Galileo ICD Promised 'in a Couple of Weeks'

March 11, 2010

“This is an event where one gets one’s goals for the next year. I have been given mine: Galileo must succeed. A previous speaker asked, ‘Is it a never-ending story?’ I hope for my part that it is a never-ending story. If it is an ending story, I think we’ve had a problem on the way.”

Paul Verhoef, program director, EU satellite navigation programmes, of the European Commission began with this remark at the opening plenary of the Munich Satellite Navigation Summit on March 9, and followed with these further comments.

“You see that we have collective ownership of Galileo, which is fantastic. Let me add to that a few things from my side.

"First of all, you know the world today is not what it was a year ago. It means obviously the financial crisis has had an impact on our economies, on public finance, and therefore I would not be surprised it may leave its mark on satellite navigation. The reason is simple: the systems that are either operating or being deployed are being publicly financed. Galileo is the only system that is financed from a purely civilian budget. All the systems need more than ever to demonstrate their public utility.

"My second remark: I put it to you that this is an opportunity. As we’ve already heard, there is much to be gained in this market. After the PC, mobile communications, and Internet, satellite navigation is the next breakthrough technology. There are enormous revenues foreseen and already present in this market. There are many jobs possible for those who want to get it, and we think from the European side we have an enormous chance of capitalizing on this among other things by investing in this technology. Therefore, Galileo- and EGNOS-based innovation is certainly politically of interest.

"Third remark: Obviously, it is not a path of roses. There will no doubt be many more critical questions during these days. However, from our side, we have set our goals. I think they are modest, but they are firm. We want to be the second system of choice. At least in the first instance, we will see where we will go after that. Obviously, this is going to cost a bit of time. I shall invite you, if you get impatient, if the public gets impatient, to look at the history of the other systems. Developing and deploying these other systems is costing time.

"Next remark: We think that Galileo will meet its deadlines. I think one of the important messages this year, and you have seen it, we are putting things in place. There are contracts in place, there are satellites on order, there are launches on order, there are installations being built — Oberpfaffenhoffen, Fucino, there are others around the world — EGNOS is operational, we’re going to declare the safety-of-life of EGNOS later this year. So we are really moving forward at good speed at the moment.

"We need to win the hearts of the users, the application providers, and the service providers. At the downstream market is the real challenge for these systems. We need to help do that. We are addressing this among other things by providing a more and more reliable schedule for availability of Galileo and EGNOS services.

"We are about to publish in the next couple of weeks the so-called signal-in-space Open Service interface control document, which I know a number of you have waited for a long time.

"We need also to move forward at a political level. In this case, no GNSS system can be credible if it is not backed by a long-term political commitment particularly by its owner. So after the decision of the Parliament and the Council to deploy the system, these two institutions are now clearly called upon to provide us such political long-term commitment that is credible in the eyes of the users.”

In reply to a question from science commentator and plenary moderatrix Christine Treuthorn, Verhoef elaborated, “In these economic times, it still remains to be seen how exactly we are going to finance that. What is somewhat difficult would be a situation if every five or seven years, at the ending of every financial period, we would have a rather, let me say, fundamentalist discussion as to whether we are going to move forward the next five or seven years. That would not be helpful. I don’t think that would provide a lot of trust among the user communities and the industry that has to invest in the downstream applications.”