We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Gloating at Galileo The Europeans mess up once again. We look at them playing power politics without a powerful hand or a sense of bluff. It takes some level of incompetence to have the Chinese do to you what you tried to do to the Americans:
Today, the Chinese are attempting to do to the Galileo system the same thing that Europe tried, and failed, to do to the US. China has registered with the ITU its intent to use frequencies that are as close to Galileo’s as Galileo’s were planned to be to GPS 3. The speculation is that this is the Chinese response to the European refusal to allow China into the charmed circle of senior Galileo management.
I mustn’t gloat.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Competition is good for the consumer. Pity that it’s not competition between private businesses.
Galileo should have taken the chair he is said to have been offered at Harvard.
It’ a bit too early to gloat. Let’s see if China gets further than Europe did, first of all.
I’m actually a fan of Galileo – GPS needs cometition just like any other technology, and there is a lot of room for improvement in geolocation technology (at the consumer end, certainly). It’s a shame that Galileo has become a euro-nationalist poster child, but if they don’t screw it up, it will be a valuable bit of technology.
Philip,
this article is so ridiculously biased that it is nothing but propaganda. Anti-European, Anti-WTO (!) etc, etc
And no mention of the fact that China is only able to launch satellites because of the illegal sales of technology by Boeing and others. Technology that the Chinese handed over to North Korea, enabling that countrry to build missiles with a range to target American cities.
Btw, the Chinese are engaging in showmanship here, and they almost certainly can’t realy afford to launch that many satelites. The satellites are highly visible, the shortages they suffer in other areas for this aren’t.
Ralf: China ain’t what it used to be… They are well on their way up the individual income curve and with a population that size, they can certainly afford to do a lot… perhaps not this year, but by 2015 watch for them to be a *major* player in space.
Looks like something will be using that segment of spectrum then. Since Galileo won’t.
It’s not Anti-EU if it’s true. And let’s be clear: anti-EU is not the same as Anti-European.
Wasn’t it Loral Aerospace and not Boeing? I could be wrong there. China’s ability to launch satellites isn’t the point of the article. The point of the article is competing geopolitics played in the arena of space and navigational satellites. I mean, really, where does one stop. If we mention the deals that got China that technology, then we’d have to mention the Clintons, Al Gore and Buddhist temples and all that.
And while it’s savory and all, that’s not the point of the article. What this has to do with the WTO, I’m a bit unclear on, though…
As far as China being able to afford much, well, that never stopped any insane regime from doing something economically stupid. These are the people who wiped out 30 million of their own on boneheaded ideologically pure agricultural schemes. They were just following in the path of the Russians. And heck, we’ve got prescription drug plans (which is not the same thing, to be sure; but still economic idiocy for the sake of politics.)
It was Loral and Bill Clinton.
I’m confused…is every one here talking about the same “Galileo” that The band “Queen” sings of in their song “Bohemian Rhapsody”?
The dude, if you aren’t just being facetious, read the article.
As for the Sinobigots, stop by the Economist or other economic database – China’s now the number 2 economy in the world in PPP. Their market still has a smaller nominal value than 5 other nations’, but they pay so much less in labor and other costs, the numbers aren’t enough to go on.
Their only real limits in fields like this are technological, and with foreign investment pouring in and 10% growth rates, that won’t last long.
blockquote>Wasn’t it Loral Aerospace and not Boeing?
Loral was involved, but primarily it were Hughes and Boeing:
I’m not a bigot, I’m pointing out that the Chinese are engaging in showmanship, without economic considerations.
Grayson:
This article is rabidly anti-EU and anti-European, starting with the ridiculous conspiracy theory that Galileo was an attempt to undermine the US.
Raif: when I was first reading about Galileo several years ago, the articles presented Galileo as an EU-nationalist means to thumb the US imilitary n the eye. And when I talked to US miltary folks about Galileo, that’s certainly how they interpreted it. So in the least, this is not a new interpretation of Galileo.
Jody:
those interpretaions were Amercian ones. Galileo isn’t an attempt to thumb the US into the eye. And nobody likes competition.
The Europhobes like Philip here eagerly latched onto the issue because of it’s anti-EU angle.
Btw, you migt want to reread the article at Space review. It mentions that the EU contemplated scrapping the arms embargo agaiast China, but not that American firms already sold vital technology to China.
Rank hypocrisy.
Here’s more about the sale of American technology to China.
How very interesting: China even got Aegis technology.
Dale,
Not a bad point, but as of now they do way too much for perstige rather than usefulness.
Reminds me what a friend who worked at a dotcom back in 2001 told me. Her company was launching a new product and needed something like $50,000 in capital for initial funding. They go to pull the money out their accounts and the bank calls and says: “Excuse us, but you do know you’re 20 million in debt, don’t you?”
Actually they didn’t — they had no idea. They thought they had plenty of money. But their entire accounting structure was based on revenue and cost estimates — not actual numbers. No one — no one inthe company — actually know what was going on.
China’s pretty much the same. It’s so screwed up no one knows how big their economy is or how fast it’s growing; or even if it’s growing in real terms. But no one — especially no one in the PRC leadership — has any reliable numbers and couldn’t get them if they wanted them. The only things that’s certain is that things are no where near as rosy as they are portraying them.
Ralf.
The technology sale to China wasn’t illegal, it was extra-legal. Clinton sanctioned it and pocketed a nice kickback for his retirement fund.
“The Europhobes like Philip…”
Europhobes? Europe is not feared. Please use a more accurate rhetorical fallacy…
Actually, no, reread the two articles you posted (from SFGate.com and the Washington Times). It was Hughes and Loral. Boeing had nothing to do with it.
BUT, in the huge consolidation of the aerospace industry at the end of the 1990s, Boeing bought that Hughes division and became liable.
When SFGate.com mentions “Hughes and Boeing” they’re talking about Hughes the parent company of the space launch division and Boeing the present owner of that division.
Dwight,
fine so it was Hughes.
The imporatnt point is that American technology doesn’t only allow China to go imto space, it also enables North Korea to target American cities.
Philip,
I’m calling on you to defend this from the article you are quoting from:
This is nothing but a cosnpiracy theory, but since you seem to approve of I’d still like to see you defend it.
If the intentions weren’t at least in part to gain control over US capabilities, then why threaten to use “frequency overlay”?
Also, although I know absolutely zip about global positioning tech, I assume that “frequency overlay” would hinder Galileo just as much as GPS. Therefore it seems to me to have no other benefit for the EU other than as leverage to gain control over the US system. The same can be said for what China is now attempting.
By the way, I don’t blame the EU for trying. And I don’t blame the US for refusing the ploy.
Ralf,
When the original specifications for Galileo were established, the European Commission considered placing one of the services that Galileo would provide, the restricted Public Regulated Service for national law enforcement and “internal security” (the EU’s terms), over the GPS “M Code” used by Nato and US forces for interoperability during military exercises and operations.
The “overlay” between the two services and the frequency solutions proffered were problematic since jamming one could jam the other, or allow the EU a veto over the use of GPS. This was not a conspiracy theory but a valid and vocal concern of both the USA and NATO. Both were aware that the co-operation af all EU member states was not assured. Both were also aware that Galileo was designed in part to support an EU military capability independent of the United States.
The fear of a veto motivated all parties.
To sum up, this was a concern that was eventually resolved in 2004. The compatibility of frequencies between M Code and the Public Regulated Service of Galileo was resolved.
M Code was first devised in the late 1990s with a planned implementation date of 2005 onwards. Galileo was presented in late 1999 and the choice of frequencies was decided long after the M Code specs were known.
Conspiracy theory or a naked grab for EU influence over a vital US/NATO system. You decide.
Philip,
so the European Unin wanted to be independent of GPS and a signal that is unjammable.
That has nothing to do with wanting a veto over the use of GPS. To interprete it like this, as some do, is downright ridiculous. I think these fears also were nothing but a pretext to prevent the creation of a competing service.
Something else: The article doesn’t mention that the Chinese signal won’t only overlay the Galileo signal, but also the GPS3 signal. Jamming the signal would also jam GPS3, so that the Chinese move is more of a problem for the US than Europe, which doesn’t have many military assets in the region.
Oh, and an attempt to createv overlay on the part of China doesn’t imply incompetence on the part of the European Union.
And coming back to this:
No mention of the sale of American technology to China, which enabled that country to launch their satellites in the first place.
Btw, as to sales of weapons to China:
Australia lifted its weapons embargo in 1992:
How about that?