|
2)
Galileo
The European Galileo Program:
Near Death, In Trouble or Healthy and On-Track?
2.1.02Rev.J
Keith D. McDonald
Navtech Seminars and GPS Supply
A recent article in Wired
News (www.wired.com)
date-lined Berlin, January 17, entitled "Europe GPS Plan
Shelved," reporting on Galileo activities, stated that
"Exasperated European officials say U.S. pressure appears
to have torpedoed a $3 billion project to build a European
version of the U.S. Global Positioning System which uses signals
from orbiting satellites to track geographical position within
36 meters." The article further reports that a spokesman
for Madame Loyola de Palacio, the European commissioner in
charge of the Galileo project, stated "Galileo is almost
dead."
These statements are in contrast to other
reports of enthusiastic European Union (EU) support for the
Galileo project. Recently President Jacques Chirac of France was
quoted in the International Herald Tribune as
stating that if Europe fails to pursue Galileo and other space
projects, this "would lead inevitably to a vassal status
[for Europe], first scientific and technical and then industrial
and economic." Moreover, the European Prime Ministers
strongly backed the strategic role of Galileo for Europe at
their summit meeting in Laeken, Belgium before last Christmas
(14-15 Dec 2001). Reports indicate that the European Space
Agency (ESA) and the European Space Technology Center (ESTEC) as
well as their contractors are proceeding vigorously with Galileo
and expect the funding issues to be resolved positively at the
next European Union (EU) Council meeting on March 25th
of this year.
The Controversy
What is the situation with Galileo? What are the factors or
issues that have resulted in these opposing views of the
importance and future of the Galileo program? Why do we have
this controversy? How do the concerns break out in the
technical, economic and political areas?
The purpose of this article is to provide a
reasonably objective view, combined with a somewhat personal
perspective, on the recent European and US events affecting the
Galileo program. Also, an estimate of the current status and
future direction of the program will be given. Finally, I'll
make a few summary comments on where things stand, the principal
current concerns and what may be needed to resolve the confusion
and allow further progress to occur.
It might be well to look at what has happened
in the Galileo program, in the GPS program and in the European
and American political/economic pictures during the past several
months.
Galileo Funding and the PPP
For some time, the funding for Galileo has been based upon a
Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement. The European
governments participating in the Galileo project within the
fifteen member European Union (EU) agreed to fund half of the
program costs with European industry funding the other half.
There has long been some question as to the viability of this
arrangement.
The consulting firm of Price Waterhouse
Coopers (PWC) in the United Kingdom was awarded a contract
during the summer of 2001 to investigate the PPP situation. The
Executive Summary of the PWC report (see www.galileo-pgm.org)
was issued about ten days prior to the December meeting of the
European transport ministers, which at the time were prepared to
make a positive vote for the development
phase funding of the Galileo program.
At the Edinburgh, Scotland summit about a
month before, the European Space Agency (ESA) Council,
consisting of the European ministers of research, had allocated
an initial 550M Euros for Galileo (approximately 25% of the
total planned) under the condition that the European Transport
Council would later also contribute (approximately 25% ) and
make a positive decision on the Galileo development. European
industry would then contribute the other 50%. The PWC report
concluded, however, that the 50/50% split in costs between
government and industry was unrealistic and that the 15
governments’ share would be more likely in the range of 70 to
80%. The effect was to
call for a last-minute substantial increase in the European
governments’ share of the cost of Galileo, just prior to the
EC meeting in December.
Report Timing Impact
The timing of the PWC report was not good for Galileo planning.
The transport ministers attending the December meeting had
insufficient time to address the substantial additional funding
requirements. Some European government financial commitments
need to be considered by their prime ministers, appropriate
budget committees and possibly others. For this reason, the
December Transport Council meeting was not able to obtain
approval for the next stage of the Galileo project.
Although the next EU Transport Council meeting
to address Galileo funding was scheduled for 25 March, there has
been widespread concern about the lack of approval and deferral
of the Galileo funding. In perspective, the deferral was
reasonable and understandable but the impression given to the
public by this action appeared as a last minute denial of
funding to Galileo and a possible re-evaluation of the program.
Private Sector Voting Issue
It appeared that considerably decreased funding support of the
Galileo program would be expected from industry. The question
then arose as to whether or not in the Galileo Joint Undertaking
the private sector should still be a member with the right to
vote. Discussion of this regulation is planned at a meeting
called for June.
EU Summary Statement
The statement released after the Laeken summit meeting of the 15
EU prime ministers stated that: "The European Council
reaffirms the strategic importance it attaches to the Galileo
project and welcomes the decision of the European Space Agency
taken in Edinburgh to grant finance to the amount of EUR 550 m.
The European Council calls on the Council to continue its work
with a view to taking a decision on the funding of the
development phase by March 2002 and to decide on the Regulation
by June 2002, taking account of the audit report by Price
Waterhouse Cooper."
U.S. DoD Opposition to Galileo
The "U.S. pressure" in the Wired News article
refers to a letter U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz reportedly sent in December to all 15 European Union
defense ministers. The letter urged all of the ministers to
influence their governments not to proceed with Galileo. Similar
notification was reportedly sent to NATO by the U.S. NATO
Ambassador. The rationale appears to be that the U.S. Department
of Defense (DoD) plans for the modernization upgrading of GPS
will use additional signals at frequencies that the Galileo
signals may interfere with.
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz’s letter
reportedly stated "I am writing to convey my concerns about
security ramifications for future NATO operations if the
European Union proceeds with Galileo satellite navigation
services that would overlay spectrum of the GPS military M-code
signals. The addition of any Galileo services in the same
spectrum…will significantly compromise our ability to ensure
availability of critical GPS services in time of crisis or
conflict and at the same time assure that adversary forces are
denied similar capabilities."
It should be kept in mind that the baseline
Galileo signal structure, as presented at the Institute of
Navigation (ION) GPS-2000 meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah,
addressed a variable signal format [namely split spectrum
BOC(m,n) arrangements]. Formats were identified and discussed
that included options different from the overlay of the Galileo
signals on the GPS military M-codes.
European Galileo officials question the DoD
claim put forth in Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz’s letter. They
state that the Europeans have communicated to the U.S.
government that their plans call for avoiding any problems in
the operation of both the GPS and Galileo systems. Gilles
Gantelet, the spokesman for Mme. Loyola de Palacio stated,
"We consider the technical aspects to have already been
dealt with or easy to overcome. We think it’s mainly now a
political decision."
It is thought by some that the U.S. DoD
pressure provides some European governments with a reason for
avoiding participation in the expensive Galileo project. The
Turkish Ambassador to NATO, Onur Aymen, stated this view on
January 14th. However, Turkey is not a member of the
European Union (EU).
Galileo Schedule and Timeliness
The Europeans are very aware of the competitive edge that GPS
now has but they plan for the Galileo system to offer greater
capabilities than GPS currently provides. They believe the
Galileo project is economically viable and can earn much more
than it costs but only if it’s implemented by 2008. With this
schedule, Galileo will arrive on the market before the
modernized generation of GPS spacecraft and related
improvements. Since this advantage will only hold for a few
years, Galileo must move ahead on a timely schedule.
A Matter of Trust
The Europeans appear to be exasperated by the perceived attitude
of the U.S. DoD that they are not to be trusted with such a
powerful capability. They believe (as many Americans do) that it
makes sense to have more than one navigation satellite system.
Mme. Loyola de Palacio’s spokesman recently stated that
"It’s important for Europe to develop its system, and
important for all the Western countries to develop another
system that is not a competitor to GPS, but could be alongside
it."
A European Investigator’s Perspective
We have recently discussed these developments with Prof. Dr.-Ing.
Guenter Hein, of the University of the Federal Armed Forces in
Munich, a leading Galileo expert in Europe. He provides an
interesting and knowledgeable view. Prof. Hein states that all
Galileo activities at the EU, the EC and ESA are continuing. He
indicates that the timing of the PWC report forced a deferral of
a positive vote and was the principal cause of the funding
denial at the minister’s meeting in December. He said that in
Germany, for example, the new funding requirements have to be
approved by a budget committee and the cabinet, a time consuming
procedure.
Prof. Hein further stated that the perceived
attitude of the U.S. DoD and the letter from DoD Under Secretary
Wolfowitz were not new to Europeans. This attitude was made
clear at the most recent US/EC negotiations in Washington last
autumn. The two principal Galileo issues at this meeting were
related to: 1) the Public Regulated Service (PRS) – civil or
military? and 2) the consideration of the signals by the World
Trade Organization (WTO) – are they products, services or not
covered at all. The latter issue also involved the principle of
non-discrimination for both GPS and Galileo as well as free
trade for system related products.
Prof. Hein reported that it was agreed that
the frequency overlay (or interference) concern would be
investigated in detail and the results discussed at the next
US/EC negotiation round. This planned meeting was to occur in
Brussels during the week of January 21. However, it has been
postponed at the request of the U.S. This postponement, Prof.
Hein stated, is understandable in view of the results of the
December meeting and the pending action on Galileo by the
European ministers.
Security Concerns
Prof. Hein believes that Europe, or at least some in Europe,
underestimated the security requirements for a global satellite
navigation system. This needs to be addressed and he states that
the EC is trying to find the best forum for addressing that
topic. It appears that NATO is not the right forum nor is the EC
itself. He also believes it is understandable that the US would
try to take advantage of the situation to retain their monopoly
on GPS. However, this appears to discount the strategic,
technological and economic importance of Galileo to Europe.
He had an interesting comment concerning the
statements by Gilles Gantelet for Mme Loyola de Palacio relating
to the imminent death of Galileo. Prof. Hein states that if the
statement occurred at all, the intention would probably be to
put some pressure for positive action on the member countries.
He believes that this, in principle, is not a bad idea. Prof.
Hein reminds us that the Galileo decision will not be made by
the EC but by the member states.
A Serious U.S. DoD Concern on Galileo
There is another serious concern that normally is discussed in
quiet tones or behind closed doors. This is the need for the
U.S. DoD to deny access to an adversary of navigation satellite
system capabilities during times of conflict in designated
areas. This is a large part of the justification for the
structure of the planned DoD military signal codes (M-codes).
For example, the principal GPS signals used by the civil
community are at the center of the GPS band while the M-codes
are placed at the outer extremities of the band. Therefore, DoD
jamming of the band center in a geographic area effectively
denies the GPS civil signal to adversaries (and to other users)
in the area but doesn’t affect the DoD users’ access to the
military M-code signals.
Denial of Galileo Signals
If Galileo is deployed, however, the DoD must also be capable of
denying access by an adversary to the Galileo signals. This
means the DoD must be capable of jamming, or otherwise
countering, many additional signals on a worldwide basis. In
addition, some signals are very difficult to jam without
degrading (or interfering with) the GPS signals. This is a
concern the DoD refers to as "fratricide," or as many
of us would say "shooting yourself in the foot."
In particular, the GPS L1 frequency band is
directly adjacent to and between two of the Galileo ITU
authorized signal bands (E1 and E2). Although the US military
M-code signals at the extremities of the L1 band are mostly in
the GPS band, some of their signal energy intrudes into the
Galileo bands. GPS L1 transmissions occupy 30 MHz (to the first
nulls of the BOC 10,5 arrangement) although the ITU authorized
band for these signals is 24 MHz.
Jamming the two Galileo bands (E1 and E2) for
security purposes is not particularly difficult. However, a
substantial part of the DoD M-code signal energy extends well
into these Galileo bands. It is difficult to jam the Galileo
signal bands effectively without the GPS military signals being
seriously degraded or possibly even suffering a
"fratricidal" effect.
Even with the signal overlap between GPS
military signals at L1 and Galileo, it appears that the GPS and
Galileo system signals could easily co-exist and provide their
services reliably during normal operations. The problem is the
denial of Galileo access. Jamming the Galileo signals could
seriously impact or possibly deny DoD users their military
(M-code) signals unless great care (and expense) is taken by the
DoD. These technical concerns are important in that they can
have some very substantial budgetary implications to the US DoD
if they are to deny an adversary access to the Galileo signals.
Funding Impact on DoD for Galileo Denial
Informed DoD and other sources indicate that denial of Galileo
signals to an adversary when appropriate would cost from one to
three billion dollars, or more. If this estimate is valid, then
the economic consideration may be the principal factor in the US
refusal of any meaningful support for Galileo, or of outright
opposition to it. There are other issues but it appears that the
cost to the US for the denial of Galileo signals to an adversary
is the driver that may cause all other considerations to pale in
comparison.
Certain implementations of Galileo could pose
serious security concerns to military operations (US, NATO and
others) and may require large expenditures to acquire
appropriate countermeasures and the training to use them.
However, this problem is not necessarily of the magnitude
estimated by the DoD.
There may be some reasonable solutions. For
example, it may be possible for some cooperative commitments to
be arranged between Europe and the US relating to the control of
the use of Galileo by adversaries. This is currently planned by
the DoD for the GPS civil signals (the C/A-codes on L1). Some
rational discussions on this control of GPS and Galileo signals
available to adversaries appears needed, especially in view of
the present terrorist threats. This could occur through NATO or
directly between the EU and the US.
Summary Comments
In my view and in the opinion of many of those closely involved
and knowledgeable of the progress and plans of the Galileo
program, the following can be said:
1.) The Galileo program is not dead.
Paraphrasing Mark Twain: reports of its death are greatly
exaggerated.
2.) Galileo is not
near death, except to those searching for a controversy and
willing to interpret events with imagination and pessimism.
3.) Galileo is healthy but needs a funding
transfusion in March. So far, nearly everything appears to
be on-track but a few schedules may slip somewhat with the three
month funding delay.
4.) There is an urgent need for an
accomodation between the EU and the US on acceptable security
provisions for Galileo. These provisions should not
unreasonably burden the US and others in limiting the use of
Galileo signals by adversaries, such as terrorists. This
primarily relates to signal structure and cooperative
institutional arrangements between the US, Europe, NATO and
possibly others.
5.) The formation of a true Global
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) serving worldwide markets is
a goal that needs to be kept in sight. The differing
requirements and economic objectives of the international
communities involved need to be respected.
Comments on the US-EU Concerns
Many of us hope that some accommodation or agreements can be
arranged so that GPS and Galileo can co-exist. The DoD security
and cost concerns have some validity from a cold and rational
budgetary perspective. The desire of the Europeans to field
their own system also is reasonable and is difficult to disagree
with. The US and Europe have the right and responsibility to
proceed with implementing systems each believes are in their
interest. Would many take issue with this?
What if roles were reversed? It is clear what
position the US would take if Europe requested the US to avoid
transmissions of the planned military M-code signals in their
authorized L1 band because they might interfere with planned
Galileo transmissions (at E1 and E2). It appears questionable
for the US government to attempt to influence or control the
Galileo transmissions in bands authorized by the ITU. Of course,
we all recognize that it’s not this simple.
Galileo, as a second operational navigation
satellite system clearly would bring significant performance
advantages to Europe, North America and users throughout the
entire world. However, the recent acts and threats of terrorism
place a heavy burden on those making policy decisions for both
GPS and Galileo. While the technology problems can be solved, it
is the economic and political concerns that are at the core of
today’s GPS and Galileo controversy. Let’s hope that the EU
and the US can resolve the international issues by diplomacy and
negotiation.
Comments are by Keith D. McDonald
and do not reflect any official US opinion.
January 24, 2002, Alexandria, Virginia
revised February 2, 2002
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go to <http://www.galileo-pgm.org>
for news about the Galileo program and <http://www.genesis-office.org>
to subscribe to the Galileo newsletter from the EU.
back
to top |
