It's Galileo Groundhog Day! You can keep asking the same question, but it won't change the answer As the imagined strains of Sonny and Cher’s hit "I Got You, Babe"* died down, the UK Parliament’s Exiting the European Union Committee spent a chunk of yesterday morning asking the UK space industry the same old questions. Youtube Video Patrick Norris of UK Space, Colin Paynter of Airbus and Dr Bleddyn Bowen of the University …
I do spend quite some time there already (that's why I can recommend Toulouse first hand). Unfortunately a permanent move is not on the cards until my partner wants to quit her job as an NHS doctor. The specific disease she is specialised in has a considerable cohort in London but is not very common in France Sud Ouest so it would require extensive retraining.
"Couldn't she just infect the locals to ensure her skills are in high demand?" Some chap from Edinburgh got sentenced to life two weeks ago for infecting five people and attempting to infect another five with this specific virus. I don't see her infect an entire cohort's worth, let alone overcome her moral objections to it.
@Dr_N Nothing 'Brexiteer' about it. I've worked with a whole bunch of people, a small, persistent subset of which seem to believe that they're working 'here' (for some value of here) out of a spirit of generosity. They will tell anyone who listens just how bad here is, how little they enjoy it, and how much better somewhere else is (insert favourite nation, hemisphere, beach, pub of choice). They make people who work with them miserable, and yet years later I'll find out they're still 'here', dragging that little cloud of misery behind them.
So I have relatively low tolerance for people who spout that sort of nonsense. Put up (and make the place better whilst you're at it) or p**** off. :D
You'll note I didn't tell anyone to 'Go back to where they came from', and there was no sarcasm or malice intended. Your post however was dripping with righteous indignity and (quite inaccurate) prejudices. Sometimes in the Brexit vs. Remain debate, I wonder which side is actually the intolerant one.
Sometimes in the Brexit vs. Remain debate, I wonder which side is actually the intolerant one.
Indeed so. The whole thing has echoes of religious fervour like the Reformation, when anyone daring to speak out against the established order was persecuted from the altar by the high priests of the status quo. Remainers seem not only to be agressively intolerant of anyone that isn't pro-EU, they insist on categorizing all leavers as racist and/or stupid and seem quite unwilling to accept or understand that there could be valid economiuc and political arguments in favour of leaving.
Andyv73> I wonder which side is actually the intolerant one.
BOOM! Nail, meet head!
The fact that there are still "sides" this far down the line shows what a clusterf***ed-up project brexit is.
Anyway don't mind me I'm just here to laugh at it all.
The way a rudderless government tries to steer a course (whilst really just worrying about the Tory's internecine stuggles) and the non-dom'd owned press whips it all up is absolutely hilarious.
Sovereignty! Trade deals! (To export what-to-whom?) Fish! Fixing the NHS with all this extra cash!
More, more! Encore!
This is British comedy at its best!
@Dr_N Ah, the last defence of the person caught out passing off knee jerk prejudice as insight: "I didn't mean it, I'm just here to laugh at it all." Sure, funny joke. Ha. Ha.
As someone who didn't vote for Brexit, my observation is that there appears to be a small group of deeply embedded Remainers who are still fighting the Referendum of two years ago, still desperately trying to prove they were right. For them (and, it appears, you) there are indeed sides. One must mock the others mercilessly. With exclamation marks.
For the rest of the country, there seems to be a desire to get on with it and make the most of the cards we've been given. Yes, the government are making a meal of it, yes some of the decisions to rip up decades old institutions are hard to make. Yes, the rest of the process is long and boring and doesn't deliver instant ice-cream and sprinkles.
However, we've got to make those decisions, and we should be looking for the best opportunities - there are some significant benefits we can realise if we do what was voted for. Taking back control of trade agreements, tariffs, regional subsidies, CAP and CFP can make a serious material difference to the 'man on the street' if we so choose.
Unless of course we listen to the hecklers who delight in discomfort and the possibility of failure, just so that they can feel smug and justified. These are the people who offer no solutions, other than some perverse desire to hobble the country just so they can feel vindicated. I'm sure you'd love it to be funny just so you don't have to contribute anything useful yourself.
This post has been deleted by its author
Andy 73>As someone who didn't vote for Brexit
At least you got a vote then.
I agree there's nothing to be done but plough on and see what happens. Countries in general can get through all sorts of adversity. I just don't think the UK is in a position to do it quickly, effectively or without flattening the majority of people who voted fir brexit thinking it'd imprive their lives.
But ad I said, we can all take comfort from the laughs such as those generated by this story. And the many more like it we are going to see.
Because at least Britain still has its sense of humour.
But I stand by my, "Why don't you just move there/Send 'em home!" quip. Those are the type of comments that have gotten the UK into the position it's in today.
I can't wait to hear about all of the benefits that leaving the EU is netting us, but for some reason all we seem to hear about is problems caused by leaving the EU
Misery loves company, and all that. It's like climate change, everyone loves to read stories about how the world is going to end, and islands being drowned by rising sea levels obviously creates the "human-interest" stories beloved by newspapers. Clearly some of the changes will be positive, there will be places that become more fertile, warmer & wetter, but anyone who wrote a story about that would imediately have the PC brigade screaming at them for not taking the problem seriously, dismissing the suffering of the afflicted, and generally not showing sufficient panic.
We have to look at the clouds, no-one's allowed to look for silver linings these days.
Would be nice for the Brexit boys to at least come up with one single benefit....
As someone who is watching my daughters future living standards being thrown off a cliff, I would LOVE to see a benefit of Brexit, the will of the people etc etc
An actual benefit, not one that me writing here gets me banned from El Reg for raciest comments
Go on, any single benefit, can't be hard
(and we can ignore the one about our parliament taking back control, because when they do, the Daily Mail accuse them of treason)
@ Gordon Pryra
"Would be nice for the Brexit boys to at least come up with one single benefit...."
Are people still asking this tired question, its almost like it hasnt been answered many times or that it is even difficult. But anyway go on take your pick- economic, trade, immigration, sovereignty, democracy.
@ strum
This debate with remainers does seem to be getting easier and less intellectual. For example Gordon Pryra asking a question answered many times. For my offer to answer the question for him on a number of issues (economic, trade, immigration, sovereignty, democracy) leading to the usual downvotes without a single intelligent response. And of course your comment to keep that trend by making an amusing and incorrect claim without any basis.
I do appreciate this situation is an improvement on remainers trotting out the same disproved 'facts' however many times they were corrected. Hopefully this means remainers are realising how difficult it is to defend the EU or the claims made about its necessity.
codejunky> For my offer to answer the question for him on a number of issues (economic, trade, immigration, sovereignty, democracy)
That's not answering the question. That's typing a list of words!
Single example: Trade what? With whom? France is signing bigger and better trade understandings than the UK right now. How's that a indictment of brexit?!
codejunky> leading to the usual downvotes
Aww, did you lose a vote there? You are meant to keep silent and just accept the Will O' The People™® now. Them's the rules!
@ Dr_N
"That's not answering the question. That's typing a list of words!"
I am not sure how to respond to that without sounding insulting but please reread the exact section you quoted For my offer to answer the question for him on a number of issues (economic, trade, immigration, sovereignty, democracy). He asked for one reason brexit was a good idea and I offered to answer his question over any of those issues. As I have done a number of times before.
"Single example: Trade what? With whom? France is signing bigger and better trade understandings than the UK right now. How's that a indictment of brexit?!"
Right now? Isnt that where we are still in the EU and so the EU handles our trade options? They dictate our tariffs and they do all trade negotiation on our behalf. So your claim that the UK isnt signing anything forgets that the EU bars us from doing so.
@codejunky
Yeah, yeah I get that brexit is really just buzz-word bingo and there's no real substance behind any of it.
Trade: UK will be able to sign the bigglyist trade deals!
Immigration: UK can decide who to kick out. (Such as Commonwealth citizen. Errrrr...)
etc. etc. etc.
codejunky> Right now? Isnt that where we are still in the EU and so the EU handles our trade options?
Awww codejunky, the fact Macron's been touring the world drumming up big trade wins for France (as an EU country) must really shake your hardline brexiteer faith.
Maybe you've put too much stock in all that anti-EU propaganda you helped to spread?
Still, "Sovereignty!" eh? (Apart from those pesky Enemies Of The People®™ sat in the House Of Lords, natch.)
@ Dr_N
"Trade: UK will be able to sign the bigglyist trade deals!"
Isnt that the EU's stance? To be able to play with the big boys? To make a protectionist trade block based on the old world design?
"Immigration: UK can decide who to kick out. (Such as Commonwealth citizen. Errrrr...)"
UK being able to manage its own borders. That used to be how it worked.
"Awww codejunky, the fact Macron's been touring the world drumming up big trade wins for France (as an EU country) must really shake your hardline brexiteer faith."
Not at all, good for the French they do need it after the last president. However as an EU country there is only so little he can do as they are bound by the EU. At least Macron is aware that the French would probably vote out of the EU if given a choice (which he wont).
"Maybe you've put too much stock in all that anti-EU propaganda you helped to spread?"
Possibly but I expect it is you who put too much stock in the pro EU propaganda. You talk of Macron as if that is a pro EU argument. He was elected on the platform of meaningful reform of the EU, something he is finding is not at all easy. The runner up was the only anti EU party which also happen to be the most detestable party and hardest to gain votes.
In all cases - better within the EU.
You've got to be kidding, have you ever lived elsewhere in the EU? The eurozone economy is shit, the French are far more anti-immigration than the UK (can you imagine the outcry if the BNP got even half the votes that the Front National gets?), The EU pays lip service to democracy with a sinecure of a parliament while runnig a paternalistic bureacracy. It's a protectionist trade bloc, which always leads to mediocrity, and as for sovereignty, you don't get much of that in a federal state.Whether the UK can do better on its own remains to be seen, but whatever the problems are, the EU is not the right solution.
It hasn’t been answered. Democracy has certainly been severely damaged by the idiots who claim that a decision taken by a small majority that had been lied to cannot be discussed or overthrown. Economy and trade have been damaged. And the latest attempts of the government to throw out legal immigrants has ended in utter shame and embarrassment.
@ gnasher729
"It hasn’t been answered"
Look through my message history I have written all of those points into a long comment a number of times.
"Democracy has certainly been severely damaged by the idiots who claim that a decision taken by a small majority that had been lied to cannot be discussed or overthrown."
If you think democracy is damaged because the majority vote is considered to have decided the direction to take then I think you have a difficulty with democracy. You say leave was lied to, which means you either omit that remain was lied to and the UK population directly threatened by the remain campaign or you are in denial. As for overthrown that truly is not democratic talk. If you want to go about things the democratic way then the next election vote for the lib dems who were the only pro-EU major party last election and possibly the next.
"Economy and trade have been damaged."
Really? Since 2008 the gov and BoE have been aiming to reduce the strength of the currency, increase inflation, increase the base rate and reduce the QE. Interesting that the economy was improving as the currency fell when we decided to leave the EU. If you have a problem with trade then you show brexit is good thing. We are currently in the EU and the EU dictates our trade status. When we leave we are free to world wide trade.
"And the latest attempts of the government to throw out legal immigrants has ended in utter shame and embarrassment."
I agree. The gov is not doing a very good job. But then my opinion of this gov is coloured by their determination to remain.
Well sadly I can't see a single benefit. I'm Irish but lived in England for nearly 10 very very happy years and both of my kids were born in England so I have great love for the green and pleasant land. The unfortunate fact is brexit was created by the have-nots of the UK (mainly England) so those people don't give a rat's about the implications because they had no buy-in anyway. I do agree that given this context leadership is desperately needed but not there which is a real shame. However, I for one have great confidence in the British people and I think the *actual* people will pull through in the end, even with appalling leadership.
Why do we want to get involved in Galileo? Be like all the other non-EU European countries and just use the service. So what if we have to buy French receivers, we buy GPS receivers from the Far East so it's not as though it's breaking new ground. And by receivers I mean the actual silicon, not the end consumer boxes.
We want to get involved in it for the same reason that it exists in the first place: we want a positioning system we control, so we are not vulnerable to someone (perhaps someone who has taken against us in some kind of temper tantrum) turning the system off or degrading it at some time inconvenient to us.
the government claimed there would be high quality jobs continuing in the UK in the design and support of future space junk, and that companies were not moving out of the UK, honest guv'nr.
In an unusually clear position from the EU the government still seems to hope that there is room for negotiation. Its more like Iran expecting to win the contract to build US nukes...
We don't like to be seen as a second class country. America, Russia and the EU have their GPS systems while we are scrabbling for crumbs like every other third-country.
We want a seat at the top table; our exceptionalism insists we deserve that. It is just a little inconvenient that we resigned from the club which is the location of this particular top table.
But, never mind, we'll show Johnny Foreigner we can do just as well without them. British pride and patriotism requires it. For Queen, Country and St George. We may have lost our empire but, by God's divine hand and grace, we will have that British constellation above us, above everyone. Huzza!
I am sure Britain could build the bestest navigation system in the world. It would be called the Postoffice Imperial Satellite System and would have at least one furlong 2D accuracy and 3 rod elevation accuracy. Eat that with your fancy centimetres!
It would be exclusively produced by Dyson (but manufactered in Asia) but he will ask a decent price, honest. Oh, and the noise of the receiver would make any conversation impossible but at least it would look really good, like a Star Wars prop. Don't forget to stock up on the proprietary batteries, available exclusively from your local Post Office upon showing your birth certificate.
Is that the thing you find in a WHSmiths 10 miles away?
Once we have rid ourselves of the iron grip of the globalising EU, we will be free to move all our Post Offices back into the local corner shop where they belong. This is what Mr Farage promised me and this is what I voted for. I believe the Tory government will make this their priority once the shackles have been cast off and we've taken back control.
They'd damn well better make this a priority, because I plan to have all my special unicorn feed delivered to Mr Patel's and held for me.
We don't like to be seen as a second class country. America, Russia and the EU have their GPS systems while we are scrabbling for crumbs like every other third-country.
Which is, of course, the main reason the EU is building Galileo, it doesn't want to be seen as living off US and Russian crumbs. Better to beggar taxpayers by duplicating systems than be seen as third-rate power.
"Which is, of course, the main reason the EU is building Galileo, it doesn't want to be seen as living off US and Russian crumbs."
Glad I wasnt the only one to spot that. I originally thought he was talking about the EU before the ranting. Especially since the EU are still building the system and last I heard they decided we should be cut off then realised the encryption tech was part of the UK development.
We don't like to be seen as a second class country. America, Russia and the EU have their GPS systems while we are scrabbling for crumbs like every other third-country.
Which is, of course, the main reason the EU is building Galileo, it doesn't want to be seen as living off US and Russian crumbs. Better to beggar taxpayers by duplicating systems than be seen as third-rate power.
Crumbs? Combined with 'Russia' or 'America' neither really sound appetizing or healthy - I'd heartily recommend cooking up something yourself, which is what the EU is doing.
The UK are only thinking of getting into the kitchen 'cause they are miffed at not being allowed in a members only restaurant any more despite cancelling their membership and throwing a stropand insisting they still be allowed to use the lav.
Which is, of course, the main reason the EU is building Galileo, it doesn't want to be seen as living off US and Russian crumbs.
Rather the EU realised it would be at a significant disadvantage if America or Russia denied or restricted services they critically relied upon if they ever ended up in a serious dispute with either, such as a trade war, a sanctions battle, or a physical conflict.
It may mostly be 'a waste of money' but most insurance is. Its worth only materialises when it's needed.
Hello codejunky.
Surprised you took so long to join the discussion.
And what is HMG's response
"We'll build our own global positioning constellation."
Are they f**king kidding me?
So that alleged £350m/week going to the NHS not going to happen then with this kind of spending.
@ John Smith 19
"Are they f**king kidding me?"
I wish they had a sense of humour. As my initial post on this topic-
'Politicians being politicians. How can we spend more tax payer money. The option isnt beg for Galileo or build our own. The US has a perfectly fine system.'
"So that alleged £350m/week going to the NHS not going to happen then with this kind of spending."
Give the gov a £1 and they will spend it 3 times over. Give it to Diane Abbott and she will spend it even more (sarc).
For Queen, Country and St George. We may have lost our empire but, by God's divine hand and grace, we will have that British constellation above us, above everyone. Huzza!
Just don't break into Jerusalem, we don't want to confuse a jumpy Iran, we might have a few missiles headed our way.
>Why do we want to get involved in Galileo?
Mainly so that UK companies can sell stuff for the not quite finished Galileo project. As is the norm with EU project it has been "sold" at an unrealistic cost estimate and now it is ballooning.
As mentioned earlier UK companies own considerable IP in this field so the EU just cannot help themselves to British developed technologies without entering into a patent war.
On the other hand, having left Galileo, the same companies are now free to pursue contracts with India and Japan, both of which have considerable projects going. There is also eLoran which is handy should the Kessler syndrome take place.
In summary, this forum is all set on the sky is falling but reality is different.
>A lot of commentards posting AC today?
Why not discuss the contents rather than the person?
>Or is it just one slightly desperate sounding Brexiteerr ?
There are several posting as AC, I wrote the one about the sky not falling. I am not British. I did not nor could I have voted for or against Brexit. I do not even live in the UK. I do not live in the EU either. My only background here is that I have worked with navigation systems for a bit over 10 years before leaving for a different career. I note many disagree with my once professional opinion but I would be intrigued to see more in depth analyses for the disagreements.
So why do you have to drag in Brexit into this?
"As mentioned earlier UK companies own considerable IP in this field so the EU just cannot help themselves to British developed technologies without entering into a patent war."
True, to some extent. It will depend on what is in the contracts as to who owns the IP. Often it's the party paying for the work. Although I don't think that is really what is happening here. CGI UK, one of the key companies we are talking about here, is actually owned by a Canadian company and that Canadian company is apparently at the moment negotiating the sale of the technology to French company Thales so they could take over the specific work on the Galileo contract. If they want to sell it there is very little the UK Gov can do about it.
The chap who gave evidence to the Brexit Select Committee, Colin Paynter, is the MD of Portsmouth based Airbus Defence and Space. He has already confirmed that the Galileo related work is moving to either their German or French labs. Again, Airbus is a private business and if they decide they want to move work internally to make sure they can win Galileo contracts there is little stopping them.
https://www.ft.com/content/8294b680-4d48-11e8-8a8e-22951a2d8493
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/09/airbus-space-contract-will-move-from-uk-to-continent-because-of-brexit
“It will depend on what is in the contracts as to who owns the IP”.
Quite a few commentaries seem to be suggesting the the U.K. holds the intellectual property. As far as I know, it’s rare for a country to own technology. More often than not it is a private company or institution, and they are free to do with it what they like (such as sell the technology to a third party).
The only limitation by country as far as encryption is concerned is export control law (since strong encryption is generally regarded as an export controlled item). However, as we are part of the EU still there’s no limitation on selling the technology within the EU provided the transfer is registered.
>Says the person who's never heard of "eminent domain"
That is typically used by governments to steamroll persons or companies in their own countries. Once a country tries to steamroll foreign companies the situation changes. Then it depends on if a government is willing to stand up for their industries.
Dan 55,
Simply take his iPhone away ........ and give him a soft rubber toy he can wave *safely* :)
Safer for us all too, including the people who would have phoned him for advice/action/comment ???!!!
These people are our representatives ........ really ???
I don't think that's particularly fair - outside of tech communities like this, most people haven't even heard of the Galileo system. And even those who have will usually have no reason to know how it and other systems work with phones, everyone uses the term GPS pretty much exclusively. So asking whether an upgrade is required to use it is not unreasonable.
At this point in time, if he's on the committee, he should know. Or was he just there to sail in, wave his phone around, get in the news, and sail out?
But he's an elected official. This behavior seems pretty universal to me. Just revisit the Zuck's little visits to the US Congress. He baffled them with BS, said nothing really, and they just proceeded with more inane questions. I think the term is "show boating".
I don't think that's particularly fair - outside of tech communities
He's not a member of the general public.
He should at least be sent to the naughty corner or given a dunce cap - it's an elementary question that could have been answered with some simple research.
He should learn to use his phone rather than just wave it about. Should have done some homework and not come straight from the subsidised bar to wave his phone about like a dick, then he might have thought about and asked some pertinent questions from the available expert and not something elementary.
"I don't think that's particularly fair - outside of tech communities like this, most people haven't even heard of the Galileo system" --- David Nash
Oh yes it is. Politicians want it both ways: they want us to excuse their ignorance because they aren't "techy" and then they want to ignore all the advice they are given by experts because they feel they know best.
when we drive somewhere that somewhere is the somewhere we wanted to go to
My dad used to say that!
He died a couple of years ago. There's a good chance he subsequently took the wrong turn and ended up in hell, and is now firmly ensconced in a quiet corner, insisting to anyone who questions him that he should be there, asking if anyone has seen his Thermos and telling them that the view isn't all that bad anyway.
This post has been deleted by its author
Who needs GPS or A to Z Maps !!!
With all the CCTV you can simply hold up a Sign with your question "Which way to Greenwich ?" pointing at one of the many cameras.
The answer will be displayed on one of the electronic variable speed limit signs :) :)
Problem solved and cheaper too.
This post has been deleted by its author
If you own the largest joint stake in a hovercraft and somebody with a smaller stake persuades a majority that filling it full of eels is a good idea, but the hovercraft will still be usable as normal, the onus to have a plan is not on you, but the person who had the crap idea in the first place.
The leave campaign were free to come up with a plan that could be put into action - the fact that they didn't speaks worlds.
'The leave campaign were free to come up with a plan that could be put into action - the fact that they didn't speaks worlds.'
It's irrelevant whether the leave campaign(s) had plans or not, they had a variety some of which were contradictory, it wasn't a referendum for who ran the country, it was referendum for membership of a trans-national body. Whatever the outcome the same people were going to be in charge of the country the day after the vote, that they only planned for their preferred outcome is the reason for the extent of the subsequent shambles.
@Skippybing - the same people may be in charge (god help us all) but not only did the Big Dog immediately resign in order to return to his country money palace where he will live in luxury for the rest of his life, but the Big Dog of the Remain team also immediately resigned in order to return to his Bulldog-shaped St. George's flag wearing home, leaving us with a bunch of political lightweights and a buffoon to lead us gloriously into every trap that the EU has set for us.
If the hovercraft is voted to be filled with eels, that's when you ask the Hovercraft Eeling Big Dog what his plan was so that you continue from there.
Whatever the outcome the same people were going to be in charge of the country the day after the vote
Let me set your GPS to find David Cameron, the person who quit from being in charge of the country the day after the vote. Then we can set the direction to the general election where the party that had a majority in the house then lost their majority so require the backing of another party. ;)
But, it's what we voted for, we as in the royal we not we as in the people who thought that leaving was a stupid idea, so we're stuck with trying to make the best we can out of a really awful situation. With tea and biscuits and calling people who disagree "remoaners" whilst those who agree have the dashing "brexiteers" as if they are some sort of super hero who are fighting the tyranny of the EU.
'Let me set your GPS to find David Cameron, the person who quit from being in charge of the country the day after the vote.'
Yes, him the person to blame for any subsequent shambles, as not only did he fail to plan for the vote not going his way, but he also prohibited any government department planning for such a vote in advance. If you're going to call a referendum it's basic risk management to plan for both possible outcomes.
God knows what would have happened if Scotland had voted leave in their referendum as I doubt he'd let any planning happen for that either.
I won’t complain one bit about Cameron running away from a job that only would have damaged him. But then when you think about May who_did_ suffer damage from the job, I prefer her ten times to the likes of Gove or Johnson who would have damaged the country, given half the chance. Especially Johnson, who must be the most incompetent foreign minister ever.
ArrZarr,
Wrong !!!
The campaigns were created to explain the issues for each side and NOT to govern the country which I believe we have Elections for !!!
The Govt should have had 2 sets of Plans ready.
As the Referendum was supposed to be for the definitive answer, as they had decided, they simply drop into the 'Round File' the plan that is not needed.
At that point they are back to doing their job
i.e. governing the country in line with the answer given.
The Campaigns/Remainers/Leavers and everyone who feels they are so important are NOT the elected govt so should cease to be of any import and simply disappear having done the job asked of them ....... no matter how badly that was !!!
Apparently, during this process we decided that the country was to be governed by Facebook/Twitter and anyone British or otherwise who had some money to throw about and an agenda to progress.
Somehow I missed that !!!
"As the advisory Referendum was supposed to be for the definitive answer,"
There. Fixed that for you. It only ceased being advisory and became "the will of the people" when the Leave side won. You can bet your ass that had Remain won, it would have been "merely advisory" and somebody like Farage would be calling for another vote. He as much as said so, saying a 48-52 result would be "unfinished business".
The only reason that the money the UK spent on Galileo was productive was that it was someone in Europe controlling the project.
Can you imagine the fun and games of the UK doing it by themselves?
I'm guessing that whilst the UK built the satellites, and these are top notch, the process of getting them into space will be a solid cast iron "Britannia Chariot" powered by a solid state burner fuelled by old EU passports.
Or more likely, a £20 billion project that takes 15 years and then is canned
'The only reason that the money the UK spent on Galileo was productive was that it was someone in Europe controlling the project.'
You say that, you may want to look at the glowing success story that is Berlin airport or Hamburg's opera house. You just don't hear about foreign incompetence unless it's really impressive.
Blue Streak mean anything to you?
I have no flag to fly either side of the referendum result but it really is getting rather tiresome being confronted with endless stream of sado-masochistic 'we're all fcuked 'coz we're crap and EU was a great club and aren't all you brexiteers such a bunch of ignorant numpties and we're so clever' type comments whilst I try finding some sort of reasoned arguement or 'funny' in the comments section. 'We're all doomed' - OK, so sit back and get run over or do something a bit more positive than just slagging everything off. But shut the fcuk up about what has happened - it's happened. Stop the wallowing and wailing. And back to this topic, we are actually quite good at space stuff as well as plenty of other stuff and so far I cant see the clusterfcuk that was promised so can we stop the self flagellation for a bit and give those with ideas a bit of air and support. We're not 5th biggest economy in world for nothing.
It does, but probably not in the way you mean.
The UK is the only country that had fully orbital capable launch and voluntarily gave it up.
Because "Those nice Americans" would launch it for free because of the "special" relationship the UK has with them.
Did they f**k. :-( .
Either you're in a tent (any tent) p**sing out or you're outside dodging random streams of the yellow stuff.
The UK had an Empire to fall back on but 2 World Wars and a $5Bn loan (in 1945 $) from that country they have that "special" relationship with f**ked that right up.
In size, age, cultural complexity and plate tectonics the UK has a lot more in common with the rest of Europe than it will ever have with the US, or Canada, or Russia, India or China, all of which are continent sized countries in their own right.
>"World's sixth largest economy" according to Hammond during his 2017 budget.
>And there's plenty of opportunity to drop further.
Is that behind India or France. One will overtake soon due to the fall in the pound (if it hasn't already), the other will overtake in the near future anyway. We are effectively the 7th largest economy, down two places in two years.
I'll skip over your Brexit comments. As a British citizen denied the right to vote in a referendum that directly affects me (as a person living and working in the EU), I'm sure it won't take you much difficulty to work out exactly what orifice you can put the whole Brexit mess into, nor the hideously incompetent mess that is worse than a banana republic that we're how far into negotiations and we're all still approximately nowhere? I say this so you understand that from where I sit, calling the Brexiteers "ignorant numpties" is extremely polite, much more than a single one of them deserve.
Instead, I shall respond to this: "And back to this topic, we are actually quite good at space stuff" That may be so, however there is a certain need for international cooperation. If you are intending to launch a constellation of satellites to compete with the American, Russian, and EU systems... Who do you think is going to be willing to put them up there? The big players are the aforementioned three.
>I say this so you understand that from where I sit, calling the Brexiteers "ignorant numpties" is extremely polite, much more than a single one of them deserve.
To be fair, not all Brexiteers are "ignorant numpties"*, but most "ignorant numpties" are Brexiteers. Some are self-serving liars, some "intelligent people"** are convinced that they are right and it will be a fantastic success.
*Replace "ignorant numpties" with racists
**Usually self-diagnosed
Surely a homemade system will be far cheaper as most of the development work has already been done.
I bet the contracts that the work was done under will have clauses that mean that EU have control over the IPR. Even if UK were remaining in EU and the Brexit question was moot, EU (who paid for the initial development) wouldn;t be happy about private sector companies building the same system for, say, a group of African countries without EU getting some sort of kickback and/or saying whether or not they approve of the countries in question getting access to that sort of tech.
We keep seeing this reported, but no details or reasons.
Q1 - What? Is it "the UK will be locked out", or "the UK's current access will no longer exist"? The latter seems more plausible, and would then be subject to negotiating an alternative deal.
Q2 - Why? Is it a matter of EU court jurisdiction? A financial deal? A security deal? A standards deal?
Q3 - Who? Does Norway have access, and on what basis? Iceland? Determinedly-neutral Switzerland? Technically-allied-but-troublesome neighbours like Turkey or Israel?
Q3 is the main one.
It doesn't matter what access anyone else has, those countries are not backed by a horde of blue passport touting idiots slagging the EU off at every opportunity.
Then again, the EU's dependence on Eccles cakes may force them to allow us continued access to the good jobs and the service that Galileo provides.
But... then again... we wont be in the EU so there is no protection from some French company flogging authentic Eccles cakes made in Saint-Angeau
Guess we are stuffed then
Q1 - The special encryption keys needed to access the high accuracy features (to guide missiles for instance) are only available to EU members.
Some of the development may still be done by UK companies, just like Norwegian or Swiss companies can do at the moment. Don't count on keeping the most lucrative or strategic work, though.
Q2 - It is a matter of security and financial agreements. The EU has paid for Galileo (and contracted the building out to ESA) and who pays decides. If the UK leaves the EU it no longer gets to decide matters. The special strategic/military features are only available to EU members as the EU owns the system and can decide who it trusts.
Q3 - See Q1, other countries can use most features of it, some non-EU countries may even help develop it. The special features are only available to EU members, though.
>Q1 - The special encryption keys needed to access the high accuracy features (to guide missiles for instance) are only available to EU members.
UK is member of NATO and thus has access to the already existing and tried out encrypted GPS P-service for that missile job.
Also any country can use DGPS for meter resolution positioning and carrier tracking for millimetre accuracy positioning, for free. And with no need for Galileo. Or Glonass. This availability has been there for over a decade.
Q1 - The special encryption keys needed to access the high accuracy features (to guide missiles for instance) are only available to EU members.
Which is totally pointless
In a missile war with the big boys, the first you know about it is when your GPS satellites are all blown up.
In a missile "democracy bringing exercise" your GPS get jammed by some kit they bought from the Russians/Chinese anyway
That's why the Royal Navy (in contrast to the USN demolition derby fleet) are required to be able to navigate any port in the world with only soundings, landmarks and compass.
And of course GPS style navigation signals like Galileo are weak, frequencies well known and can therefore be readily jammed in any war. Any good missile would be designed with a backup inertial guidance system with inbuilt maps..(like Tomahawks).
Also as an aside the Galileo development was overly bureaucratic with contracts awarded not to a country's supplier of the best hardware, but to those suppliers from countries that contributed appropriately ('geo-return').
and can therefore be readily jammed in any war. "
You're either a troll or extraordinarily ignorant about pretty much everything connected to satellite navigation systems.
Get a f**king clue before posting further.
Q1 - The special encryption keys needed to access the high accuracy features (to guide missiles for instance) are only available to EU members.
Do you actually have the missiles/warheads to use this? Just curious as I thought other than sub launched missiles (US controlled I believe), you guys don't have any ICBM's.
Q1 > We will have access to the civilian level service, as we do GPS / GLONASS. We won't have control of that system, or the military grade high-resolution service.
Q2 > The overall project is being run by the ESA, but is being funded and managed by the EU. The security aspect of the whole project is controlled by the EU.
Q3 > Other third party states are involved in the project, but they don't have access to the secure aspects of the system and are not eligible to bid for work on those aspects. Once we are a third state, we will be able to bid for work on the same terms.
All of these issues are the exact same as we face with GPS - we can use the public system and we can bid for work that the US don't consider to be a security risk. The secure stuff, nope, that's for them to keep to themselves. If it wasn't for the whole Brexit malarkey, nobody would even bat an eyelid at these restrictions as the same thing happens all the time, all over the world. Chuck Brexit in to the mix and suddenly we have to blame someone for being unfair.
You seem to be suggesting that there is a high-resolution service available only to the military. If so, could you please give a reference? Thanks.
I know that's how it used to be, many years ago, but it would make so much more sense to have the high-resolution service available to everyone during peace time, but to degrade or disable it for unauthorised users during a military operation. And I seem to recall reading that that's exactly what they did, around the year 2000.
You seem to be suggesting that there is a high-resolution service available only to the military. If so, could you please give a reference? Thanks.
I know that's how it used to be, many years ago, but it would make so much more sense to have the high-resolution service available to everyone during peace time, but to degrade or disable it for unauthorised users during a military operation. And I seem to recall reading that that's exactly what they did, around the year 2000.
The big change with GPS in 2000 was removal of selective availability, which mean that the service available to the public could now provide accuract in the 10s of metres rather than 100s of metres. There are a number of services available from GPS, one of which is the service used for civilian navigation, etc. I believe there is another service for non-civilian use which provides better accuracy
"You seem to be suggesting that there is a high-resolution service available only to the military. If so, could you please give a reference? Thanks."
It's quite well known that the US government requires domestic GPS receivers to cease working above 60,000 feet altitude and/or faster than 1,000 knots. Receivers capable of more than that are classed as munitions. Google for details.
It's quite well known that the US government requires domestic GPS receivers to cease working above 60,000 feet altitude and/or faster than 1,000 knots. Receivers capable of more than that are classed as munitions
IIRC this limitation was discussed a lot during LOHAN days. Is it not the case that it's actually an "and" rather than "and/or" condition? A combination of that sort of altitude and that sort of speed means some sort of missile, but just the altitude alone is benign (hence being able to use GPS to monitor altitude on weather balloon-based experiments.
"Q1 - What? Is it "the UK will be locked out", or "the UK's current access will no longer exist"? The latter seems more plausible, and would then be subject to negotiating an alternative deal."
The main "what" is the UKs access to the "public regulated navigation" service. Contrary to what most people seem to think, this is not actually a special high-accuracy mode only available to the military; it's essentially identical to the "commercial navigation" service which is, as the name suggests, available commercially to anyone who pays for it. The only difference is that the commercial service (along with the less accurate open service) can be switched off to stop, for example, opponents in a war using it, while the whole point of the regulated service is that's it's always available to the governments who have it. It's not the accuracy, it's the guaranteed availability that's important from a security point of view, and that's what the UK will lose access to.
But yes, obviously this is subject to negotiation - the issue is that everyone in the EU gets access to the service by default, and the UK loses that default assumption by leaving and is therefore forced to negotiate. Even if we don't have an agreement as part of Brexit, it could be negotiated at any time in the future.
The second "what" is the question of UK involvement in the actual development and construction of the system. A few billion over the course of several years isn't a huge amount in the grand scheme of things, but there's the likelihood of losing a significant amount of expertise - if everything related to Galileo moves to the continent, anyone wanting to build other satellites in the future is likely to end up there as well.
"Q2 - Why? Is it a matter of EU court jurisdiction? A financial deal? A security deal? A standards deal?"
This is one of the arguments. From the EU's point of view, it's a security deal and anyone outside the EU needs to convince them to be allowed in. From the UK's point of view, we've already paid well over £1 billion, a significant fraction of the total cost and far more than other project partners outside the EU, and should therefore keep access on those grounds. Both sides would seem to have merit but, as with most things Brexit, the big problem is that no-one had bothered to think about it at all or start trying to negotiate until far too late.
"Q3 - Who? Does Norway have access, and on what basis? Iceland? Determinedly-neutral Switzerland? Technically-allied-but-troublesome neighbours like Turkey or Israel?"
The EU, Israel, Ukraine, Morocco, Norway and Switzerland. China was previously supposed to be involved but dropped out in favour of their own system. Iceland doesn't have a military so probably isn't particularly interested. On what basis? They negotiated an agreement to be involved - separate agreements in each case. The problem isn't that the UK can't negotiate a similar agreement, it's simply that we haven't. Importantly, until recently those involved had apparently just blindly assumed we would keep our involvement and hadn't even attempted to start negotiating.
>China was previously supposed to be involved but dropped out in favour of their own system.
Whina was a member. They only left after they had received all the sensitive information they needed. You are probably not going to believe the story so I am not repeating it here again. The interested will have no problems locating a lot of articles about that information heist, straight out of Mission Impossible.
China is a powerful trade partner so EU is not complaining to them, not that it would help. It probably feels a lot better to kick the UK instead. Kinda vents some frustration, I guess.
Some pillock signed a contract that said something along the lines of:
"Services will be available to all EU members".
The UK won't be an EU member.
This automatically kicks us out of everything we originally signed, means we have to negotiate those same rights that we've forfeit back (you hope) and have to come to a particular agreement to do so rather than automatic consent.
That answers 1, 2 and 3. Because the countries not in the EU were either specifically mentioned or negotiated under their own contracts. We weren't/didn't. And dropping ourselves out of the group that gave us all those privileges was a really silly idea without checking.
I'm wondering now quite how much law that says things like "EU states" now has to be duplicated, reworded, renegotiated etc. for it to still apply to us.
And you can guarantee that anything that OBLIGES us to do something (pay bills, etc.) lists us specifically by name and is enforceable whether or not we're still a member.
Stick a 1 on the front to get it developed (Galileo being 3x its original budget or thereabouts)
Then turn the 1 into a 2 (or 3... 4... more...) to develop some kind of platform to launch it from, given that NASA, ESA, and the Russians will have us by the proverbial short & curlies...
I sincerely hope our government doesn't make a knee-jerk commitment to creating an identical sat nav constellation with no ROI, since we have enough expenses resulting from Brexit. How likely are we to ever deploy our military in circumstances where they are denied access to an existing sat nav service?
If the priority is the continued employment of UK based satellite engineers, there are other kinds of satellites that we could benefit from, that don't require the expense of launching an entire constellation. That might also afford them the opportunity to develop new skills, rather than simply repeat what they've done before.
Once upon a time we used to actually make complex devices and do difficult engineering in the UK, but in so many areas of that large sector we lost our way. The UK is the only nation that built a capability to put satellites in orbit and then abandoned it.
Building our own GNSS system would be an excellent idea, even better would be building the launch vehicles to send the space-based part of such a system into space. We could probably even teach people educated in the UK to design these systems and learn how to engineer complex systems again as a national capability.
I find it hard to understand how we got to be where we are now, the sooner we start to build our capabilities again the less we will hear about how difficult it will be when we are no longer in the EU.
You have it backwards.
Being in Europe would allow the UK to gain European funding for building a launch system other European countries (indeed other countries) could buy and operate.
"I find it hard to understand how we got to be where we are now,"
If you're talking about Britain I'd suggest you look at the history of the "Suez Crisis 1956," which had a traumatic effect on the UK ruling class.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
