Gps Versus Galileo PDF Download

In 1633 the Roman Catholic Church declared Galileo Galilei a heretic because his beliefs conflicted with the status quo.1 Almost four centuries later, Europeans have christened their proposed global navigation satellite system (GNSS) with the independent thinker's name, a not so subtle challenge to the status quo dominated by America's global positioning system (GPS). Considering that GPS has become a global public good, an international utility paid for by the United States and free for use by anyone, and that most of Western Europe has been a staunch American ally since World War II, Europe's pursuit of the Galileo GNSS approaches heresy from an American perspective. Europe has broken ranks and is acquiring an independent space capability in a way that seems sure to conflict with American national interests. In the post-Cold War environment, Europe has increasingly shown a desire to act independently of the United States to enhance its prestige and sovereignty. Despite long-standing cooperation agreements such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Europe has pursued its own security initiatives, including the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) and the Rapid Reaction Force.2 In this context, Galileo not only could strengthen European military independence, but also could bolster the European space program-adding credibility and prestige to Europe's effort to grow as a world power. Additionally, Galileo could challenge the US monopoly in the GNSS market and compete for its lucrative applications (air traffic control, shipping, etc.). This effort is not unprecedented- similar attempts to introduce pan-European competition in the past include the development of Airbus aircraft and Ariane launch boosters. Those efforts were seen as crucial to maintaining Europe's place in military matters and the most lucrative world markets. Competition with GPS is a challenge at least on par with these previous ventures and could prove even more rewarding. Over the past quarter century, GPS has established itself as the world's standard for position, velocity, and timing information, providing a free, continuous, and all-weather navigation service to the entire planet. With innumerable applications such as guiding precision munitions, synchronizing the Internet, or locating a seafood restaurant in an unfamiliar city, GPS has become embedded in global society. Moreover, the United States openly shares technical details of the system's signal structure. Public documents specify the format of various data streams emanating from the satellites-data streams a receiver must recognize and decode to operate navigation and synchronization applications properly.3 In this way, the United States provides key information enabling all interested parties to prosper by developing and marketing their own versions of GPS receivers. Finally, GPS is backed by the US government and operated by the US Air Force; clearly, the system's host is an extremely stable and competent authority. Consequently, a puzzle arises: why is Europe pursuing the development of Galileo when a global space-based radio navigation system already exists that is free to all? Despite the high costs of developing and deploying its own redundant system, Europe is pressing ahead. From this action, follow-on questions emerge. Does GPS have deficiencies that Galileo will fix or improve? Are there motives that have not yet been made public? What are the implications of the proposed Galileo system for the United States? How should the United States respond? To address these questions, I examined technical design documents, publications, and discourse from the European Union (EU) and the European Space Agency (ESA); various periodicals; and newspapers. I conducted my research in the midst of ongoing negotiations between the United States and the EU as they attempted to forge a cooperative agreement ensuring compatibility and interoperability between Galileo and GPS.