Galileo SATNAV

[Jonfliesgoats]

Has anyone had a chance to compare Galileo to GPS and GLONASS?  Any significant diffferences in terms of satellite acquisition?

[Shpaget]

According to http://www.usegalileo.eu/EN/inner.html#data=smartphone, only two smartphones currently on the market are able to use it (BQ Aquaris X5 Plus and Huawei Mate 9). Sure, there are plenty of dedicated devices, but the consumer market still hasn't been properly penetrated.

After all, Galileo had a long long history of delays, so manufacturers understandably are cautious about adding hardware. Now that it is operational, at least partially, we should expect to see more devices supporting it. My bet is on flagship models from large manufacturers, quickly followed by cheap Chinese brands, but it's going to take a while.

[Nibb31]

6 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

Has anyone had a chance to compare Galileo to GPS and GLONASS?  Any significant diffferences in terms of satellite acquisition?

Galileo only has a handful of sats, so acquisition definitely won't be good.

[Elthy]

5 hours ago, Shpaget said:

According to http://www.usegalileo.eu/EN/inner.html#data=smartphone, only two smartphones currently on the market are able to use it (BQ Aquaris X5 Plus and Huawei Mate 9). Sure, there are plenty of dedicated devices, but the consumer market still hasn't been properly penetrated.

After all, Galileo had a long long history of delays, so manufacturers understandably are cautious about adding hardware. Now that it is operational, at least partially, we should expect to see more devices supporting it. My bet is on flagship models from large manufacturers, quickly followed by cheap Chinese brands, but it's going to take a while.

Afaik most of Qualcomms newer chipssets are compatible, but need a firmware update. Considering the slow update process of most android devices those updates will propably be in time once the constellation is bigger and more usable.

Now any major power has a satellite navigation system, which makes it almost impossible that all are taken offline at once. Especialy considering that Galileo isnt controlled by any millitary.

[p1t1o]

I didnt know what Galileo was, and initially thought this thread was going to be about getting your GPS coords by tracking signals from the Galileo probes!

I was like "What? No way..."

[Shpaget]

9 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Now any major power has a satellite navigation system, which makes it almost impossible that all are taken offline at once. Especialy considering that Galileo isnt controlled by any millitary.

There is still jamming that can effective on quite large areas.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2016/Jun/CHLK_16-08_GPS_Flight_Advisory.pdf

A device for short range should be trivial.

[YNM]

I thought GLONASS/GPS/Gallileo are all compatible with each other or so ? Or, at least, you can use one to the betterment of the others ?

[Jonfliesgoats]

GPS and Galileo are compatible.  GLONASS and Bei Dou (sic) are similar systems, but not compatible.  For the civil user, a lot of devices can swap between systems or integrate information from both.  So the user can have a device that can take information from GPS and GLONASS to provide better position information while the GPS and GLONASS systems themselves don't shake hands.

There are obvious security implications with SATNAV systems moving to more nations.  

[Jonfliesgoats]

More accurate guidance means less yield required for a given nuclear payload, however.  Currently, It is rumored that Chinese nuclear weapons are built around high yield warheads and stated policy of the Chinese favors targeting cities.  This probably has more to do with their guidance systems than their political options, and is similar to 1970s Soviet philosophy.

Better guidance for Chinese weapons is generally bad for Americans, but a silver lining is that we may see a re-prioritization of targets and reduction in warhead yields.  This means less civilian casualties in an exchange and fewer ground-burts lifting tons of radioactive dirt into the atmosphere.

Here's a link to "Nuclear War Survival Skills" by Cresson Kearney, fwd. by Ed Teller.  It's a staple among conspiracy nuts, but the concepts, forward and first chapter are really interesting.  They also relate to guidance, missile yield, etc.

http://oism.org/nwss/nwss.pdf

[Kryten]

The targeting is like that to obtain maximum deterrent value from a limited number of warheads (compared to the US or Russia), not accuracy; their policy is to maintain what they call 'minium credible deterrent', not MAD capability. As an example, from 1980 to about 1995 the Chinese strategic deterrent force was two single-warhead DF-5 missiles.

[Green Baron]

Tststs ... only military applications come to your minds ? :-)

Did GLONASS ever reach a reliable state ?

Also, i know us europeans, i will be patient before i switch any navigation gear from GPS to GALILEO :-)

[Jonfliesgoats]

I think the military slant comes from the military impetus for the development of these systems.  Some tensions between the US and EU arose due to military concerns regarding Galileo capabilities, too.  As for GLONASS, I have a hockey-puck sized GLONASS receiver, but Incant really speak to its reliability in comparison to GPS.  It seems like it's a little better at high latitudes, but that could be my imagination.

Kryten, so you are saying limited fissile material causes city targeting rather than limitations in guidance?  

[Kryten]

It's not a fissile material thing, it's a budget prioritisation thing. Even today, with much larger military budgets, they don't have air-delivered weapons and have probably a hundred or so ICBMs.

[Shpaget]

4 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

More accurate guidance means less yield required for a given nuclear payload, however.  

You don't need satnav for nuke guidance. When your accuracy is measured in meters, it really doesn't matter where your nuke goes off. a few meters here or there is irrelevant.
Remember, back in the 1944, they used gyroscopes for guidance over 300 km, and could reliably hit city sized targets. A few meters here or there, makes no difference for a nuke of any size, even the smallest ones.

The increased accuracy is much more interesting (not to mention much more often used) for civilian applications. It's really handy to be able to accurately measure and plot the course for a new road or bridge.

4 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Did GLONASS ever reach a reliable state ?

Yes. In early 2000s Putin reactivated/refunded the system and by 2010 it achieved global coverage.

[FleshJeb]

http://gpsworld.com/surveymappinggalileo-s-surveying-potential-12672/

I'm a surveyor, but I haven't really been keeping up on Galileo. It's going to be a really impressive improvement for both casual users and surveyors / other mapping professionals.

[Jonfliesgoats]

Guidance for high yield weapons is still important.  If you want to get rid of command and control bunkers or ICBM silos for example, decent guidance makes the difference between a kiloton or megaton scale groundburst. That has huge impact for the amount of local fallout created downwind.  

Moreover, cruise missiles need to fly accurately without revealing themselves with active radars. 

 

5 hours ago, Shpaget said:

You don't need satnav for nuke guidance. When your accuracy is measured in meters, it really doesn't matter where your nuke goes off. a few meters here or there is irrelevant.
Remember, back in the 1944, they used gyroscopes for guidance over 300 km, and could reliably hit city sized targets. A few meters here or there, makes no difference for a nuke of any size, even the smallest ones.

The increased accuracy is much more interesting (not to mention much more often used) for civilian applications. It's really handy to be able to accurately measure and plot the course for a new road or bridge.

Yes. In early 2000s Putin reactivated/refunded the system and by 2010 it achieved global coverage.

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats
Renoved unnecessary analogy

[Jonfliesgoats]

2 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

http://gpsworld.com/surveymappinggalileo-s-surveying-potential-12672/

I'm a surveyor, but I haven't really been keeping up on Galileo. It's going to be a really impressive improvement for both casual users and surveyors / other mapping professionals.

Surveying is really cool!  What are the big improvements with Galileo beyond public 1cm accuracy?  

Also, will the Galileo constellation need as much support information from ground stations?

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, Shpaget said:

You don't need satnav for nuke guidance. When your accuracy is measured in meters, it really doesn't matter where your nuke goes off. a few meters here or there is irrelevant.
Remember, back in the 1944, they used gyroscopes for guidance over 300 km, and could reliably hit city sized targets. A few meters here or there, makes no difference for a nuke of any size, even the smallest ones.

The increased accuracy is much more interesting (not to mention much more often used) for civilian applications. It's really handy to be able to accurately measure and plot the course for a new road or bridge.

Yes. In early 2000s Putin reactivated/refunded the system and by 2010 it achieved global coverage.

True, however I think conversational smart weapons is the main reason for your own satnav system.
They have revolutionized warfare for air strikes, artillery and uav. 

Likely that the US would scramble GPS over the area if Russia used it a lot in an war they was strongly against, Ukraine as an example. 
Scramble it all over Russia to mess with civilian uses would be petty. 
Problem with galileo I see is an lack of strategic need here, the major EU countries is unlikely to get into an conflict the US is strongly against, both US and Russia against is way more. 
China on the other hand has an strategic need. 
 

[insert_name]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

True, however I think conversational smart weapons is the main reason for your own satnav system.
They have revolutionized warfare for air strikes, artillery and uav. 

Likely that the US would scramble GPS over the area if Russia used it a lot in an war they was strongly against, Ukraine as an example. 
Scramble it all over Russia to mess with civilian uses would be petty. 
Problem with galileo I see is an lack of strategic need here, the major EU countries is unlikely to get into an conflict the US is strongly against, both US and Russia against is way more. 
China on the other hand has an strategic need. 
 

I have no doubt that the US would do something trolly to the general Russian population if it got into a full scale war. If you can screw with your enemy in such a way that they are caused more trouble than you go to to harass them.

[James Kerman]

It was my understanding that military aircraft and missiles use star tracking for guidance to avoid jamming or network disruption.

[Shpaget]

3 minutes ago, James Kerman said:

It was my understanding that military aircraft and missiles use star tracking for guidance to avoid jamming or network disruption.

That's highly unlikely. You want all weather capability, and star tracking is useless in cloudy weather, or even during clearest, sunniest the day. Also, for star tracking you need a stable platform. Fighter jets and missiles are not stable.

[Green Baron]

I have no idea about missiles and military guidance.

Classical astronimcal navigation is probably not fast and accurate anough. A good navigator on a sailing boat can take a position within 3 nautical miles of what the gps says. Before the times of electronics even planes on intercontinental flights had to navigate with the stars (including the sun). Until the 1960s i think ...

Evil voices says that most of the kids on the ocean today can only sail there because of the electronics :-)

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Green Baron

[James Kerman]

I've been doing some research and found this:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/LN120GStellarInertialNavigationSystem/Pages/default.aspx
 

Quote

For critical reconnaissance missions, the LN-120G uniquely provides the precision heading and superior navigation performance necessary for modern weapons systems in GPS-denied environments.

It's currently used on the Boeing RC-135V/W Rivet Joint with the USAF.

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, James Kerman said:

It was my understanding that military aircraft and missiles use star tracking for guidance to avoid jamming or network disruption.

Planes, bombs and missiles are hard to jam and they start well away from the jammer, are fast and has an backup inertia navigation system. 
Say you drop an bomb from 3 km attitude, at 1 km its jammed, however at this point its already on an adjusted trajectory has the inertia system running and has seconds until it hit. 
Missile and shells might be easier to jam but it also faster and is more accurate without. 
Small drones and ground gps systems are easy to jam as they are slow and stay inside the area of the jammer over time. 

Space probes always uses star tracking and I guess its common for satellites too as least if you need to point accurately at an point in space or on earth. 
 

Edited December 17, 2016 by magnemoe