Talk:Galileo (satellite navigation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Duplication of effort

"The United States, after the 11 September attacks, has now written to the European Union opposing the project, since it would defeat the usefulness of the US ability to shut down GPS in time of conflict."

Source for this statement? - user:Chrysalis

Should it be said in the article that this reinforces the original motivation for Galileo in the first place?

Whose motivation, enemies of the US? If so, say it and cite it.

Why enemies? Many non-US companies rely on GPS for their business and have to be afraid that - if the US military declares it necessary - the precision will be brought down. An alternative should be welcome to these companies. As I lived with the German telecommunication market for many years now, trust me: A monopoly is always bad - in this case, until a few years ago, there was only one official telephone carrier, and when the prices were increased by about 100%, you had to accept it or don't use the phone at all. Luckily, this has changed. - user:Chrysalis

note: A monopoly is not always bad as it reduces the likelihood of duplication of effort. Governments have monopoly over taxation, law making/enforcement and raising armies in their area of authority. Is this bad? (27 Nov 2004)

Also, I read somewhere that as of 2000 or 2001 GPS no longer has any difference in military and civilian signals (no "degradation"). Can anyone confirm this?

Yes, that is correct, and is explained on Global Positioning System. But the US reserve the right to switch the degradation back on in times of conflict. --AxelBoldt

Actually, even without degredation the military still has advantages of more precision in the higher data rate P-code signal and dual frequencies which enables calculation of ionospheric delays. However, the use of WAAS provides pretty much the same accuracy to civilian users over much of the globe. The new generation GPS satellites provide a second frequency for civilian use, as well (L2C).

--SteigDG1

€1,1 billion ... is that thousand million (US) or million million (UK)? - user:Montrealais

billion = thousand million, that's why I added (10⁹) to the number. See billion - this is the adaption used by Wikipedia. user:Chrysalis

---

I wonder...

1. Say the US (independent from NATO/--83.34.31.231 17:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Europe) goes to war with some country (Iran, Korth Korea, etc.) that is using the Galileo system. If the Europeans don't voluntarily degrade/shut off the signal to the theatre or opperations wouldn't the US be forced to "take down" the satelites (they apparently have this capability). What other option would the US have?

Taking down the satellite would be a hostile operation with respect to a neutral country (assuming that the Europeans aren't themselves considering the US operations to be legitimate). They just cannot do it without huge repercussions. What would probably happen is that Europe will implement degradation measures. David.Monniaux 10:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

1. One other question: how is it that much of the cost is being footed by the private sector? If it's like GPS the signal will be free to access by anyone; will Galileo require some sort of subscription, or maybe pay-by-resolution? I think this should be explained inthe article. -- stewacide 23:41 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Most people can't receive the signals by themselves; you need a receiver. ;) Chances are, some company will have built that receiver and sold it to you. But without the network in place, the company would not be able to build and sell and profit from such devices. Therefore, companies wishing to profit from the system by selling devices that make use of it will want to invest in the creation of the system. See [1]. --Brion 00:20 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I looked through that webpage and apparently there will be an Open Service with "normal" resolution, and a high resolution Commercial Service. Anyone (apparently) can build an OS receiver, but the CS channels will be encrypted. I think I should add this to the w/u... -- stewacide

w/u? --  Denelson83  08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Mis-use of limited resources? If this system is merely duplicating the capability of GPS, and will be expensive, surely investing in some other field or project would be more effective. European independence is a fantasy - on a small interlinked planet, all nations have to interact and learn to moderate their own attitudes to (total-)control. This is another example of the clash of aims between 'English' and 'French' mindsets/world views. (Apologies for Anglo-bias).(27 Nov 2004)

This civil-oriented system will be much better than the GPS. BAe seems quite happy to participate to this project. European independence is maybe a fantasy, unfortunately american technological domination is harsh reality that we can moderate.

GPS has been created to serve the needs of the USA military. Europe cannot rely on USA military for a positionning system. What if USA decides to shut down GPS on a region where Europeans companies have interests ? --Ocollard 14:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

This page was edited by Polocrunch on 09/09/04. The text has been reworded in a fair few places to improve the language and flow. No facts have been changed, just wording. A couple of grammatical mistakes have been corrected too. There're still a couple of dodgy bits, but I'd have to take a mallet to them to sort them out. Polocrunch

Galileo Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)

I think that the article should be moved to its actual official name of Galileo Navigation Satellite System. Hektor 09:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the main website says its "GALILEO", then labels it a "European Satellite Navigation System" and repeatedly uses the capitalized word throughout (the way GPS is used). I'm not seeing either "Galileo positioning system" or "Galileo navigation satellite system" perhaps you can cite some sources?

Based on a quick bit of research I'd say the most appropriate titled would be Galileo (navigation system) - Davandron | Talk 17:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional Support

• What is Galileo? This is straight from the ESA
• First GALILEO satellite launches successfully
• ESA's Galileo System Facing... the article frequently says Galileo satellites or Galileo is blah blah using Galileo as the noun.

There are lots more, just posted a quick few. Conversely, if you do a google search for the phrase "galileo positioning system" it seems all the results are wiki/reference entries - Davandron | Talk 00:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree moving the article to Galileo Navigation Satellite System. It is easily confused with the term Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and acronym GNSS. When we say GPS, everybody knows what we are talking about, same with GLONASS. In a context of positioning or localisation, everyboy knows what is meant with Galileo. However, if you want to remove all doubt, you could call it the GALILEO Global Navigation Satellite System (GGNSS) Jerry.bracke (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

History section

I have deleted "On March 20, 2003, the UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq, further motivating the rest of the EU to develop a navigation system independent of US control." since the entry shows that the EU and ESA had agreed to fund the project by March 2002, and the previous paragraph mentions US government pressure as a factor in the decision.--Motmot 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jamming Galileo

I have added a caveat to the first paragraph in the History section, to the effect that Galileo can be jammed by European or other militaries (the point of the Binary Offset Carrier agreement is that the US can then jam Galileo without affecting GPS).--Motmot 15:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

full text of the Ukraine-EU Galileo agreement?

where can be downloaded this? On the europa.eu.int I can find only a press release. 199.64.72.252 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cornell Sleuths Crack Secret Codes Of Europe's Galileo Satellite

The PRN codes of Galileo-A have been cracked. [2] -Ravedave

The the code is available here --Trounce 12:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

Is anybody capable to explain where does the claimed better accuracy of GALILEO compared to GPS come from? Here below a table of the typical error sources. The only error which the orbiting hardware can be accounted for are the satellite clock errors, which cause deviations of up to 2 m (zero mean). Are GALILEO's clocks better than GPS's, say twice as much? Then the error reduction is about 1 m. Note that all other error sources cannot be reduced via better hardware but only by improving software models. Does GALILEO use better models than GPS? Then it would be possible to improve accuracy without launching 30 new satellites into orbit.

Sources of error

Source	Effect
Ionospheric effects	± 5 meter
Ephemeris errors	± 2.5 meter
Satellite clock errors	± 2 meter
Multipath distortion	± 1 meter
Tropospheric effects	± 0.5 meter
Numerical errors	± 1 meter or less

Also, I was wondering about the combined accuracy of the GPS + Galileo? For instance, by 2010 when consumer receivers are built that work with both systems, will the combination give an effective increase in accuracy, or will it be just a redundancy? Val42 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ephemeris and clock will be more accurate as both will be updated in much shorter time intervals than currently in GPS.

One of the ways Galileo will improve the accuracy is by using dual frequencies. My understanding is that this will allow receivers to compute and elminate much of the Ionospheric effects, much like the military and survey grade units to today. It's likely that the same thing will be possible using GPS and Galileo signals. 84.9.33.108 11:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To what extend do upgrades like GPS III address the same issues that Galileo does, with regard to accuracy? DonPMitchell 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Overfunding problem?

All European Union member states became strongly in favour of the Galileo system in late 2002 and, as a result, the project actually became over-funded, which posed a completely new set of problems for the European Space Agency (ESA), as a way had to be found to convince the member states to reduce the funding.

And exactly what problems were encountered with over-funding Galileo? --  Denelson83  09:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the problem was about convincing the member states to redirect part of their Galileo's funding to other space projects. That had to be done in a coordinated way by means of equal funding reductions among all states to avoid some state to attain an overweighted position in a highly political project. Can anybody confirm this view so that it can be added to the article?

I can find no confirmation of this "overfunding" issue having ever existed. I suspect it's some bad faith editors idea of a joke.Zebulin 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Genericization of "GPS"

I now use the acronym "GPS" to refer to any satellite-based Earth navigation system. If I want to refer to the United States system, I'll just say Navstar. --  Denelson83  02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for sharing how you personally use your language. We've actually got this discussion going already and the wide-spread term is actually Global Navigation Satellite System or GNSS. GPS is now reserved for a specific system, namely the US Global Positioning System (or NAVSTAR, as you pointed out). Remember, the GLONASS system has existed for some time as well, and that system more than anything probably spurred the introduction of the generic term GNSS. - Davandron | Talk 00:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But how many people do you know who use the acronym "GNSS" in daily conversation compared to the acronym "GPS"? --  Denelson83  06:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How many people know that there is another navigation system besides GPS? All the people whom I know that know what GLONAAS and Galileo are do not use the term GPS as a generic term. The rest think positioning is magic, and that it has something to do with satellites. - Davandron | Talk 14:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Local Positioning Systems appriorate for also see in Galileo article?

Is Local Positioning Systems an appropriate also see in the Galileo article? I have a feeling it was a linkspam attempt, but want to hear others thoughts as well. - Davandron | Talk 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Galileo is the European Navigation Infrastructure, the space based system is only a part of the Galileo System.

galileo/gps receiver?

Does that mean that in a few years I will be able to buy a receiver that can get my bearings using both GPS and Galileo systems for increased accuracy and more satellites available? (I live in Canada.)--Sonjaaa 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that is the current belief. - Davandron | Talk 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Or.. The current hope. ĞavinŤing 07:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to build receivers capable of position determination while receiving signals from only 2 GPS satellites and 2 Galileo satellites at a time? I think that clock synchronization of those 2 GNSS will be necessary(?) Is that planned? Any other prerequisites? Hpt (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Is picture of Galileo Galilei appropriate?

It seems that a picture of Galilei is a little inappropriate. Its use in the history section right now seems primarily to be to add some color and interest to the article. Is there a better picture we could use in its place? - Davandron | Talk 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. many articles have too much visual cruft. If it doesn't add anything to the value of the article, then there should be a presumption in favour of deletion. I wouldn't worry about replacement - I'm sure someone will come up with an alternative. Countersubject 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for it being there. Neither Galileo Galilei International Airport nor Galileo_(spacecraft), to name but two of the many articles linked to from the dab page, seem to think it appropriate to have a picture of their eponym. (The same applies to Apollo program, which doesn't feel the need for an illustration of the god Apollo; etc, etc.) If anyone feels strongly about it, could they indicate their reasons, as otherwise I think it ought to go. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(It reminds me of a comedy sketch satirising the tendency of TV news to over-illustrate its stories, where a reference to the Lord Privy Seal was accompanied by pictures of a Lord, a Privy and a Seal.) Vilĉjo (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands' NLR link?

I removed this link * [http://www.nlr.nl/eCache/DEF/634.html Galileo: a new satellite navigation system]

because, the content at that link doesn't really add anything to the article. HOWEVER, if this is the lab that will be testing Galileo for the ESA, then I think a link to their project status page would be a great addition to the article. Perhaps 212.182.158.100 can help us find such a link for inclusion? - Davandron | Talk 14:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Military use?

" ... will, upon completion, be available at its full precision to all users, both civil and military." I came to this site looking to clarify whether it will be available for military use because there seems to be a bit of an argument about this. The Brits have said they will veto any military use. Could it be worth clarifying the current situation? 134.2.147.34 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Galileo video?

Is it a good idea to add the video about Galileo (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/video/galileo/video_galileo_december2004_en.mpg) to the External links section? thenestor

Great find on those videos... 113meg? Yikes! I think a link to the video is fine, but offer some suggestions:

1. Link to the video page [:http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/video/index_en.htm] instead of the video directly. They might offer other sizes or new ones in the future.
2. Mention what the video is about and its title
3. Maybe warn people of its large size. The guidelines on external links still recommend warning if a site uses flash or java since those are rough on low-bandwidth / portable devices using the wikipedia.

- Davandron | Talk 16:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I have not been able to get that video to play even after downloading the file twice. Analysis with VirtualDub indicates its composed of incomplete audio frames. Is there a special audio codec that is needed? - Davandron | Talk 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to work fine in mplayer (RC1 mingw version) and in Windows Media Player on Vista to me. Both VLC and VirtualDub have problems. At a guess I would say there is something wrong with the muxing Nil Einne 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Galileo positioning system funding problem

Well read this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/08/galileo_strategic_not_commercial/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Presmute (talk • contribs) 08:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Full precision - Free or restricted

First the article reads: "basic (low-accuracy) Galileo services will be free and open everyone. However, the high-accuracy capabilities will be restricted to military use and paying commercial users"

A few lines later: "It will be available at its full precision to both civil and military users."

Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.53.32.90 (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Both are. It will be available in full precision for civil users, as long as they pay. So civil users get to choose: a lower precision (which would be more than enough for most day-to-day users) for free, or a high precision which comes at a price. Hopes this helped! Gerard RvE (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Multilateration?

Does this mean that Galileo will use hyperboloidal positioning as opposed to Navstar's spherical positioning? --  Denelson83  19:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Effector feature of GNSS

Could someone explain to me what is meant with the following? I am having difficulty to understand what the author is trying to explain: As with GPS, Galileo is just a sensor system that supports locating, there is no effector feature that would justify the positioning. However, as with all satellite navigation systems, the effecting of the desired course of a vehicle or other object on ground, at sea or in the air is subject of a combination of such sensor systems in combination with inertial navigation systems and propulsion and steering control systems.

Correct me if I am wrong. I think, what the author is trying to explain, is that a GNSS ‘’’alone’’’ does not produce position information. A GNSS produces position information with help of other sensor systems. If this is what is meant with the statement above, in my opninion it, it is incorrect.

It is incorrect because a GNSS embodies, next to the space segment, both the user segment and the ground segment. I agree, the space segment of a GNSS, i.e. the satellite cluster, does not output position information directly. Instead, the user segment calculates the position information based upon the information provided by the ground segment and the space segment. The user segment and ground segment, in case of GPS, in fact belongs to the GPS system and technology. A GNSS in the end does provide position information. Jerry.bracke (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC) yes it does give additional information. Galileo would not be needed otherwise as GPS is there for positionning purposes. Galileo is much more than GPS. It has a database and links to flighttickets, mobile phones and stores 19 pieces of information to track European citizens for 13 years. It costs 3.4 billion euro and would not have been build if GPS was sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.104.55 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree you should remove it. I am going to remove it from the list of emerging technologies article too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.86.48 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tag removed. Savlonn (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

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)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

wikileaks US diplomatic cable related to galileo

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)

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. 94.13.113.160 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2011 (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.[39] 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;[40] 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 97.115.37.123 (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)

Magnetic-North on Earth is continually shifting...

Magnetic-North on Earth is continually shifting will Galileo be able to handle this naturally ocurring situation and be able to correct itself somehow? CaribDigita (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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 212.183.140.48 (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. --90.245.50.229 (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

compatibility

Is Galileo compatible with existing GPS receivers? Nothing about that is mentioned... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.235.31 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

It is compatible with indect. see www.indect-project.eu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.104.55 (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2012 (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. 121.209.56.80 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Reorganize cleanup tag?

What about the article needs to be reorganized? As far as I can see both the lead section and the appendices meet the MOS standards.—DocWatson42 (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess it was added because much of the article is written like it's about a hypothetical future project. It's probably better to think of the overall structure as something that is still relevant ten years from now.

I moved a few things around but some questions remain. The "Science projects" part could fall within a new "Applications" section, but I don't know what to do with "Coins" (maybe "Appearance in society and media" or something like that).

The whole "Political implications" section seems to deal with pre-2004 hostilities. I suggest it be shortened and moved to the history section. The issue could flare up again but for now the text involved belongs to history just as much as funding. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved the "Political implications" section into the history section and removed the "reorganization" template.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Galileo (satellite navigation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130224000238/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19750947/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19750947/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In section 3.3.1 it is first stated that the system will have 24 satellites active out of 30. Then it is stated that there will be 9 active and 1 spare in each of three orbital plans making the number of active satellites 27.150.227.15.253 (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

High precision situation clarification

The introduction says, "The use of basic (low-precision) Galileo services will be free and open to everyone. The high-precision capabilities will be available for paying commercial users."

But the section "History - Main Objectives" says, "It will be available at its full precision to both civil and military users."

So should this second sentence read: "It will be available at its full precision to both paying civil and military users." ? Darkman101 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy op to 1cm

It is mentioned in the overview that Galileo will have a precision of 1cm, but this is mentioned nowhere else in the article. Where did this claim come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.113.126 (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Galileo (satellite navigation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218050849/http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11335 to http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11335
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/05/08/galileo.troubles.ap/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1195858921.15
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eu-del.org.il/hebrew/6180
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140827023854/https://www.arianespace.com:80/news-press-release/2014/8-23-2014.asp to http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/8-23-2014.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Full Operational Capability (FOC) satellites

This section needs checking. It does not mention GSAT0207, and other details are suspect. If 0207 will be launched out-of-order, that should be specifically mentioned. I suggest that a condensed table of all Galileo launches, achieved and expected - GIOVE, IOV, & FOC - be provided in this Article, after which this section could be slightly simplified. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We already have a separate list-form article providing all the information you mentioned. It's easy to add a single sentence on sat 207 in prose. More tables with repeated information mean unnecessary maintenance in my opinion. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Galileo (satellite navigation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001205023/http://ec.europa.eu:80/enterprise/policies/satnav/galileo/satellite-launches/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/satnav/galileo/satellite-launches/index_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121074828/http://dublin.usembassy.gov/ireland/gps_galileo.html to http://dublin.usembassy.gov/ireland/gps_galileo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128132057/http://eca.europa.eu:80/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/2760294.PDF to http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/2760294.PDF
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article3985655.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022201104/http://www.arianespace.com:80/news-mission-update/2011/vs01-success.asp to http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2011/vs01-success.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016050810/http://www.arianespace.com:80/news-mission-update/2012/964.asp to http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2012/964.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161224185459/http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ to http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080606235159/http://www.galileo-in-lbs.com:80/ to http://www.galileo-in-lbs.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galileo (satellite navigation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719162515/http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=142 to http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=142
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151224212301/https://satellitecoverage.net/satellite-tracking/?satellite=41175 to https://satellitecoverage.net/satellite-tracking/?satellite=41175
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151224224725/https://satellitecoverage.net/satellite-tracking/?satellite=41174 to https://satellitecoverage.net/satellite-tracking/?satellite=41174

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)