Hi Martin!

Why do you think that GPS has a bad coverage at the poles? The
inclination and orbital altitude of Galileo is a little bit higher than
for GPS, so there is potential for a small performance increases.

Reading the public ICD of Galileo available from
http://www.galileoju.com/page2.cfm and comparing it with the public ICD
of GPS available from
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/moder...on/default.htm you may draw
your own conclusion.

I would expect that current GPS receivers have not implemented the
Galileo ICD. But I seem to remember that some manufacturers claim to be
Galileo ready, but I wounder how they are able to do this from a legal
point of view.

Best Regards

Hans




Martin Gregorie schrieb:
Bruce wrote:

ESA has not started "commercial" use of its satellites yet - most of
it's stations are terrestrial at present - so I suppose for the very
short term the view that "we own it we can do what we like with it is
valid". By 2010 there will be two satellite systems. Then what?

Technically, there are already two: GLONASS is the other, though I'll
admit I've never seen a receiver for it. I read the other day that it
had rather fallen on hard times, but that the Russians are about to
bring the constellation back to full strength and possibly to open it up.

I wonder if either Galileo or GLONASS will provide better polar coverage
than GPS?

There seems to be some confusion as whether current GPS receivers will
work with Galileo. I understand that the frequencies are similar and the
satellite IDs have been arranged to avoid clashes. I asked this question
after an article on Galileo appeared in New Scientist: apparently the
correct answer is "suck it and see" because nobody knows for sure.