Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I disagree. In 20 years a navigation system will be so important that relying on GPS alone would give the US a capability to switch off the whole european economy.

It is quite unlikely that they would use that capability, but the threat alone would be a great weapon in a trade war.

Look at it this way: would the US rely on an european GPS system controlled by france and germany? I think not.

Now, how the whole procurement is being handled by the european government is of course totally braindead. But I guess major government programs in the US are not that much different.

Posted by Anonymous at March 19, 2007 10:41 AM

...anti-American paranoia and European pride.

I thought that was the same thing?

Posted by Steve at March 19, 2007 11:11 AM

It is quite unlikely that they would use that capability, but the threat alone would be a great weapon in a trade war.

GPS doesn't work that way. You don't selectively disable service to a geographic area; it's all or nothing. The only plausible service disruption would be a total denial of the civilian downlink (presumably during war time), which would affect all users *worldwide*. I think this is actually the practical impetus for Galileo.
That said, I don't think its very likely at all. I'll take anti-American paranoia for 500, Alex.

Posted by Jared at March 19, 2007 12:06 PM

C'mon guys. The purpose of Galileo is to allow the French to sell precision-guided munitions that the US can't turn off to states under sanctions.

Posted by Jim Bennett at March 19, 2007 01:16 PM

GPS has always had the ability to downgrade navigational accuracy for other than users with the proper decryption gear. While selective availability was turned off in 2000, it could be reinstated in an emergency. From what little I've read, SA can degrade navigational accuracy to roughly 100 meters but I see no mention of disrupting the timing functionality. Disrupting timing accuracy could have a more serious economic impact than degrading navigational accuracy.

Posted by Larry J at March 19, 2007 01:29 PM

From the FAA:

Q. What is Selective Availability (SA)?

A. SA was a technique implemented by the DOD to intentionally degrade a user’s navigation solution. The single largest source of error for SPS users was SA. The net result of SA was about a five-fold increase in positioning error. DOD achieved signal degradation by altering (also known as dithering) the satellite clock. Another means designed by DOD to degrade GPS performance was to broadcast less accurate ephemeris parameters.

The DOD-authorized users were able to undo SA. However, due to the fact that SA is spatially correlated, civil users were able to eliminate SA through the implementation of Differential GPS (DGPS), albeit an additional expense on the part of the users.

Q. Why was SA Necessary?

A. SA was used to protect the security interests of the U.S. and its allies by globally denying the full accuracy of the civil system to potential adversaries.

Q. What is the status of Selective Availability (SA)?

A. By order of the President of the United States, the use of Selective Availability was discontinued on May 1, 2000.

Q. Will SA ever be turned back on?

A. It is not the intent of the U.S. to ever use SA again. To ensure that potential adversaries to do not use GPS, the military is dedicated to the development and deployment of regional denial capabilities in lieu of global degradation through SA.

Posted by Larry J at March 19, 2007 01:32 PM

Airbus and Galileo...

"Its Dead Jim"

both of them (or at least the 380_

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 19, 2007 03:13 PM

Actually there are two reasons to have a Galileo or the Russian GLONASS system in addition to GPS, but neither one is sexy so they aren't mentioned much, and probably neither one is important enough to justify the cost -- certainly the users wouldn't pay the whole cost of Galileo for just that.

The first is surveying. Asyouknowbob, surveyors use the GPS system to get extremely precise locations. They don't use the codes at all, just the carriers, and confusingly enough call a quite different technique "differential GPS", same as for the error-correction system. At the moment, the biggest remaining source of error in surveying GPS is atmospheric disturbances. Galileo has an additional frequency, fairly far from the GPS frequencies, that would serve to help build a better model of the atmosphere to reduce the errors, and of course the additional satellites would make the solutions stronger.

The second is integrity monitoring. If a navigation error exists, it's actually more important to know that than it is to know the magnitude of it -- a five-meter error that you don't know about can have disastrous consequences on a long flight, where a thousand-meter error that you do know about is an inconvenience that can be overcome. Having a second, independent system to check the first is useful for that.

I consider it unlikely that either of those would be a strong enough reason to continue a money-loser. The tie-breaker will probably be the EU bureaucracy; keeping drones in Brussels paid may override rational considerations. The same consideration may see A380s fly eventually.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at March 19, 2007 06:39 PM

To add to my previous post: I saw this too late to provide input. If you have any sort of relationship with a Congressperson or other decisionmaker, call or write and and beg, if necessary, that LORAN-C be continued and eLORAN's development continue. GPS is a wonderful system, but putting all the eggs in one basket is a bad idea no matter how well the basket is padded.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at March 19, 2007 06:50 PM

"The only thing that this project ever had going for it was anti-American paranoia and European pride."

I'm sure anyone believes that would be your attitude if the US depended on a European network. Would it be an "ominous Gallo-Hun stranglehold on America's defenses" or a "Europinko blackmailer's position over critical strategic capabilities"?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 19, 2007 06:59 PM

I'm sorry, Brian, but Rand is correct. My work until recently was in a field where GPS is used extensively, and I had many opportunities to hear and speak with people about it and Global Navigation Satellite Systems in general.

As I noted in my post above, there are reasons to have a separate system, but they are much too weak to justify the expense. Europeans who believe that the U.S. will shut down or degrade GPS to discomfit them are thin on the ground, just as there are few who truly believe the U.S. will abandon its bases in, e.g., Germany. The primary drivers for development of Galileo were European pride and jealousy, led by the French (and German, to a lesser extent) professoriat. It remains to be seen whether those will be sufficient to keep development going.

The second prototype satellite is already delayed by a combination of misfortune and the organizational cluster-f*s characteristic of an EU pork-barrel program, and the consortium has been given warning to justify its existence. Meanwhile the relatively small British firm that built the first prototype, on time and within budget, has been notified that it may be asked to build another.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at March 19, 2007 07:40 PM

Ric: "As I noted in my post above, there are reasons to have a separate system, but they are much too weak to justify the expense."

I partly agree, but my big objection was to Rand's hypocritical remark about European motives.

Ric: "Europeans who believe that the U.S. will shut down or degrade GPS to discomfit them are thin on the ground"

Power is power, regardless of how friendly it is. And "friendly" is pretty far from the Bush regime's attitude toward the world's democracies at this point, including America's.

However, you do make a very good point about military bases--if they can accept armed US forces on their soil, it makes little sense to be concerned about navigation satellites. Although, on the other hand, the US government has never proven willing to accept the idea of their bases being removed, and has gone to rather extreme lengths to prevent it (ref. Whitlam affair). A piecemeal approach might seem more likely to succeed in the minds of European leaders.

Ric: "The primary drivers for development of Galileo were European pride and jealousy, led by the French (and German, to a lesser extent) professoriat."

"Pride and jealousy"? "Professoriat"? This explanation is a lot more paranoid than the subject, and sounds like a synopsis for "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Europa."

Ric: "The second prototype satellite is already delayed by a combination of misfortune and the organizational cluster-f*s characteristic of an EU pork-barrel program"

EU has more regulation and less corruption. On balance, they get a higher return on investment.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 19, 2007 09:52 PM

Let's just cut to the chase and dispense with the lame technical and political rationales. It's a socialist works program for rocket scientists. Period. And rather similar to many such programs in the US.

The problems aren't technical, this stuff was first done 20 years ago. The problem is how the pork is being distributed. Galileo WILL be funded, it's just a matter of who gets what. Again, rather similar to many programs in the US.

Posted by K at March 19, 2007 11:49 PM

EU has more regulation and less corruption.

Ah, if nothing else, Brian is always good for comic relief.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 20, 2007 04:25 AM

More Regulation=More Corruption.

The more bars you put in place, the more opportunity for bribes, kickbacks and payola you induce into the system.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 20, 2007 05:01 AM

Mike: "More Regulation=More Corruption."

If that were the case, Stockholm would be Tijuana.

Mike: The more bars you put in place, the more opportunity for bribes, kickbacks and payola you induce into the system.

There has to be a prior disposition toward corruption, because it's otherwise assumed that "rules are rules" and people see nothing to challenge that view. The case is even more extreme when there's a culture of institutional obedience, where your loyalty to the bureau, the company, the government et al is stronger than loyalty to specific superiors, friends, or self.

Corrupt countries are stronger on loyalty to specific authorities, i.e. those directly above and around you, whereas "impeccable" countries are much bigger on institutional loyalty. In the latter, a policeman who sees bribetaking doesn't hesitate to report it, does not become the subject of retaliation for doing so, and is admired for serving the force and the public. On the other side of the coin, such a policeman will not hesitate to enforce even grotesquely unjust laws.

Either way you look at it, however you judge the morals of it all, the countries of Northern Europe are far less corrupt than the United States. That's a fact, not a judgment, and it's a fact that costs American taxpayers dearly.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 20, 2007 05:30 AM

> the countries of Northern Europe are far less corrupt than the United States.

Don't judge the US by Chicago, Detroit, Boston, New Orleans, LA, SF, and other places that have a habit of electing Democrats.

Posted by at March 20, 2007 06:11 AM

"Don't judge the US by Chicago, Detroit, Boston, New Orleans, LA, SF, and other places that have a habit of electing Democrats."

If I only judged by the South, the US would be as corrupt as the Philippines.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 20, 2007 06:53 AM

EU has more regulation and less corruption.

I would agree, if "corruption" is taken simply as direct bribes to officials and the like. What the EU has instead is a philosophy of distribution and faux egalitarianism which results in things like the Galileo consortium. The putative goals become secondary or tertiary, behind making sure that the pork is evenly distributed and all the workers get their full month of holidays, and talent and aptitude take a definite back seat to credentialism and connectedness.

Corruption might well be cheaper -- remember that the New York subway system was built during the Tammany era, and that if we wanted to build it from scratch today we could never afford it.

On balance, they get a higher return on investment.

If so, that isn't prominently in evidence. Individual firms/organizations, perhaps, but so many of their costs have been externalized that their accounting doesn't reflect any real assessment of the actual costs being paid.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by at March 20, 2007 07:54 AM

I think, as a person from a certain european country, that the Galileo program actually shows some signs of me-tooism, bureaucratic bloat and even corruption.
But that doesn't make it completely so.
It still might actually be needed.

People in EU should vouch for scrutinization of these things. Why is the other bird so expensive? Hearings in Brussels? Is the competition fair? Where are the watchdogs?

Those kind of things are seen too little in the media in my opinion. Everybody just thinks "let the experts do their thing". Same happens with ESA. There is no public interest or scrutiny, about what programs are chosen and how they develop.

Of course, uninformed snarks like Rand's "just paranoia and pride" don't actually help much in establishing healthy discussion (not that I expect him to change his style). It's also too bad that many brits are still in staunch anti EU positions, when they could try to make the whole thing work better. (SSTL sure is making it better though!)

What Europeans should now watch out is letting all kinds of consortiums form on all fronts, soon the governments have no competitions to hold.
Think about EADS for once.

Posted by mz at March 20, 2007 09:36 AM

"What the EU has instead is a philosophy of distribution and faux egalitarianism"

How is it "faux"?

"The putative goals become secondary or tertiary, behind making sure that the pork is evenly distributed"

But how is that a uniquely EU characteristic? NASA cancelled the micro-lander program at Ames just because it would have threatened jobs at Marshall building bigger, more expensive, and far less promising technologies. Marshall was only located in Alabama in the first place to win political support, which was the same reason manned spaceflight came to be located in Texas.

In fact, the entire Space Center concept was designed as a political hedge against budget cuts, and had virtually nothing to do with where the talent was located. There were no aerospace engineers in Huntsville, or Michoud, or Houston before political decisions led to the contracts. They were all at White Sands, Edwards, Vandenberg, etc, and various coastal bases and universities, but they had to move to get the work.

To think Galileo is even a significant example is to suffer from amnesia: Politically-determined contracting happens constantly in US procurement, with a lot more money, involving projects that are a lot more important. How many consecutive projects like Galileo would they have to build just to equal the cost overruns on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle?

"and all the workers get their full month of holidays"

And you believe that's a bad thing? The whole idea of economic progress is that people don't have to work as much to create the same level of prosperity. The productivity of the American worker is much higher than it was in the past, and the economy has grown by leaps and bounds since 1950, so why do people in this country have to work longer to achieve the same results? Why has virtually none of their own productivity gone back into making their lives easier, while the lot of the wealthiest is unprecedented?

I'm ashamed to admit it, but some Americans are actually resentful that Europe has achieved something we haven't, and would rather portray their accomplishment as an immoral abomination than a victory for mankind. It insults the pride of some that Europeans can expect as a right something the vast majority of Americans want but are denied by a government beyond their control. Well, I applaud the EU's achievements, and hope more countries are at least allowed the choice to adopt similar policies.

"and talent and aptitude take a definite back seat to credentialism and connectedness."

More like credentialism and seniority. "Connectedness" (or as Nevadans call it, "juice") is much more a staple of American procurement and political office, which was true even before Bush and his grotesques turned the Executive branch into a welfare and jobs program for unemployed or unemployable family friends.

"Corruption might well be cheaper"

For whom?

"if we wanted to build it from scratch today we could never afford it."

Because there's skyscrapers on top of it.

"If so, that isn't prominently in evidence."

Yes, but it is *merely* in evidence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17659940/site/newsweek/

"Individual firms/organizations, perhaps, but so many of their costs have been externalized that their accounting doesn't reflect any real assessment of the actual costs being paid."

Externalized to what? If anything, the way they do things internalizes externalities that are simply ignored in American business--they actually invest in the health and mental well-being of their workers instead of looking for corners to cut for next quarter's earnings report. Apparently this makes them ineffective in certain areas of business, but in others it seems to give them a strong edge.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 20, 2007 10:37 AM

Post a comment