Galileo not very magnifico!

This blog has been reporting for quite a while about the waste of money that the EU's Galileo satellite-navigation system is. It was devised as a way of competing with the Americans and has failed to do anything other than swallow EU money.

The latest news per The Telegraph is that:

'Galileo, conceived as Europe’s answer to the US Global Positioning System, has been beset by delays, cost overruns and funding disputes ever since it was dreamed up a decade ago. '

Is there anything the EU does well? Apart from feather its officials and politicians' nests, that is.

Meanwhile I note that The Register reports the "No shit Sherlock" news that:

'the CEO of a German firm building satellites for the Galileo satnav project has been fired for apparently telling US diplomats that Galileo is a waste of taxpayers money and primarily useful to the French military.

Norwegian paper Aftenposten, trawling through the endless piles of cables, reported last Thursday that Berry Smutny – CEO of German space firm OHB-System – supposedly told American diplomats in 2009 that in his view "Galileo is a stupid idea that primarily serves French interests" – particularly French military interests.'

Hard to believe isn't it? The Register article also gives a very good background on the Galileo project.

More EU aggrandisement

The BBC proudly report that:

"A German/UK consortium has been asked to supply the first operational spacecraft for Europe's Galileo satellite-navigation system.

OHB System and Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL) will build 14 satellites in a contract valued at 566m euros ($811m; £510m).

The contract was announced by the European Commission in Brussels.

Galileo is intended as an EU version of the US Global Positioning System (GPS), but with significant improvements.

Its more advanced technology should give users quicker, more reliable fixes, and enable them to locate their positions with an error of one metre compared with the current GPS error of several metres. "

So when you are driving how many times has your Sat Nav's 'innacuracy' caused you a problem and had you wishing for a more accurate version?

In May 2007 I blogged that:

"in 1999 the EU started planning a rival system. The original plan was for this system to cost £0.7bn and be privately funded and run; the latest estimate is £2.7bn and costs will no doubt rise again. This is surely not a problem as this is a privately funded project? Well it was to be privately funded, however now the EU have realised that there is no real market for a charged for untested competitor to compete with a free to the end user working system "

Hidden at the end of that BBC piece is this news nugget:

"The venture came very close to being abandoned in 2007 when the public-private development-and-business model set up to build and run the system collapsed.

To keep Galileo alive, EU member-states had to agree to fund the entire project from the public purse. What should have cost European taxpayers no more than 1.8bn euros will now probably cost them in excess of 5bn euros. "

So in 1999 the budget was £0.7bn of private money, in 2007 it reached £2.7bn of public money and now it's £5bn and the project is not finished yet.

So at a time when the EU's economies are screwed we are wasting money on a vanity project.

Galileo funding gets approved

Daniel Hannans article complaining that MEPs vote through funding without knowing what they were approving should surprise nobody. The fact that the example he and Chris Heaton-Harris used was the GNSS surprises me even less. The EU juggernaut rolls on and we are powerless to stop it. For more on the GNSS/Galileo system take a read of these articles.

The French

Will the French ever get over the fact that they are not the world's dominant power and that their language is not the international language of commerce, science or diplomacy. As well as the news that the French government are funding a rival to Google, I also learn that the French General Commission for Terminology and the Academie Francaise have declared that certain English words should not be used in France and have given the preferred French alternatives. Le pic nic was always my favourite English into French word but a new one caught my eye; Wi-Fi, which the French pronounce "wee-fee" should be replaced by "access sans fil a l'internet" - catchy isn't it. Football commentators have also been asked to stop calling it a corner and instead to use "coup de pied de coin" - it's not going to happen is it?

Re-inventing the wheel

Following from the EU wasting around £4bn of the Galileo system to rival the already in existence and free to users American GPS system, I now hear that France has received EU approval to spend $152million with several companies so as to build a European rival Quaero (Latin for "I search") to U.S. search giant Google. Meanwhile the EU Commission has also given the German government clearance to spend $165 million U.S. on the German arm of the project, called Theseus.

Two few points come to mind, first why should sovereign European Governments have to get permission from the EU to spend money on R&D? Secondly, what is the point of Countries building a rival to Google, if the private sector think it economic to do so they will, but this is not the role governments should be filling.

Galileo project update

I have blogged several times before about the waste of money that is the EU's Galileo system. Today, I see on the BBC that "Giove-B, the second demonstrator spacecraft for Europe's proposed satellite navigation system, is finally to be sent for launch... Giove-B, the second demonstrator spacecraft for Europe's proposed satellite navigation system, is finally to be sent for launch."


There then follows a puff piece for Galileo including these two statements:

"The European Commission and the European Space Agency, which together are driving the Galileo venture, hope such technologies can bring a leap forward in performance over the existing American GPS (Global Positioning System).

They believe improvements in accuracy and reliability can spark a multi-billion-euro industry in which receivers find their way into many more markets - from mobile phones to safety-critical applications such as guided trains and buses. "




The financing does get an uncritical mention:

"The sat-nav venture came close to being cancelled last year when the private consortium selected to build and operate the system collapsed.

European Union finance ministers had to step in with a 3.4bn-euro public funding package to keep Galileo alive.

Galileo cannot truly proceed until the money is released, and that requires the formal agreement of the EU's legislative arms."


The report continues:

"A raft of technical issues have to be addressed if Galileo is to become a fully functioning civil sat-nav service that, unlike military systems, gives guarantees to users over performance.

Issues such as liability have to be sorted out; who would pay out, and how much, for example, if a Galileo failure was found to be the cause of an aeroplane crashing? "




Of course nowhere does anyone ask why bother when the American GPS system works and costs us nothing. Is there any good reason, other than EU prestige to go ahead with this project?

Galileo update

I have blogged before about the sheer waste of money that is resulting from the EU's decision to persevere with the Galileo project. Today I see that England Expects 2 has a fine analysis of the story, do take a read.

Galileo

I have blogged before about the EU's waste of money on the Galileo system to replace the US's free GPS system, you can read my previous posts here, here and here. Now I read that the Labour apparatchik Lord Bassam of Brighton mislead the House of Lords in a debate last week when he denied that part of the EU agricultural budget had been used to fund the increase in the Galileo budget.

This Labour government routinely lie to Parliament and the public and there are no consequences; why is nobody able to hole them to account?

EU getting even more lost

I have blogged before about the disastrous Galileo project; the EU's rival to the already working and free American GPS system. The plan is now five years behind and 50% over budget. The Daily Telegraph has some news on this project. The EU will not pull out of this project, if they cannot get any private investment then more taxpayers money will be thrown at the project; it is a vanity project and the EU Commission will not lose face.

"This is not one pig flying in orbit, this is a herd of pigs with gold trotters, platinum tails and diamond eyes and we ought to be asking ourselves, where is our common sense. Are we really saying that we are so frightened of the Americans that we must fling gold bars at something that we don't even know is going to work?"
That was Gwyneth Dunwoody, chair of the House of Commons Transport Committee, speaking on the Today programme this morning.

The Committee report includes this "We fear that Galileo's status as a flagship grand project is clouding the judgement of some in relation to its true, realistic and proven merits. An atmosphere that does not allow the continued rationale for the full Galileo programme to be questioned appears to have enveloped Brussels. But no amount of perceived prestige and status derived from competing in a civilian space race and no amount of vague but euphoric anticipation of enormous economic and employment benefits can make up for rigorous and balanced analysis of costs and benefit. None of the three key EU institutions has seen fit to cool the overheated atmosphere by ensuring that proper comprehensive analyses and cost-benefit evaluations are undertaken before any further decisions are made."

and this "The history of the Galileo programme provides a textbook example of how not to run large-scale infrastructure projects. Many of the problems encountered by the project are not peculiar to the EU and can be observed across a wide range of projects carried out by Member States. However, the processes and institutions of the European Union are in danger of falling into disrepute if Galileo is allowed to continue in its present form."

Do bear in mind that if the EU Treaty is adopted by all countries then space policy becomes a EU competence and so the Commission will go ahead with the project following a qualified majority vote. Sounds fair? Well please understand that whilst there will be qualified majority voting on the policy there won't be qualified majority funding; UK taxpayers will pay for 17% of the total costs, whilst 2/3 of the voting members will make no contribution at all to a project so why not vote for it, what's the downside for them.

Get lost (reprise)

One of my first posts back in May concerned the European Gallileo project. It now appears that "The British Government, along with every other EU state, signed up to the principle of Galileo in 2000 on the basis that it would be co-funded with industry in a public-private partnership. The original plan was for taxpayers to finance for the first four satellites, and industry to pay for two thirds of the costs of the next 26.

The project was allocated €1 billion (about £700 million) in the current EU budget. But the complete withdrawal of funding from commercial companies has left Galileo in urgent need of a further €2.4 billion to stay on schedule for completion by 2012. With just one satellite in orbit, four more need to be launched as soon as possible to get the system back on track.

Britain has found itself powerless to stop the spiralling costs – initially €915 million – because all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects – including France, Germany, Italy and Spain – have consistently voted in favour."

So now the French have decided to bail out the project with a €2.1 billion raid on the EU farming budget. This would of course break many EU budgetary rules and set an alarming precedent. However, with European prestige and Gallic pride at stake the French government has won the backing of the European Commission to use public money.

How is this possible you may ask? The answer is that all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, have consistently voted in favour.

Get lost

Very popular these satellite navigation devices for cars. They help get you to your destination quicker, although some do lead people astray, although you have to wonder at the level of intelligence of someone who follows their sat nav's directions to the extent of opening a shut level crossing gate. I digress...

These devices work thanks to the network of (currently 30) Global Positioning System satellites that was originally developed by the US Department of Defence and are currently maintained by the USAAF at a cost of $750M per year. The service is provided to the general public at no charge. Seems a nice idea, the public get something for nothing (well apart from the cost to the US taxpayer) and we can avoid map reading related arguments when driving in Cornwall or even London. It is no longer (since 2000) true that the signal has a random error added to make the civilian system less accurate than the military system.

So what should we in Europe do? Say thank you to the US (or even just ignore them) and get on with life? Don't be daft, we are ruled by the European Union and they can't bear to leave things be, especially American run things. So in 1999 the EU started planning a rival system. The original plan was for this system to cost £0.7bn and be privately funded and run; the latest estimate is £2.7bn and costs will no doubt rise again. This is surely not a problem as this is a privately funded project? Well it was to be privately funded, however now the EU have realised that there is no real market for a charged for untested competitor to compete with a free to the end user working system. Here is the BBC's latest update to this story.

Another marvelous waste of tax payers money.