Will the cost of sat navs increase?

granturismo

According to Sky news;
'The Global Positioning System (GPS) could collapse as early as 2010 due to a lack of investment in new satellites, the US government accountability office has told Congress.
It blamed the US Air Force, which runs the worldwide system free of charge and is responsible for modernising it, saying it had failed to take the necessary steps to keep the network of satellites running properly.
"It is uncertain whether the Air Force will be able to acquire new satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without interruption," the report said.
"If not, some military operations and some civilian users could be adversely affected."


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Technology/GPS-Network-Could-Fail-Next-Year-Leaving-Sat-Nav-Useless-US-Government-Accountability-Office-Warns/Article/200905315284843?lpos=Technology_First_Technology_Article_Teaser_Region__1&lid=ARTICLE_15284843_GPS_Network_Could_Fail_Next_Year_Leaving_Sat_Nav_Useless%2C_US_Government_Accountability_Office_Warns

Its probable that the USAF will force sat nav companies to pay directly towards the cost of maintaining and replacing these satalites and these costs will then have to be passed onto customers.

luckat

Damn, I'll have to go back to using signposts.

robinph

There is a couple of ESA funded satellites up there now I think which some units will be able to make use of as well.

Alun

This has been known for a while now. Here is the story from the horses mouth as it were ...

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09670t.pdf

garydubh

granturismo wrote: »

According to Sky news;
'The Global Positioning System (GPS) could collapse as early as 2010 due to a lack of investment in new satellites, the US government accountability office has told Congress.
It blamed the US Air Force, which runs the worldwide system free of charge and is responsible for modernising it, saying it had failed to take the necessary steps to keep the network of satellites running properly.
"It is uncertain whether the Air Force will be able to acquire new satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without interruption," the report said.
"If not, some military operations and some civilian users could be adversely affected."


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Technology/GPS-Network-Could-Fail-Next-Year-Leaving-Sat-Nav-Useless-US-Government-Accountability-Office-Warns/Article/200905315284843?lpos=Technology_First_Technology_Article_Teaser_Region__1&lid=ARTICLE_15284843_GPS_Network_Could_Fail_Next_Year_Leaving_Sat_Nav_Useless%2C_US_Government_Accountability_Office_Warns

Its probable that the USAF will force sat nav companies to pay directly towards the cost of maintaining and replacing these satalites and these costs will then have to be passed onto customers.

There is no fear of the GPS system collapsing (there are 25% more GPS satellites up there than are needed right now). The report talks about 95% availability not collapse and it does not refer to the fact that there are also Augmentation systems and other Satellite Position systems already in use. The quotes above are taken out of context.

If the 95% availability of 24 satellites was to be compromised (a lot of things would have to happen for this to be the case) then the last to be affected would be SatNav users. The concern would be related to precision users, safety critical applications (very few) and those like radio/tv broadcasters, communications providers and internet services who are heavily dependent on GPS timing for their systems to work. However, these people are already using backups such as Glonass, the Russian System, already used by surveyors and a new e-Loran radio navigation and timing broadcast coming from the UK and available for those who need an accurate timing backup.

The report by the GAO (similar to Public accounts committe here) is a lot to do with organisational and management improvements as well as streamlining procurement and delivery. Its projections for less than 95% availability also are based on theorectical satellite lifespans when it is the case that many Block1 satellites have lasted twice as long as the theoretical lifespan.

The report does however, once again remind us not to be over dependent on GPS - (Plan your route before you use the SatNav) and in the marine world don't forget the radar, compass and visual bearings and lets have no more difficulty in getting planning permission for a Loran mast here in Ireland - we need e-Loran as a backup for GPS and Ireland must play its part if required. We cannot depend on European GPS Galileo either - it will be 5 years late if it ever sees the light of day in 2014 and can be jammed in the same way as GPS can.

Don't think there is any need to worry about the SatNav not working just yet........ some discussion on the subject about 30 mins from the end of the Breakfast show on 4FM this morning Thursday May 21st - Listen back Here

Alun

Here's another good articleon the subject ... http://sidt.gpsworld.com/gpssidt/content/printContentPopup.jsp?id=597841

WillieCocker

I hope this is untrue.....i'll never find my way home from work after 2010.:(

Alun

I'm sure they'll sort it out. GPS is too important to the US military for them to allow it to fail.

There are two main problems .. firstly problems with the last block of satellites, so called Block IIF. They were built by Boeing rather than either of the two more experienced contractors (Rockwell and Lockheed Martin) partly in an attempt to bring down costs, but have been plagued mainly by delivery problems but also some technical problems that have been hushed up to a certain extent. Let's hope they can sort things out before the first of the new block IIIA satellites gets launched (which are being produced by Lockheed Martin again).

But the biggest problem is the way the whole organisation is run. Apart from problems with a rather vague and diffuse management structure, one important aspect is that, being a part of the US military, personnel have their "tours of duty" working there for a few years and then get posted somewhere else, resulting in a continuous churn of experienced staff and continuous retraining.