Galileo Satellite Constellation (Source: ESA)

 

The conference was also set up to explain companies how to apply for Galileo contracts. It is here that the full complexity of the Galileo project becomes visible. Bureaucratic procedures to select and assign contracts are likely to further slow down the project. Galileo is gratefully accepted as a powerful instrument in the hands of politicians either supporting or rejecting it. Questions also remain about the competence and experience of the European Commission and the European Space Agency ESA to efficiently run a project of this complexity which has never been done before. The very creators of the Galileo project may well turn out to be its biggest problem. This is what Europe’s tax payers should really be concerned about.

The original plan had been to transfer the funding of and the responsibility over Galileo to a private industry consortium Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) which would build and run the system. However, the consortium finally refused to take full responsibility and assume all risks without certain financial guarantees from the EU. However, the underlying reason for the failure of PPP was the lack of a clear business plan to generate direct revenues from Galileo as the alternative GPS system is available for free. There is undoubtedly huge indirect value through job and value creation but no direct revenues for the consortium. It is whispered this outcome was expected all along by the EU, it simply allowed to continue the project and eventually justify the involvement and ownership of the European Commission.

 

The failure of the PPP initiative meant Galileo had to be fully funded with European Union budgets. Ever since, Galileo has been the constant subject of political disagreements about its financing. From which budgets (e.g. agriculture) and how quickly money should be made available to Galileo has never been off the agenda. However, clear decisions will have to be made by the end of the year to avoid any further delays. 3.4 billion Euro is needed for the roll out of the full Galileo Satellite configuration. A small amount compared to the overall EU budget and taking into consideration a private company as Nokia will spend $8.1 billion on the acquisition of digital map provider NAVTEQ.

 

During these discussions it has often been argued Galileo may not be really necessary. The most recent upheaval was caused by British MPs questioning the budgets for Galileo and even pleading to stop the project. The official EU point of view is that Galileo is needed to guarantee independent satellite-based positioning in Europe under all circumstances. However, the chances GPS would be turned off even during war times are very slim as GPS positioning has become a key but often invisible component of modern day technology. For example telecommunications networks increasingly rely on GPS as a timing reference. 

 

The real political motivations behind Galileo have much more to do with job creation and support for national aerospace industries. Hence the discussions between politicians aiming at maximize the benefits for their national electorate. There are no doubts about the technical and functional benefits of Galileo. It will increase both the availability of satellite signals and the precision of the positioning for Europeans and Americans alike. Indeed, Galileo and GPS will be interoperable!