On Oct 21, 2:48*pm, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 10:37*am, Vincent van der Laan <vinc...@allalin.nl> wrote:
>
> >http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Galileo_IOV/index.html
>
> Congratulations on the technical achievement.
>
> That said, *Europe has spent a lot of money getting Galileo where it
> is today. *Why?
>
> I have seen paranoia about reliance upon the 'untrustworthy' *US
> satellite navigation services. *The record shows NAVSTAR has never be
> shut off, even when the US was under attack. *There is no threat of
> reinstating SA as that would indeed render NAVSTAR useless for modern
> civil applications.
>
> Then they seem to be out to prove Europe can build a superior
> system .. words like 'Rival GPS'. *So how much better when the system
> reaches 18-24 working satellites? *Anyway, if Galileo does not
> outperform NAVSTAR by some margin, it's a failure in that respect.
> Galileo will enter service as a modernized system with advanced signal
> design along with a compatible ground control system .. not encumbered
> by that 30 years of legacy when the USAF 'wrote the book' on operating
> a satellite navigation system.
>
> But, I'll be more than happy to use those new satellites when multi-
> constellation receivers arrive at consumer price levels.
>
> --- *CHAS
Dear CHAS,
When the subject is safety of life, even the FAA wants GPS to
guarantee things they don't plan to guarantee. ICAO / EASA think just
like the FAA.
They all want better than one in a billion chance of troubles
(essentially zero risk).
Even with 24+3 constellation, GPS only offers a hard guarantees of 21
operational satellites (considering those 8 GPS IIA birds that 2nd OPS
have an excellent grasp on their projected performance, but are
essentially considered dead tomorrow for performance specs).
The performance specs of GPS are essentially that of a 21 satellite
constellation.
As a pilot, and former frequent flyer, I have all the sympathy to the
potential of Galileo becoming that 2nd GNSS system that we can trust
as much than GPS.
There is a couple billion US$ worth of CAT I ILS systems in just USA
+Europe+Japan that will be retired in less than 10 years with Galileo
FOC + GPS L5 FOC (plus SBAS), without Galileo available, that
retirement would have been borderline safety wise, with Galileo, it
becomes a safe bet depending on GNSS+SBAS for all operations except
CAT II/III landings.
Should GPS L5 + Galileo have happened on schedule the LAAS billion
dollar investment would have been killed.
So, I say Galileo is late in the game, but a very much welcomed
improvement to GNSS, if anything, it will still be useless until they
have the first two FOC launches plus the first two triple regular
launches, plus the testing periods.
You must remember Dubya's / Cheney / Rice / Rumsfeld my way or the
highway approach to international diplomacy to understand Galileo's
need... If all presidents were as reasonable as Obama, that might be a
different story. But the Republican redneck voters that love a war and
love that (we own the world) brutality mentality is not very well
taken by the rest of the world.
Just food for fought. Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans
never been outside North America + Mexico.
Marcelo Pacheco
Linear Mode
