Talk:Galileo (satellite navigation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Galileo (satellite navigation) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Duplication of effort

"The United States, after the 11 September attacks, has now written to the European Union opposing the project, since it would defeat the usefulness of the US ability to shut down GPS in time of conflict."

Source for this statement? - user:Chrysalis
Should it be said in the article that this reinforces the original motivation for Galileo in the first place?
Whose motivation, enemies of the US? If so, say it and cite it.
Why enemies? Many non-US companies rely on GPS for their business and have to be afraid that - if the US military declares it necessary - the precision will be brought down. An alternative should be welcome to these companies. As I lived with the German telecommunication market for many years now, trust me: A monopoly is always bad - in this case, until a few years ago, there was only one official telephone carrier, and when the prices were increased by about 100%, you had to accept it or don't use the phone at all. Luckily, this has changed. - user:Chrysalis

note: A monopoly is not always bad as it reduces the likelihood of duplication of effort. Governments have monopoly over taxation, law making/enforcement and raising armies in their area of authority. Is this bad? (27 Nov 2004)

Also, I read somewhere that as of 2000 or 2001 GPS no longer has any difference in military and civilian signals (no "degradation"). Can anyone confirm this?

Yes, that is correct, and is explained on Global Positioning System. But the US reserve the right to switch the degradation back on in times of conflict. --AxelBoldt
Actually, even without degredation the military still has advantages of more precision in the higher data rate P-code signal and dual frequencies which enables calculation of ionospheric delays. However, the use of WAAS provides pretty much the same accuracy to civilian users over much of the globe. The new generation GPS satellites provide a second frequency for civilian use, as well (L2C).

--SteigDG1

€1,1 billion ... is that thousand million (US) or million million (UK)? - user:Montrealais

billion = thousand million, that's why I added (109) to the number. See billion - this is the adaption used by Wikipedia. user:Chrysalis

I wonder...

  1. Say the US (independent from NATO/--83.34.31.231 17:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Europe) goes to war with some country (Iran, Korth Korea, etc.) that is using the Galileo system. If the Europeans don't voluntarily degrade/shut off the signal to the theatre or opperations wouldn't the US be forced to "take down" the satelites (they apparently have this capability). What other option would the US have?
Taking down the satellite would be a hostile operation with respect to a neutral country (assuming that the Europeans aren't themselves considering the US operations to be legitimate). They just cannot do it without huge repercussions. What would probably happen is that Europe will implement degradation measures. David.Monniaux 10:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
  1. One other question: how is it that much of the cost is being footed by the private sector? If it's like GPS the signal will be free to access by anyone; will Galileo require some sort of subscription, or maybe pay-by-resolution? I think this should be explained inthe article. -- stewacide 23:41 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Most people can't receive the signals by themselves; you need a receiver. ;) Chances are, some company will have built that receiver and sold it to you. But without the network in place, the company would not be able to build and sell and profit from such devices. Therefore, companies wishing to profit from the system by selling devices that make use of it will want to invest in the creation of the system. See [1]. --Brion 00:20 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Actually, I looked through that webpage and apparently there will be an Open Service with "normal" resolution, and a high resolution Commercial Service. Anyone (apparently) can build an OS receiver, but the CS channels will be encrypted. I think I should add this to the w/u... -- stewacide
w/u? --  Denelson83  08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mis-use of limited resources? If this system is merely duplicating the capability of GPS, and will be expensive, surely investing in some other field or project would be more effective. European independence is a fantasy - on a small interlinked planet, all nations have to interact and learn to moderate their own attitudes to (total-)control. This is another example of the clash of aims between 'English' and 'French' mindsets/world views. (Apologies for Anglo-bias).(27 Nov 2004)

This civil-oriented system will be much better than the GPS. BAe seems quite happy to participate to this project. European independence is maybe a fantasy, unfortunately american technological domination is harsh reality that we can moderate.
GPS has been created to serve the needs of the USA military. Europe cannot rely on USA military for a positionning system. What if USA decides to shut down GPS on a region where Europeans companies have interests ? --Ocollard 14:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This page was edited by Polocrunch on 09/09/04. The text has been reworded in a fair few places to improve the language and flow. No facts have been changed, just wording. A couple of grammatical mistakes have been corrected too. There're still a couple of dodgy bits, but I'd have to take a mallet to them to sort them out. Polocrunch

[edit] Legal issues

Two issues -

1) There was some talk of blocking GPS in Europe, to force users to pay a fee for using Galileo. Blocking a navigational system in peace time is iffy in law.

That sounds highly unlikely, probably was a bored journalist or politician making that claim. technically and politically/economically not viable.

2) If a navigational aid is being used by one side in a war, even if it is being provided by a third party, it is a legitimate target for the other side. This goes back to precendents regarding lighthouses which date back beyond the Napoleonic wars. If one side is using the Galileo system for targeting weapons, and the administrators of the system refuse to block this, then the system become a legitimate target. That is one reason why the US reserves the right to turn the GPS system off (partially or otherwise).

This means that in the event of war, Galileo may have to be turned off (probably partially). Otherwise a party being attacked by weapons guided by it may try to turn it off the hard way. ASAT is getting easier and cheaper all the time....

[edit] Galileo Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)

I think that the article should be moved to its actual official name of Galileo Navigation Satellite System. Hektor 09:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the main website says its "GALILEO", then labels it a "European Satellite Navigation System" and repeatedly uses the capitalized word throughout (the way GPS is used). I'm not seeing either "Galileo positioning system" or "Galileo navigation satellite system" perhaps you can cite some sources?
Based on a quick bit of research I'd say the most appropriate titled would be Galileo (navigation system) - Davandron | Talk 17:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Additional Support
There are lots more, just posted a quick few. Conversely, if you do a google search for the phrase "galileo positioning system" it seems all the results are wiki/reference entries - Davandron | Talk 00:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I have deleted "On March 20, 2003, the UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq, further motivating the rest of the EU to develop a navigation system independent of US control." since the entry shows that the EU and ESA had agreed to fund the project by March 2002, and the previous paragraph mentions US government pressure as a factor in the decision.--Motmot 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamming Galileo

I have added a caveat to the first paragraph in the History section, to the effect that Galileo can be jammed by European or other militaries (the point of the Binary Offset Carrier agreement is that the US can then jam Galileo without affecting GPS).--Motmot 15:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EGNOS

The article says that EGNOS "is a system of satellites and ground stations designed to increase the accuracy of the current GPS and GLONASS in Europe." Does it have anything to do with Galileo? If not, that sentence should be deleted.

No, EGNOS does not have anything to do with Galileo. I have deleted the paragraph.

EGNOS is the first step to an GNSS infrastructure of Europe. As such related to Galileo.

[edit] full text of the Ukraine-EU Galileo agreement?

where can be downloaded this? On the europa.eu.int I can find only a press release. 199.64.72.252 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cornell Sleuths Crack Secret Codes Of Europe's Galileo Satellite

The PRN codes of Galileo-A have been cracked. [2] -Ravedave

The the code is available here --Trounce 12:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

Is anybody capable to explain where does the claimed better accuracy of GALILEO compared to GPS come from? Here below a table of the typical error sources. The only error which the orbiting hardware can be accounted for are the satellite clock errors, which cause deviations of up to 2 m (zero mean). Are GALILEO's clocks better than GPS's, say twice as much? Then the error reduction is about 1 m. Note that all other error sources cannot be reduced via better hardware but only by improving software models. Does GALILEO use better models than GPS? Then it would be possible to improve accuracy without launching 30 new satellites into orbit.

Sources of error
Source Effect
Ionospheric effects ± 5 meter
Ephemeris errors ± 2.5 meter
Satellite clock errors ± 2 meter
Multipath distortion ± 1 meter
Tropospheric effects ± 0.5 meter
Numerical errors ± 1 meter or less
Also, I was wondering about the combined accuracy of the GPS + Galileo? For instance, by 2010 when consumer receivers are built that work with both systems, will the combination give an effective increase in accuracy, or will it be just a redundancy? Val42 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ephemeris and clock will be more accurate as both will be updated in much shorter time intervals than currently in GPS.

One of the ways Galileo will improve the accuracy is by using dual frequencies. My understanding is that this will allow receivers to compute and elminate much of the Ionospheric effects, much like the military and survey grade units to today. It's likely that the same thing will be possible using GPS and Galileo signals. 84.9.33.108 11:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To what extend do upgrades like GPS III address the same issues that Galileo does, with regard to accuracy? DonPMitchell 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overfunding problem?

All European Union member states became strongly in favour of the Galileo system in late 2002 and, as a result, the project actually became over-funded, which posed a completely new set of problems for the European Space Agency (ESA), as a way had to be found to convince the member states to reduce the funding.

And exactly what problems were encountered with over-funding Galileo? --  Denelson83  09:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the problem was about convincing the member states to redirect part of their Galileo's funding to other space projects. That had to be done in a coordinated way by means of equal funding reductions among all states to avoid some state to attain an overweighted position in a highly political project. Can anybody confirm this view so that it can be added to the article?

I can find no confirmation of this "overfunding" issue having ever existed. I suspect it's some bad faith editors idea of a joke.Zebulin 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genericization of "GPS"

I now use the acronym "GPS" to refer to any satellite-based Earth navigation system. If I want to refer to the United States system, I'll just say Navstar. --  Denelson83  02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for sharing how you personally use your language. We've actually got this discussion going already and the wide-spread term is actually Global Navigation Satellite System or GNSS. GPS is now reserved for a specific system, namely the US Global Positioning System (or NAVSTAR, as you pointed out). Remember, the GLONASS system has existed for some time as well, and that system more than anything probably spurred the introduction of the generic term GNSS. - Davandron | Talk 00:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
But how many people do you know who use the acronym "GNSS" in daily conversation compared to the acronym "GPS"? --  Denelson83  06:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
How many people know that there is another navigation system besides GPS? All the people whom I know that know what GLONAAS and Galileo are do not use the term GPS as a generic term. The rest think positioning is magic, and that it has something to do with satellites. - Davandron | Talk 14:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Local Positioning Systems appriorate for also see in Galileo article?

Is Local Positioning Systems an appropriate also see in the Galileo article? I have a feeling it was a linkspam attempt, but want to hear others thoughts as well. - Davandron | Talk 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Galileo is the European Navigation Infrastructure, the space based system is only a part of the Galileo System.

[edit] galileo/gps receiver?

Does that mean that in a few years I will be able to buy a receiver that can get my bearings using both GPS and Galileo systems for increased accuracy and more satellites available? (I live in Canada.)--Sonjaaa 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that is the current belief. - Davandron | Talk 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Or.. The current hope. ĞavinŤing 07:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is picture of Galileo Galilei appropriate?

It seems that a picture of Galilei is a little inappropriate. Its use in the history section right now seems primarily to be to add some color and interest to the article. Is there a better picture we could use in its place? - Davandron | Talk 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. many articles have too much visual cruft. If it doesn't add anything to the value of the article, then there should be a presumption in favour of deletion. I wouldn't worry about replacement - I'm sure someone will come up with an alternative. Countersubject 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Netherlands' NLR link?

I removed this link * [http://www.nlr.nl/eCache/DEF/634.html Galileo: a new satellite navigation system]

because, the content at that link doesn't really add anything to the article. HOWEVER, if this is the lab that will be testing Galileo for the ESA, then I think a link to their project status page would be a great addition to the article. Perhaps 212.182.158.100 can help us find such a link for inclusion? - Davandron | Talk 14:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military use?

" ... will, upon completion, be available at its full precision to all users, both civil and military." I came to this site looking to clarify whether it will be available for military use because there seems to be a bit of an argument about this. The Brits have said they will veto any military use. Could it be worth clarifying the current situation? 134.2.147.34 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Galileo video?

Is it a good idea to add the video about Galileo (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/galileo/video_galileo_december2004_en.mpg) to the External links section? thenestor

Great find on those videos... 113meg? Yikes! I think a link to the video is fine, but offer some suggestions:
  1. Link to the video page [:http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/video/index_en.htm] instead of the video directly. They might offer other sizes or new ones in the future.
  2. Mention what the video is about and its title
  3. Maybe warn people of its large size. The guidelines on external links still recommend warning if a site uses flash or java since those are rough on low-bandwidth / portable devices using the wikipedia.
- Davandron | Talk 16:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I have not been able to get that video to play even after downloading the file twice. Analysis with VirtualDub indicates its composed of incomplete audio frames. Is there a special audio codec that is needed? - Davandron | Talk 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to work fine in mplayer (RC1 mingw version) and in Windows Media Player on Vista to me. Both VLC and VirtualDub have problems. At a guess I would say there is something wrong with the muxing Nil Einne 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galileo positioning system funding problem

Well read this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/08/galileo_strategic_not_commercial/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Presmute (talk • contribs) 08:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Multilateration?

Does this mean that Galileo will use hyperboloidal positioning as opposed to Navstar's spherical positioning? --  Denelson83  19:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Galileo logo.svg

Image:Galileo logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)