Galileo -- Why?

[KrazyHorse]

Only to a watery grave.

Airbuses hardly ever crash.

uh...wait

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


IIRC, the Spruce Goose could carry 700 passengers easily.

850 for the A3xx and it's the biggest so you better stuff that goose

[KrazyHorse]

The Spruce Goose also flew exactly one time, IIRC.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The Spruce Goose also flew exactly one time, IIRC.

american "engineering"...

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.aafo.com/goose/

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by paiktis22
850 for the A3xx and it's the biggest so you better stuff that goose

Is 150 extra passengers the most you could improve on decades old technology?

KH: That's correct.

[Bereta_Eder]

my God just look at it

[Bereta_Eder]

OTOH hand don't

'night all

[TCO]

Roland, you are a sophist...and annoying about it.

[Roland]

Thanks, GP.... although on the annoyance factor, I still stand in awe at the respective power of America inc.

Dan:

The US "security" establishment is hostile to everything and anything. From domestic opposition over allies to real or made-up enemies.

As for the subsidy point.... Galileo is sponsored as a sat system. AFAIK the equipment is supposed to be compatible with GPS. How exactly is this bringing any unfair advantage to european equipment makers ? Even incompatible standards often do little to further your own industry. Best example are the bizarre phone-plugs we had here...

[DanS]

Roland: Domestic opposition over allies? That's an odd phrase. Care to elaborate?

"The US "security" establishment is hostile to everything and anything. From domestic opposition over allies to real or made-up enemies."

That's not a very nuanced view of the "establishment".

[Roland]

Originally posted by DanS
Roland: Domestic opposition over allies? That's an odd phrase. Care to elaborate?

LOL. Ok, shall we do the next round of conversation in german ?

[Colonâ„¢]

Dan, the GPS system is based on satellites and the atomic clock, both are easily 40 years old and widely used by Europe already, and the system was conceived nearly 30 years ago. If this had been a private project and the concept had been patented somehow, surely the patent would have expired by 2008?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
The US "security" establishment is hostile to everything and anything. From domestic opposition over allies to real or made-up enemies.

You definately have a lawyer's talent for giving vague answers to questions, Roland. You can restrict your answer to high politics if it will narrow the answer somewhat.

[DanS]

Colon: I'm not arguing whether or not you can do it. Clearly, you can.

But perhaps Japanese and American companies have patents on some of the higher quality receiver technology. They obtained those patents and market position fair and square based on the GPS system. Europe has been out of the game somewhat, and the game is becoming lucrative, so European companies have a choice. They can either create their own innovation and patent it and create market position based on cost or another differentiator or they can have their government create a separate system that is different, but doesn't represent a substantial improvement (still an outstanding question to which I haven't really heard much of an answer).

Now we could play this faux innovation game to eternity. The US or Japan or whoever could innovate and Europe could freeload. But eventually, nobody is going to want to innovate in the private sphere because they've been burned too many times. They only have so many chips with which to play poker. Overall, you have to be rewarded handsomely for innovation--otherwise it isn't worthwhile.

Now don't get me wrong. Not all industry is about innovation. Rather more about execution and costs (bricks or softwood lumber or steel). But this is one of those markets where it is pretty much all about innovation at this point.