Talk:Galileo (satellite navigation)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Galileo (satellite navigation) article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
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....
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.
Location versus Position
I can't help but notice the big location versus position issue in many RFID/RTLS oriented literature. I have had several discussions with Rfid specialists, archaeologists, geologists, linguistic experts and have come to the following conclusions:
A position is a coordinate, a point inside a coordinate system. It is a spatial expression relative to a certain reference point. E.g: (1,2), 45° 15’ 50’’N, 20° 39’ 14’’W
A location is a certain place in space: on the mountain, zone 123, Room 76, … but also: (1,2); 45° 15’ 50’’N, 20° 39’ 14’’W  Remark: a position is always a location, but a location isn’t always a position. Some experts prefer to use the term location because a position can have different meanings, e.g sexual position, strategic position, body position, ... Location is also a more generic term than position. Jerry.bracke (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Locating system versus Positioning system
Finally there exists a difference between a locating system and a positioning system.
A locating system is any system to which you can the question: Where is Xyz? e.g: “Where is defibrillator 123?” Examples of such systems are: Ekahau, Wherenet, Aeroscout, …
A positioning system is a system that simply assigns, or facilitates to assign a position to a particular object. As opposed to a locating system, you can't ask a positioning system the whereabouts of an object. You could say, locating systems use, or extend, positioning systems, e.g. GPS based locating systems. Remark: Most experts prefer locating system instead of location system. . Location is a noun, locating is an adverb. It is also commonly known to say/write Global Positioning System, instead of
Global Position System Jerry.bracke (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure where you are going with these two arguments as you haven't really made any suggestions of where to improve things. As a result I may have misunderstood your intentions. If so then I apologise in advance.
- Just because something is interpreted by people as one thing doesn't mean that it is defined as such. Position in this context is a "defined location" i.e. a set of coordinates. Defined is the important bit - you don't turn on your Sat-nav and expect to be told you are "in your car". It may well be your location, but not a very useful one. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Magnetic-North on Earth is continually shifting...
- The system does not use the Earth's magnetic field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren (talk • contribs) 10:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Global navigation satellite systems aren't simple compasses. If they were, there would be no point in launching billion dollar satellite projects when a compass would communicate the same data. They work through triangulation based on transmissions from satellites, in known positions, and other geographic data.EDG161 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course GNS systems use trilateration, not triangulation. Triangulation relies on having "line of sight" whereas trilateration does not. You could hold a gps receiver against the roof of your car so it couldnt "see" any satellites, but it would still work because the radio signals from the gps satellites would reach it by bouncing off the car bodywork etc, this would affect the accuracy hardly at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- They do work by trilateration (or, more accurately, multilateration), but your definition of triangulation is Wrong. Triangulation is the calculation of positions from a set of angles (bearings from various known points). Trilateration is the calculation of positions from a set of distances. Neither require line of sight. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Removal of 'Future Product' tag?
I think it is time to remove this tag from the article page, as Galileo is about to enter full deployment phase. 2 satellites are already in orbit, with the launch of 4 production satellites confirmed. As such, this programme can now be compared to the International Space Station, which is technically still under construction after more than 10 years. I will remove this tag in a few days if there is no disagreement. Savlonn (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article3985655.ece US cable released by wikileaks / Aftenpost
could usefully be referenced in this article, probably under the political controversy section. Given that the CEO of one of the major contractors allegedly considers the project "a gigantic waste of taxpayers money" and mostly being carried out for french military reasons. He was fired for it yesterday 12:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballymichael (talk • contribs)
- I don't think so, even though both systems transmit on 1575.42 MHz. Read the last paragraph here. SV1XV (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The compatability issue seems to be linked to the monopoly issue, this layperson thinks. The reason for Galileo's being was orginially the unease that GPS was a US monopoly and a military one at that. When all your 'gadgets' are controlled by a foreign power you feel like a serf, I guess and that's what the Europeans wanted to end with their own standalone system. Obviously, this triggered power play and it is not fully clear from the article whether or not monopoly power can again, or still, be exercised, and to which extent, through GPS linkage or other things that are Greek to us laypersons. The issue seemed to have been in flux and probably still is. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
GPS and Galileo
"One of the reasons given for developing Galileo as an independent system was that position information from GPS can be made significantly inaccurate by the deliberate application of universal Selective Availability (SA) by the US military; this was enabled until 2000, and can be re-enabled at any time. GPS is widely used worldwide for civilian applications; Galileo's proponents argued that civil infrastructure, including aeroplane navigation and landing, should not rely solely upon a system with this vulnerability.
"On May 2, 2000, SA was disabled by President of the United States Bill Clinton; in late 2001 the entity managing the GPS confirmed that they did not intend to enable selective availability ever again. Though Selective Availability capability still exists, on 19 September 2007 the US Department of Defense announced that newer GPS satellites would not be capable of implementing Selective Availability; the wave of Block IIF satellites launched in 2009, and all subsequent GPS satellites, do not support SA. As old satellites are replaced in the GPS modernization program, SA will cease to be an option. The modernization programme also contains standardized features that allow GPS III and Galileo systems to inter-operate, allowing receivers to be developed to utilise GPS and Galileo together to create an even more precise GNSS system."
So if selective availability is being removed from the future crop of GPS birds, as the second paragraph states, how could it be "re-enabled at any time", as the first paragraph alleges? As a computer programmer, one of the first things I learned is that it's pretty difficult to re-enable a feature that's been removed from a system! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Until all the satellites that are capable of being enabled for selective availability are replaced then the system as a whole can still be said to have that capability even if it would no longer affect the entire system at once. The point being that if you are navigating by the signal you have to be aware and account for maximum error you might possibly encounter. PRL42 (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)