We're getting terribly off thread with this subject so this will be my last post on the subject before Ramsey Su has to slap us down. IMHO, interference from Galileo's signals is unlikely, this problem will be worked through out of political necessity. However, in past discussions the Europeans have markedly less cooperative than the Russians have been with their GLONASS (GLObal NAvigation Satellite System ) in insuring compatibility. As you may already know the Russians have been refurbishing their old Soviet era GLONASS that was allowed to run down, by launching a series of new satellites to make the system usable again. For GLONASS status and policy see rssi.ru The system is compatible with the American GPS system and Russia will start serial production of global positioning system receivers for civil customers in 2002 that use both GPS and GLONASS signals. library.northernlight.com
I would expect duel system receivers to appear from Western manufacturers as soon the the Russians get some more birds in the air and manufactures feel confident that the Russians will maintain the system and not let it run down again.
The EU transport ministers released 450 million Euros in development funding for the Galileo program. The European Space Agency had already committed a similar amount. The total project cost for development and deployment is forecast to reach 3.4 billion Euros, with a 2008 operational date. [ snip ] They also insisted that more private investors be involved to help cover the costs. Private companies in Europe have lobbied hard for the program, but so far have not committed specific monetary amounts. From: gpsworld.com
So they've only committed about 900 million Euros out of the 3.4 billion required for development and deployment assuming that it developed and deployed under or on budget and on time, which would be a first for such projects.
The supporters of Galileo have claimed half the development money will come from private sources. totaltele.com
The Commission hopes half of the expected 3.25 billion euros ($2.77
billion) needed to fund the system will come from private companies. France's Alcatel and Thales, Italy's Enav and Telespazio, and Spain's Aena are among the firms that have jointly promised 200 million euros as an initial investment, Commission officials have said.
But even the 200 million promised last summer has yet to materialize. Just why would private industry spend 1.7 billion euros to develop a system to compete with two free systems without some kind of guaranteed return? IMHO, the only way that they could be guaranteed a return on their 1.7 billion investment would be some kind of European regulation making use of the Galileo navigation system mandatory in handsets and cars.
With two sources of GPS freely available, why do they they need a third system and who will pay for the maintenance? The U.S. system of 24 satellites costs $500 million a year to maintain. The Galileo system of 32 satellites should cost a like amount to run. The Euro's want build a for-profit service around receiving the signal. How are they going to do that with free signals available? They haven't identified a source of funds for the maintenance of the system. I suspect they will have to levy a tax or fee on all GPS receivers used in the EU or budget $500 million a year out of EU general funds. Without a constant flow of funds for maintenance the system will run down and become unusable as the GLONASS system did during the turmoil after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As you may know the control of the GPS system was transferred from the US military by the March 1996 Presidential Decision Directive, passed into law by Congress in 1998, which essentially transferred "ownership" of GPS from DOD to the Interagency GPS Executive Board (IGEB). The IGEB is co-chaired by members of the Departments of Transportation and Defense, and comprised of members of the Departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Justice as well as members from NASA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It allows for both civil and military interests to be included on all decisions related to the management of GPS. See
gps.faa.gov
So the oft repeated refrain that the GPS system cannot be trusted because it is controlled by the US military is outdated.
Improvements in the reliability and accuracy of the system are under way. Replacement satellites will have two more civilian channels and one more military channel in order to reduce the susceptibility of the system to jamming. This is prerequisite for the plans of the FAA to use GPS as a primary navigation system for civil aircraft. Currently GPS can only be used as a secondary navigation system in civil aviation. There are three FAA programs involving augmentations of GPS, WAAS, LAAS, and NAS. You can learn about them here gps.faa.gov By the time Galileo is ready in 2008, planned improvements in GPS will match or exceed the accuracy of Galileo.
In the years that I have been following GPS developments, I have seen the cost of GPS receivers drop from thousands of dollars to less than one hundred dollars today. It now costs about $20 to add GPS to a CDMA handset that uses Qualcomm chips. In the six years that it will take to put the Galileo system in place how much cheaper will it get? There is 30 years of manufacturing experience with GPS. In six years I believe that GPS or GPS/GLONASS will be on all handsets and will be dirt cheap due to experience and the economies of scale. But at that time the Euro's will want to add a new, possibly incompatible, pay for use system. I cannot see how it will break into the market without regulatory compulsion.
IMHO, the Galileo project is a creature of politics and not economics.
P.S. This link says the system will cost E3.6 billion and they expect two thirds of the overall cost of Galileo will come from the private sector. totaltele.com I doubt they'll get that much out of the private sector. |
