Tick-tock - the clock is running on Galileo
Most people have had a pop at Europe's proposed sat-nav system, Galileo, down the years. Let's face it, it's been an easy target.
"How not to implement a large-scale infrastructure project" is the criticism you often hear. "The Common Agricultural Policy in the sky" also became a popular jibe for a while.
Galileo will be at least five years late on its original timescale and hugely over budget.
It should have been fully operational by now and have cost the European taxpayer no more than 1.8bn euros.
As it is, only a partial Galileo system will be up and running by the end of 2013 (the current target date) and the projected total cost to the taxpayer is looking north of 5.5bn euros [PDF].
But things are at least now moving. The ground segment is coming along - see the picture on this page of the shiny control centre in Oberpfaffenhofen in Germany.
And you'll have seen this past week my report on the In-Orbit Validation (IOV) models, the four satellites that will prove the system.
The payloads are nearing completion in Portsmouth, UK, and will soon be despatched to Rome, Italy, for integration with the rest of their spacecraft elements.
The first IOV pair is booked for launch on a Soyuz rocket in November 2010; the second pair in early 2011.
Friday was the deadline day for the satellite consortia to submit their Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) - the final prices at which they are prepared to build the remaining spacecraft needed to operate Galileo.
The satellite segment is just one of six so called "work packages" (WP) that divide up the job of implementing Galileo.
We're expecting very soon - before the year's end - contract announcements on three of these packages:
On System Support, to bring all the elements of the project together; on the Space Segment, to build the satellites themselves; and on Launch Services, to provide the rockets that will loft the spacecraft.
In 2007 when the whole programme was re-shaped, Galileo was given the target of being "fully operational" by 2013; and by that, one would normally mean 27 satellites in orbit. That's not going to happen.
The spacecraft cannot be made fast enough (a Galileo satellite will take two-and-a-half to three years to build) and the launchers are unlikely to be available even if they could.
The primary rocket for the job, a Soyuz, will launch only two Galileo satellites at once; an Ariane 5 will probably be used to loft a few batches of four.
Sixteen satellites plus the four IOVs is the figure now being talked about. Whilst not a full constellation, it is a number that would make a significant difference to anyone using GPS-and-Galileo-enabled receiving equipment.
Nonetheless, Europe had better keep up the momentum if it wants a slice of what could be an exciting future.
GPS has been an immense wealth creator. Anyone who has any doubt about that should go and have a look at the Forbes Top 400 wealthiest people in the USA. Check out the billionaires Gary Burrell and Min Kao.
If you're not sure who these men are, join the first three letters of their names - "Gar" and "Min" - and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
The next generation of sat-nav has the potential for even bigger returns, for the simple reason that location functionality is now becoming ubiquitous in mobile phones.
The improved availability and accuracy of fixes, allied to databases that can be rapidly passed over the cellular networks, means that sat-nav will increasingly be used to do many more interesting things than just finding your way down a motorway.
There is money to be made in the coming years. There are plenty of sharp entrepreneurs out there who realise this and are preparing for it now.
If Europe doesn't grab the chance to exploit the opportunities that are coming, others most certainly will.
Watch this space.
I’m 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I still cannot understand the need for a european space-based positioning system. Galileo still has the vulnerabilities of GPS and the US still reserve the right to jam Galileo if it compromises 'national security' (one of the forgotten items that was needed to commence the project). In Europe there is a perfectly good land-based positioning system called Loran-C which has been updated with EUROFIX and other enhancements, to provide as good an accuracy as GPS, in fact the UK has just installed a new station, the US has upgraded all its stations to eLoran and this is also happening in Saudi Arabia. Why invest billions in a system which is fallible (ref The Volpe Report 2001)and does not have any significant advantage over the present GPS.
Surely it makes sense in investing in LORAN, not only as a prime positioning system but as a back-up to GPS. I am a hydrographer here in Saudi Arabia and I use eLoran as a back-up to my prime positioning system(RTK).
I feel that the EU is under a lot of commercial pressure and that logic or common sense does not exist.
Complain about this comment
ESA sounds more like NASA every year. Engineers need to drive their Bugatti Veyrons you know.
Complain about this comment
There must be something wrong with those complaining about ESA, Galileo, CERN and so on. I often get the feeling that those who are making comments against European development and independence from USA - they have a secret agenda. Visionless perhaps?
http://www.clickromania.co.uk/content/view/998/15/
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS