Blackstar - 14/1/2008 6:26 AMWell, as an American, I have no problems with Europeans being taxed for an expensive system that is not really necessary. Go right ahead and waste money.
sammie - 14/1/2008 9:19 AMOK, lets put a different twist to this. After watching NASA spend billions of Dollars on a project with little scientific or commericials gains and work spread out for purely political reasons (ie. shuttle), the EU has finally learned from this practice and created Galileo.Im surprized the amount of flak Galileo is receiving, considering both the US and EU Governments are willing to spend much more money on other vanity projects.
Blackstar - 13/1/2008 10:46 PMThe US was worried that once Galileo was started, European governments would switch their militaries over to it, and NATO would no longer have compatible weapons.
Sphereion - 14/1/2008 9:38 AMBut America will not hurt UK, Poland or Italy who did support America, so could they turn off US GPS for selected countries?? Turning it off for all Europe would not work?So why do we need Galileo?
edkyle99 - 14/1/2008 11:46 AMI am one U.S. citizen who completely understands Europe's reasoning for creating Galileo. GPS had "Selective Availability" built into its design, meaning that civilians (Europeans and U.S. citizens included) were not always guaranteed good navigation data.
edkyle99 - 14/1/2008 10:46 AMWhen Galileo was proposed, the U.S. response was to recommended that the system either not be deployed or, if it was, that the U.S. be allowed to "jam" it when needed!
Analyst - 14/1/2008 2:03 PMThe US has not proven to be a reliable partner in many matters.
Jim - 14/1/2008 2:27 PMI will ignore that comment since the items you list are insignificant and pales when the US has been the most reliable partner in NATO.The US can always use WWII and the Cold War as examples of good partnership. And it won't get over used.
Blackstar - 14/1/2008 6:33 PMAs a US official who was involved in the negotiations at the time once told me "Everybody knows that if we decide it is necessary, we _will_ jam it. We were just trying to be polite."
Blackstar - 14/1/2008 12:33 PMActually, the US proposal was that the Europeans put in the ability to turn it off in event of hostilities. As a US official who was involved in the negotiations at the time once told me "Everybody knows that if we decide it is necessary, we _will_ jam it. We were just trying to be polite."
Jim - 14/1/2008 6:07 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 14/1/2008 11:46 AMI am one U.S. citizen who completely understands Europe's reasoning for creating Galileo. GPS had "Selective Availability" built into its design, meaning that civilians (Europeans and U.S. citizens included) were not always guaranteed good navigation data. which is no longer in the design
Blackstar 14/1/2008 6:33 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 14/1/2008 10:46 AMWhen Galileo was proposed, the U.S. response was to recommended that the system either not be deployed or, if it was, that the U.S. be allowed to "jam" it when needed!Actually, the US proposal was that the Europeans put in the ability to turn it off in event of hostilities. As a US official who was involved in the negotiations at the time once told me "Everybody knows that if we decide it is necessary, we _will_ jam it. We were just trying to be polite."
kevin-rf - 14/1/2008 1:16 PMQuoteBlackstar - 14/1/2008 12:33 PMActually, the US proposal was that the Europeans put in the ability to turn it off in event of hostilities. As a US official who was involved in the negotiations at the time once told me "Everybody knows that if we decide it is necessary, we _will_ jam it. We were just trying to be polite."And we know how effective the iraqi gps jammers where. Didn't the DOD say they took it(them) out with GPS guided munitions
ckiki lwai - 14/1/2008 1:33 PMBut edkyle99 is right about the fact that civilians don't get a guaranteed good navigation data from GPS. One of applications of satellite navigation could be guiding airplanes so they can fly shorter routes. The reason this is not the case today is that the GPS signal isn't guaranteed to be always reliable by the US Air Force, while the precision is very important, especially during landing and take off. The difference between GPS and Galileo is that Galileo guarantees you the signal is correct, and when it isn't correct because of a failed satellite, Galileo will tell you while GPS doesn't.
2. GPS is already approved for flight in instrument flight rules, and GPS hardware is already in thousands of commercial and general aircraft.
3. As for using satellite navigation for take-offs (??) and landings, neither GPS nor Galileo would have the accuracy to match ILS. A ground-based augmentation system is necessary for both systems, and the one already in-service (WAAS) uses GPS. The soon-to-be operational European counterpart (EGNOS) also uses GPS data until/if Galileo comes online. But if EGNOS already provides the precision augmentation Europe claims it will obtain with Galileo, you have to wonder what the point is again...4. Like I said above, no critical system is guided purely by GPS. Nor will any system be guided purely by Galileo. So what's the real value of Galileo telling you when it isn't working? Anything critical already has a means of ignoring spurious data and using an alternative navigation mode.
I'm with the skeptics. Every point for Galileo seems like a non-issue, or one with a much simpler technical work-around.
* - See: Tommy Boy for additional comments about guarantees...
Sphereion - 14/1/2008 9:38 AMQuoteBlackstar - 14/1/2008 6:26 AMWell, as an American, I have no problems with Europeans being taxed for an expensive system that is not really necessary. Go right ahead and waste money.That is very American of you :laugh:
ckiki lwai - 14/1/2008 9:40 AMQuoteBlackstar - 13/1/2008 10:46 PMThe US was worried that once Galileo was started, European governments would switch their militaries over to it, and NATO would no longer have compatible weapons.What do you mean with "not compatible weapons"?
ckiki lwai - 14/1/2008 1:33 PM[Galileo] will guarantee availability of the service under all but the most extreme circumstances and will inform users within seconds of a failure of any satellite. This will make it suitable for applications where safety is crucial, such as running trains, guiding cars and landing aircraft."
Blackstar - 14/1/2008 4:09 PMAfter all, it's our money, and it's your money; we can do whatever we want with it, right?
Sphereion - 17/1/2008 8:35 AMQuoteBlackstar - 14/1/2008 4:09 PMAfter all, it's our money, and it's your money; we can do whatever we want with it, right?No. America does what it wants and expects the world to do what America wants.
Chris Bergin - 17/1/2008 2:48 AMQuoteSphereion - 17/1/2008 8:35 AMNo. America does what it wants and expects the world to do what America wants.You're losing context there. His full sentence was:"Well, I'm sure you have no problem with Americans wasting money on stupid things. After all, it's our money, and it's your money; we can do whatever we want with it, right?"Not sure how anyone can draw exception to that.
Sphereion - 17/1/2008 8:35 AMNo. America does what it wants and expects the world to do what America wants.
Blackstar - 17/1/2008 4:44 PMPlus, I think Galileo is viewed as a bigger gravy train, because it requires a lot of satellites (as opposed to a few intel satellites) and so the launch providers can sell more rockets and the satellite builders can build more satellites and therefore the corporations are happy.