Hi Poul: Thanks for that insight on Loran-C in Europe.
Have you done any work on the new digital data format for Loran-C? There's a few U.S. stations now transmitting the digital data which includes the time and leap second correction bits. For more info on this technology see: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/loran/9th-pulse-modulation-ldc.html Too bad Middletown on 9940 is not sending the 9th pulse or I'd give a shot at decoding the time. Have Fun, Brooke Clarke -- w/Java http://www.PRC68.com w/o Java http://www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/PRC68COM.shtml http://www.precisionclock.com Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brooke Clarke writes: > > > >>The British have just published a document about the Enhanced LORAN-C >>system. >> >> > >It's quite interesting times over here in Europe. > >Amongst people who know what they are talking about, there seems >to be increasing awareness that pretty much all the foundations >under Galileo has shifted for the worse. > >There are no users willing to pay for any of the services. > >Forcing them to pay by regulation or legislation will take 10-15 >years for ships/planes because the regulatory domains extend outside >EU political reach. > >Road-pricing has not (yet) been a killer app anywhere, pretty much >all politicians hope that oil-prices will do the job instead so they >don't have to put their name behind a very unpopular idea. > >With the revenue-driven model of Galileo in distress, it is no >surprise that the negotiations with private entities about operation >has dragged out a couple of years, and "decisive developments in >the negotiations" are not expected until later this year. > >Pulling countries like China into the Galileo group has many people >uneasy, and seen strategically it can only count as a negative in >the US/EU friction. If USA didn't have incentives to develop >countermeasures for Galileo before, the addition of China certainly >provided them. > >On that account, the initially much trumpted jamming resistance of >Galileo seems very much in doubt. Did USA pull a smart one on EU >in the modulation negotiations ? > >Some military personel suspect, strictly off the record, that the >new US GPS birds have hardware to specifically jam Galileo, and to >them the frequency co-location now seems very much like a major >mistake. > > >All in all, galileo looks increasingly like a a negotiation bluff >which went horribly wrong and which will end up costing the EU >taxpayers a fortune. > >Because nobody in power would ever be able to admit such a monumental >blunder, and because the pure prestige of Europe also having a GNSS >system would get a blow, were Galileo to be cancelled, it will not be. > >Also, the economy of the Arianne rocket would take a severe blow if >the planned 7-9 A5 launches does not happen. > >But more and more politicians are starting to look for a way out, or >at least trying to not rush in. > > >In the meantime France in particular, and increasingly also England >lobbies for Loran-C extension and expansion as a backup or "supplement". > >The funny thing here is that Loran-C deployment will not happen >until the ratification of the "European Radio Navigation Plan" >(which cover much more than just EU). > >The ERNP drafts warmly advocates Loran-C, citing from memory: 22% >of benefit for 7% of money, is currently stalled because the European >Commission is too busy, trying to save Galileo... > >So severe is the mumbling in the corridors that some even say that >if we drown just a quarter as much money into Loran-C (or an entirely >new VLF system) as is going to be the case for Galileo, we would >get much better result. > >May you live in interesting times indeed... > >Poul-Henning > > > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
