-------- In message <55a13dab.2030...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>> The reason the ERNP wasn't published, was that it concluded that 40% of >> *all* benefits came from Loran-C, at a yearly cost only a fraction of >> a single Galileo launch vehicle. > >Someone should have dreamed up the aggregate robustness of eLoran, >GALILEO and EGNOS. That's exactly what the draft ERNP did. Then they did the math and figured that with GLONASS and GPS already being up there, Galileo didn't add nearly as much value as having an independent robust VLF backup for all the GNSS systems. Since a result which said that Galileo was surplus to requirements would have been totally unacceptable, they fudged around a bit. First they claimed that the "enhanced" Galileo signals would provide some value which GPS and GLONASS couldn't provide, but if you read the fine print in the notes, it basically boiled down to dual-band precision. Another fudge was to argue that EU could mandate that ships, planes and trucks used Galileo, whereas they could not mandate GPS or GLONASS, so having Galileo "potentially" improved transporation safety. If you remove those two fudges, Loran-C provided 60-70% of the benefit, with the rest split evenly between Galileo and AIS >Sweden essentially had it's own set of LORAN/Chayka transmitters, with a >ever evolving jamming/spoofing ability. RT-02 Fredriksson was the system >name, often just referred to as Fredriksson. >http://www.antus.org/RT02.html Interesting, never heard of that before... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.