View Full Version : Galileo
weasil
9th Jul 2003, 19:42
Is it true? The EU proposes to spend billions of dollars launching 30 satellites to set up their own Satellite Navigation System?
Why? And to top it off It seems that they want to use conflicting frequencies so as to make Galileo incompatible with GPS. WHy not make it all one system so that everybody in the world can share satellites. ANd how do they think they can get away with a user fees system when the US GPS system is free to everybody.
It will be interesting to see this unfold. Has this story made news at all in Europe?
strafer
9th Jul 2003, 19:57
The answers to all your questions are quite simple.
It's a French idea.
seacue
9th Jul 2003, 20:05
If they make use of Galileo mandatory for (say) airlines and ships, collection of fees should be simple.
There has been a lot of recent discussion about funding Galileo since the work will be parceled out to EU countries based on their financial contribution to the project. A funding drop-dead date was recently succesfully passed.
To some extent I consider Galileo to be an "electronic Airbus", taking benefit from being 20 years newer than GPS. But GPS hasn't been standing still during those years, what with fielding WAAS, etc.
One obvious reason for Galileo is the ingrained fear that the US will turn civilian GPS off or reintroduce SA, since GPS is run by the US DoD. It is a case of distrust of the US commitments to keep the non-military part of GPS on the air and keep SA turned off.
RecSAR
9th Jul 2003, 20:07
Certainly the EU plans an independent GPS service and as I understand it, they are attempting to design a system that is independent of any single controlling organisation.
The current GPS is owned by the US military, and as a result, GPS satellites are moved to areas of "interest" to increase accuracy, thereby depleting the level of coverage elsewhere. In times of conflict the US military can turn off GPS coverage completely.
In addition, I see to recall that the Galileo proposal is a move towards a second generation GPS service with significantly greater accuracy for all users.
Regards
RecSAR
To put it bluntly, you can't rely on a non-accountable US military owned system at the core of muliple world-wide multi-billion dollar industries. The whole thing needs to be on a firm commercial basis with contracts and guarantees.
A report has recently been published in the USA pointing out the total inadequancies of the present system and praising the coherent business plan produced by the Galileo consortium.
Keygrip
9th Jul 2003, 20:55
...and who on Earth believes that GPS is "free".
It is, I suppose, "free" to any non-US taxpayer (same as landing fees).
The fact that the user doesn't actually pay an individual fee for time spent (like a toll road) or for a service contract (like cable television) doesn't make it "free".
Iron City
9th Jul 2003, 21:19
Cable and Wireless, Global Crossing and numerous other companies (dare I say airlines even) are presumably operated on a sound commercial basis with sterling business plans and end up in the hands of the receivers. Wouldn't they be logical people to run a navigation satellite system?
Especially because of recent events I understand that there is a lot (to put it mildly) of distrust of the U.S. but you will recall that from before the Gulf War (the first one against Iraq, not the recent one to finish the job) to present the U.S. has never turned GPS off, has never used SA to preempt safety of flight, and has not charged anyone a penny for the service. The emphasis in many of the posts on this thread is that GPS is owned by the US military. The military may have to do most of the work but in the US , as in the UK and other mature democracies the military works for the civil government. In the US this is taken care of by, among other things, having all the money come from the Congress. The governing bodies for GPS are not military, but include people from other departments and from the councils that advise the president on national security and technology. It could be conceived that GPS could be turned off, I guess, but it would take orders from the very top to do it, just like global thermonuclear war.
The plan from Europe is to set up a Euro organization (answerable to a subcommittee of several EU ministries, which is the same as almost nobody IMHO) that will provide the service. Their plan is to have a contractual relationship between the users and the service provider organization, any disputes or claims for liability go through a binding arbitration. To do this they want a new convention (international treaty) for everyone to sign up. This has been pushed for 10 years at least and has gotten nowhere because the rest of the world is not wild about paying for a system that they don't control and an organization that is not answerable to anyone to govern a system come up with in one region of the world.
While everybody is looking at the sexy satellites the area I'm worried about is the augmentation systems. WAAS goes live tomorrow as a commissioned augmentation system. It uses satellites to provide the augmentation information and has taken longer to build and been more complicated that expected, so it can only be brought to fruition by an fairly well endowed, robust organization. Local augmentation systems will (eventually) be able to be bought and installed for less than the price of a CAT I ILS, with no guarantee that they are maintained properly, by anybody who wants to put one in. If anything bad happens ( and we all hope it will not and do everything possible to avoid it) because of the navigation and landing information provided the accident investigation will drag in the whole GNSS, take forever, and give ample scope for the rumous mongers and (egads) journos to make spectacular hay.
Standing by for incoming
Genghis the Engineer
10th Jul 2003, 00:56
As I understand it, the basic problem that various authorities have against use of GPS for sole/primary navigation is the dependence upon a single system.
If however you can have a GPS and a Galileo box in your cockpit - with separate hardware, separate satellite systems, but the same free-flight functionality - we can all bin VOR, ADF, LORAN and all the rest of the low-accuracy high workload navaids and simply cross-check between two near-identical satnav displays. Equally an autopilot need only compare two identical nav inputs and scream help if they aren't within a few hundred metres of each other.
It may be expensive, but unless you support the US military's GPS monopoly, love ADF mental arithmetic, or earn your living selling or maintaining VOR equipment it's hard to see it as a bad thing.
But, going back to weasil's original point, if Galileo was compatible with GPS you wouldn't have this advantage of redundancy.
G
Kalium Chloride
10th Jul 2003, 05:02
It will be interesting to see this unfold. Has this story made news at all in Europe?
Have you read the aviation press for the last six years? ;)
seacue
10th Jul 2003, 08:13
What people tend to forget is that there is already a second satellite navigation system: Russia's Glonas. Admitedly, it's in pretty poor shape.
RecSAR wrote:
===============
Certainly the EU plans an independent GPS service and as I understand it, they are attempting to design a system that is independent of any single controlling organisation.
===============
I say: Somebody has to have their hand on the switch. You can't have two dozen command stations issuing different commands.
===============
The current GPS is owned by the US military, and as a result, GPS satellites are moved to areas of "interest" to increase accuracy, thereby depleting the level of coverage elsewhere.
===============
I say: Do you have copies of the publicly-published orbital elements which show satellite orbits being changed? These things can't be kept secret since many GPS receivers allow display of the orbit data.
===============
In times of conflict the US military can turn off GPS coverage completely.
===============
I say: The US military couldn't function without at least the military part of GPS. SA was turned off during Gulf War I since the US military didn't have enough military GPS sets and wanted the better accuracy with the civilian sets they were using. SA was also turned off at times during Yugoslav events. It is promised that SA will never be turned on again. US industry is very dependent on the civilian side. What could happen is US jamming of the civilian signal in a battle area.
===============
In addition, I see to recall that the Galileo proposal is a move towards a second generation GPS service with significantly greater accuracy for all users.
===============
I say: As I understand it, Galileo accuracy will depend on how much you pay as a user. Free users won't get much better than GPS, probably not as good as GPS with WAAS. Right now, ordinary GPS is better than most maps. Even very cheap GPS receivers have inbuilt WAAS.
Plain vanilla GPS is not good enough for precision approaches for two reasons: it takes a long time to notify of a sick satellite, and the accuracy isn't good enough. Both are cured with a satellator near the airport.
Since atmospheric effects are of concern at real-time extreme accuracy, I'd imagine that Galileo will want satellators for precision approaches.
Right now, I understand there is operational testing of GPS approaches at Vail, Colorado.
chrisN
10th Jul 2003, 08:59
As far as I can see, the decision is made to go ahead. I responded to a survey, in which I objected to duplication of costs etc. which to be of use would also need duplication of equipment in things that fly, but I heard since that it is a done deal.
One example of EC guff on it:
"The GALILEO concession - Commission calls for expressions of interest
"The Commission has identified substantial markets for GALILEO services across a range of sectors and has estimated that the system will generate revenues for the operator rising from some €66 million in 2010 to over €500 million in 2020. Now, the Commission has launched a call for expressions of interest in order to allow potential operators to make themselves known and to prepare themselves for the call for tenders.
With the role played by satellite positioning systems set to grow considerably, GALILEO is likely to revolutionise society. . . . "
More here (http://europa.eu.int/comm/space/articles/news/news20_en.html) .
compressor stall
10th Jul 2003, 21:26
GPS is guaranteed to be free until 2010 I seem to remember hearing somewhere. After that who knows....
chrisN
10th Jul 2003, 23:16
More on Galileo here (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/programme/architecture_en.htm) .
It is claimed to have "interoperability" with GPS - dunno if that means our present GPS units will work with it or not. Anyone else know?
reynoldsno1
11th Jul 2003, 05:29
GPS & Galileo will be complementary. The problem with Galileo to date has been all the politico-economic bickering about work share, that has severely delayed the project (quelle surprise in Europe!). The next hurdle will be to get the test bed up and running before the frequency band allocation becomes time expired - no easy task...
sphealey
11th Jul 2003, 08:57
I say: Do you have copies of the publicly-published orbital elements which show satellite orbits being changed? These things can't be kept secret since many GPS receivers allow display of the orbit data. Aviation Leak had an article on it 1 or 2 issues ago (2003/07/01 or thereabouts). The GPS operator did change satellite orbits to concentrate more satellites over Iraq, providing greater accuracy and redundency for US forces.
However, as the older satellites are not failing as fast as anticipated, there are currently more in orbit than required to provide published accuracy, so this did not affect accuracy elsewhere.
sPh
Tall_guy_in_a_152
11th Jul 2003, 22:25
It is certainly true that GPS satellites are lasting longer than the 7.5 year design life, however that is only half the story.
Back in October 2002 (which I have some figures for) 16 of the 28 satellites were in 'single string failure mode', which means all redundancy for at least one critical system has failed so the next failure could be the last. There were 14 spare satellites on the ground at that time, with no plans to build any more (the production line has been discontinued). Only 24 are actually needed in orbit to maintain the minimum service level. I assume the reason for the lack of spares was down to an assumption that GPS III would roll out just in time, but I believe all funding has been withdraw for four years in the 2004 Pentagon budget proposal.
Galileo will be developed to cover as many applications as possible. Civil aviation is not a driving factor in the decision making. The two benefits I can think of are improved coverage of extreme Northern and Southern latitudes (due to the three-plane constellation) and an increased level of redundancy. I am not sure if the positional accuracy for (economical) civil use will be adequate to replace ILS systems.
The 'interoperability' with GPS refers to the fact that you can operate both simultaneously, but separately, at the same place. The results can be compared (by brain power or electronics) to give an indication that one system may have failed. One grey area of interoperability is that Galileo's Public Regulated Service signals overlay the GPS L1 signal. This has been demonstrated not to be a problem technically, but makes it very difficult for the US to jam Galileo without jamming their own GPS at the same time.
Some of the other benefits of Galileo are:
1) Improved positional accuracy (e.g. for guided missiles)
2) Improved coverage in valleys and city streets (GPS 55%, Galileo 95%). GPS cannot be used for unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) due to the high risk of losing the signal.
3) All products incorporating GPS Precise Positioning Service require US permission before sale. This is a severe limitation to European manufacturers given the widespread use of GPS in weapons systems and other defense applications.
4) Funding for GPS improvements in the US will get a kick start in the near future because the Pentagon will not allow Europe to have a better system than they have (this is a benefit for me, as a non US tax payer. Others may think differently:) ).
So is Galileo good value for money? Probably not, in my opinion. I predict spiralling costs (beyond the existing exhorbitant estimates) and lengthy delays in all phases of the project. That seems to be the norm for this type of programme. :D
TG.
p.s. the source of much of the above is various articles over the past year in 'GPS World' magazine, a US monthly trade publication also distributed in Europe. The opinions are my own.
Approximately 24 hours ago the WAAS function of the USA funded and operated GPS system was enabled, which will lead to CAT 1 precision approaches quite shortly....the FAA will begin flight testing same in August.
Progress marches on....in the USA anyway:ok:
Tall_guy_in_a_152
13th Jul 2003, 20:41
The European EGNOS augmentation system has been undergoing live trials for some time. It is due to become fully operational in 2004 (according to the ESA ;) ).
WAAS
Pro: Can use 'standard' GPS receiver (I think?)
Pro: Funded by FAA and Department of Transportation (not DoD), so approval for aviation use is guaranteed
Con: No accuracy / reliability information available
EGNOS
Pro: Provides reliable indication of positional accuracy
Pro: Compatible with GPS and GLONASS
Con: Requires EGNOS receiver (could limit usage in the short term)
The limitation of any augmentation system of this type is the fixed geographic area that they cover.
TG.
Loose rivets
14th Jul 2003, 02:22
Presumably either system will be vulnerable to a massive burst of solar radiation. - in the short epoch of satellites, we have had a minor occurrence already- I trust that we will keep a reasonable level of terrestrial back-up for this reason alone.
What is known?
Tall guy...152,
My understanding is that the GPS receivers now in use will work OK (could be wrong tho...:E ) but will need software changes for the vertical profile.
Personally have done over 85 GPS approaches in the last seven years with my private aircraft (TSO equipment required of course) and have found them all to be very accurate.
WAAS will be available over the entire USA, LAAS only available at select locations.
Still VOR/ILS/DME remains for the foreseeable future...even Loran C is not to be switched off for sometime...and remains very accurate also. Sadly, my Loran just died and went to avionics heaven :{ , so will just purchase another serviceable unit.
heavy checker
14th Jul 2003, 18:37
With accurate 'smart' missile delivery being driven by GPS, ownership and control of the system becomes a global power tool. With only one supplier, global control becomes complete.
Qwntm
18th Jul 2003, 03:59
Although there is much to find fault with here in the USA, I find it interesting that the United States can spend over $14 billion on technology, then make it free access for the rest of the world, and then get "slammed" for having "control" over the system...
I am all for the EU building their own system, but there must and has to be a way to make it complimentary and redundant with the current system, thus making everyone safer. Keep all the control you want, but we all really need to work in harmony regarding "global" systems... (And that includes the US as well...)
The LAST thing I want is more damn boxes in the cockpit that require learning two sets of instructions to do the SAME damn things.
Qwntm,
About explains it all.
Europe didn't invent GPS, develop, fund, build, or deploy required equipment (satellites) for its use, yet guardedly uses same anyway and would like to have their grubby little hands on the switch, all without pitching in a dime for its use.
Let 'em develop their own ...so they can enjoy the usual cost overruns and tax their citizens accordingly. Build it I say...bravo!:E
Meantime, can enjoy GPS use in the USA and if equipment 'G' installed, accept the ATC phrase...cleared direct to destination, and when within range, cleared GPS approach...:ok:
Tall_guy_in_a_152
18th Jul 2003, 07:15
I have been back and re-read all the posts in this thread and I cannot find any USA "slamming" comments (just a swipe at the French :p ).
A question was asked why Galileo was being developed and various reasons have been offered in response, primarily the desire for a complementary and redundant alternative (which you desire and Galileo will be) with more local control for European nations and independance from the USA.
Unfortunately you can only acheive true redundancy with 'more damn boxes in the cockpit' but let's hope that the user interfaces will be common. As users of GPS and Galileo services, we should not have to be concerned where the signals come from. We just want a display to reliably and accurately tell us where we are. That is down to the avionics market, not the satelite builders.
TG
maxalt
18th Jul 2003, 08:35
Personally have done over 85 GPS approaches in the last seven years with my private aircraft (TSO equipment required of course) and have found them all to be very accurate.
Moratore Te Salutamus.
We'll miss you when you're gone.
EMERALD1
22nd Jul 2003, 23:42
Don't start counting your chickens just yet.
These 30 satellites are going to cost 3.5 beuro.
EU & ESA have had a hard time finding 1 beuro.
Where's the other 2.5 beuro going to materialise from?
The chances of getting satellites built in time to retain the frequencies is low.
maxalt,
You might 'miss' a few more as well.
Just inspected a G3 yesterday fitted with dual GPS equipment (including VNAV), as these approaches/stars/sids (DP's in North America) have become rather more common with bizjet aircraft.
Only reason many airlines have not fit this equipment is....they are too cheap to do so.:p :uhoh:
My names Turkish
30th Jul 2003, 09:00
411a, I think you'll find the FAA now officially call them SIDS and have done so for the past year or so. I thought you new everything?
Actually Turkish, the FAA changed the SIDS to Departure Procedures quite some time ago.....