Galileo, GLONASS, and GPS

By Javad Ashjaee, President & CEO, Javad Navigation Systems

The launch of the Galileo test satellite marks another very significant and exciting day in the history of navigation. Just as competition between GPS manufacturers rapidly enhanced technology and performance, the competition between the constellation providers should do the same.

In 1984 a high-end GPS receiver weighed more than 100 pounds, performed poorly, was very difficult to operate, and came with a price tag of about $200,000. Thanks to competition, a high-end GPS receiver now weighs less than one pound, performs significantly better and with greater ease, and costs less than $5,000.

The benefits of the competition Galileo will bring are already apparent. I believe that the Galileo project had a significant role in removing Selective Availability (SA) from the GPS signal, or at least expedited it. In fact, the removal of SA was announced at the first conference discussing Galileo. The Galileo project also proved to be a positive influence on the GPS modernization project and encouraged faster development of GLONASS satellites.

Undoubtedly, competing with GPS was the main reason and force behind the creation of GLONASS. GLONASS, in turn, helped the removal of SA from GPS and encouraged the Galileo project. With Galileo, history may very well repeat itself.

Galileo Advantages. Galileo has several advantages over its historical counterparts. Galileo benefits from more than 30 years of experience with GPS and 20 years with GLONASS. It should be, and most probably will be, more advanced than GPS and GLONASS from the get go. Galileo also has the luxury of international support in general and that of U.S. GPS officials in particular. In contrast, GLONASS was a project of the Cold War and was, at best, ignored by the West. I witnessed current U.S. support for GLONASS, however, a few months ago when coordinating the meeting between U.S. Department of Defense and Russian officials to discuss common GPS and GLONASS signals. With a solid support system and history on its side, Galileo has a promising future.

That is not to say that Galileo goes unchallenged. GPS and GLONASS started mostly as military projects. The two recent wars clearly demonstrated the significance of such navigation systems as an essential military component, forcing military powerhouses to compete further and faster. Galileo’ motivation, however, is partly military, partly commercial, and partly pride. Satisfying the commercial motivation is a factor that, in my opinion, could hinder the timely progress and success of Galileo. The one-country support of GPS and GLONASS seems to have expedited the decision-making process. Galileo has scattered decision-making centers but seems to be resolving this disadvantage quickly.

Galileo Opportunities. From the technical side, I do not see any fundamental problem for the interoperability of GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo. GPS and GLONASS signal structure differences are much more drastic than those of GPS and Galileo. Yet we were able to circumvent GPS-GLONASS technical issues relatively easily. The amazing opportunity is the fact that, with Galileo on the horizon, all existing receivers will be obsolete in a few years, and the challenge of competing to make the best user equipment is enormous. I am excited to begin this new round of competition as soon as technical issues and specifications are finalized.

The competitive, historical, and technical aspects of Galileo help create the face of the future of navigation. GPS is already an established system. It will continue to improve and serve as the backbone of navigation systems for many years to come. GLONASS, too, is halfway there. Russia has strong motivation to complete and support it, and with the price of oil at the current level, it will prove to be a strong competitor sooner than we may think. The recent launch of three GLONASS satellites is a good signal. Galileo is starting solidly. Will China create a fourth navigation system? It has the need to support its military operation and markets and has the financial might to pay for it. I cannot imagine a fifth system, at least not in this century. Multiple navigation systems operating independently help increase public awareness and confidence and open and expand markets quickly.

A key factor in the success of GPS was the cooperation between GPS authorities and manufacturers. Technical details were readily available to all GPS manufacturers worldwide. In 1983, during development of the first generation of GPS receivers at Trimble, I had daily phone conversations with then Captain Karl Kovach at the GPS Control Segment to ask questions and give him feedback on GPS satellite performances that I was observing. Availability of cost-effective high-quality receivers brings the fruits of the system to the world.

A gentleman from a GLONASS-related institute recently described the status of GLONASS as “ constellation of 14 satellites and many thousands of Javad receivers.” Generously giving me credit for my past activities, he also pointed to the importance of open, unbiased cooperation within industry. I hope Galileo’ commercial structure and objectives allow all of us to compete to develop user equipments of the highest quality and lowest cost.

For the recent launches of Galileo and three GLONASS satellites, congratulations to all of us civilian users!