Galileo (European GPS) id down

[az_r2d1]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Capt'n Pat, I sleep fine.

If the power grid goes down, the diesel cuts in, for several days.
If the power grid seems like it will be down, order some diesel delivery.
If no diesel is not going to be available, start to withdraw the rods and shut down the Nuke. (Hey, doesn't the nuclear power itself have power to run the pumps?)

It does not baffle me, it seems rather safe.

Anyhow, I am not within radiation range of any reactors, and I have other, more immediate issues, to worry about.

Oh, the other thing is, what about the sky falling?

You know, even if we built scaffolding to hold up the sky, what if the scaffolding failed?

We could have bamboo back-up for the scaffolding but it could rot.

And anyhow there might be bamboo beetles.

It doesn't work that way. The reactor needs cooling LONG LONG after the reactor is shut down.

[az_r2d1]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Check your facts. Their contingency planning is better than you think. One of the pieces of the puzzle that you're missing is that the amount of power required to pump cooling water drops according to an exponential decay after the control rods go in. It's like a 5:1 drop after the first hour, and another 5:1 drop after the next 24 hours. The problems at Fukushima were due to their inability to run the pumps during the critical first few hours when the decay heat was the greatest.

ofcourse they go down (why else would you shut down) but you will still need cooling for a long time.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by az_r2d1

There is now 3 different gps systems up and running or close to it. I think that risk of all 3 going out is very small. You are far more likely to have defective receivers than all 3 systems go down. The only time there will be issues is during some global conflict.
Ofcourse one should always have paper maps and keep a log.

This only shows your own understanding of statistical probability. Which is OK as we all live our lives following different professional and vocational paths.


But I want to offer you this idea:


When three persons are crossing on the red and suddenly a road train arrives, do they each have higher surviving chance (probability) rate just because there were other equally vulnerable people on the zebra at the same time.


Short answer: NO.


To get better global chances they would have to be ON DIFFERENT ZEBRAS - so that should that train arrive, it would only sweep one of the lone walkers.



Sat nav systems, US, Ruski or Chinese are all equally (roughly) prone to failure due to common factors (like say a major solar flare).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare



The number of systems up there is irrelevant as long as their vulnerabilities to the same factors remains similar.


To get safety from numbers, the systems would have to be based on different principles / locations / hardware. They would need to be on different zebras.



Another thing is Galileo failed before it even started working, read up thread to see the dates and status of the system. And twice. For a system that is believed to provide SAR services this is truly a diseastrous rate.



Cheers,
b.

[az_r2d1]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

This only shows your own understanding of statistical probability. Which is OK as we all live our lives following different professional and vocational paths.


But I want to offer you this idea:


When three persons are crossing on the red and suddenly a road train arrives, do they each have higher surviving chance (probability) rate just because there were other equally vulnerable people on the zebra at the same time.


Short answer: NO.


To get better global chances they would have to be ON DIFFERENT ZEBRAS - so that should that train arrive, it would only sweep one of the lone walkers.



Sat nav systems, US, Ruski or Chinese are all equally (roughly) prone to failure due to common factors (like say a major solar flare).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare



The number of systems up there is irrelevant as long as their vulnerabilities to the same factors remains similar.


To get safety from numbers, the systems would have to be based on different principles / locations / hardware. They would need to be on different zebras.



Another thing is Galileo failed before it even started working, read up thread to see the dates and status of the system. And twice. For a system that is believed to provide SAR services this is truly a diseastrous rate.



Cheers,
b.

They are 3 different systems, completely independent from each other. Only an event like a solar flare (hasn't happened in all of it's life on the US system) MIGHT take out all 3. Even then, Some sats will survive it and not all 3 systems ground stations will fail either.
The only other fail will be if world war 3 starts. ANY other interruption will be short lived (faulty software, fixed quick), it will be so short lived that you in your tiny sailboat across the ocean will not see any downside to it.

So yeah, statistically the chance is VERY VERY small. So small I'd say it's futile to worry about it. Like someone else said; you'd have bigger problems if you do make it back to civilization.

This tin-foil hat thinking is useless.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by az_r2d1

They are 3 different systems, completely independent from each other. Only an event like a solar flare (hasn't happened in all of it's life on the US system) MIGHT take out all 3. Even then, Some sats will survive it and not all 3 systems ground stations will fail either.
The only other fail will be if world war 3 starts. ANY other interruption will be short lived (faulty software, fixed quick), it will be so short lived that you in your tiny sailboat across the ocean will not see any downside to it.


So yeah, statistically the chance is VERY VERY small. So small I'd say it's futile to worry about it. Like someone else said; you'd have bigger problems if you do make it back to civilization.

This tin-foil hat thinking is useless.

I avoid discussing statistics because in an attack, human agency trumps all statistics. The "enemy" can be counted on to do something that wasn't statistically predicted. Just look at the 9/11 attack. How statistically likely was that? There is a rule in defense theory: you can not quantify threats. It's what makes cyber security such a challenge. You can't assign numbers to threat assessments without the ability to read your adversary's mind. "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." They teach that in boot camp.

What we are discussing, maybe without knowing it, is reliability theory.

Why is a sailboat with an engine a more reliable form of transport than a motorboat? Because it has two diverse forms of propulsion. If the engine quits: raise the sails. If the mast falls off: start the engine.

The five fundamental pillars of reliability are:

1) Isolation. If one system fails, it doesn't damage the other system(s).
2) Separation. If some physical destruction occurs, there is enough separation that the other system(s) aren't affected.
3) Redundancy. If one system experiences a higher than expected load, it has enough reserve capacity to sustain that load.
4) Duplication. If one system fails, there is an identical or very similar system to take up the workload.
5) Diversity. There is more than one system that can do the work, and each is based on a different technology.

With the global satellite navigation systems (GNSS), we have only duplication. The only diversity you have at sea right now is GNSS and a sextant (beyond sight of land). That isn't reliable navigation. I doubt many of you have an inertial navigation system on board - and even those need continual calibration (at sea, with a GNSS-derived fix).

Finally, even though there are two other GNSS systems besides GPS, how many of you can use even one of the other systems? I had to go to extra effort to combine GPS with GLONASS. And still, I have no diversity (accepting my sextant).

There has been some discussion of weapons systems. As an interesting aside, the US ICBMs are calibrated in flight by taking star sights. Each warhead has a telescope and the equivalent of a sextant. That's how they did things before GPS, and it still works.

[az_r2d1]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

I avoid discussing statistics because in an attack, human agency trumps all statistics. The "enemy" can be counted on to do something that wasn't statistically predicted. Just look at the 9/11 attack. How statistically likely was that? There is a rule in defense theory: you can not quantify threats. It's what makes cyber security such a challenge. You can't assign numbers to threat assessments without the ability to read your adversary's mind. "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." They teach that in boot camp.

What we are discussing, maybe without knowing it, is reliability theory.

Why is a sailboat with an engine a more reliable form of transport than a motorboat? Because it has two diverse forms of propulsion. If the engine quits: raise the sails. If the mast falls off: start the engine.

The five fundamental pillars of reliability are:

1) Isolation. If one system fails, it doesn't damage the other system(s).
2) Separation. If some physical destruction occurs, there is enough separation that the other system(s) aren't affected.
3) Redundancy. If one system experiences a higher than expected load, it has enough reserve capacity to sustain that load.
4) Duplication. If one system fails, there is an identical or very similar system to take up the workload.
5) Diversity. There is more than one system that can do the work, and each is based on a different technology.

With the global satellite navigation systems (GNSS), we have only duplication. The only diversity you have at sea right now is GNSS and a sextant (beyond sight of land). That isn't reliable navigation. I doubt many of you have an inertial navigation system on board - and even those need continual calibration (at sea, with a GNSS-derived fix).

Finally, even though there are two other GNSS systems besides GPS, how many of you can use even one of the other systems? I had to go to extra effort to combine GPS with GLONASS. And still, I have no diversity (accepting my sextant).

There has been some discussion of weapons systems. As an interesting aside, the US ICBMs are calibrated in flight by taking star sights. Each warhead has a telescope and the equivalent of a sextant. That's how they did things before GPS, and it still works.

Sorry but you are out of touch here. Just about any current smart phone can use at least 2 of the gps systems and quite a few more than that.
A good sailor can still get to a safe place. A good sailor knows roughly at any time where he is at , what lies ahead, what weather systems are out there. It's not like you are dropped blind in the middle of the ocean. knowledge of time, sun and stars gets you a long ways.

Any semi-serious navigator can get to a safe place without gps. IF you can't, you have no place on an ocean. Until then, rely on gps. It won't go down.

[az_r2d1]

As an example; look at the specs of the google pixel 3a. An average phone.
Capable to receive all 3 gps systems;
https://store.google.com/product/pixel_3a_specs

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by az_r2d1

They are 3 different systems, completely independent from each other. Only an event like a solar flare (hasn't happened in all of it's life on the US system) MIGHT take out all 3. Even then, Some sats will survive it and not all 3 systems ground stations will fail either.
The only other fail will be if world war 3 starts. ANY other interruption will be short lived (faulty software, fixed quick), it will be so short lived that you in your tiny sailboat across the ocean will not see any downside to it.

So yeah, statistically the chance is VERY VERY small. So small I'd say it's futile to worry about it. Like someone else said; you'd have bigger problems if you do make it back to civilization.

This tin-foil hat thinking is useless.

Since you took my post, without reading the information linked therein, as a starting point of your post, I dare take yours.


Look. What you call tin-foil thinking and why is up to you. ;-)



To me, thinking, reading and re-valuating our believes and our knowledge is never time lost. (!)



I did say clearly why the fact that we have 3 systems COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of each other is irrelevant. Open statistical probability course youngsters go thru in your country and read. 3, 8, or 99 is not what counts.



Yes, three (four!) systems, independent and YET due to fail from the same factors. And since you did not read into, I quote NASA:


"... On July 23, 2012, a massive, potentially damaging, solar storm (solar flare, coronal mass ejection and electromagnetic radiation) barely missed Earth.[4][5] According to NASA, there may be as much as a 12% chance of a similar event occurring between 2012 and 2022..."


This implies we have one in ten chance of all the 4 (not 3) systems going blank at once.


On what such events do to our equipment you could have read here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_storms


I will also somewhat disagree with you on how a sat nav shut down could affect our lives.


" ... ANY other interruption will be short lived (faulty software, fixed quick), it will be so short lived that you in your tiny sailboat across the ocean will not see any downside to it"..."


Galileo was down for a week. The EU estimated earlier that one day's outage of sat nav system will cost this continent 1 bn EUR. Body count was not mentioned, (in my opinion, for political reasons).


Also, to any sailor in a small boat (like mine) crossing the ocean this may in fact irrelevant (in my case, I do have a sextant and I do know how to use one) BUT for every one such idiot with sextant in a small boat there will be hundreds navigating coastwise in rocky, tidal and traffic saturated waters. As well as thousands of airline vessels above our heads, each one carrying some 200-400 passengers plus crew.


To me, 12% chance of an event that might wipe out all 3 / 4 / or more sat nav sytems is something that people who take such technology for granted should spend some time worrying about.


So, you baby do not worry, I worry. To each their own. Tin foil or fin toil.



Cheers,
barnakiel

[az_r2d1]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Since you took my post, without reading the information linked therein, as a starting point of your post, I dare take yours.


Look. What you call tin-foil thinking and why is up to you. ;-)



To me, thinking, reading and re-valuating our believes and our knowledge is never time lost. (!)



I did say clearly why the fact that we have 3 systems COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of each other is irrelevant. Open statistical probability course youngsters go thru in your country and read. 3, 8, or 99 is not what counts.



Yes, three (four!) systems, independent and YET due to fail from the same factors. And since you did not read into, I quote NASA:


"... On July 23, 2012, a massive, potentially damaging, solar storm (solar flare, coronal mass ejection and electromagnetic radiation) barely missed Earth.[4][5] According to NASA, there may be as much as a 12% chance of a similar event occurring between 2012 and 2022..."


This implies we have one in ten chance of all the 4 (not 3) systems going blank at once.


On what such events do to our equipment you could have read here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_storms


I will also somewhat disagree with you on how a sat nav shut down could affect our lives.


" ... ANY other interruption will be short lived (faulty software, fixed quick), it will be so short lived that you in your tiny sailboat across the ocean will not see any downside to it"..."


Galileo was down for a week. The EU estimated earlier that one day's outage of sat nav system will cost this continent 1 bn EUR. Body count was not mentioned, (in my opinion, for political reasons).


Also, to any sailor in a small boat (like mine) crossing the ocean this may in fact irrelevant (in my case, I do have a sextant and I do know how to use one) BUT for every one such idiot with sextant in a small boat there will be hundreds navigating coastwise in rocky, tidal and traffic saturated waters. As well as thousands of airline vessels above our heads, each one carrying some 200-400 passengers plus crew.


To me, 12% chance of an event that might wipe out all 3 / 4 / or more sat nav sytems is something that people who take such technology for granted should spend some time worrying about.


So, you baby do not worry, I worry. To each their own. Tin foil or fin toil.



Cheers,
barnakiel

I don't agree with your statistical approach. For one, the 3 (4/5 ??) systems are based on different levels of technology. Second, the solar flares will only affect sats/ground stations on the side of the earth that gets hit. The shielded side will be much less affected. So we at least have a partial system.
Third, the recent Galileo event shows they don't all go down at once. Fourth, Galileo is too new to be reliable at this point. The US system has been around decades longer. You think the US system never had issues ? They sure did when it was new. Today, hardly ever. and if it there is a problem, it won't last.
Commercial airliners do not rely on gps. They have routes at different altitudes. They're fine.

As for the fools who enter the oceans without the skills... well, who's fault is that?

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I think that jamming, spoofing and denial of GPS is far more likely than shooting down satellites, but who knows, it’s certainly within many nations capabilities.

You are quite correct. There have been a number of incidents where the satellite systems were jammed of spoofed on the past several years. In one instance around three or four years ago, the British MOD (Ministry of Defense) issued warnings saying satellite signals may not be available in a particular location due to military exercises, or worse, may give incorrect data.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

For those of you who think it's safe to consider satellite navigation as being 100% reliable -- the European version of GPS is completely unusable at this time: https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/NOTICE_ADVISORY_TO_GALILEO_USERS_NAGU_2019026.txt

Current status is here: https://www.gsc-europa.eu/system-status/Constellation-Information

The entire system collapsed about the same time transformers started blowing up in New York City.

Coincidence? Draw your own conclusions.

There is no reason the same thing couldn't happen to the American GPS system. Galileo and GPS are essentially the same design.

I personally use both GPS and GLONASS together (which also improves accuracy under normal conditions). I figure the Russians won't disrupt their own navigation satellites.

But ultimately the impact was.... nil. No boats crashed into rocks, no planes fell out of the sky, nothing. The fact that there ARE multiple redundant systems shows that GPS in all its forms is a reliable and perfectly safe method of navigation.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by zboss

But ultimately the impact was.... nil. No boats crashed into rocks, no planes fell out of the sky, nothing. The fact that there ARE multiple redundant systems shows that GPS in all its forms is a reliable and perfectly safe method of navigation.

No. Not nil. Not according to the US Naval Institute: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...on-or-spoofing

I just read an excellent book by Richard A. Clarke titled: "Warnings - Finding Cassandras to Stop Catastrophes." For the past 20 years, I have been a professional Cassandra working with banks (Wells Fargo), aircraft manufactures (Boeing), multi-national corps. (Exxon-Mobil), and government agencies (NASA). My job was to predict and then prevent catastrophes. It takes a certain kind of insight, what's called "sentinel intelligence" to see a collection of seemingly random information and identify a problem that hasn't yet occurred. Many people have that, and like the Greek story of Cassandra, they are often ignored. I was right often enough that I got paid for my predictions. There's nothing magical about it, it just takes the ability to tolerate chaos while not jumping to early conclusions.

Richard Clarke's book describes how there are two types of people in risk management: foxes and hedgehogs. The hedgehogs have expertise in one field and try to apply that knowledge to everything. They are terrible at prediction because they tend to dig themselves so deep in their own field that they can't get out of their hole to look around. If I've learned anything in my field, it's not to argue with hedgehogs. It's pointless to try to change someone's fixed reality. What's lacking is curiosity and the ability to suspend judgement. There's no way to "connect."

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

I avoid discussing statistics because in an attack, human agency trumps all statistics. The "enemy" can be counted on to do something that wasn't statistically predicted. Just look at the 9/11 attack. How statistically likely was that? There is a rule in defense theory: you can not quantify threats. It's what makes cyber security such a challenge. You can't assign numbers to threat assessments without the ability to read your adversary's mind. "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." They teach that in boot camp.

What we are discussing, maybe without knowing it, is reliability theory.

Why is a sailboat with an engine a more reliable form of transport than a motorboat? Because it has two diverse forms of propulsion. If the engine quits: raise the sails. If the mast falls off: start the engine.

The five fundamental pillars of reliability are:

1) Isolation. If one system fails, it doesn't damage the other system(s).
2) Separation. If some physical destruction occurs, there is enough separation that the other system(s) aren't affected.
3) Redundancy. If one system experiences a higher than expected load, it has enough reserve capacity to sustain that load.
4) Duplication. If one system fails, there is an identical or very similar system to take up the workload.
5) Diversity. There is more than one system that can do the work, and each is based on a different technology.

With the global satellite navigation systems (GNSS), we have only duplication. The only diversity you have at sea right now is GNSS and a sextant (beyond sight of land). That isn't reliable navigation. I doubt many of you have an inertial navigation system on board - and even those need continual calibration (at sea, with a GNSS-derived fix).

Finally, even though there are two other GNSS systems besides GPS, how many of you can use even one of the other systems? I had to go to extra effort to combine GPS with GLONASS. And still, I have no diversity (accepting my sextant).

There has been some discussion of weapons systems. As an interesting aside, the US ICBMs are calibrated in flight by taking star sights. Each warhead has a telescope and the equivalent of a sextant. That's how they did things before GPS, and it still works.

Great post and in particular, your discussion of the pillars or reliability. As we know all too well, Murphy's Law is always in effect and usually at the worst possible time!

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by az_r2d1

Yeah, because diesel can nowhere to be found. Ever heard of the strategic reserve ? Guess what it's for ???? yeahhhhhhh......

There are at least three separate parts to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (1 Million barrels), the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve, and the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. The systems has at best 150 days supply at their draw down maximums of 4.4 million barrels per day.

In a serious emergency, I am not sure that diesel would be available for recreational boating.

The good news is that for those with diesels, other forms of fuel can be used in lieu of diesel, with varying degrees of success.

[az_r2d1]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

There are at least three separate parts to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (1 Million barrels), the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve, and the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. The systems has at best 150 days supply at their draw down maximums of 4.4 million barrels per day.

In a serious emergency, I am not sure that diesel would be available for recreational boating.

The good news is that for those with diesels, other forms of fuel can be used in lieu of diesel, with varying degrees of success.

And you think they will just hand it out till the last drop ? At some point it's done except for critical needs, like a nuke plant.
boating? Use the sail !