Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US GPS, EU Galileo to Work Together

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the eightsevensixfivefourthreetwooneblastoff dept.

Communications 203

saintory writes "The US and EU are in talks to allow their separate GPS systems to work together. The future uses would allow enhanced location information based on two readings, among other benefits. 'The market probably will drive dual-use receivers. We think probably that single (U.S.) GPS-specific, or Galileo-specific receivers — the market will phase out in time [...] It just doesn't make sense to limit yourself to just one system'."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

RAIGPS (5, Funny)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879731)

Redundant Array of Inexpensive Global Positioning Systems

I like the way that sounds!

Inexpensive (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879815)

I do not think that word means what you think it means. :)

Limitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19881467)


It just doesn't make sense to limit yourself to just one system

is a sleazy statement. Using GPS is not a limitation. If anything, GPS is better than Galileo because it isn't a tier-priced commercial venture. I smell something fishy about this...

Re:RAIGPS (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879913)

Is that pronounce with a G-as-in-Gary or a G-as-in-siGn?

If it's the latter, maybe we need to have a talk with your parole officer.

GPS is for creating images? (3, Funny)

willgps (939538) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881157)

Also, the article seems to imply that GPS is used for drawing pictures:

"work together to provide more accurate images and information"
"would be able to create a more accurate picture especially in areas where reception is weak"

So, farmers ploughing profanities in their fields will be able to use better fonts now. :-) []

How very... (5, Insightful)

Xeth (614132) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879749)

...refreshing. Seriously, I've gotten rather sick of the acrimony that seems to be building across the Atlantic. It's nice that people see this as a chance for better technology (at least in some respect) rather than pure nationalistic chest-thumping.

I have to ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19879823)

Which side of the Atlantic are you talking about?

Re:I have to ask (1)

Xeth (614132) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879847)

If you go digging through my post history, you can probably find out which side I'm on, but in this case I meant across in the same sense as a bridge is built across the water.

Re:How very... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19879837)

it is a good thing that we in the EU have our own alternatives. TO be fair when it comes to sensible technology we can't depend on the US, it is not a trustworthy ally. The US think it owns the world. The EU should strive to be as separate from the US as possible, another point of view in the world is much needed. YOu can see how the US is trying to divide us by installing this horrible missile shield. And what's more, it is putting russia agaisnt us. Definately the US is not a friend of us.

Re:How very... (1)

Xeth (614132) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879881)

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about, thank you.

Re:How very... (1)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879901)

I need to correct you on something.....the DoD and US Government think they own the world. Technically, with the military power we have, we kind of do rule the world, but most American's don't hold this attitude. It's only the attitude of our leaders and unfortunately it's almost always the lesser of two evils. No one's perfect.

With that said, I think it's a good thing to work together on having a very good global positioning system.

Misguided or not, the missile shield is not... (3, Informative)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880023)

Misguided or not, the missile shield is not intended to divide you. If you want to argue that will be an unfortunate side effect, that's one thing, but if you seriously believe that it's part of a strategy of divide-and-conquer, then I truly think you're putting motives in there that don't exist.

Now, assuming that you merely meant that it would be an unfortunate side effect, you also should realize that Poland and the Czech Republic dearly want us to put the missile shield in their countries (or at least their governments do). I'm not arguing that's a sufficient reason to do so - I'm just pointing out that we're not imposing this on them. They want it. This came out quite strongly after Putin suggested that it be put in Azerbaijan instead, if the goal was truly to protect Europe from a Middle East attack.

one thinks a missle shield will stop terrorism? (1)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880325)

do I have to add anymore than just the question?

Don't ask me (4, Insightful)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880465)

I'm just reporting what's been in the news. I definitely wasn't say it was a good idea - I was just trying to clarify the context around it.

OTOH, playing devil's advocate, a missile shield would (theoretically) stop missiles coming from a terrorist group were they to acquire one. It would presumably not be meant to stand alone but rather be part of an entire well thought out system (stop giggling). You could scan for dirty bombs at the border, have great devices for detecting pathogens, make your airline passengers fly naked, but none of that will stop a missile coming towards your country any more than a missile shield would prevent the discreet release of poisons into the drinking water.

Re:Don't ask me (1)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880603)

That's why I said "one" and not "you" since it sounded like you were merely trying to represent somebody else. But in any case, we need to fix the roots of the problem with things like atheism (and the promotion of skepticism), tolerance, rationalism, diplomacy, and measured responses, not try to patch our defenses with exponential costs that partially block one attack vector, leading to an arms race of vector defenses an workarounds.

Re:How very... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880075)

You are incredibly ignorant of history if you think Russia was ever going to be Europe's friend. I trust that you are not representative of the citizens of the EU in your intense lack of knowledge of the historical forces that have pushed Russia to clash with the West. Whatever you think of the States, any person with any sense would be damned glad to have some defensive and offensive measures in place against a Russia reborn. The Bear is not your friend, not your ally, and since the EU seems remarkably incapable of recognizing that, it's little wonder that some of its members (like Poland, you should probably read their history on the subject of Russian relations) are keen to keep it from mauling them again.

Re:How very... (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881271)

And why not? From my recollection of European history, before 1918 Russia was an integral part of Europe. Russia's kings were genetically related to the rest of the European monarchy and constantly forming alliances with multiple European countries (you might recall that Russia was a key component of Bismarck's realpolitik). Even after the commies came to power, Russia continued to maintain reasonable relations with most of it's neighbors.

Surely, with the communist nonsense in Russia on the decline it should be welcomed back into the 'family' and eventually (once the economies are comparable) into the European Union.

I fail to see why anyone in Europe would object to being friends with Russia. Care to enlighten me?

Re:How very... (1)

DrDitto (962751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880099)

The U.S. is not a trustworthy ally?! Western Europe would have fallen under communism after WWII if it weren't for the U.S. Perhaps you might have been ok with that outcome.

When the U.S. was a fledgling power in the world, it tried to isolate itself from the dominate European powers at the time. The isolationist strategy ultimately failed. I suggest you re-consider history.

Re:How very... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880269)

The U.S. is not a trustworthy ally?! Western Europe would have fallen under communism after WWII if it weren't for the U.S.

Nah, Western Eurpoe would have lost entirely, and fallen under NAZIism instead.

Re:How very... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880283)

Perhaps the US used to be a thrustworthy ally, and yes, we Europeans do have a lot to thank to the US in the WW1 and WW2 eras. However, that time is gone now, and a lot of Europeans are starting to wonder if the US is really our ally or not.

Relations with European countries has really been damaged over the past few years (thank you, Bush), and is now viewed as a country which does whatever it wants without even considering the impact on the rest of the world (ignoring the UN, not signing the Kyoto treaty, etc).

The US has dragged us all into a silly war, and even though the French had a sniper on Osama's head for 3 times, each and every time the US refused to give the shoot to kill signal.

The next president better do a better job at repairing foreign relations.

Blame Your Own Government (1)

Bastardchyld (889185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881181)

I am not trying to be snarky but... Why would a French Soldier take orders from the U.S. Government? Maybe there is a reason that the U.S. is up on its high horse.

I am currently training a new dog. He is an alpha male. If I do not put the dog on its back to show him that he has to submit to me then he will think of himself as the dominate one. Diplomacy is no different.

If your government keeps rolling over for mine, why on earth would you blame my government instead of your own?

And by the way... I for one humbly welcome our New Combined GPS System Overlods.

Re:How very... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880393)

the US benefited from both wOrld Wars at the Expense of Europe!! Take the first one, they came in the last year and asked for terms as if they had fought all the time. What's best, you were happy to see Europe fighting itself. The second world even worse, until 1944 only Russia and England (god help France) had done anything in Europe. What's more, you took the opportunity of a weak Europe to increase your world influence inside and outside of Europe (before WWII there were no american bases in Europe, noe it is full of them). YOu made Russia an enemy of us. You created hatred against us from the middle east. The US has always been Europe's worst enemy, just remember how much they benefited and loved both World wars. Russia is a pragmatic country, they need us to buy their gas and we need their energy. We don't care what happens inside Russia, it's not our business. While you talking with your cheap ideals of imposing your values to other countries (like Russia) are fomenting all the hatred and the violence. Russia is not our friend certainly, it is our business partner. And the US is a dangerous power to us. And definately the missile shield is aimed at stopping European union. The USA is terribly afraid of that

Re:How very... (0, Troll)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881289)

"The US think it owns the world."

The US knows it owns the world.

There, fixed it for ya.

"And what's more, it is putting russia agaisnt us."

You can go back to suck their cock. You've been doing that for decades. US forces to protect worthless euroshit while you cowards protested against Pershing missiles while turning a blind eye to their SS-20s.

Now, euroweenies, we know you're a bunch of chickenshit spineless cowards (oh, you're simply too brave when all you have to take on are some peaceful, defenceless Jews but perish the thought you'd fight an armed enemy) but if you love being cockslapped by Putin, by all means do it. It's not like anyone is going to stop you.

Re:How very... (-1, Troll)

igb (28052) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879903)

The desperate twisting engaged in by the EU to make Galileo something other than a pathetic piece of French nationalism are fascinating. Does this provide any budget? No? It's going to get chopped, then.

Re:How very... (5, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880017)

This is especially promising, considering that the US used to intentionally degrade its own GPS signals available to civilians, for fear that it'd be used by "terrorists".

The only thing this did was to piss off a lot of legitimate users, including the FAA and the Military when the available supply of Military GPS units dried up.

Also, a very modestly inaccurate GPS signal isn't going to deter a terrorist. Rather, it's going to encourage him to build a bigger bomb, which would result in considerably more collateral damage.

Re:How very... (5, Interesting)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880219)

The only thing this did was to piss off a lot of legitimate users, including the FAA and the Military when the available supply of Military GPS units dried up.

Don't forget the US Coast Guard, who developed the Differential GPS system for boaters. It consists of a series of ground-based stations throughout the US that receive GPS signals then re-broadcast a "fixed" signal that DGPS receivers can then use for a more accurate fix. I always thought it was pretty ironic (and laughable) that one branch of the military would degrade GPS and then another branch of the military would remove that error specifically for civilian use.

Re:How very... (1)

wronskyMan (676763) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881055)

The DOD does not mind the Coast Guard's DGPS since it is used for boaters in the USA. The reason for downgrading GPS has more to do with stopping other countries from using GPS-guided weapons in conflicts in other countries (where there is no DGPS); I'm sure in a Red Dawn type scenario the stateside DGPS beacons could be turned off.

Re:How very... (2, Informative)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880243)

That's a great argument for seven years ago, but selective availability is ancient history now.

Re:How very... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880583)

Too bad your argument sort of falls apart when you consider they freed up GPS before 9/11 and haven't done anything to restrict it sense. Seriously, I think you dropped your foil hat over there.

Re:How very... (2, Informative)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880673)

The signal was not degraded because of "terrorists". It was degraded to prevent the use of GPS by an enemy to guide/navigate a rocket-propelled weapon across a continent to a target with precision accuracy. This is also the reason consumer GPS devices have an upper limit on the speed and altitude information they can provide: []

Defense department regulations prohibit standard consumer GPS receivers from functioning above 60,000 feet and 999mph (simultaneously). Most GPS receivers seem to set hard limits at EITHER 999mph or 60,000 feet.

However, this is all a moot point. The defense department has the ability to selectively degrade the civilian signal in certain geographic regions, while leaving the military signal as well as the civilian signal outside of that area intact (and accurate).

Someone who is using an ICBM (or some other sort of long-range delivery system) is not going to be using GPS. They're going to be using a combination of radar, topographic map data/recognition systems, and inertial guidance (as to prevent navigation references to be screwed with during the cruise phase of the weapon in question).

Re:How very... (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880761)

Selective availability never had a damn thing to do with fear of terrorists. It was intended to deny the enemy access to high-precision navigation data. Even if every terrorist shot themselves in the head tomorrow, the military would still need the ability to deny this information to enemy forces.

Re:How very... (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880855)

My bad. I guess I'm confusing the rhetoric we're using against "terrorists" with the rhetoric we used against "communists".

The difference here, I suppose is that the "enemy" in the 70s and 80s had more than enough firepower to obliterate just about everything, not to mention a positioning system of their own [] .

Collaborative accuracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880055)

Single Headshot in a sea of turbans...

Re:How very... (1)

ookabooka (731013) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880697)

What "nationalistic chest-thumping"? Actually I think it makes a lot of sense. If I was going to make some hardware, would I want it to use the EU system, the US system, or both? By using both you gain redundancy, reliability, and even accuracy.

If the EU made the first positioning system and the US made the 2nd, I'd still say making systems that only used the US's would be a bad idea. GPS-only systems will probably phase out slower due to compatibility issues. A lot of hardware out there was designed for GPS in mind and not Galileo. Anything that is designed for Galileo might as well toss in support for GPS since it already exists. I think you're just taking it the wrong way :-/

I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (5, Interesting)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879763)

I hope these two combined work better than GPS alone, because I've used GPS quite a bit and have resorted back to map and compass more than once. Between poor reception in mountainous terrain or during bad weather or while in the woods and bad information from the satellites I've pretty much given up. Heck I've seen readings that were more than 100 miles off! And this was not a single device. We had a Magellan with WAAS and a Garmin with a powered external antenna and both gave absurd readings while hiking the Pacific Crest Trail even when they had access to 5 or more satellites.

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19879809)

You realize you are getting a downgraded GPS signal? And that bad weather or mountainous terrain is going to prohibit every type of electronic communication device? Things do tend to get blocked by large, dense rocks. They also tend to reflect off them...

And commenting on the article, if Galileo and GPS don't sync up thier clocks directly, I don't see how it will work.

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879871)

Yes, civilians get a downgraded signal. That still doesn't explain why he was getting a reading 100 miles off course from where he actually was. Especially when he's picking up 5 different satellites. You probably shouldn't get an error over 100 metres let alone 100 miles.

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (5, Informative)

esampson (223745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879927)

Actually, citizens haven't had globally downgraded signals since May 1st, 2000. The US military found it could regionally downgrade signals to protect sensitive locations while allowing people in general to have full access to GPS.

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (3, Funny)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880641)

The GP must have stumbled into a missile silo or a black 'copter NSA base!

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879921)

Yes, I understand that not having line of sight effects the signal, but if the device claims to be getting a WAAS signal it should not be MILES off. I can understand if it is off by even a few hundred feet, but when it tells me I am in the wrong state it is simply useless. If the device is getting that poor of a reading it should simply tell the user it can't get a fix (which does happen if there is not enough satellites within range). My point is better error detection is needed within the devices.

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880665)

Sounds like the guy has a weird receiver.

The only time my (car) GPS was ever off by any noticeable amount was when I first powered it up. Apparently when it initializes for the first time, it starts the car off at some place in California (I think SF). After a minute or so the screen changed to the correct position and it's been fine ever since.

My "signal strength" (for lack of a better word) varies greatly during my commute. It can "see" 1-2-4 satellites depending where I am at any given moment. I drive through hilly areas (light mountains) where the trees are 2-3 stories tall, so I'm not surprised it fluxuates that much.

But even still, it's rarely off by more than a few feet (if that), and even in low conditions it's good enough to know that I'm at this crossing or what-not.

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (2, Informative)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880413)

And commenting on the article, if Galileo and GPS don't sync up thier clocks directly, I don't see how it will work.
Of course you can combine them; It's just a question of how much additional information you can get. Worst case is that you have to treat them separately until the position is calculated, and you then combine the two independent readings, which should about halve the variance. That's nothing to sneeze at, and wouldn't require any information at all about relative clock skew. In the best case however, a device could track the long-term clock skew between the two systems (which should stay nearly fixed) by filtering on the time skew that brings separate readings into most agreement. The skew would take a long time to estimate, but once you have it, you should be able to mix and match satellites.

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879935)

Yeah, sure. But once in a while you get this nice warm glow when the GPS unit tells you that you have hiked 123.45 miles in the last six minutes.

2-minute miles (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880081)

I've used a Timex GPS device during my runs for several years now, and I've never had it be that far off, but there have been occasions where I've managed to pull a 2-minute mile. I've just assumed that the GPS training has been very effective. ;)

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (3, Interesting)

Typoboy (61087) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880043)

I've used my Garmin GPSes (several models over the years) in various places around the world. I know some GPS boards I have used will give spurious results on a cold or warm start, but once they have stabillized, I haven't seen it "100 miles off". Sure, better reception would help, but I don't think it is quite so broken.

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (2, Insightful)

gsfprez (27403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880129)

poor recievers and position on your part does not constitute a problem with GPS on the operator's part.

and besides - how does adding additional signals to your already shitty location change anything? If you've got bad multipath problems or narrow FOV problems, more satellites isn't going to change anything.

Re:I don't know about Galileo, but GPS needs help (2, Informative)

willgps (939538) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881117)

Of your 5 satellites visible, i would be betting one of those was a WAAS, so you can only really count the 4 sats. The critical thing is the Dilution of Precision (DOP). Your accuracy on the ground is directly proportional to the DOP. Basically, (thinking two-dimensionally here for the purpose of the exercise) you can think of this value as the area of a polygon with your receiver on one point, and the gps satellites making up the other points. Having more satellites (ie. combined constellation) along the short edge of a long skinny polygon will not significantly increase the area. Same goes for your DOP. I have done some experiments with combined GPS glonass solutions, and if you are in a crummy environment like down a trench or in a built up city, the combined solution accuracy is not always better than GPS alone. That being said, having more sats in the sky DOES increase your availability of a position because you reduce your chances of losing lock on all your sats at the same time when moving through a built up environment.

Yay for interoperation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19879783)

It is fortunate for EU users they will interoperate since Galileo will never exist.

I'm sort of underwhelmed (4, Interesting)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879909)

International cooperation is a good thing. And it's nice to share a standard frequency.

But I also think this is nothing more than a recognition of reality. Unless they deliberately enforced licensing restrictions preventing it, I'm quite sure the market would have provided a dual-system device very shortly after Galileo was operative.

Working Together (1)

Blitz22 (1122015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879915)

I hope they can keep their units straight.

US ability to jam .... (5, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879923)

Where does this leave the US ability to jam the GPS signal whenever they wanted?

I thought the reason that Europe wanted their own satellites is that the US basically reserved the right to scramble the signal whenever they wanted, and the EU didn't want to be beholden to US technology. If they broadcast on the same frequency, does this make it easier or harder for the US military to degrade the signal when they wish?

Is this a good thing in terms of assuring access? Or is this a backdoor for the US to exert more control over it? TFA is vague on that point. It would kinda suck if all they've done is water down the reasons they had for wanting to do it in the first place


Re:US ability to jam .... (1)

BeeRockxs (782462) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880111)

The scrambling affects only the US satellites, and I'm pretty sure that the signal itself also says from which satellite it is from. So you could conceivably ignore the data from the NAVSTAR-GPS satellites, and use just those from the GALILEO satellites.

Re:US ability to jam .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880257)

The scrambling affects only the US satellites, and I'm pretty sure that the signal itself also says from which satellite it is from.

But, if they broadcast on the same frequency, couldn't they set theirs to just transmit crap on all channels and muddy the signal or lie about which satellite is actually transmitting? [ I'm not asserting this is true, I know very little about the mechanics of satellite transmissions ]


Re:US ability to jam .... (1)

amh131 (126681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880721)

I don't know for sure either, but it seems very unlikely to me that an existing GPS satellite would have anything like enough power to try and jam another satellite. Orbit is huge! And if there is some sort of signal authentication then you'd just not use the scrambled signals. I suppose it's possible for an existing satellite to try and spoof another one .. don't know too much about this sort of thing.

Re:US ability to jam .... (1)

saintory (944644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880379)

From the article:

Under the agreement, which the United States says it expects to be signed this week, both EU and U.S. satellites would send information on the same radio frequency, enabling receivers to get signals from both systems and combine the data.

Does anyone have any further information on how the signals are jammed? I was under the impression that the signals would send the same data but the decryption device (hardware or software) would interpret the signals to a level of specificity based on its level of ability. For example, a consumer gets level 2 but military may get level 5, and setting the data bit at level 2 would mean levels 2, 1 and 0 can't pinpoint as well the same data that levels 4 and 5 can.

Also, how well will the consumer be able to turn on and/or off specific data streams (GPS, WAAS, Galileo)? How well will the EU and the US work together to make sure that when one wants to jam the other also complies for the same constellation of satellites servicing an area? Does this agreement make it easier to perform jamming?

Re:US ability to jam .... (1)

SEE (7681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880831)

The effect of this agreement is to make it easier and cheaper to make dual NAVSTAR/Galileo receivers. The effect of that would be to make it harder for either the US or EU to degrade consumer GPS by messing with their satellite signals in the way the US used to do with Selective Availability -- because more people would have dual-signal devices that would use the other to correct. There has been discussion with the Russians about making GLONASS compatible with the two as well.

As far as true jamming, the US developed theater-area jamming for NAVSTAR and GLONASS back before it turned off Selective Availability. The US presumably also has or is developing jammers for Beidou/Compass and IRNSS. Adding Galileo to that list would be fairly simple even if the frequencies weren't shared.

Re:US ability to jam .... (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880843)

if you read the news from 2003 and 2004 you'll see that usa reserved the right to jam galileo or even to destroy the galileo satellites.
cannot find them in english right now, but what i have found is this []

You are correct, and.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19881449) goes farther than that, the DOD thing applied to all of "space". Very similar to the Monroe Doctrine, just applied to the areas above the atmosphere around the planet. Any satellites up there exist because the US allows them to exist, they have stated that they will do whatever is necessary to own space if push comes to shove, no nations excluded, even NATO nations. The US reserves the right and the DOD is tasked with maintaining the ability, to operate alone, which very easily can be interpreted as denying anything we might want to deny. This is the DOD space policy directive of 1999 which has not been changed. They liken it to the high seas and basic international law, but also have the opinion that the US must always maintain the ultimate power there, and if anything is in our national interest, it becomes "lawful". They added a little caveat and warning later on in public to warn anyone not to give satellite imagery or sensing data to anyone we might be currently at war or close to war with, and it most definetley was aimed at Europe and Galileo at that time, just so everyone would know what the stakes were.

Right now with the proposed satnav merger-you'd have to be a doofus cum laude to not smell a rat there. They just want to be able to pull the plug on demand effortlessly, without any messy jamming or trying to take satellites out. They want to be able to do it fast with a few keystrokes, or have the ability to broadcast false information, etc., which opens up a host of interesting military capabilities if you think about it a little bit.

Put it this way, there is no military downside to having more technical information and control capabilities of any satellite out there, your's or someone else's. This should be easy enough to see I think. Another example, all the foreign students inside US universities working on advanced *everything*. I hope people don't think it is all because they are such great schools. this is true but it isn't even the primary reason. the primary reason is because it's a good deal for raw intel. There's a certain high percentage of this "intellectual property" that gets developed that goes right back into the governments of the host countries of the students. Again, you'd ("you" being any foreign government looking for cheap good intel, economic or military) have to be lame to not act on this amazing opportunity to pick up great research for cheap.

They all do it, no big secrets here although people like to playact it doesn't exist.

Re:US ability to jam .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19881465)

It can still be jammed pretty cheaply and easily (anyone with a bit of know how can do it) and unless the terrorist develop antiradiation missiles it would be pretty safe to do it as well.
And of course if a real war ever broke out we could just shot it down.
So this changes very little. /shrug

gfuck3r (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19879941)

DBISD fanatics? I've performing.' Even

I thought the whole point.... (4, Interesting)

saibot834 (1061528) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879959)

And I thought the whole point in Galileo was to be independent of USA's mercy. The US can turn off GPS at any time they want. The EU don't want to be dependent on the USA and so they build their own system.

Now perhaps this story refers to times when both Galileo _and_ GPS are working. Would that increase the accuracy so that both systems together are more effective? I don't really think so. I don't think that Galileo (which has an accuracy of 0.1 meters afaik) can be enhanced by some GPS satellites (which has an accuracy of 15 meters). They are way too old, the GPS satellites (at least, most of them).

Re:I thought the whole point.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880441)

I don't think that Galileo (which has an accuracy of 0.1 meters afaik) can be enhanced by some GPS satellites (which has an accuracy of 15 meters). They are way too old, the GPS satellites (at least, most of them).

On the other hand, the GPS sats are up in the sky working while the Galileos are mostly unfunded budget items. So it's a win-win situation.

Re:I thought the whole point.... (1)

SEE (7681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880541)

The article is referring to 1) times when both systems were working, and 2) to the next-generation version of GPS (the planned-for-2013 Block III satellites).

Re:I thought the whole point.... (1)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880569)

Would that increase the accuracy so that both systems together are more effective? I don't really think so.
Statistics says yes. No matter what the variance, any additional unbiased data improves your estimate. It may not improve it a lot, but it will improve it. In the case where there aren't enough sattelites of any one system visible though, it could mean the difference between working rather than failing.

I don't think that Galileo (which has an accuracy of 0.1 meters afaik) can be enhanced by some GPS satellites (which has an accuracy of 15 meters). They are way too old, the GPS satellites (at least, most of them).
Well, it's hard to be newer that satellites which have yet to be launched... Let's revisit the accuracy when there is a Galileo constellation to speak of. Right now, the plans are for the <1m accuracy service to be encrypted, and require payment to access. To get the 0.1m accuracy, a base station (ala differential GPS) is required, so you're doing an apples to oranges comparison. The open/free service is 4m(x,y),8m(z).

Now, with the EU taking control, maybe the <1m service will now be free, but let's talk about how well it works when it actually exists.

GPS/GLONASS combo receivers available now. (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879983)

Receivers that use both GPS and GLONASS satellite signals have been available for years. Maxim just announced a new receiver chip [] which receives both and only costs $2.95 in quantity, so that capability is likely to become more available.

GLONASS was in bad shape after the USSR tanked, but new GLONASS satellites are being launched again, and the constellation is currently about half populated. As of today, 11 GLONASS satellites are functioning, 5 are down, and one new one is being brought into position. 24 operational satellites are a full set.

The earlier GLONASS sats only had a two year design life, but the latest models have a 7 year design life, and they're going for a 10-year model. They launch a new batch every December, so they're starting to catch up.

Re:GPS/GLONASS combo receivers available now. (2, Interesting)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880709)

Hopefully, GLONASS will come back into full service one day (it's always good to have options, right?): s []

As of May 2007, the system is not fully available, however it is maintained and remains partially operational. There were 11 operational satellites in the GLONASS system and one new satellite in its commissioning phase

In recent years, Russia has kept the satellite orbits optimized for navigating in Chechnya, increasing signal coverage there at the cost of degrading coverage in the rest of the world. As of May 2007, GLONASS availability in Russia was 45.3% and average availability for the whole Earth was down to 30.5%, with significant areas of less than 25% availability. Meaning that, at any given time of the day in Russia, there is a 45.3% likelihood that a position fix can be calculated.

In short, that's not exactly what I would call a "global positioning system"

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880003)

Their system is going to use ours until it is done hence they will be compatible for redundancy...
Oh this reminds me of this site I found while looking up emp's and cell jammers years ago: Green Bay packet radio or something like that; point is, his site is hilarious in the fact that he dissez the Europeans on the sub of GSM... Very persuasive in anti european ideas!!

But (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880025)

Isn't Galileo having funding issues at the moment? If so, isn't this 'deal' a bit...redundant?

Coming in 2013 to a nanoparadise near you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880039)

What if mindreading equipment recorded you thinking "Louisiana Brain Death" for no good reason and everyone saw then I said I had "Louisiana Brain Death" style? Would you still think you could beat someone being so pitiful as to rely on a style to do hard things? What if someone said "Nonsense, nonsense, sense is your ass killed!" while being mindread while everyone watched and it was for a special reason? Would you cower just a little more in your invisible closet you walk around in while in public? Don't imagine, be there. 2013 - Nanoparadise on Earth, at least that's what you'll wish it was as your asshole gets
broke over a million million years and you cry until the end of time.

Re:Coming in 2013 to a nanoparadise near you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880201)

wtf are you talking about? back away from the crack pipe -- slowly.

How does this qualify as news? (1, Interesting)

gsfprez (27403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880107)

This article is so thin on actual information, its incredible.

1. The Euros still have barely made 1 satellite broadcast a NAV message.. if in fact, they actually did. The most accurate discription of what the whole Galileo program has done to this point is bitch-n-moan, and put up a used Frigidaire into space with a HAM radio and a metronome hooked together with bailing wire broadcasting the opening 3 seconds of Weird Al's "Like a Surgeon" track for the last few years.

2. Teenagers keep hacking the ICD-spec'd encryption in a handful of days, thus ensuring that any possible monitary beneift the 72 countries "invovled" with Galileo will become naught once some industrious Chinese manufacturers start making receivers which bypass the payment scheme. (can you say "region-free/CCS-free DVD players?" I knew you could)

3. The Euros could shut-down Galileo anytime they wanted - why should the US depend on a system that could be shut-down anytime someone else wanted? Answer - they probably won't.

they killed the Concorde because they couldn't get along. They stopped supporting Airbus because they couldn't get along. They haven't accomplished anything of merit with Galileo because they can't get along.

Perhapse we'll just all do what we know everyone will do... what Euro's do best...

keep using GPS for free while complaining the whole while about it and keep bitching about the colonials until they're in deep shit and ask for help.


Re:How does this qualify as news? (1)

BeeRockxs (782462) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880135)

Stopped supporting Airbus? What are you talking about?

Re:How does this qualify as news? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880183)

# 3 doesn't make much sense. If Europe actually puts together a working system, there will be, as you pointed out a large amount of red tape and argument about the running of it. Shutting it down, would take everyone involved cooperating together, which as you pointed out is unlikely and time consuming.

Re:How does this qualify as news? (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880357)

I was going to post something along the same lines. In typical EU fashion, the Galileo project has crashed before it even really started. What's new is that now the various companies involved cannot get agreements over who does what. Unfortunately I can't find websites that tell the story. Many big EU projects fail because everybody and his dog has to have a fair share of the work/profits/whatever. So first they spend forever bickering about how things shall be done, and then they come up with the most impractical solution ever. Look at the way the Airbus A380 is built. It's a beautiful plane, but it just deserves to fail. The same happens with the Galileo project. Very annoying. The EU is a superpower but they are so busy bickering amongst themselves they don't even have time to look around and see the world pass them by.

Re:How does this qualify as news? (1)

DarenN (411219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880577)

Good rant! Bit light on reality, though.

1. The test satellite is not only alive and well, but all the control systems are being calibrated off it. The company in the same building as me in Ireland are doing data analysis from the (rather large amounts of) information that are coming from that satellite. As a result of this, the control software is also being tweaked for better performance.

2. Yup. Which is why all the problems cropped up in the first place. Loads of companies were meant to buy in (everything in the EU at the moment has to be public/private partnership, it's trendy) but they all said "thanks, but no thanks". Galileo is going ahead anyway, too much has been invested and no-one's going to back down in the EU Commission. So the UK do the usual "talking tough at home" while giving the nod in Brussels and everyone else involved has basically agreed to stump up the cash.

3. Er - yeah. Similar to how the US can shut down NAVSTAR - GPS and the Russians can shut down theirs. On the other hand, if they're all operational wouldn't it make sense for the systems to work together? Also GPS is a bit flaky over nothern europe, apparently, so it makes sense that Galileo will sort this out. Why cut GPS consumers from the states out? Or for that matter, force people to buy two receivers "just in case".

Concorde was killed because it could never be "proven" to be safe without a massive and expensive upgrade program. If we want another super-sonic passenger plane, I'm sure someone'll build one. Remember that the Concorde lasted a long time - it's first flight was in 1976! If we're point scoring, where did the concorde come from? I don't remember AA and Delta running them.

Airbus is going fine and dandy, thanks (or it will be if the A380 wiring issues get sorted). It can mostly support itself, although the factory locations are quite wide-flung, which is a PITA.

Don't know what the hell you're talking about with the "what Euro's do best"

We WILL keep using GPS for free, because we're not idiots. We will also keep bitching about your current administration, because they have failed to live up to their obligations under international treaty, and they've run rough-shod over contrary opinion since 9/11. The amount of goodwill that existed towards the US was a deep, deep well, from 1918 on, but the current administration managed to drain it, which is a pity. Lastly, we've figured out a way to keep ourselves out of deep shit in the future but for various reasons we've decided, collectively, that if we get involved in fighting outside our own borders, we better have some DAMN good reasons for it. It has something to do with the fact that Europe has been a major battleground for much of this century. Mainland US hasn't, so the scars don't run so deep. It's an interesting psychological difference.

I love posts like the parent (1)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880611)

Very US biased, highly generalised, and highly negative of anything not US.

Whoever said the A380 isn't supported any more? Pure FUD - I love it!

175 orders and counting - [] , which for the biggest plane ever manufactured by the human race is pretty good. And before you bring up the delays issue, I would point out the 747 nearly bankrupted Boeing ( - a far cry from Airbus today.

And for fucks sake, grow up - it's entirely possible the EU + US can get along just fine. There wouldn't be much of a global market place if we didn't now would there? Sometimes it pays to get on.

I love posts like yours, being small must suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880727)

"Very US biased, highly generalised, and highly negative of anything not US."

And absolutely correct. Sucks for you, but it's still true.

"175 orders and counting"

Yeah, counting BACKWARDS! That's certainly something to be proud of...

"On November 7, 2006, FedEx cancelled its order for 10 A380F freighters in favour of 15 Boeing 777 Freighters.[25] In March 2007, the last remaining customer for the A380F, UPS, announced the cancellation of its order"

AHAHAH that's really showing them Airbus.

"And before you bring up the delays issue, I would point out the 747 nearly bankrupted Boeing ( - a far cry from Airbus today."

STFU troll, there's no such thing as "almost pregnant" and the same applies here. What you meant to say was "the 747 was a financial problem for Boeing, exactly like the A380 for Airbus".

"And for fucks sake, grow up"

Sorry, but we're not the losers who require a direct and favorable comparison to find a reason to continue living. That's you Euros, and frankly, it's pretty fucking sad.

Airbus is garbage, but what do you expect from Eurotrash?

Re:I love posts like yours, being small must suck (2, Insightful)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880841)

I think one must be at least 13 to post on Slashdot.

I think you're right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19881281)

So two things then.

One, why are you posting then?

And two, no one cares what you think, and you know it's true. I suggest you look into suicide, it's your only hope.

Re:I think you're right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19881369)

You will grow up.

Though two things you need to do to grow up a somebody: call your parents now and have them read your post. Them ask them to pay for cybersitter (it will be worth it to save you).

Re:How does this qualify as news? (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880713)

Are you on crack?

I ask because your rant-filled post is so thin on actual factual information, it's incredible.

For example, the US wouldn't be depending on a system that could be shut down anytime someone else wanted, because the existing, US-built and US-controlled network would be part of the alliance and would remain US-controlled. So, control that paranoia, boy.

As others have pointed out, Airbus is alive and well, and one of the world's two major civilian aircraft manufacturers.

And Concorde, for your information, stopped flying mainly because of the rise in fuel post-September 11th, which together with the Air France crash in 2000, made keeping the fleet in the air uneconomical. Even then, Virgin Atlantic offered to buy the fleet and keep it in the air, which British Airways declined to do.

By the way, even before Concorde went into commercial service, it was the US Congress that was putting up roadblocks by banning Concorde from flying over the US. Somehow, if it had been a US venture I doubt that they'd have done that.

So, before your next rant about how Europeans just can't get anything done, etc, perhaps you might want to check the facts.

Re:How does this qualify as news? (3, Insightful)

2Y9D57 (988210) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881217)

This reply is so ill-informed, it's incredible. (That's it's, not its - illiterate as well.)

1. GIOVE-A, the first Galileo test satellite, was launched on 28 December 2005 from Baikonur Cosmodrome. It transmitted its (not it's) first navigation signal on 12 January 2006 and began transmitting complete navigation messages (i.e. with ephemeris and clock performance data) on 2nd May this year. No Frigidaire (just a commercially available satellite bus), no amateur radio (although SSTL, who built GIOVE-A, got their start building amateur radio satellites at the University of Surrey), two rubidium frequency standards (but no metronome), no baling wire (or bailing wire, either) and definitely no Weird Al.

2. Nobody has hacked any Galileo encryption. They have deduced the previously unspecified content of the signals transmitted by GIOVE-A and made out like they had discovered some big secret. The Cornell GPS lab deduced the PRN codes used by GIOVE-A - which were not secret, just not widely distributed. When the time comes, the two Galileo Public Regulated Service navigation signals will have their ranging codes and data encrypted - and no teenagers will be able to hack them - just like nobody has ever hacked the P(Y)-codes on GPS. In any case, the encryption keys will be replaceable in-service.

3. The agreement doesn't call for the US to rely on Europe. It calls for the systems to be interoperable so that, when they are both functioning, user can get quicker and more accurate fixes by having more satellites visible. Galileo will offer better performance at higher latitudes - won't someone think of the Alaskans?

Europe didn't kill Concorde. British Airways and Air France killed Concorde because it became unprofitable after a modification programme made necessary mainly by an accident caused by a piece of metal that fell off of an American airliner.

Airbus may yet get to eat Boeing's lunch - let's wait for the outcome of the Dreamliner/AB380 death match.

Your only (partially) valid criticism: it turned out that the industrial consortium that was supposed to build Galileo couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone take responsibility for a major space infrastructure project. Most likely, the European Space Agency will act as procurement agent for the system, which will then be operated by someone sensible, like Inmarsat.

Who's the tosser now?

Tinfoil hat time : they want to track your car (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880165)

One reason for this sudden cooperation is that the US might want to be in on the party when it comes to the EU plans to implement a tracking system for every vehicle on its roads. This intention is revealed in UK Department for Transport documents that show that a high priority for our GPS-based "road pricing" system plans is compatibility with European systems.

Or it could be because Galileo is designed to be more effective in urban areas, which the US have taken to occupying recently.

Re:Tinfoil hat time : they want to track your car (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880599)

Repeat after me: GPS *receivers* are not transmitters.

Reading the daily mail you might think it's true, but then reading that rag you might think a lot of bullshit things are true.

You can't track anything with gps without a back-channel to send the data - and cars are reasonably short of those (unless you count mobile phones which can be tracked to a few metres anyway).

Re:Tinfoil hat time : they want to track your car (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881333)

I would tend to think that a GPS tracking system for cars would be land based like what ships and boats use out at sea. Doesn't require the same level of transmission gear and is pretty damned reliable. You could certainly track cars as I believe that is what onStar does here in the U.S. already. Of course I suppose nothing stops car manufacturers from putting the required gear to transmit to a satellite or five.

Re:Tinfoil hat time : they want to track your car (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881391) y.jsp []

Q: Does OnStar continuously monitor my car's location?
A: No, OnStar does not continuously or routinely monitor, update or otherwise track the location of OnStar-equipped cars. OnStar only knows the location of a car when a user initiates a request for service, there is an Air Bag Deployment, an Advanced Automatic Crash Notification occurs, your OnStar equipment calls OnStar with data updates or when required to locate a car by a valid court order in criminal procedures or under exigent circumstances. OnStar requires police involvement for Stolen Vehicle Location Assistance and missing person requests.

Near as I can tell onstar uses nothing more than a cellphone and a gps receiver. It's fairly low-tech to have the cellphone phone home periodically and give it the location. Of course, having every car on the road doing this continuously would eat a lot of cellphone bandwidth.

Re:Tinfoil hat time : they want to track your car (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881553)

I would tend to think that a GPS tracking system for cars would be land based like what ships and boats use out at sea. Doesn't require the same level of transmission gear and is pretty damned reliable. You could certainly track cars as I believe that is what onStar does here in the U.S. already. Of course I suppose nothing stops car manufacturers from putting the required gear to transmit to a satellite or five.

What are you talking about, in terms of "like what ships and boats use out at sea"?

A GPS receiver is just that -- a receiver. It doesn't transmit. Full stop.

If you want to create a position reporting system, then you need some way to get the positional data back into a network. There have been various ways of accomplishing this.

Amateur radio operators have put together a very nice network called APRS, which uses 2-meter handheld radios, coupled with standard GPS receivers and interface chips, to "ping" your position to ground stations, which then dump the data onto the Internet so you can see it.

Most commercial systems, like those used on trucks, use the cellular phone network in some capacity. (Some of them use analog modems and make voice calls, others use GPRS or CSD to avoid the voice call.) But of course this costs money -- you have to pay for the cellular connection somehow, even if you only use it a few times an hour or day. This is how OnStar works (and you pay a monthly or yearly fee for it).

In order to make a "position beacon" that would work everywhere, you'd need a backhaul that didn't depend on terrestrial infrastructure -- the logical choice would be to use the Iridium network. (A network of low-orbiting, cellular-type voice communications satellites.) I suspect this is used for sea shipping and marine navigation, if you want remote position-reporting. But Iridium equipment and airtime isn't exactly cheap.

Creating a network that could tell you the position of every car on the road, in real-time, would be a big endeavor. It's probably a lot easier just to use E-Z Pass-type RFID sensors and readers at key locations (under bridges, etc.) than to try and create a wide-area network of GPS-equipped position beacons and receivers, just because in a congested area, you'd need a base station pretty much on every lamp-post in order to provide good coverage. If every car in an area was reporting its position ever minute or so, you'd quickly saturate the available capacity of the cellular and APRS networks. RFID would be a much better choice.

How much does it cost? (1)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880185)

"It just doesn't make sense to limit yourself to just one system"

If the one system is free, working, reliable, and most importantly, existing.

One system (1, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880319)

"..It just doesn't make sense to limit yourself to just one system.."

No, what we need is like 500 different systems. Just like in the world of memory cards.

Re:One system (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880997)

``No, what we need is like 500 different systems. Just like in the world of memory cards.''

Ahem. You're forgetting one key difference here: where the memory cards are a mess of incompatible systems, the talks mentioned in TFA are actually about making the systems compatible. This makes all the difference in the world.

Different, incompatible memory card interfaces breed lock-in (MemoryStick is close to this), data loss (once old interfaces cease being supported), energy wasted on converters, reinventing the wheel (CompactFlash now has WLAN cards as well as memory cards! We must have that, too!), and should be very frustrating to consumers.

Different, compatible navigation systems lead to more accurate data (more sattelites is better), fault-tolerance (if one system is switched off or starts providing faulty data, you can still use the other), and might actually lead to the systems competing with one another to give customers better value for their money, within the constraints of the system. It certainly wouldn't lead to the sort of frustration where you need over 5 different adapters to have a decent chance at getting at the data (the way it is with memory cards).

In short: multiple implementations of a common standard good, multiple gratuitously incompatible systems bad.

Launches? (2, Interesting)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880395)

Has ESA actually launched any of the Galileo satellites yet? Last I heard the program was having management and budget problems.

Re:Launches? (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880521)

i think they launched a test or prototype. then they ran out of money or some crap like that.

Here is how GSM network evolved according to GBPPR (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880397)

_F_ it ... here's the time line he had on his site::::

                1910 - 1920s -

                * U.S. Bell System develops first mobile radio telephone. It was the size of a large truck.
                * Europe kills millions and millions of people.

                1930s -

                * U.S. Bell System continues development on the mobile radio telephone.
                * Europe kills millions and millions of people.

                1940s -

                * U.S. Bell System stops development, uses copper to protect Europeans.
                * Europe kills millions and millions of people.

                1950s -

                * U.S. Bell System develops first long-range VHF mobile telephones.
                * Europe denies the whole Hitler thing.
                        Demands the U.S. protect, help, and feed them.

                1960s -

                * U.S. Bell System growing faster and faster, first radio telephone cellular network appear.
                * Europe builds a wall.

                1970s -

                * U.S. cellular phones become common. AMPS standard is started.
                * Europe wastes Marshall Plan money.
                        Does everything except build a Holocaust museum.

                1980s -

                * U.S. cellular phones become even more widespread, full country coverage.
                * Europe sells weapons to hostile countries and terrorists.
                        Never repays any WWII debts or Marshall Plan money.

                1990s -

                * U.S. cellular phone starting to move to a new, superior CDMA format.
                * Holy Shit! Europe develops GSM with Marshall Plan money, money they save
                        by denying the Holocaust, money the save by denying the whole Hitler thing,
                        money stolen from Jews, and by spying on the U.S.

                2000s -

                * U.S. has full coverage of a superior CDMA cellular format.
                * Europe brags about their "advanced" cellular network technology, which ham radio
                        operators invented, and where using, 15 years earlier.


btw: how can racist pieces of shit even like hitler:: he killed more smart white people than you can shake a stick at!

In related news... (1)

saintory (944644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880619)

After the US-EU GPS story broke, the Air Force decided to announce [] their plans for contract bidding for the upcoming GPS III.

The truth is all in the numbers (2, Insightful)

adsl (595429) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880649)

It's amazing how this Galileo topic ALWAYS ends up in people slagging off against America. OK moving on: The American GPS system is a fantastic FREE product (free to uses, not free to US citizens who pay through their Federal Taxes). The rest of the world has used the system for years and benefited. Then a European venture (made up of several disparate partners) decided there was a business opportunity to launch a rival system and pay for it by offering PAY services to users, in return for increased accuracy. Unfortunately while the tests went OK the European partners did not step up to formally fund the venture. Possibly fearing the financial numbers didn't work. This alliance of the existing US service and a likely "rightsized" Galileo, probably makes huge sense. The new Galileo Satellites can be launched, in far less numbers, while accuracy can be improved by combining the signals from both systems. In other words, everybody wins here. So enough of the bickering posts please and let's congratulate the new American/European alliance and improved future GPS products.

It's a military decision... (2, Insightful)

Etherwalk (681268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880773)

Think about it. It's better to have both than one in case a GPS scrambler won't knock out the Galileo signal (once it exists.) It's probably worth spending a few thousand dollars more per tank for that kind of redundancy--accurate positioning information has made a huge difference in how well modern armies fight. Ipsa scientia potest est--Knowledge itself is power.

Combined Positioning Systems (2, Informative)

aphxtwn (702841) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880815)

The concept of combined receivers isn't all that unusual. There are receivers out there, primarily used in aerospace, that combine GLOSNASS and GPS to render a more accurate position.

Military use (3, Insightful)

Laxator2 (973549) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881105)

The GPS system is capable of being re-programmed such that it will give the wrong coordinates to all but the US military. If GALILEO stays independent and keeps giving the correct coordinates a significant advantage is lost. I don't think the US military will accept that, so the getting the systems to work together may very well mean they will give the same wrong coordinates should the US military want that. I don't see the Europeans oposing such a demand.

Cool (2, Funny)

Jay L (74152) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881453)

Now I won't have to switch from one system to the other on long drives.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?