Image: ESA

Note: The author of this article in the August GPS World magazine is President of the RNT Foundation.

PNT Vision 2035 – a must read

An interview with ESA’s NAVAC Chair Luis Mayo

By Dana A. Goward

In June the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Navigation Innovation and Support Program (NAVISP) Advisory Committee (NAVAC) issued the paper “PNT Vision 2035.” It provides an interesting overview of the state of PNT and where it will be a decade from now.

According the ESA website, key findings in the paper include:

• Increasing Dependence on PNT Services – particularly for consumer and autonomous solutions. Accurate timing remains a critical use case, especially in telecom and power distribution.
• Geopolitical and Technological Challenges: Rising cyber-attacks, jamming, and spoofing, advancements in AI, ML, and quantum computing will have significant impacts. Anticipate new regulations.
• Technological Trends Driving PNT Demand: The proliferation of connected devices (IoT), autonomous driving, advanced air mobility, smart grids, and autonomous vehicles will drive the demand for resilient and robust PNT.
• System Architecture Evolution: Future PNT systems will utilize a combination of data sources, including multiple GNSS constellations, cellular networks (5G/6G), terrestrial systems, augmentation systems, and autonomous sensors. This “system of systems” approach will enhance performance and ensure independence from single points of failure.
• Emerging Technologies and Sensor Integration: Advances in space segment technologies, receiver designs, and sensor integration, new signal designs, flexible payloads, advanced clocks, inter-satellite links, and higher power amplifiers are highlighted.

We spoke with Luis Mayo, the NAVAC chair, to get his take on this seminal work.

To set the stage, what is NAVAC?

Luis Mayo: NAVAC is a group of external PNT experts ESA has assembled to provide independent advice on navigation issues, and especially for NAVISP.

Where can NAVAC’s formal recommendations be found?

Mayo: We perform an assessment of the NAVISP status every two years. We provide our recommendations as a conclusion of this assessment. Beyond that, our formal recommendations are collected in documents like this White Paper or in proposals for modifications or adjustments to the work plans of the programmes.

How does ESA leadership generally view and react to NAVAC conclusions and recommendations?  Is every recommendation acted upon? 

Mayo: They are generally receptive. However, we are just an advisory body, so it is up to them to take on our recommendations. They often do so and use our advice to add weight to their proposal to the Navigation Programme Board, but they do not necessarily have to.

PNT Vision 2035 is a substantial document. Clearly it involved some time and effort. Why was it written?  Is it something ESA asked for?

Mayo: The paper was the initiative of NAVAC members to inform the ESA Ministerial Conference in 2025.  These take place every three years to define the roadmap for the next period. New European Space programmes, extensions or redirections of existing ones, and budgets are approved at these meetings.

We thought we might make a modest contribution to the definition of the future ESA navigation programmes.

What, if anything, did NAVAC find surprising or unexpected about findings included in the Vision?

Mayo: I would say that we hardly found anything too much unexpected or surprising. They are the conclusion of multiple discussions on the subject over the last years. We have just expressed them in a more articulated way.

If anything, and from my personal perspective, I would highlight that this exercise helped me realize that the deployment of some of the most exciting or expected applications of PNT technologies, e.g. autonomous driving, are depending on the development of many other technologies that might not be necessarily available in the mid-term.

“There is more to PNT than satellite navigation.”

What are the three most important things policy makers should understand from the document?

Mayo: First is that many infrastructures or services critical to the daily lives of the citizens are dependent on PNT technology.

Second, that they cannot take for granted that GPS or Galileo services will be always available, not to mention GLONASS or BeiDou. Satellite navigation systems are vulnerable and are continuously under threat. Enabling assured PNT service is a must.

And third, that there is more to PNT than satellite navigation. Other complementary or alternative technologies should not be abandoned. In fact, some of those technologies might even change the way in which we have traditionally conceived satellite-based navigation.

What are the most important things policy makers should do to enable the PNT needed by 2035?

Mayo: I think that they have to sustain the existing satellite-based navigation systems and foster the development of new technologies and systems that improve the robustness of the services. We have done a lot so far to provide PNT services globally. When you come to think of that, it’s really wonderful what we have achieved this far. We cannot afford to lose what we have, but that has proven not to be enough. Therefore, policy makers should keep helping the development of new technologies and services that complement what we have, improve the quality of the services and ensure its continuous availability and integrity.

They should also look beyond the current service volume. Spacefaring nations should be aware of the fact that they will need this kind of technology to support future missions. Deploying systems able to provide PNT services beyond the coverage of the current GNSS is an absolute necessity to support such missions.

The vision says the EU must consider no longer having access to GLONASS and BeiDou. There are a number of threats that are common to all GNSS. Why not consider loss of access to all either temporarily or permanently?

We have not considered a completely catastrophic situation such as losing access to all GNSS in our vision. We understand that GPS, Galileo and eventually other constellations or augmentation systems will remain available and providing at least partial coverage for PNT services.

“We must not forget there is a clear case for investing in future PNT systems.”

The vision makes recommendations about mitigating interference, using AI, and extending the GNSS service volume. What else should policy and technology decision makers take from the document and act upon?

Mayo: We must not forget there is a clear case for investing in future PNT systems. ESA should keep up to pace with other foreign competitors that seem ready to increase their expenditure in these types of problems.

They also have to be conscious that Satellite based navigation is not enough. We have to look for alternative and complementary systems to reach the level of confidence that we need on PNT solutions.

Q: Perhaps you are thinking of all the PNT systems China has deployed?

Mayo: I am really thinking about what we are not doing in Europe or in the US. We need to build alternatives that might not have global coverage, but would allow us to  maintain essential PNT services running at home.

“Resilience… is a major concern.”

Resilience seems to be an important theme in the document, but it was not the subject of a specific recommendation. Could you speak to that?

Mayo: Resilience is pervasive throughout the whole document. This is a major concern. We have to find a way to build a system-of-systems that is able to deliver to the user a trustable PNT solution at any time.

Resilience is, today, a key consideration in PNT, and we cannot do but acknowledging this fact. We might not have insisted enough on the importance of this feature for future PNT systems, but policy makers must undertake any actions required to improve the resilience of the existing PNT systems and services, probably by promoting the development of alternative independent PNT systems.

What else should GPS World readers know about the Vision?

Read the document. It is not that long. And think that it has been written from an independent and experienced standpoint. We at NAVAC do not pretend to hold the full truth, but I believe that we have a quite comprehensive view of the matter and that this would be useful for the reader.

In addition to the Chair, Luis Mayo, the other members of NAVAC and contributors to the vison are Roger McKinlay, Bernd Eissfeller, Richard Peckham, Thomas Seiler, Leonardo Gagliardim, and Olivier Colaïtis.