Galileo -- Why?

[TCO]

Who else starts humming the Indigo Girl's song whenever they see this thread title?

[Jack the Bodiless]

For years, the Brits (and maybe others) have had "differential GPS".

It uses a GPS receiver in a ground station at a precisely-known location. It receives US civilian-grade GPS position data, which might indicate (for instance) that the station has moved ten meters northwest. The station then broadcasts a signal saying, in effect, "today GPS is out by ten meters southeast, compensate accordingly".

It's available to civilians and is accurate to about one meter, maybe less.

[Saint Marcus]

it's obvious from this thread.

Americans are jealous of European tech achievements.

Don't worry though, we might let you use our superior technology. For a charge of course.

[Roland]

That Skilehrer life is no good for ol' GP....

Read some piss funny stuff on bloomberg...

European leaders added a new source of conflict over the weekend by agreeing to develop a 3.4 billion euro ($3 billion) satellite navigation system that the U.S. has said could represent an unfair subsidy to European contractors.

European manufacturers that stand to benefit include European Aeronautic Space & Defense Co., BAE Systems Plc, Thales SA and Alcatel SA. The U.S. State Department said last week it ``sees no compelling need'' for the project, which will compete with the U.S. military-run global positioning system.

Whenever the US accepts the principle that pork spending is illegal under WTO rules, the yanks are toast in any proceeding....

[Saint Marcus]

Where does it say we'll be spending money on it?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/neweconomy/tech2711a.shtml

India, Israel, South Africa and Australia are among those who have expressed interest in Galileo, New York Times has reported.

Canada has been financially involved in the early stages of Galileo while Russia has lent technical expertise and is looking for a bigger role. China has shown a strong desire to participate in the project, the paper said.

[Saint Marcus]

another reason for Galileo:

An independent study released by PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts that Galileo would have considerable economic benefits.

[Paul]

See here for confirmation of Canada's involvement in Galileo.

[Saint Marcus]

yee, go Canada.

Perhaps it's time for Canada to join the European Union...

[RGBVideo]

Re: Galileo -- Why?

Originally posted by DanS
Can somebody please explain to me the advantages of Galileo and why Europe is willing to spend $3B on it? Who's pushing it and why?(..)

So that France and Italy can feel that they and EU are potential threat to USA

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by DanS
OK, checking the specs, it seems like they're spending this kind of coin to go from a ~4 meter mean error to a 1 meter mean error (GPS has sub-1 meter resolution, but only for licensed and military users). Are there any big applications that would require a 1 meter mean error?

At least one application I know of - ground transportation. I helped do a cost / benefit on this a couple years ago. Most of the US rail system (and I think UK, maybe Europe too) is built with tracks about 15 feet between center lines. Four to five meter resolution is just coarse enough that you can't tell which of two opposing tracks a train is on ... BIG problem if you are trying to design a computerized train control and safety system to prevent collisions. Going to a one meter resolution would solve the problem. Similar issues for highways too, where the lanes are about 12 feet on center IIRC. But the issue is not nearly as critical here, since cars and trucks can change lanes more readily. While some applications exist, whether Galileo is worth the investment just for these applications is another question entirely.

[DanS]

AS: Thank you for that. Would a 1 meter mean error be sufficient in the rail context? For instance, this might allow a 2 meter or higher error two standard deviations from the mean.

Jack the Bodiless: Good point.

MarkL: Is that the auditing side of the house, or the consulting side of the house?

Roland: You're getting very close to the answer. Try to rephrase it.

[Roland]

Originally posted by DanS
You're getting very close to the answer. Try to rephrase it.

No need for that, and you know it.

[DanS]

Well, if you don't at least specify the market that you're trying to unfairly steal, then I won't believe that you've hit it on the head.

[Roland]

Nice try to sow confusion, but it is obviously a measure to open a market to competition that had been previously monopolized, and to be self relying in a field that had been previsouly monopolized by the NS state.

[DanS]

Roland: It looks like you need to be led to water. Besides, it's about the end of page 4, and I'm getting a little impatient.

Europe is trying to unfairly steal the GPS equipment market. Not the aerospace portion of it (i.e., the $3 billion to be spent on the project--what everybody is focusing on), but rather the communications/receiver portion of it.

This market is expected to explode in the next couple of years to well over $10 billion per annum. Europe doesn't compete in this market--I think it sells less than 20% of the solutions. Japan and the US are the big players.

So why not put our finger on the scales and subsidize the Euro communications companies so that they are guaranteed to be players? It has worked so well in the aerospace market.

This kind of thinking pisses me off to no end. The Japanese and American companies have created a market from scratch (from nothing), have nurtured it through the lean times and now we're getting all of these European free-loaders! Yes, technological free-loaders!