So, interference in the "safety for life" band is of interest to the government, and lots of testing, backups, and certification will be required to use it. Interference in the "commercial" band is of interest to Galileo's bottom line ($$), and they will be motivated ($$, again) to invest the least for the best payback. My worry is that it may appear cheaper to them to try to ban all other uses of those frequencies, than to invest in the engineering design and end-user hardware components to prevent that service from going down. Loss of life due to interference cannot be tolerated, of course, but to see what motivates action, follow the money.
Greg KO6TH
----Original Message Follows---- From: Bruce Rahn brahn@woh.rr.com Reply-To: brahn@woh.rr.com To: "John B. Stephensen" kd6ozh@comcast.net CC: amsat bb amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Galileo interference on L band Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:28:21 -0400
John B. Stephensen wrote:
High-accuracy receivers use multiple downlink frequencies to compensate
for
errors, such as those induced by the ionosphere. There are probably 3 downlink frequencies in case 1 fails.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: sco@sco-inc.com To: "amsat bb" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 16:54 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Galileo interference on L band
I understand this argument. BUT what i do not understand is the idea that an airliner would only be receiving one of the three bands that Galileo is saying that it intends to use for GPS. The L band is in just one of those three bands that the airplane would be receiving. Would the system not require the receiver to take data from the best signal? Could we not ask the FAA to require any airborne receiver that it certify must receive all three bands and switch bands if it receives any interference?
As a practical matter G GPS is not now in orbit, it would take years before it could be funded, launched and be operational. Then it would take the FAA probably another 10 years before they would certify it for use. I see 10-15-20 years before Galileo might be a problem to
hams.
Why not fly Eagle with a backup L/S linear and use C/X for the digital transponder?
This debate grows more interesting with time.
Current publicly available Galileo documentation indicates that "Safety of Life" services will be provided on E5a/E5b (1164 to 1215 MHz) downlink and the E2/L1/E1 (1559 to 1591 MHz) downlink. The E6 (1260 to 1300 MHz) downlink is designated for 'commercial services' and not the aviation. Thus, I am VERY curious why the interference to aircraft navigation receivers is constantly brought up in this discussion as it appears a non-player.
For all but the most precise needs, dual frequency capabilities will eliminate the 1st order ionospheric errors leaving only the 2nd and 3rd order terms which are on the centimeter level. Thus I don't see the need for aircraft navigation systems to employ 'tri-frequency' receivers.
What am I missing here?
-- Bruce Rahn
Wisdom has two parts: 1. having a lot to say; and 2. not saying it!
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb