Reply to post: Re: Trident

Blighty: We spent £1bn on Galileo and all we got was this lousy T-shirt


Re: Trident

You do know that none of what you say is actually true, right?

Harbour manoeuvring can’t use GPS-type nav for that, for multiple reasons. The issue isn’t the precision of the nav-code, (which makes zero difference for this type of application), nor even Dilution of Precision. River and harbour pilots are necessary because underwater sand-banks move. And radio reflections off the water cause positions in port to be off by 200meters quite often. End of. Shame neither you nor the EU actually *asked any Port Authorities* before claiming it.

Auto landing airliners is done via airport radio beacons. It’s a solved problem, and nobody is interested in GPS type nav for it.

“Deciding on the future direction” is pure control-freakery EU jargon. Why would you want to? It’s free, and a useful add-on to GPS. That’s all.

Missing out on contracts: Yes. Just exactly like we did when part of the EU. Both the SSTL and Astrium offers were cheaper, technically better, and would have come in on time, compared to the German OHB proposal, which was slideware. But, we lost the bid anyway. SSTL built two satellites in one quarter the time of OHB, to keep the orbital slots rescuing the whole project, and proved they were better, but still didn’t win the work. UK had to pay for SSTL tech demonstrators out of a separate budget, that wasn’t EU money. The EU financed only the (non-UK) launchers. Please give facts and which specific components you think are or might have been UK return on Galileo, had we stayed in?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021