China's GPS 'rival' Beidou

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45471959

by Sami_Lehtinen • 8 years ago

64 77 8 years ago

GPS has become so ubiquitous I honestly forgot that it was something that could be owned. It is cool to see some competition in the GPS world.

nutjob22• 8 years ago

GPS systems are not so much 'owned' as 'paid for'.

azinman2• 8 years ago

And designed and maintained...

tinus_hn2• 8 years ago

GPS is aging technology, its satellites are dying already and its limits are showing clearly. It won’t be around forever.

dleclere• 8 years ago

That's not true... The U.S. is actually in the process of launching the next generation of GPS satellites.

Analemma_• 8 years ago

It’s interesting and odd to me that Beidou requires two-way communication, as opposed to other satellite tracking systems where the receivers are purely passive and satellites only transmit, not receive. Is there an explanation for why this was done?

craftyguy2• 8 years ago

Unavoidable collection of user location data is the obvious reason. I would absolutely stay away from any device that has support for this positioning technology.

wbraun• 8 years ago

The article talks about how it can be used to send messages but my first thought is that it could allow tracking of receivers. A scary thought if it does achieve widespread adoption.

majia5• 8 years ago

There are two different and independent beidou systems. One is passive and cannot track receivers, and the other is similar to a simple satellite internet.

_Gyan_• 8 years ago

Appears that two-way comms was required for Beidou-1, not BeiDou-2. See https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/30839/is-two-way-c...

nraynaud• 8 years ago

I am highly skeptical of this claim, it's either for higher accuracy of military stuff, or an internet connexion to get a key or the ephemerides or something. But nobody is sending signal to a satellite 21000km from the surface straight from a watch-sized device.

tialaramex2• 8 years ago

I agree with the thrust of your post, but Um Actually...

The current Breitling Emergency (a bulky men's watch, but it wouldn't look out of place on some big out-of-doors type guy's wrist) is a working PLB transmitter.

So that means signals from it can be received not just 21000km up, but 36000km up where Geostationary birds live.

If you activate it, that watch will transmit the digital signal with its unique ID in it, and assuming you filled all the paperwork out soon after somebody from the relevant local emergency response (maybe a coastguard, mountain rescue, that sort of thing) will be phoning your emergency contacts

"Hi, do you know nraynaud? They went flying today? OK, do you know where they were headed? We have an emergency transmission from their beacon so we're going to send somebody to take a look and check they're OK. We'll let you know, thanks".

A "real" beacon would be better, more robust, better battery life, easier and more obvious for random strangers to operate if you're unconscious, not to mention much cheaper. But the Emergency has the advantage that you'll actually have it when shit goes wrong, because it's your watch.

tialaramex2• 8 years ago

I suspect this is either a misunderstanding or just copy-pasted from descriptions of a different earlier system.

It doesn't make any sense to have the ground station transmit to figure out its location. To give a baseline, that's how the original analogue COSPAS SARSAT worked last century, using doppler measurements to get a location over time - and its accuracy was appalling, a human operator has to use equipment to narrow down where the signal is, it takes significant time to get a 1 nautical mile search area. Which is much better than "I dunno, in the sea?" for a lost ship or plane, but you're still going to need a serious search-and-rescue operation to find anybody.

A modern digital COSPAS SARSAT system you may have seen if you're a serious hiker or outback flyer just does GPS, it uses GPS to figure out where it is, then sends a digital signal that says "I need help, here are my GPS co-ordinates" hence the slogan "Taking the search out of search and rescue".

baybal23• 8 years ago

Yes, first generation beidou were mandatory two way, to do crypto handshake. The Party wanted "more control," just as usual.

The idea was realisedly lunatical even back then, but party boffins really though that reality and laws of physics will yield to party's mandate.

majia5• 8 years ago

It’s not about “more control”. The first beidou was two way mainly because they need some kind of satellite phone functionality.

justfor1comment• 8 years ago

India did something similar a few months ago. Each country wants to build it's own GPS for military purposes. At some point we have to stop calling it 'Global' Positioning System.

nradov2• 8 years ago

The generic term is Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). GPS is one type of GNSS.

kec• 8 years ago

The "global" refers to the fact that it works globally, not that it exists for the good of humanity.

Navstar (owned by USDoD, what is commonly called "GPS"), GLONASS and soon Galileo all have global coverage.

romwell• 8 years ago

Yup, GLONASS = GLObal NAvigational Satellite System.

Although one should note that name is the intention; it has not always had global coverage (it does now), and may not always have global coverage in the future (say, if they decide to increase the precision in a strategic area at the cost of loss of coverage in others).

thaumasiotes• 8 years ago

I really don't see a problem with describing any and all systems that tell you your position on the globe as "global positioning systems".

tinus_hn2• 8 years ago

Japan has its own positioning satellites (QZSS) that are only visible from the region around Japan. It’s designed so positioning works if you’re in a city with skyscrapers.

everybodyknows• 8 years ago

... even precision missiles.

So if GPS were to be jammed, or disabled by a hack into the ground control systems -- PLA missiles would still work just fine. Hmm.

craftyguy2• 8 years ago

Due to COCOM limits, GPS was never an option for China to use on their missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoCom#Legacy

Edit: I'm wrong.

Retric• 8 years ago

COCOM is a non issue when building your own devices from scratch.

GPS satellites are transmit only so they can’t impose such limits directly it’s device manufacturers that implement COCOM.

ElBarto• 8 years ago

It would be unwise for Chinese missiles to use a positioning system controlled by the US military, to say the least...

maeln• 8 years ago

GPS is one of the many many component inside modern missile to determine location. An IMU ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_measurement_unit ) being usually the main component and GPS being just there for error correction.

GPS is too easy to jam, no serious military application would use GPS exclusively.

csense• 8 years ago

So China has the technology to destroy satellites [1], and is developing alternatives to US satellites.

Does this make anyone else nervous?

Maybe Trump has a point when he says we should stop letting China steal our technology.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...

weregiraffe• 8 years ago

So China has the technology to destroy satellites [

Any country that can launch a satellite has a technology to destroy one. It's called a missile. You don't even need to go to orbit - just intersect the orbit of the target and dump a bucket of nails in its path.

age008• 8 years ago

Aren't GPS satellites geostationary?

JumpCrisscross2• 8 years ago

Any country that can launch a satellite has a technology to destroy one

It's easier to put something in orbit than to knock something out of orbit.

marssaxman• 8 years ago

You don't even need much of a missile, if you happen to have an air force; back in 1985 the USAF did a test in which the pilot of an F-15 shot down a satellite, from an altitude of 38,000 feet.

sbradford262• 8 years ago

Any country/company who has launch vehicles can destroy satellites. SpaceX could just as easily destroy satellites.

wegotscrewed• 8 years ago

Don't give Musk any ideas

majia5• 8 years ago

"We are likely to see an increased bifurcation of the world into two camps - 'pro-China' and 'pro-US'", says Blaine Curcio, founder of Orbital Gateway Consulting

Why do some people view it as a with-us-or-against-us problem? Combining beidou with GPS gives a better accuracy. Some competition and collaboration in the GPS field can benefit us as a whole.

rrggrr• 8 years ago

I wouldn't want to be navigating critical transportation during a dispute between China and the United States with this track record (would you?):

http://fortune.com/2018/08/28/china-has-been-withholding-bir...

https://www.wired.com/story/australias-ban-on-huawei-is-just...

https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/chinas-social-credit-system-is...

http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/chinese-social-manipulation/

z2• 8 years ago

It's precisely the fear of having navigation turned off that led to nations launching their own GPS alternatives. More satellites is better for critical transportation if one nation (be it China or US) wants to turn disable their system for civilians.

nradov2• 8 years ago

Eventually most mobile devices will contain a single chip that supports GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Beidou, and other smaller regional GNSS's. They all rely on somewhat similar technology so it's mainly a software problem.

liftbigweights• 8 years ago

"We are likely to see an increased bifurcation of the world into two camps - 'pro-China' and 'pro-US'", says Blaine Curcio, founder of Orbital Gateway Consulting

Why just two? If our stranglehold on the world breaks, the EU and Russia are easily capable of carving out their sphere of influence.

People really underestimate how populous and wealthy and powerful the EU is.

It's strange how the narrative changes in such a short time period. Just 10 years ago, I remember people talking of "chimerica" as if the US and china were going to merge into a single world ruling entity.

fatjokes• 8 years ago

No one doubts the EU's power, but they doubt its stability and unity. With the surge of right wing nationalist governments in Europe it's a fair concern.

tdhoot2• 8 years ago

The EU is wealthy but has limited power projection. Only France and the UK can realistically be considered great powers, and even then not on the scale of the US, China, or Russia.

kejaed• 8 years ago

Note you can buy off-the-shelf GPS modules today that will work across all four GNSS:

https://www.u-blox.com/en/product/neo-m8-series

donquichotte• 8 years ago

Exactly. At the moment, the consumers benefit from the increased accuracy and coverage provided by multiple GNSS.

Sidenote: the ublox M8 chips are a pleasure to work with, and there are variants that have IMUs (gyros and accelerometers) on board for sensor fusion. All for <10$. What an exciting time we live in!

eiaoa2• 8 years ago

Sidenote: the ublox M8 chips are a pleasure to work with, and there are variants that have IMUs (gyros and accelerometers) on board for sensor fusion. All for <10$. What an exciting time we live in!

I wish someone would build a USB data logger using one of these. I still use one to geotag photos and record trips, but all the available models use old GPS-only chips and can be pretty jumpy when reception is poor. Having one that fused multiple GNSS and had an IMU to smooth out some of the random jumpiness would be ideal.

cronix• 8 years ago

Yep, we use those in (hobby) drones for extra precise location data.

walrus01• 8 years ago

One of the reasons for this, about seven years ago Russia put a 30%+ import tariff on any mobile phone that didn't work with GLONASS. Thereby motivating chipset makers like Qualcomm to integrate GLONASS receive features into their existing RF chipsets.

nabla9• 8 years ago

Multi-GNSS support increases the reliability and signal availability. Commercial chipset will usually add support for all of them and don't just choose one.

Newest phones (like iPhone 8) work with GPS, Galileo, Glonass, and QZSS. Beidou support will come in the future.

comboy2• 8 years ago

Why is 'rival' quoted?

nutjob22• 8 years ago

Because GPS do not rival each other in any practical sense, instead they complement each other. More GPS systems means more satellites means greater accuracy for users.

Let's hope even more countries get into GPS "rivalry."

comboy2• 8 years ago

Oh, I guess you're right. In my mind it was like "not really a competition" in a negative aspect but it turns out the negativity was in my mind.

tyingq• 8 years ago

I was curious what Beidou meant, apparently it refers to the "Big Dipper": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeiDou_Navigation_Satellite_Sy...

jewelry_wolf• 8 years ago

Yep, Big Dipper as part of Ursa Major translates to something used as a wine vessel about 2 to 3 thousands year ago.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%96%97

pietroglyph3• 8 years ago

No one seems to have mentioned that the US has actually blocked GPS signals before for military reasons (during the Kargil war in 1999): https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/How-Kargil-...

There's a good reason and precedent for China (and others; see GLONASS, IRNSS, Galileo) to be afraid of this.

jhayward3• 8 years ago

No, the US has never done any blocking in the GPS system. The article refers to a request by India for access to the military GPS signal and military equipment, which was not granted.

The US, as well as virtually all other technological powers, does have the capability to jam GPS signals using ground, sea, or air-based jamming platforms but those are not part of the GPS system.

qume• 8 years ago

Yup it did - I was flying aerial surveying at the time. Bad timing. Actually I didn't notice anything in the end so was all good but when I saw the NOTAM I couldn't believe my bad luck.

Edit - link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/07/us_military_testing...

pietroglyph3• 8 years ago

The United States actually does have the ability to selectively degrade signals. I don't know enough to comment on this capability in more detail (another comment seems to indicate that it is through jamming). A relevant excerpt (from 2000) is below:

Additionally, we have demonstrated the capability to selectively deny GPS signals on a regional basis when our national security is threatened.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/at...

Dylan168072• 8 years ago

The US, as well as virtually all other technological powers, does have the capability to jam GPS signals using ground, sea, or air-based jamming platforms but those are not part of the GPS system.

As well as anyone that has access to basic electronic parts. It's very easy to swamp a 30 watt transmitter that's ten thousand miles away.

China's GPS 'rival' Beidou

Related Stories