partnership. Thus, one could say that I anticipated some of the issues that seem to be occurring today.

Galileo’s first test satellite is flying today—GIOVE-A—and appears to be performing well. This demonstrates a commitment to the program. As a new satellite development project,

it was truly impressive—about 30 months from concept to operations. If there are technical difficulties with the more complicated GIOVE-B design, this confirms that developing such a system as Galileo is harder than it appears.

Finally, I believe position-navigation time (PNT) infrastructures should be publicly funded, at least to a fundamental level of capability. GPS is successful in supporting safety of- life, quality-of-life, and economic applications because its development and operations have been publicly funded, while applications, including some augmentations, have been privately developed. My belief is based in part on a classic example of a government-provided “free economic good” from my macro economics class—lighthouses in the days of sailing ships.


Although critical for safety and efficiency, no private shipping company would provide the basic system; it was a major cost for the provider, yet available as a free service to all competitors. Hence, it fell to government to provide the system and to reap benefits through tax revenues from a growing economy.

So, I still expect to see Galileo develop, and my greatest hope is that when it does finally arrive it will be fully interoperable with GPS.

infrastructures, huge amounts of initial capital, large budgets for sustainment, and must deliver its services with near 100% reliability and stability. Even though the technology has been known for about 30 years, and commercial markets established for nearly 20, there is still only a single fully populated and continuously operational global satellite navigation system – the US GPS system, the de facto global standard.

If the ability to reap profits from operating a satnav constellation was easy, then everybody, or at least a few somebody’s would already be doing it.

What the Europeans are trying to do with Galileo is daunting technologically, frightening financially, and maddening by the complex layers of intra-European political hurdles they face. They should be admired for their courage to attempt it, commended for the progress made thus far, and perhaps pitied for the seemingly endless stream of pitfalls and barriers that have emerged from political, financial and engineering realms.

Yet they press on. Europe’s political will to create Galileo is clear, even if the resources at times are not. I am almost sure that something called Galileo will happen. A better question as to whether there will be a Galileo, is, perhaps, “What Galileo will there be ?” Galileo is a complex concept of satnav infrastructure and services for public sector, private sector and general use, all overseen by an equally complex multinational administrative tangle.

Galileo’s first vision of a self sustaining commercial venture through a public private partnership has now given way to the more realistic concept of public funded infrastructure. So, which operational elements of Galileo will eventually emerge, and on what schedule ?

Galileo can and most likely will provide a valuable supplement and augmentation to the foundation already established by GPS. Certain elements will provide Europe with the degree of sovereignty and control it desires over satnav within its borders. If Galileo is to be accepted in the commercial world, it cannot stand as an island, but must be seen as openly compatible and interoperable with GPS, with clearly open standards and non-discriminatory access to market opportunities by non-European players.

Galileo will neither replace nor displace GPS from European or global markets, but has the potential to complement and extend what GPS has and can offer to users in public, private sector and personal applications and services. Galileo will most likely not emerge in full grown form, offering its complete originally intended plate of services.
Instead, only those parts that make sense in terms of public need and commercial market acceptance will survive.