications that geek-minded people could find for tiny cheap accelerometers. (Whee, your Lego robot now has ultra-accurate dead-reckoning and perfect balance...)
      • Whee, your Lego robot now has ultra-accurate dead-reckoning and perfect balance...

        Get on a swing, close your eyes, and try to stay upright while moving back and forth. It's not just in your ears, it's in your eyes too.

  • ...is that a European system will be technically superior, but flawed in implementation.

    Probably something like a "GPS Tax" (think about it for a moment).

    The end result will be a system that no one will use.
  • I had no idea GLONASS was down to six sats. That's sad. Since you need to see at least three at once to get a fix, that's almost useless.

    It might be cheaper to do navigation by sending out navigation signals on the major communications satellites. This won't provide global coverage, but it would cover all the places you can get satellite TV broadcasts. I'm surprised that INMARSAT doesn't do this as a matter of course.

  • The article is called "Rivals Mobilize Alternatives to U.S. System." What are they thinking? The USA has far too great an interest as global trade is concerned to turn off GPS. The FAA has approved GPS for IFR navigation. People take the handheld units virtually everywhere. I don't see that anyone would let the DoD just turn off the system. [sarcasm] Like I'm going to pay for a Galileo signal when I get GPS for free, not to mention installed base. [/sarcasm] Too many people rely upon GPS. While it seems wise to make an alternative, it benefits few to none, excepting those that make the birds and as a deterrant to the US turning off GPS.
    Summary: Expensive, bad idea.

  • Who Cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 )

    Who is going to pay that subscription fee while there is a free one in the sky? It's like web sites. Who is going to pay for content when there is more than you can read in a lifetime free?

    I have a feeling that if the Europeans build a fee based GPS, nobody will come. What a waste of Euro taxpayer dollars.

    • Re:Who Cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by HarryTuttle ( 69566 )
      What a waste of Euro taxpayer dollars

      It would be a waste, except we don't pay our tax in dollars. We pay in Euros, which are worthless anyway. So, technically, it's not a waste.
      • Note that not the whole of the EU is going to paying in Euros next year (The UK, Denmark and Sweden currently have no concrete Euro plans). I hate to be pedantic, but if you're going to pick up on other people's minor errors then try to get it right yourself.

  • Two Good Reasons (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Boom-Boom ( 88982 ) on Monday November 26, 2001 @11:13PM (#2617597) Homepage
    Actually, the U.S. Department of Defense has clearly outlined scenarios in which GPS would be locally shut down and/or jammed; Space.com had an interesting story about it earlier this month.
    Another reason is the available of ultrawideband [timedomain.com] technology (UWB). It's really interesting, relatively inexpensive, and can provide tremendously accurate (1 centimeter) positioning.
    No, I don't own stock in it or anything like that (although, as a U.S. citizen, I should [discover.com]).

  • Mind Control Rays (Score:5, Funny)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Monday November 26, 2001 @11:14PM (#2617599)
    The Europeans have found us out! The GPS is really a source of mind control rays that warp sensibilities. Why do you think Jerry Lewis is so popular in France?

    To retaliate they are going to build their own, and make us think the European rock and roll is good, and like warm beer, too!

    See http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html for the defence against this dastardly plot!
    • and like warm beer, too!

      There is a keen difference (in my experience) between masss produced European and mass produced American beer:

      1) European beer is really good warm, and tasty cold.
      2) American beer is terrifyingly bad warm, and it's bad cold.

      It depends on if you want consistantly bad or consistantly good beer.

      Mind you, this is coming from a person who's idea of heaven is sitting on an isolated beach on a sunny day with his laptop and some nice room temperature stout...writting code and getting pleasently smashed. So you might want to take my opinions with a grain of salt.
      • There is a keen difference (in my experience) between masss produced European and mass produced American beer

        Well, in my travels on both sides of the pond I've learned to stay away from mass produced beer of either sort.

        And yes, I still prefer specialty beers cold.

  • Jamming (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jessohyes ( 175502 ) on Monday November 26, 2001 @11:25PM (#2617631)
    The article mentioned that the U.S. Military was now capable of Jamming GPS signals so that is the reason they turned off Selective Availability [noaa.gov]. So why wouldn't it be possible for the enemy to make jammers to stop us from using our own system? (or any GPS system for that matter). From what I've heard GPS signals that finally make it to the receiver are very weak and therefore a stronger signal coming from somewhere on the ground would possibly interfere. Wouldn't this be a Denial of Service GPS style? Does the military signal have some sort of antijam feature? Lets hope so.

    • Re:Jamming (Score:2, Insightful)

      by carm$y$ ( 532675 )
      The article mentioned that the U.S. Military was now capable of Jamming GPS signals so that is the reason they turned off Selective Availability

      This is a good point to justify an alternative EU GPS system: the US can jam or make "selectively available" their own system, but doing something like that on someone else's system would be an outright act of war.
      Of course this boils down to some leverage in commercial talks, after all; and I don't see the US and the EU engaged in more than "heated talks" in the next 10-15 years.
  • Maybe they would use enough bits to avoid any roll-over date problems that plagues GPS (only can specify the week to 10-bits (1024 weeks) so it loops about every 20 years... So devices have to just take an educated guess on which year it is...

    You can read a paper here [sustainableworld.com] about the date bug.

  • Redundacy! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cgleba ( 521624 ) on Monday November 26, 2001 @11:57PM (#2617710)
    ./s here seem to forget the biggest benefit of a Euro-GPS -- redundacy.

    You can't even fathom how dependant we are on GPS already. It's amazing.

    * Ships use it as a replacement for LORAN (with LORAN being the redundancy).

    *The whole telco industry uses it . Rather then sending a sync signal for long-distance serial lines (aka some T-1s, etc) they use GPS (with wire-sync being the redundancy).

    * A good hunk of the computer industry uses it. GPS receivers are used for many NTP servers.

    * The FAA is looking into using it (as a replacement for thier ground-based radar set up to allow pilots to autonomously plot thier poin-to-point flight plans).

    * The military uses it in many ways including the self-guided smart bombs, etc.

    We all know that a lot of people and companies do not build in redundancy until the sh*t hits the fan andsomthing goes down. If we loose a few GPS satellites the results for those that were not careful would be catastrophic. Having a second system in place, even at a subscription cost, is VERY valuable.

    BTW I highly doubt the miltary would ever shut down civilian access to GPS in anything less then a world war. The US economy is WAY too dependant on it.

    • Re:Redundacy! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ukryule ( 186826 )
      Fair point ... but surely you want as different as possible a system to provide the redundancy. Anything that takes out GPS is almost certain to take out the Euro-GPS (whopping great solar flare, meteorites).

    • Re:Redundacy! (Score:2, Informative)

      by brokenbeaker ( 267889 )
      The GPS was effectively 'turned off' during the Gulf war, when satellites were diverted to increase coverage (and resolution) over the battle site. This lead to a lack of coverage over the west coast, disturbing a boatload of fishers.
  • China is also attempting to launch their own GPS network, and infact, they are actually farther along then the EU, having launched their first sat.

    http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/flash-article s/ flash2000-082.shtml

    There has also been talk of China financing the the Glonass system (Russia's GPS) for their own use.

    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-00h.html

  • Ooh (Score:2, Funny)

    by Vegeta99 ( 219501 )
    [sarcasm]Just what we need!

    GPS.Eu Version 0.1
    GPS# whereami

    Recieving response from GPS.Eu Sat #24
    Response: "We'd tell you, but you have your own version of GPS, you American bloke!"

    Seriously, whats wrong with the existing GPS system?

  • Why the signal is no longer degraded (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2001 @12:23AM (#2617764) Homepage
    US commentors should note that the only reason that the Clinton Admin turned of the degraded signal is to head off the threat of a rival EU system. The military had the ability to use selective availability from the very start, but as is always the case with their toys they were demanding a quid pro quo for letting others use it.

    The problem with the 'just trust us' approach is that it is difficult to place great trust in a democratic country that no longer bothers to count the votes and is planing to do away with trials, replacing them by tribunals. Meanwhile the Bush admin. has declared that it will unilaterally withdraw from any agreements it finds to be inconvenient - including biggies like the ABM treaty.

    The cost is not a major issue, $1Bn is not a huge amount in the EU budget, however it is not a negligible issue. The Brits would certainly not get bothered enough about the risks of a US monopoly, the French on the other hand can be relied upon to get into a galic stew over the issue.

    The concern for the EU would be that a future US president might use the GPS selective availability system as a bargaining chip in future trade negotiations. The US has from time to time gone through protectionist cycles and a President Buchannan might well have tried to get his way through various types of blackmail. Or imagine Senator Jessie Helms putting a ridder on an appropriations bill ordering the Admin. to turn off GPS service to any country that does not toe the line on whatever idea the supporter of segregation happened to have that week.

    Given the vagaries of the US political process it is not surprising that the dependence on the GPS system is being raised as an issue. It is very unlikely that the EU will go ahead and build a rival system, however it is very likely that the US will respond to the proposals with a set of diplomatic assurances over the use made of selective availabilty. And just as GWB has discovered that the ABM treaty matters after all a future president Buchanan would find that diplomatic assurances are kind of harder to renege on than US unilateralists tend to believe.

    • thanks for the asides ... (Score:3, Informative)

      by karb ( 66692 )
      in a democratic country that no longer bothers to count the votes

      The problem wasn't that the votes were not counted. The problem was that they were counted over, and over, and over again. Even if the supreme court had allowed a several county recount bush still would have won. If the democrats had asked for an entire state recount and got it (which seemed like a bad idea at the time) Gore would have won. However, when it's so close, it's more important that somebody win sooner rather the right person 6 months after the election.

      is planing to do away with trials, replacing them by tribunals.

      Heh, but not for U.S. citizens. Only for alleged terrorists in a certain situation. Since 90% of americans probably think shooting them on sight is our the idea, a trial at all is pretty good.

      Meanwhile the Bush admin. has declared that it will unilaterally withdraw from any agreements it finds to be inconvenient

      First of all, the bush administration seems less likely to do this now that international support is more necessary for the war in afghanistan. Secondly, no countries ever follow treaties if it doesn't suit them. If any other country had the money lying around to develop an ABM system you bet your asteroids they would (except maybe switzerland).

      I actually think that another system is a good idea, because american GPS systems are such a great military target, and redundancy is good. I just dislike half-informed country bashing.

      • Even if the supreme court had allowed a several county recount bush still would have won. If the democrats had asked for an entire state recount and got it (which seemed like a bad idea at the time) Gore would have won.

        Are saying that Gore *did* win but you have no problem with GWB being president? Are you mad?

        However, when it's so close, it's more important that somebody win sooner rather the right person 6 months after the election.

        No, you are very very wrong. A thorough transparent COMPLETE recounting of EVERY ballot is the sole acceptable solution. To be hurried - for what reason i dont know, the president isnt inaugurated for months after the vote - makes no sense. Why not take your time and be thorough, NOT doing so could only end up casting questions onto the legitimacy of your democracy, your president, your entire system? Very big stakes, for what reason were these things chanced? (aside: Bush's brother and his cronies were in charge of the re-count, this casts EVEN MORE doubt on the legitimacy of the event... very sad day for "american democracy")

        is planning to do away with trials, replacing them by tribunals.
        Heh, but not for U.S. citizens.

        I hereby propose Bill SN101; "Americans Shot on Sight Act" for first reading. This does not affect Canada's ideals and reputation of maintaining a peacfull and free domestic state, because, Hehehe hehe, its not for Canadian Citizens.

        Is it a fact now that Americans feel they are entitled to the guarantees in there constitution, freedom, liberty and safety - but "foreigners" are NOT? I think your constitutional lawyers may have a problem with this...

        Only for alleged terrorists in a certain situation. Since 90% of Americans probably think shooting them on sight is our the idea, a trial at all is pretty good.

        Please repeat this, its stunning

        First of all, the bush administration seems less likely to do this now that international support is more necessary for the war in Afghanistan.

        Fair weather friends are we? Im amazed that you would propose this as acceptable. Together, the rest of the world has no problems doing without the USA. Never forget that. Have a look at the domestic and foreign policies of the rest of the world - you will find some significant differences in opinion... America is moving away from the rest of the world....

        Secondly, no countries ever follow treaties if it doesn't suit them.

        What are you talking about? You cannot simply walk away from treaties? There are SIGNIFICANT ill effects of doing so. Not least of them would be loosing-face.

        If any other country had the money lying around to develop an ABM system you bet your asteroids they would....because american GPS systems are such a great military target, and redundancy is good.

        Who is this great empire of war-mongering foreigners you are trying to 'defend' yourself against?

        I just dislike half-informed country bashing.

        Really - how do you feel about ignorant jingoism? In short, i %worship_action% to %some_diety% that your opinions are not shared by your countrymen. Was your post serious?

        • Are saying that Gore *did* win but you have no problem with GWB being president? Are you mad?

          Gore did not win. But he received the most votes (after an unofficial recount by news organizations). The recount, however, took around 8 months and had no guarantee of being unbiased or accurate.

          The winner was decided by the number of votes that stood after several recounts. The democrats wanted a recount of several (heavily democrat) counties, republicans took 'em to court saying it was unconstitutional, supreme court agreed, and Gore basically ran out of time. He conceded. He realized that it would be better for the country to concede than hold the country in suspense for another four months.

          At any rate, it was really a technological problem, not a fundamental problem with our democracy. We are going to great lengths to fix our technology before the next elections :)

          Please repeat this, its stunning

          Americans very much consider this a war. It is not unusual to consider assassination of foreign officials during times of war. Saddam tried on bush. We've had prohibitions on it that the CIA occasionally violates. There's been consideration of lifting the prohibition.

          hereby propose Bill SN101; "Americans Shot on Sight Act" for first reading.

          Legal precedent holds in the U.S. that the rights specified in the Constitution sometimes do not apply to non-citizens, _especially_ when they are actually in a foreign country. For example, the FBI recently hacked into a russian computer to gather evidence before they had a warrant. That would get the case thrown out in the U.S., but the judge ruled it was ok because the computer and operator had no constitutional protections in russia. When the data was brought back, a warrant was needed to look at it, because it was in the U.S.

          What are you talking about? You cannot simply walk away from treaties?

          Who is this great empire of war-mongering foreigners you are trying to 'defend' yourself against?

          Because many countries that sponsor terrorists may have cbrn capabilities and will probably have missiles that reach the U.S. in 10 or 20 years. Normal deterrence (MAD) does not work for many of these nations, because Saddam Hussein, for example, does not seem to care if we kill all of his citizens. It would save him a lot of work. Upholding treaties kind of pales in comparison to the thought of that.

          (p.s. : cbrn is chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear, MAD is mutual assured destruction)

    • Even in the UK the implicit trust of the US has long gone. Cashmere, Bananas, and a host of other seemingly petty trade rows which have involved very senior politicians on both sides of the pond have shown the US to be vastly more protective of its markets than the UK / EU.

      To depend solely on a US owned GPS system for such a huge, and growing, list of services, often relating to national security, is shortsighted.

      However. The EU should not build a competing product. The US should hand control of the GPS system over to the UN lock stock and barrel. That way the world has a reliable GPS system that cannot be switched off by a grumpy state at some point in the future.

      GPS is becoming too important to leave it in the hands of someone else. Either its everyones toy, or EVERYONE needs their own. With the cost of a GPS system being prohibitive to all but the richest nations I think the UN option is best.

      It'll never happen though.
    • Meanwhile the Bush admin. has declared that it will unilaterally withdraw from any agreements it finds to be inconvenient - including biggies like the ABM treaty.

      How quickly they forget eh? The US scuttled 3 completely supported international initiatives:

      Kyoto Protocol

      Standing War Crimes Court. There were US Military from Korea on the docket.

      Standing / Enforceable BioWeapons Inspection teams. The US refused to endorse this, they claim its to defend BigPharma, but I wonder...

      Now they need the rest of the world, they want to form a broad-coalition to end terrorism... I see this "if your not with us, your against us" rhetoric as a pre-European vs USA "Superpower" duality volley, but I digress.

      I wonder how the USA would react if another nationa said ' we arent going to join *your* "coalition against terrorism" because it may ill-affect our economy ', I wonder if THAT is an acceptable answer to the request from the USA.

  • Jamming GPS (Score:5, Informative)

    by rootlocus ( 82271 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2001 @12:24AM (#2617769) Homepage
    yes, the US military can selectively jam GPS signals, or control the precision of the signals in certain geographic locations.. I actually worked on a project with the NAWC about 6 years ago to do this.. The jammers were small enough that they could fit in something about the size of a suitcase, and be dropped from a plane into enemy territory..

    In fact, this article suggests that they're doing it now in Afghanistan:

    [computerworld.com]
    http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV4 7_ STO65096,00.html

  • Improved accuracy? (Score:4, Informative)

    by grape jelly ( 193168 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2001 @12:49AM (#2617825)
    If more satellites for a GPS-like system, wouldn't it be possible to get a more accurate fix on your location? According to this page [ednet.ns.ca], three satellites are required to get a fix on your location (four to perform time correction). However, a number of problems exist: (taken from above site)

    1. The receiver clock is not exactly synchronized with the satellite clock so the time of flight will be imprecise.
    2.The satellite and receiver are in different velocity reference frames and gravitational regimes so there are relativistic differences (both special and general)
    3. The speed of light is 300,000 km/s in a vaccum. However, while travelling through the Earth Ionosphere and Troposphere, the radio waves travel at slightly slower speeds
    4. Radio signals traveling through the atmosphere travel differents paths depending on the location of the receiver.

    Although the first problem is correctable using a fourth satellite [ednet.ns.ca], the remaining three problems persist. However, if you receive signals from several satellites (not just your minimum 4), if you average your reported locations, you should be able to get a more accurate fix on your location.

  • Canada's Involvement (Score:3, Informative)

    by windside ( 112784 ) <pmjboyle AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday November 27, 2001 @02:12AM (#2618016)
    I am an Engineering student at the University of Calgary, in Canada. As a writer for the student newspaper, I had the chance to write a story about a project called the AUTO21 project.

    This is a multi-million dollar venture by the Canadian government that involves researchers in all fields, including sciences and humanities. Essentially what they are trying to achieve is a car that drives itself.

    I interviewed the head of the U of C's Geomatics department, Dr. Gerard Lachapelle. He mentioned the European "rival" to GPS (he called it "Galileo"), but he did not seem to think of it as a rivalry at all. Quite on the contrary, he and his department plan on using both technologies extensively in their coming work on the project.

    All the same, he seemed extremely excited about the prospect of a second system.

    ~windside
  • "Galileo arose from European concerns about falling behind the United States technologically."

    OK class, who can tell me when GPS was first deployed? And when will Galileo be deployed at its earliest?

    Our next topic of discussion is the importantce of picking proper verb tense...

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close