|
LascIlle, I refer you to the first link in my post #22. It isn’t necessary to duplicate GPS/GLONASS/Galileo; simply leverage their existence to support a more robust LEO constellation to provide the equivalent of their precision service. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10162249)
It isn’t necessary to duplicate GPS/GLONASS/Galileo; simply leverage their existence to support a more robust LEO constellation to provide the equivalent of their precision service.
|
None of them are going to turn off their public signal - certainly never all three, they are all used to widely. The problem, as being mooted with Galileo, as access to their precision mode - which can be circumvented as described. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10162368)
None of them are going to turn off their public signal - certainly never all three, they are all used to widely. The problem, as being mooted with Galileo, as access to their precision mode - which can be circumvented as described. |
There's been much talk recently of the resurgence of new generation stellar - inertial systems, along with emerging tech, such as the quantum compass.
Seems the very real potential for denial (by means various) of the GPS signal in a contested environment is suddenly on the agenda of many agencies. Just sayin'... |
KenV - Speak to the Japanese - they have one in service......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-...tellite_System QZSS (Quasi-Zenith Satellite System) - Cabinet Office (Japan) Centimeter Level Augmentation Service (CLAS)?Service Overview?QZSS (Quasi-Zenith Satellite System) - Cabinet Office (Japan) |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10162555)
KenV - Speak to the Japanese - they have one in service......
You want to piggyback off the existing GPS constellation and use codeless p(y) dual frequency receivers on the cubesats so they can self-update their ephemeris. That works just fine. Many satellites in orbit today have GPS receivers. Your derived system's error will be its own 'native' error (from the cubesats to the ground receiver) multiplied by the cubesats own GPS position error from when they self-located. The improved accuracies shown in the post 22 links can only be achieved when the cubesat ephemeris data is updated directly with reference to known fixed points i.e. using ground stations, the same way the GPS ephemeris is updated. You are in reality totally dependent on the navigation message provided by the other system. You gain only a perceived immunity from jamming which lasts only until your adversaries work out what frequency your cubesats are using and jam it. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10162555)
KenV - Speak to the Japanese - they have one in service......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-...tellite_System QZSS (Quasi-Zenith Satellite System) - Cabinet Office (Japan) Centimeter Level Augmentation Service (CLAS)?Service Overview?QZSS (Quasi-Zenith Satellite System) - Cabinet Office (Japan) The QZSS satellites do act like 'special' GPS satellites located optimally for Japan but the attached enhancement services (CLAS, SLAS) rely on many many ground stations uploading their known vs measured position errors to the system. An 'error map' is then calculated and capable receivers can obtain it from the satellite and then determine the system error that applies in their locality. That provides the sub-meter and centimeter level accuracy. No nearby ground stations = no improved accuracy. |
Originally Posted by Lascaille
(Post 10162616)
ORAC these are ground-reliant systems.
The QZSS satellites do act like 'special' GPS satellites located optimally for Japan but the attached enhancement services (CLAS, SLAS) rely on many many ground stations uploading their known vs measured position errors to the system. An 'error map' is then calculated and capable receivers can obtain it from the satellite and then determine the system error that applies in their locality. That provides the sub-meter and centimeter level accuracy. No nearby ground stations = no improved accuracy. Do you know if receivers such as WAAS capable equipment? Just trying to work out if in Japan the commonly available GPS navigation units are able to use the QZSS. Hope I made myself clear?? |
Originally Posted by rjtjrt
(Post 10162951)
To use that system, you say you need receivers “capable” of using it. Do you know if receivers such as WAAS capable equipment? Just trying to work out if in Japan the commonly available GPS navigation units are able to use the QZSS. Hope I made myself clear?? Check this out. |
The Times: Brussels starts countdown to sideline Britain from Galileo The European Union has taken the first step to creating its own space agency that would sideline Britain after Brexit and seal the control of Brussels over civil and military satellite systems such as Galileo. The power grab comes as the European Commission uses Brexit to push Britain to the margins of Europe’s satellite industry, which is increasingly significant for military and commercial uses. David Davis, the Brexit secretary, yesterday accused the EU of putting dogma before security by pushing Britain out of the Galileo satellite programme, with military capabilities Britain had helped pay for and design. “The commission’s position seems to be shooting itself in the foot just to prove the gun works,” he said....... Jan Wörner, director-general of the European Space Agency (ESA), a non-EU inter-governmental organisation that includes the UK as well as Canada and Norway, has protested that the commission’s proposals would be costly, divisive and bureaucratic. “Europe, this is to say at least the EU, ESA and their respective member states together, must join forces,” Dr Wörner wrote on his blog. “There is no need to develop a new space agency in parallel in Europe, the ramp-up of which would take decades and cost billions and would therefore in itself be a major risk to the programmes it manages. We need to streamline, not double administrative layers.” Under proposals published yesterday, the EU would directly control the civil-military Galileo and Copernicus satellite projects after 2020, potentially relegating the ESA to a technical and advisory role. The EU has rejected a British demand for access to Galileo’s heavily encrypted Public Regulated Service signal, used for military purposes, on grounds of security. The plan envisages control of the satellite projects becoming an “EU agency for the space programme” with powers to “ensure the security of all the components of the programme” by ensuring key contracts are only issued to EU member states. Commission officials dismissed Dr Wörner’s comments as “unfounded”. “The security component is increasingly important,” a commission official said in reference to Britain’s exclusion from the military elements of Galileo. Bleddyn Bowen, a space policy researcher at Leicester University, said: “Brexit seems to be accelerating the process of dovetailing ESA into EU space policy. This institutional action and its name shows that having a big member [the UK] in the ESA that is able to threaten to complicate the governance of EU-funded space projects seems to have increased the desire of the EU to increase its governing muscle in European space policy.”....... |
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, yesterday accused the EU of putting dogma before security... The gift that keeps on giving. |
..au contraire, Mr Davis has made clear all along his desire for a deal based on pragmatism rather than dogma. By contrast it's hard to view spending 7billion Euros to largely duplicate the role of an existing agency as anything other than dogmatic. |
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, yesterday accused the EU of putting dogma before security... ..au contraire, Mr Davis has made clear all along his desire for a deal based on pragmatism rather than dogma. By contrast it's hard to view spending 7billion Euros to largely duplicate the role of an existing agency as anything other than dogmatic. |
I'm sorry to hear you disagree with the referendum result. |
I didn't agree with the last general election result either, so what?
|
Exactly. (FWIW I didn’t vote for Brexit either but, as you say, so what?) |
Originally Posted by ShotOne
(Post 10167307)
I'm sorry to hear you disagree with the referendum result. Beagle is a respected veteran of this site. He has more than once unnecessarily imposed on us his views on the referendum and on what follows. He sets a very bad example and spoils his previously admirable record. |
It keeps coming up in this and other threads rlsbutler because it pervades every facet of life in this country right now, and is likely to do so for years to come. Military aviation is no exception.
I get that Brexiteers don't want to hear about it (with good reason), and believe me Remainers wish we didn't to have to be talking about it. But that's democracy, eh? |
As usual the argument has been twisted arse-about-face by the European Commission. The reality is that an independent United Kingdom cannot entrust its security to the European Union. When it comes to security we need our own military system that is not reliant upon a political-economic entity that includes former Warsaw Pact nations that are only in it for the money.
Need I remind anyone on here that it has traditionally been Britain that has come to the aid of Europe ever since the days of the thirty years war and not the other way round? |
an independent United Kingdom When it comes to security we need our own military system that is not reliant upon a political-economic entity that includes former Warsaw Pact nations that are only in it for the money. Need I remind anyone on here that it has traditionally been Britain that has come to the aid of Europe ever since the days of the thirty years war and not the other way round? |
And it is largely because of the EU that we haven't had to do so since 1945!! If you substitute NATO for the EU in your statement, it might make sense, but NATO has many non-EU members, including the most powerful member by far. But enough of Brexit intrusion..... |
If you substitute NATO for the EU in your statement, it might make sense, but NATO has many non-EU members, including the most powerful member by far. No EU (or its pre-1993 or 1986 iterations) member state has ever gone to war with another EU member state. Fact. No worries on the Brexit intrusion, it's important stuff. |
|
Originally Posted by Blacksheep
(Post 10168192)
When it comes to security we need our own military system that is not reliant upon a political-economic entity that includes former Warsaw Pact nations that are only in it for the money.
Also a fully independent navigation system will require about 24 satellites. How many operational frontline aircraft are there again? Just to compare one thing against the other... |
Lascaille wrote:
Also a fully independent navigation system will require about 24 satellites. |
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man
(Post 10168271)
You forget that NATO includes Turkey which invaded Cyprus, which at that time was under the effective control of NATO member Greece.
No EU (or its pre-1993 or 1986 iterations) member state has ever gone to war with another EU member state. Fact. No worries on the Brexit intrusion, it's important stuff. |
They dn't spend enough on their armed forces to go to war with each other. And that's largely because of the EU. |
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10172453)
That’s it - the UK is out of Galileo. Due to the high-pitched UK Political stance on this, I suspect that the implications for UK Mil / UK tech are somewhat extreme. The reality of "going it alone" costs are considerable. My guess is UK will have to suck it up and crawl on knees to POTUS. UK tech will take a hit. The further implications for NATO cohesion are grave. The Donald is intent on ruling the roost and putting Europe back in it's box. :ooh: OAP |
Originally Posted by Fitter2
(Post 10168266)
The usual EU canard. The EU was formed after the Soviet Union collapsed (Maastricht Treaty, 1993). You could argue an effective date of 1986 (Single European Act).
If you substitute NATO for the EU in your statement, it might make sense, but NATO has many non-EU members, including the most powerful member by far. But enough of Brexit intrusion..... treaty of rome 1956 we applied to join in 1962 I dont know where you get 1986 from as its the same organisation,staffed by the same people and located in the same place for 67 years........ |
It gives us a fair inkling of how the UK military, security and intelligence organisations will be treated post-exit. It seems absurd that any EU NATO member would vote-out another NATO member on the basis of operational security, let alone pocketing a quick £Billion.
I think the French desire for a strategic military partnership with the UK is utterly DOA. No doubt one Brussel's based organisation is rather pleased with the broken furniture today but I doubt the other Brussel's based organisation will see it in the same way - especially with the dwindling support in the current US administration for all things NATO. Still, Stu Peach is know for his political correctness, superficial analysis and light-touch style of leadership so I am sure he will play nice. Anybody else now view the eastern fringe of NATO as sacrificial buffer states rather than a trip-wire? |
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
(Post 10172706)
It seems absurd that any EU NATO member would vote-out another NATO member on the basis of operational security, let alone pocketing a quick £Billion.
Brexit means Brexit, folks. Own it. |
Depending upon circumstances, there could conceivably be security advantages of going solidly with the USA. I suspect that the USA have far better policing capabilities in space for a start. It would also not surprise me if the EU did some other weird political contortion with the Galileo system in the future.
OAP |
Somewhere on my computer at home (I am in Spain for a while), I have a copy of a book written
by Jean Monnet, K Adenaur & others outlining the path to European Unification. Published about 1933, I think. "Change things a little at a time until there is no going back" comes to mind. Their plans were interrupted a bit by WW2. |
We could have access to any system we want, including Galileo. The point is, that as a third-country to any of them we will have to pay. Do you think that the current US administration is minded to give us mates rates?
|
Read up a bit on Galileo (and argued with some former mates). Galileo seems to be a bit of a vanity
project aimed at cycling taxpayers money around EU Aerospace companies. Some satellite hardware problems, so costs will go up. PRS service is full of could/should/might statements. Is the present spat just a storm in a teacup ? |
Time to give the Airbus space asset exclusivity contract a firm fisting up the backside, fingers spread!
|
Originally Posted by VinRouge
(Post 10173515)
Time to give the Airbus space asset exclusivity contract a firm fisting up the backside, fingers spread!
|
Originally Posted by esa-aardvark
(Post 10173511)
Read up a bit on Galileo (and argued with some former mates). Galileo seems to be a bit of a vanity
project aimed at cycling taxpayers money around EU Aerospace companies. Some satellite hardware problems, so costs will go up. PRS service is full of could/should/might statements.k Is the present spat just a storm in a teacup ? As someone said, for those that wanted Brexit, the whole country try is now enjoying the benefit. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:25. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.