Brexit is officially an astronomical pain in the neck. Because Britain is departing the EU, its access to the continental club's satellite network is changing – and while those pre-existing rules shouldn't have been news to our government, the ensuing disagreement has the UK threatening to launch its very own navigation satellite system.
But ignore the headlines saying the EU is blocking Britain from accessing the space infrastructure it helped build (it's not – not yet at least), and the stories screaming that we've already started building our own £3 billion satellite network (we haven't – we've only just got a task force). The real story isn't the loss of secure signal, but us throwing away our sensible space policy.
Galileo is the EU's two-decades-long satellite navigation project, built to rival the American GPS. But don't panic that your Google Maps may get less accurate, as its not the main civilian Galileo service that's at the centre of the dispute. That will still be available to anyone, Britain included.
The problem lies with the Public Regulated Service (PRS), a more accurate, encrypted and secured version for use by government and military, for everything from search-and-rescue to targeting missiles. "That signal is encrypted, highly precise, and very jam resistant... it's only for approved users such as government agencies, military forces and other security sensitive users and tasks," says Bleddyn Bowen, lecturer in space policy at the University of Leicester. "That's what the UK risks being shut out of."
That's because access to PRS is currently only via EU membership, not so-called "third countries", which Britain will become after Brexit. Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator, has confirmed what anyone who has read the fine print has long known: “Third countries and their companies cannot participate in the development of security-sensitive matter. These rules will not prevent the UK as a third country from using the encrypted signal of Galileo providing that the relevant agreements between the EU and the UK are in place.”
That means British companies won't be able to bid for contracts to finish building and maintaining PRS, and the British government won't automatically be allowed to access the secure signal — it must first agree a deal with the EU, which frankly sounds easier than building a new network from scratch.
Yet that's what Britain is threatening to do, with business secretary Greg Clark launching a task force to investigate the idea. An independent satellite network is certainly possible. The British space sector, although not as prolific as US, is highly active and includes specialised manufacturing. For instance, the CEO of Airbus has signalled the company is more than willing to take billions of pounds of public money to replicate Galileo, but that doesn't mean it's the right road.
"The EU is showing that there is a downside to leaving their club," Alan Smith a physics professor at UCL says, before adding that the space community has been expecting the difficulties. "It seems strange to me for the UK to be creating yet another global navigation network, there are already plans for four and the world actually only needs one."
**
We don't necessarily need PRS – it doesn't even exist yet, but is expected to be operational by around 2020. The loss of it doesn't immediately send the British military back in time to pre satellite days, as we'll simply keep on using the American GPS system.
There are benefits to having both, says Bowen, as it's handy to have a backup system in case of failure or attack, and dual signals improves accuracy, he notes. That's why the US (and Norway) both want access to PRS, too. So far, that hasn't been agreed. If the UK can't manage to budge the EU, it's in no worse position than the Americans.
That aside, Britain could certainly build its own satellite network, technically speaking. In a recent committee hearing in Parliament, Airbus' UK managing director Colin Paynter said creating our own satellite network – or perhaps only a secured version — would cost between £3 billion and £5 billion, taking four to five years. Galileo will have taken 18 years to build by the time it's fully functional, notes Professor Sa'id Mosteshar, from the London Institute of Space Policy and Law. "I'm sure Colin [Paynter]'s thought about this, but there's a big difference between £3bn and £5bn anyway – if it's that flexible, who says it isn't £7bn?"
Even if those figures are correct – and both Bowen and Mosteshar chucked cold water on the timing and the financial figures – there's also the annual operational cost. "The annual cost of Galileo is €800m," says Mosteshar. "Even if it was half of that, our current spending on space would have to double. Whether we have the resources or appetite to do that is a question."
Even if we have learned from Galileo, we can't necessarily just nick the intellectual property, Mosteshar adds. "There may, for example, be non-UK patents that we'd need to use to construct the whole thing, that would add to the timing," he says.
There are further challenges than funds and technical capability, however. Britain doesn't have its own launch vehicles. "The US, EU or India would have to launch those satellites for us, and maintain and replenish them," Bowen says. And we can't use the same signals. "Radio frequency spectrum is a finite resource," Bowen adds. Indeed, Galileo's close proximity to GPS sparked a row between the US and the EU back in 2003. "They sorted it out in the end, but there was a big spat over signal compatibility," Bowen says.
Rather than chuck together an entire new satellite system, some have suggested Britain could instead set up a regional augmentation system. Galileo and GPS, as well as Russia's GLONASS and China's Beidou, are true Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). Other countries run regional systems, boosting local coverage by using land-based reference stations to pick up local satellite signals and correct them.
Such regional boosters include European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), Japan's Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS), and India's Navigation Indian Constellation (NAVIC). "EGNOS uses GPS signals and boosts its accuracy for the free, civilian, commercial receivers through the use of ground stations and three satellites in orbit. This augmentation only works over Europe," explains Bowen.
Such regional boosters would be a clever answer if accuracy was the only issue, but it's not. "EGNOS is also for non-military purposes, it is meant to allow greater signal accuracy for commercial and civilian users," he adds. "Plus, an EGNOS equivalent would be geographically restricted – no good for UK interests outside of Europe." A regional system improves accuracy for local interests, helpful for searching for a missing boat off the coast of Cornwall but not useful for bombing a foreign country.
If the government wants to prop up the local space industry, there is infrastructure Britain could build that's more useful – for us, our allies like the Americans, and our negotiating position with Brussels. "If Britain decides to invest in other space capabilities like Earth observation, or more spy satellites or more dedicated secure communications satellites, or other forms of space systems, that will be useful for European Union space policy," says Bowen. "That's even more reason for the EU to keep Britain close."
Read more: Hey Elon Musk, shut the hell up about colonising Mars
Britain doesn't actually need to boost its negotiating position, despite what our own bureaucrats appear to think. Britain has a good case to be included in PRS, particularly because of its military ties — if the EU wants British military help, it's going to have to offer up that signal to coordinate efforts. "I'm quite optimistic that Britain will still be in the PRS framework, as European security needs Britain," Bowen says. "The EU would be unwise to exclude one of the biggest military powers in Europe from essential military infrastructure."
There's no good reason the EU doesn't let Britain in on PRS – we just need to get back to negotiating. Michel Barnier's statement is being seen by some as a sign that Britain is being booted out of Galileo, but he's making it clear a deal is possible, we just need an agreement first. "There's nothing preventing Britain now from saying… we want to negotiate our way back into PRS," says Bowen.
Such space cooperation far predates Brexit. Britain's space policy, up until Brexit, has been nothing short of out of this world: we pay little and get a lot, thanks to clever coordination with partners in Europe and the US. "This entire episode is overturning decades of quite prudent British space policy, which is to minimise public spending and maximise the capabilities gained from allies and partners on both sides of the Atlantic," Bowen says. "This is deeply embarrassing for British space. It makes no sense."
But, we've got time. Building more space infrastructure is good for British industry, but we'd be foolish to replicate a complex, expensive system just to spite rival bureaucrats. Space is bigger than us, and Brexit.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
