Galileo system 'in a deep crisis'

[Fly Stimulator]

According to this BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6634285.stm).
German Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee, speaking on behalf of the EU, said: "Galileo is going through a deep and grave crisis."
He added: "We're in a dead end street. The cardinal problem is that the companies still have not been able to agree on the way forward. We need to find an alternative solution."

Dare one suggest that other satellite navigation thingy that starts with 'G'?


Not at all surprisingly, we learn that:
This is likely to mean European taxpayers stepping in to cover costs.
:ugh:

[OpenCirrus619]

I never understood why the Europe needed its own version anyway.

[michaelthewannabe]

Dare one suggest that other satellite navigation thingy that starts with 'G'?

Well, as I understand it the point of Galileo is that it complements GPS, providing political independence, greater accuracy and (most importantly for aviation) greater redundancy, when used together with GPS. It's not just a matter of a simple alternative.

It occurred to me that perhaps our own CAA are looking at Galileo, with dual receivers in nav equipment, to be an opportunity to finally phase out the legal requirements for "steam-powered" (NDB/VOR/DME) radio navaids to be carried. If this has been CAA's private expectation, then the failure of Galileo could be disappointing for all potential GA users.

However, if the only way to get Galileo operational is hefty subscriptions for all users (paying a premium for the improved service it provides over GPS), and the use of Galileo was mandated for IFR flight, this would be bad news...

But this is all idle speculation over decisions that we may be a decade away from.

[NH2390]

Dare one suggest that other satellite navigation thingy that starts with 'G'?

GLONASS Maybe? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glonass)

[Fly Stimulator]

A bit more on this from The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/08/galileo_strategic_not_commercial/).

[Dysonsphere]

We should hope it never works as half the reason for building it is so they can stick a black box in every car and aircraft, force us to buy them then charge us to use them and finally bill use for miles driven/ flown

[michaelthewannabe]

We should hope it never works as half the reason for building it is so they can stick a black box in every car and aircraft, force us to buy them then charge us to use them and finally bill use for miles driven/ flown

GPS would be completely adequate for that already, regardless of what happens to Galileo, if the political will were there to do it.

More generally, I'm not sure that the fear of being tracked/billed is a proportionate reason to hope that satellite navigation technology goes away. It's a modest downside, and one that is politically difficult to achieve because we live in a democracy (insert laughter as required, but c.f. China/Iran/etc.) making it hard work for the rulemakers to introduce unpopular measures.

Set against that, satellite navigation brings its users quite a big upside.

[IO540]

Galileo was based on two assumptions

1 - the premise that the US system (Navstar) will never be upgraded; basically, that the Americans are dumb

2 - EU political independence

1 is dead - Navstar is being upgraded with more powerful sats and other stuff. Selective availability went many years ago and isn't likely to come back because (while it would not affect enroute aviation nav) it would mess up road vehicle nav.

2 is debatable at dubious at best. We all know the USA threatened to destroy Galileo if there was an attack on the USA which used Galileo (presumably, after Navstar got shut down) and I would do exactly that if I was running the USA at such a time. If the people who would actually control Galileo thought that they would be able to just keep it running (unencrypted i.e. for civil use) at a time of real crisis, sticking a finger up to the USA, then they must be unbelievably naive.

And short of a real crisis Navstar will never get shut down because America relies so much on GPS.

Without a covert US-EU agreement on such shutdowns, the project could never get off the ground. But, such an agreement makes a mockery of the political independence argument, of course :ugh:

As regards the redundancy argument, this can be met using anybody's satellites provided they are compatible at the receiver. Originally, Galileo wan't going to be Navstar compatible - just how thick, stupid and naive some EU officials can be? Make all existing receivers obsolete? Then, some heads got banged together and it is compatible. Which in turn makes it as relevant as the USA putting up more and better sats - which is exactly what (suprise, suprise) they are doing...

The incompetence and stupidity of the people behind Galileo is hard to believe.

More recently, clutching at straws, Galileo broadened its business plan to selling a subscription-based signal which would be used for road pricing. Immediately, people found ways to get around any realistic large-scale implementation - mostly involving cutting 1 wire, or some bacofoil over the GPS aerial.

I would assume that European LNAV/VNAV GPS approaches (where you get a virtual ILS but using wholly GPS) which are coming in in the USA right now, would be predicated on the subscription-based (and higher accuracy) Galileo signal. But it would take another dumb idiot to think money could be made with this. Most of the world's airliners can and do use ILS, which - apart from the landing fee etc - is free. Most of the world's airliners aren't going to fit a special Galileo receiver, with the special decryption facility, just so they can fly LNAV approaches in that little corner of the world called "Europe" when they can already fly the ILS into every airport that counts. Europe would have to rip out its ILS transmitters, as a Galileo revenue supporting measure. Nice one!

Then we can get onto the scenario where an airliner is flying some LNAV or VNAV approach, and the Galileo encryption keys expire halfway down. Or it can't depart, or has to divert, because of some key issue. There are ways around that but it introduces a pointless and serious point of failure, and this has been raised already in connection with this part of the business model.

Now, we are likely to get LNAV/VNAV/LPV via EGNOS and that supplements the Navstar signal. We could have VNAV approaches right now, into every grass strip there is and without ATC requirement, but politics (CAA and NATS) will make sure this won't happen for many years.

[Fly Stimulator]

In an astoundingly predictable development, according to this report (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/08/eu_taxpayer_cash_for_galileo_but/) it seems as if European taxpayers will have to stump up for the Galileo vanity project.

Galileo was originally supposed to be funded in large part by private-sector firms, who would recoup their investment by charging for paid location services. But the corporate sponsors had grave doubts over whether anyone would pay Galileo fees when the American defense department's Global Positioning System (GPS) can be used for free.

Who'd have thought it? :rolleyes:

[sternone]

Europe wan'ts an own system because the next step will be to create a real european army, wich will use their own satelite system.. USA has proven in the past to shut down the gps directly in certain areas when in conflict and the Americans don't give a sh*t that everybody relies on their (military at first) GPS system

The American's has also done everything that's in their power to stop the Gallileo project, but hey 'space' is for everybody and without doubt chinese people will put their own system in space as soon as we western people have trained enough chinese engineers...(thats the problem with googs we train in our universities, they actually go back to china after graduating...not like the africans :-)

[rustle]

(thats the problem with googs we train in our universities, they actually go back to china after graduating...not like the africans :-)

"googs": WTF?

[IO540]

Europe wan'ts an own system because the next step will be to create a real european army

I don't think so. Europe cannot even agree on whether the sun is shining.

There are just 2 countries in Europe with any kind of backbone: France and the UK (in that order). The UK is diminishing in both capability and political will. France looks after itself, as always, and if they want to sink some Greenpeace boat they will just do it, only more carefully than last time.

It would not suprise me if Galileo is salvaged using taxpayer money. But who cares? My KLN94 will be picking up the same US satellites as before, it doesn't need any more to enable me to fly a track accurate enough to fly into the back of somebody else on the same track, and if it can't pick up the Galileo ones I won't be ripping it out for another one. The EU may as well mandate a minimum thickness of paper for chocolate wrappers, or launch the Galileo satellites to an orbit around Mars (they might be genuinely useful there).

[High Wing Drifter]

IO540,

I bet that EASA will ensure that you will not have valid airways kit unless you have a Galileo compatible receiver and the bronze subscription. That you will not be able to perform GPS approaches unless you have the silver subscription and that you will not be able fly into certain airports unless you have the gold subscription. Don't take me too literally, but you see my point. They will claim that only Galileo is managed and that NAVSTAR will become, to them, an unknown quantity, with no accountability. One way or another, they will make their profit.

[Sir George Cayley]

er Egnos?

Is that Gallileo dependant or will this system fly regardless?

Isn't Egnos the Euro version of WAAS?

Just asking 'cos I'm in t'market for a new GPS!

Sir George Cayley

[IO540]

I agree as to the intention, HWD. But a) the method and b) the timescales.

Now I am 50. Most private IFR pilots are not spring chickens either. How old will I be before they will dismantle ILS approaches throughout Europe?

Remember they will have to force every airline that flies in/into Europe to install the new kit. Since all these airlines will already carry ILS etc receivers, the EU will have to dismantle ILS approaches to force Galileo usage.

I can't see how this could be achieved, for decades.

GPS approaches will be nice if they enable IAPs to appear at many of today's IAP-less (and tower-less) GA airfields. Otherwise, they are largely irrelevant because anybody can fly the corresponding overlay in his GPS receiver, right now.

GA will never be a significant Galileo earner (far too small) so I don't see the CAA introducing GPS IAPs now and then pulling them (for fund raising, basically ) unless one has the Galileo subscription.

ILS is the gold standard for Cat1,2,3,3c,whatever and will remain so for decades to come.

Technically GPS is superior in just a few locations around the world, where one could have a curved approach flown coupled with both lateral and vertical guidance.

EGNOS is relevant only to a "virtual glideslope" on a GPS approach. A Garmin 496 (etc) receives EGNOS now (mine does) but it doesn't make any difference enroute.

[IO540]

Here's something relevant to Galileo:

Peter Cochrane's Blog: How we'll beat road pricing

Jammers will proliferate and destroy GPS maps
By Peter Cochrane <mailto:[email protected] ([email protected])>
Published: Tuesday 12 June 2007

Written at Chicago O'Hare during an unscheduled stopover with a storm on
the horizon. Dispatched via free wi-fi in case I'm really in Hotel
California - I seem to be able to get in here but sometimes wonder if I
will ever get out
The UK has seen no significant road investment programme for more than
25 years and now has the highest traffic densities in the EU
complemented by some of the poorest road maintenance standards.
Traffic jams are the norm, with the time and energy wasted exceeding the
combined national education and heath budgets. And then of course there
is the resulting CO2 pollution created by slow moving vehicles - which
is at least double what would be if there were no jams!
Augment all of this with high taxes on road usage and fuel, and punitive
parking and traffic violation fees, and I'm sure you get the picture.
The GDP suffers and motorists seem to be locked into some kind of civil
war with government.
Are there 100 people in the population inclined to start such a GPS
rebellion?

Unfortunately all efforts to sort out public transport have seen no
significant improvements and in many areas the situation is critical,
especially in London where it seems to me the congestion charge
<http://www.silicon.com/publicsector/0,3800010403,39153264-1,00.htm (http://www.silicon.com/publicsector/0,3800010403,39153264-1,00.htm)>
has failed to improve traffic flows.
So what is the next big transport plan? Road pricing
<http://www.silicon.com/publicsector/0,3800010403,39158835,00.htm (http://www.silicon.com/publicsector/0,3800010403,39158835,00.htm)> of
up to $3 per mile at peak times - yes $3 per mile per car! Makes your
eyes water doesn't it? And how will this be implemented? GPS (global
positioning system) technology will be installed in every licensed
vehicle, with each motorist having to pay $400 to $500 per vehicle for
the pleasure.
Will such a scheme fly? Well, the technology has been tested and it
looks feasible, and dates for a grand rollout are being tabled. So it
looks reasonably likely it will happen. But will it succeed?
I think we can look forward to some interesting reactions to this
technology and the attempt to charge by the mile. The military has
already expressed worries about GSM Jamming
<http://computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,77702,00 (http://computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,77702,00)
.html> and commercial jammers
<http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11089227/GPS_GSM_Jammer.html (http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11089227/GPS_GSM_Jammer.html)> are
available.
Of course the technically capable can easily create a jammer from low
cost components
<http://archive.chipcenter.com/TestandMeasurement/ed030.html (http://archive.chipcenter.com/TestandMeasurement/ed030.html)> .
So here is my prediction: drivers will invest in jammers and kill the
GPS signal across large swathes of the country.
Government reaction will be to try to apprehend these people and
prosecute them in the courts. But my guess is it will very quickly get
out of hand and drivers will get downright devious.
They certainly have the motive. If you drive 1,000 miles per month,
which is not unusually high in the UK, you will pay around $3,000 per
month in road charges. But jammers can be constructed for less than $50.
So I could attach a jammer to my car and run the risk of detection and
prosecution. Alternatively it would be far less risky, and still very
cost effective to attach 10 or 15 jammers per month to other people's
cars and trucks with magnets.
How many people would have to do this to cripple the entire national
road pricing system? I reckon a mere 100 or so out of the 20 million car
owners in the UK will do the trick.
It might go like this: month one of road charging sees around 1,500
jammers deployed, month two sees the figure rise to 3,000 and month
three to 4,500. Then batteries will start to run down and the number
will start to stabilise. But at the same time as the number of jammers
deployed accelerates, the costs will fall and the numbers will continue
to rise again. My guess is we would see a car fleet fully saturated with
jammers in much less than a year.
At the same time the authorities will start tracking down the victims
and run an appeal for everyone to check their car for jammers.
Hmm, I can't see that working! Wouldn't drivers rather feign ignorance,
leave jammers in place and save a lot of money on charges?
So, are there 100 people in the population inclined to start such a GPS
rebellion? My guess is it is more likely to be thousands and not
hundreds! When CB radio was banned thousands bought units and the law
had to be changed. The same was true of the iPod TravelMate FM
transmitter for cars. People just did what appealed to them and
government lost control. Seems to me GPS road charging will be an even
more attractive victim.
To my mind the real downside to all this will be the loss of GPS maps.
Many of us now see GPS as a vital part of our driving experience. To
lose it this way would be a real shame but then again paper maps are
real cheap.

[High Wing Drifter]

A bit OT but $3 per mile? If this is the figure bandied about then it smells of the usual government tactic of proposing something utterly outrageous, creating immense consternation only to downgrade to something lesser that we all then readily accept, except that we would not have accepted it if it was originally proposed.

Just a thought.

[IO540]

I find it hard to see how nationwide road charging could work.

One can make it work in a city: stick a load of number plate cameras around the perimeter. Simple and effective, except for a small % of fake number plates.

But nationally, independent verification of the vehicle identity (i.e. number plate reading roadside cameras) is not feasible due to the # of cameras required. It would have to rely totally on a GPS receiver logging the driving, and then somehow (probably over GPRS) transmitting the data to a billing centre.

Obvious countermeasures are disabling GPS reception or (if applicable) disabling the GPRS link.

The obvious countermeasure to the above would be to link the module to the speedo so it gets an independent measure of the distance travelled, to be verified at each MOT check. Then you need to install a special speedo which has an output signal. Then you don't need a GPS function at all :) - just the GPRS link for billing purposes. The GPS would be needed only to implement different rates for different areas.

Many exemptions would be necessary e.g. for old and vintage cars which cannot be economically fitted with the speed sensor.

It would always be trivial to disable any speed sensor, but if done on the main speedo you would lose the tachometer mileage which could be a problem.

The simplest way of doing simple universal billing would be for the MOT station to report the annual mileage and you get a bill based on that :)

Launching GPS satellites which might eventually be used mainly for road pricing is nuts.

£1.50/mile is not necessarily outrageous - depending on how much present car/fuel taxation is shifted onto a mileage related rate.

[Justiciar]

Wasn't the original idea to have sensors in gantries above the road which detect a box in the car? This is very similar to the peage in France, where you can buy a box which goes in the front of the car and is detected by the equipment at the peage which then raises the barrier and debits your account. I guess cars without a box would be photographed as with speed cameras or the congestion charge. GPS would not seem to be involved and every authority which introduces them will be expected to work to a common standard which will apply across England.

[IO540]

Yes, that would work where you can install the roadside equipment.

But, this is a long way from universal road pricing. Probably close to 99% of the UK's road network would not be covered. They would end up charging for major roads, thus driving traffic onto the minor roads. The GPS proposal would enable universal road pricing, so you drive from your house to the local shop and you get billed for that.

[pumper_bob]

The problems i can see with road pricing over the entire uk road network using GPS systems are many. To start with, the proposals i have heard of are to charge for different roads at different rates at different times of day. So can any one of you imagine this government, who have a suspect record on matters IT!, putting a workable system in place that can handle 20 million vehicles per day with the many variables mentioned above? All the commuters, school runs, commercial trucks, taxiis, motorcycles, scooters and any other type of vehicle you can think of. All making journeys of variable charging parameters? I travel from Scarborough to London most Monday mornings, leaving at 5am arriving usually around midday. Using all types of road at all times of the charging scale! and i am not unique as i share the roads with millions of other travellers and thats just the commuting type of people.
So i ask you Gentlemen, who really believes this government could successfully implement such a system that could accuratly produce invoices for over 20 million vehicles each day, some making many more than 1 jouney per day! I very much doubt it!!

The other point of contention is how will this data be collected from all these vehicles? GPRS Doesnt have the capacity to handle millions of data packets per hour country wide. That would be an increase in radio traffic akin to more than doubling the entire uk mobile phone network capacity, the spectrum would collapse! So if it isnt a direct live transmission, then data logging would be needed and a quick trip to your local phone un-blocking shop( the most obvious type of establishment to cover this type of work!) and your datalogger, or BLack Box, would be showing a nicely reduced figure!

[IO540]

Very true.

Actually it could be done. I've been involved in secure communication gear design, tamper-proof enclosures, etc, and a lot of stuff is possible using a combination of physical security and strong crypto, but it's a load of hassle and hard to implement over so many users. Look, 20 years after PGP came out we still don't have a unified secure email system.

They can just about pull it off on Sky TV now, but that involves just reception of a signal which the viewer wants to see anyway, and decoding it. With GPS reception in this case providing zero benefit to the user (he can always use a separate device running Tomtom or whatever) this is a difficult one to make work. Just blocking GPS reception on the vehicle will create a situation where it will be extremely hard to prove that any driving was done.

My view is that universal road pricing will be abandoned when they realise that any scheme short of hugely complex will have trivial work-arounds.

The whole Galileo project is so dumb it's hard to believe that apparently clever people are doing it.

If OTOH they said something like "we want more redundancy than the US are going to provide and we are going to make the EU taxpayer pay for it" then one could discuss it on those terms. But they are doing it by plugging an obviously massively bogus business model.

Never under-estimate the power of job creation!