China's Space Program, News & Views

Originally Posted by Equation

I wonder if the Beidou is the only one that can do that?

As far as I know yes, Beidou is the only GPS system that offer free SMS service, and in reality text message's bandwidths is really really tiny, it is almost nothing compare to voice call, so this is not a drain on resource at all.

The only reason they are charging you is pure profit for the phone company.

Cell-Phone Bills: Is Text-Messaging Too Expensive? - TIME

What's most amazing about the texting craze is just how inexpensive it is for mobile carriers to provide this wildly popular service. SMS messages are not only extremely short (maxing out at 160 characters), but they also cleverly exploit today's digital phone networks, leveraging transmission channels between phone and cell tower that were originally designed to coordinate voice calls. "They cost the mobile carriers so little that you could argue that they're free," says Collins.

You don't have to be a Wall Street analyst to do the quick math: with a carrier cost of one-third of a penny, when a customer pays 15 cents to send a message, 98% of that 15 cents is pure profit. (Of course, you already knew that in your gut; that's why your stomach turns every time you examine your cell-phone bill.)

Originally Posted by lostsoul

The race is on between the Euro Galileo and Beidou 2 to send their sats up over Europe because both share very similar frequencies. As it currently stands which ever country is first to send a signal from a satellite then that frequency "belongs" to said country.

I was under the impression that Beidao already are broadcasting on this frequency for a few years already, and the Europeans are actually kinda upset about it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/te...alileo&st=cse&

Originally Posted by lostsoul

The race is on between the Euro Galileo and Beidou 2 to send their sats up over Europe because both share very similar frequencies. As it currently stands which ever country is first to send a signal from a satellite then that frequency "belongs" to said country.

I could be wrong but i think they have both been allowed to use the same frequency to date anyway.If the frquency solely belonged to the country who used it first, why has'nt China told the E.U. to "take a hike" on the mattera long time ago.

heres an update on the dispute

EU China Schedule December Meeting on Navigation Dispute | SpaceNews.com

EU, China Schedule December Meeting on Navigation Dispute

PARIS — The European Union (EU) and China have agreed to meet in December here to try and end their dispute on overlapping radio frequencies both plan to use for their future encrypted government/military satellite navigation services, according to a joint statement from both parties.

The Joint Statement on Space Technology Cooperation, which was signed as an annex to a broader EU-China summit held Sept. 20 in Brussels, says the two sides are continuing collaboration on satellite navigation despite the signal conflict, which has been a subject of debate for at least two years.

Specifically, the 27-nation EU and China have agreed to continue the China-Europe GNSS [Global Navigation Satellite System] Technology Training and Cooperation Center.

The December meeting on frequencies will be conducted under what the statement calls “the ITU Framework,” ITU being the International Telecommunication Union of Geneva, a United Nations affiliate that regulates satellite orbital slots and frequencies.

An ITU official said the 193-nation organization’s mandate does not extend to resolving issues such as that between Europe’s Galileo constellation, now in development, and China’s Beidou system. The official said that while the organization is happy to provide a forum for discussions, it can do little given that Galileo and Beidou do not interfere with each other’s operations.

Instead, the frequency issue is a problem in Europe because China’s Beidou system is designed to use for its government/military service a portion of radio spectrum that overlaps the Galileo frequencies the EU wants for its Public Regulated Service, also encrypted and reserved for government and military use. In the event either the EU or China wanted to disable the other’s secure signals in a time of conflict, it would be at risk of knocking out its own service because of the shared frequencies.

The joint EU-China statement called for strengthened collaboration on Earth observation projects and on the two sides’ space exploration goals, with a jointly organized conference on space exploration scheduled for the end of 2013.

My take from that article is that nothing is resolved. Just diplomatic words.

The European Union (EU) and China have agreed to meet in December here to try and end their dispute on overlapping radio frequencies both plan to use for their future encrypted government/military satellite navigation services, according to a joint statement from both parties

From the following quote:

In the event either the EU or China wanted to disable the other’s secure signals in a time of conflict, it would be at risk of knocking out its own service because of the shared frequencies.

This would put China at a big disadvantage since NATO would still have the Military GPS signals therefore it could afford to "knock out" the Beidou signals in time of conflict.

China needs to step up its deployment of Beidou sats as Galileo is starting its full launch program this year.

Originally Posted by lostsoul

My take from that article is that nothing is resolved. Just diplomatic words.



From the following quote:



This would put China at a big disadvantage since NATO would still have the Military GPS signals therefore it could afford to "knock out" the Beidou signals in time of conflict.

China needs to step up its deployment of Beidou sats as Galileo is starting its full launch program this year.

As of this time Beidou is half-way done, meanwhile Galileo only has two to three in orbit.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Exactly. I was 15 years old. Watched the event on TV.. Amazing...

My pops was in the garage with his Ham radio going and a portable TV seeing how much of a delay there was between the broadcast on the TV and the Ham radio. The Ham radio broadcast was about 8-10 seconds ahead of the TV.. as I recall.

If the whole event was a hoax it would take a cover up of unbelievable measure. All of NASA and their families.A portion of the US Military. Certain privileged media members. many members of congress, the President and Vice president and much of their staff.

If it was a hoax the Soviets would have exposed because they monitored all NASA space flights as the US did the same with the Soviets. Certainly the Soviets would have spilled the beans.

In 1957 only the British were immediately able to to follow Sputnik 1. Organisatons all over the world followed, many of them non-military, as well as many thousands of amateurs. Try bribing all of them not to spill the beans about half a dozen fake NASA moon expeditions!!!

A pair of SJ9 launched to test electric propulsion, among other goodies.



China Launches Two Civilian Technology Satellites

China successfully launched the Practice-9 A and Practice-9 B satellites into space at 11:25 a.m. Sunday, the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center said.

The satellites, launched from the center in north China's Shanxi Province, were boosted by a Long March-2C carrier rocket and sent into a predetermined orbit.

The Practice-9 A and B are the first in a series of civilian satellites designed for technological experimentation. ................................

Originally Posted by Schumacher

A pair of SJ9 launched to test electric propulsion, among other goodies.



China Launches Two Civilian Technology Satellites

China successfully launched the Practice-9 A and Practice-9 B satellites into space at 11:25 a.m. Sunday, the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center said.

The satellites, launched from the center in north China's Shanxi Province, were boosted by a Long March-2C carrier rocket and sent into a predetermined orbit.

The Practice-9 A and B are the first in a series of civilian satellites designed for technological experimentation. ................................

I wonder if Practice-9 A and Practice-9 B can be used at test dummy satellites for China's upgraded anti-satellite ballistic missiles after their initial test are done.

Originally Posted by lostsoul

This would put China at a big disadvantage since NATO would still have the Military GPS signals therefore it could afford to "knock out" the Beidou signals in time of conflict.

China needs to step up its deployment of Beidou sats as Galileo is starting its full launch program this year.

Not so. One reason why there is a dispute on a frequency ownership is because the particular frequency is right beside the frequency used by GPS. This means when Beidou/Galileo is jammed, GPS would be affected as well.

Originally Posted by Engineer

Not so. One reason why there is a dispute on a frequency ownership is because the particular frequency is right beside the frequency used by GPS. This means when Beidou/Galileo is jammed, GPS would be affected as well.

Have you got a link?

Originally Posted by lostsoul

This would put China at a big disadvantage since NATO would still have the Military GPS signals therefore it could afford to "knock out" the Beidou signals in time of conflict.

China needs to step up its deployment of Beidou sats as Galileo is starting its full launch program this year.

@lostsoul, I think your assessment is totally off. Indeed, although China legally "wins" any dispute due to frequency interference because it has already been faster to deploy the first satellite, it is a fact that the Europeans had announced their choice and begun work on it before China acted on it. Therefore, this is a deliberate choice on the part of the Chinese, and I would be truly surprised to find that they had not understood the consequences beforehand.

In my own view, the choice was brilliant, and was executed in a brilliant way. The first thing to note is that there IS NO INTERFERENCE issue at all: both systems can work simultaneously without causing problems to each other. What has been hindered is the ability of one side to jam the others' military system, i.e., to perform an act of war against the other. Obviously this is beyond the jurisdiction of the ITU or any international body, for that matter. So I agree completely with your first statement (not quoted) to the effect that the recent "agreement" is just talk. In fact, both sides simply agreed to some sort of mutual face-saving ritual dance so that they can bury the matter, at a time when Sino-European relations have improved and are on an upward trend.

The SINO-EU cooperation on this matter took place in the 2003-4 period when relations between the Europeans and the US were rocky due, among other things, to the war in Iraq. The differences between the Americans and the Europeans (primarily France and Germany) were negotiated and more or less fixed in early 2005, and of course, China was the loser. It was then that China made its choice on frequencies for the Beidu system. Naturally, this was interpreted everywhere as China "holding grudges", playing tit-for-tat, "stealing" intellectual property, etc.

However, it is pure strategy. For the Chinese, there were, presumably, two choices. The first would have been to use an independent frequency, which would have left the four players (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and Beidu) more or less on equal terms. But that's too simple, and they opted for something more interesting: overlapping with one of the existing players. Now, choosing either GLONASS or GPS would be rather provocative as both Russia and the US have long "borders" with China, as well as areas of strategic friction, and both naturally want to keep their options open. It is different with Europe, in spite of all the noise the Europeans made over this matter. Europe may have commercial conflicts with China, or disagreements over ideological matters, but no actual strategic conflict with the country. Nor does China have any strong reason to resist European strategic interests anywhere in the world, to the extent that Europe-wide interests even exist.

China's eventual choice, in effect, amounts to an undeclared and unilateral non-aggression pact with the Europeans. Although it is limited to munitions guided by this type of system, China is promising not to attack Europe. It is a promise which I believe costs China nothing, but which gives it certain advantages vis-a-vis the US. As it stands, the US can jam the Chinese system, but not without simultaneously screwing the Europeans. China, of course, would retaliate by jamming the American system, nullifying any American advantage. This would leave GLONASS alone... a very uncomfortable situation for the US. In a sort of 3-way game of chicken, I think the US would then move to erase this Russian advantage, and this leaves the US acting against all three rival systems, while China only acts against one.

While China's choice looks like an infringement on European "rights", in fact it is a gift to them, and it is a perfect answer to the double American demand, back in 2004-5, that the Europeans should 1) exclude China, and 2) NOT utilize frequencies overlapping with the American system. It was the Americans that set up this framework; China simply took advantage of it.

Originally Posted by lostsoul

Have you got a link?

I know this because I have some background in radio communication. However, I found you a quote from Wikipedia:

The frequency initially chosen for Galileo would have made it impossible for the US to block the Galileo signals without also interfering with their own GPS signals.

Originally Posted by Schumacher

A pair of SJ9 launched to test electric propulsion, among other goodies...

launch vids

SJ-9A



SJ-9B