Europe's Major Satellite Players Line Up To Build Starlink Competitor (arstechnica.com) 91
Eric Berger writes via Ars Technica: A consortium of nearly every major European satellite company announced Tuesday that it plans to bid for a proposed satellite constellation to provide global communications. Essentially, such a constellation would provide the European Union with connectivity from low-Earth orbit similar to what SpaceX's Starlink offers. The bid, which includes large players such as Airbus Defence and Space, Eutelsat, SES, and Thales Alenia Space, comes in response to a request by the European Union for help in constructing a sovereign constellation to provide secure communications for government services, including military applications.
European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton announced the continent's plans for this constellation -- known as Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite, or IRIS^2 -- last November. The European Union will provide 2.4 billion euro, with additional contributions expected from the European Space Agency and private investments. "IRIS^2 establishes space as a vector of our European autonomy, a vector of connectivity and a vector of resilience," Breton said at the time. "It heightens Europe's role as a true space power. With a clear ambition and sense of direction."
The partnership announced Tuesday, which also includes Deutsche Telekom, Hispasat, OHB, Orange, Hisdesat, and Telespazio, will aim to create a state-of-the-art satellite constellation based on a multi-orbit architecture. Although it is top-heavy with established industry players, the partnership said it will encourage startups in the European space sector to join the coalition. This is in response to a desire by Breton to broaden the European commercial space sector. At present, Europe estimates the cost of this constellation at about 6 billion euro and desires it to be ready to provide global coverage by the year 2027.
European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton announced the continent's plans for this constellation -- known as Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite, or IRIS^2 -- last November. The European Union will provide 2.4 billion euro, with additional contributions expected from the European Space Agency and private investments. "IRIS^2 establishes space as a vector of our European autonomy, a vector of connectivity and a vector of resilience," Breton said at the time. "It heightens Europe's role as a true space power. With a clear ambition and sense of direction."
The partnership announced Tuesday, which also includes Deutsche Telekom, Hispasat, OHB, Orange, Hisdesat, and Telespazio, will aim to create a state-of-the-art satellite constellation based on a multi-orbit architecture. Although it is top-heavy with established industry players, the partnership said it will encourage startups in the European space sector to join the coalition. This is in response to a desire by Breton to broaden the European commercial space sector. At present, Europe estimates the cost of this constellation at about 6 billion euro and desires it to be ready to provide global coverage by the year 2027.
Money grave (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah,
The problem for possible competitors is that SpaceX has a advantage in launch costs.
If you are anyone else your choices are
1) buy launches from SpaceX and pay the launch cost+SpaceX margin.
2) buy launches from someone else at higher cost.
Whereas SpaceX can launch without the profit margin. So competing with someone who has lower costs is hard..
Re: Money grave (Score:3)
This is why it may get made though... (Score:3)
You are not going to make it cheaper than SpaceX.
Agree 100%
Point? It was SpaceX who provided Ukraine connectivity.
And this is why I think it may get made anyway even if they are paying SpaceX for every launch, or some much absurdly higher fee - because a global communications network like what StarLink has now, can easily be seen as a national security issue.
I don't think any nation is comfortable with a nation they are supporting in war being at the mercy of a single company (Elon Musk or no) for communic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or it may even come about because lots of other nations together may simply decide, there must be some non-US competitor in this space.
It isn't the nations that are deciding. It is lobbyists for European defense contractors who have lost a mother-fuck ton of business to SpaceX doing what they know how to do: get government bodies to hand them over mother-fuck tons of cash for boondoggles that will be over budget, behind schedule, and re-scoped to provide far less than originally intended.
They want to be able to decide who can have battlefield communications provided... and who cannot...
No one is going to stop Starlink from providing communications to their military adversaries. If that was possible Russia would have done it.
even if they are paying SpaceX for every launch, or some much absurdly higher fee
They will pay
Re: (Score:2)
It's to ensure that broadband is available to all EU citizens. Broadband is generally good if you live in a city, but the further out you get the worst your connection becomes.
Since broadband is considered vital infrastructure, and the EU has already been investing in schemes to get better access for rural areas, this makes a lot of sense. The EU invests a lot of money into building up deprived areas, creating better infrastructure to help life people out of poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone is one step behind Starlink. Even Musk didn't create it because he's some genius who foresaw it's strategic importance, he created it to give SpaceX a regular supply of launches.
As for tech, Europe leads in some areas. High end chip manufacturing. Wind turbines. Electric vehicles and infrastructure like chargers. Microcontrollers and special function ICs. High performance, low power CPUs and SoCs. IoT infrastructure. Low power/embedded radio modules. Large scale integration of renewables into elect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of tech is Europe really ahead of anyone on electric vehicles? Certainly in terms of adoption they are and that's great but I havent seen anything to make me ever think they were leaders on the tech end. This could be my own ignorance though as I'm not the biggest car guy.
Re: (Score:2)
350kW charging and some very fast charging cars. I don't know if they still do but Porsche had the record for 1000km in an EV due to their high charge rate. European cars have some very efficient drivetrains too.
Re: (Score:2)
I associate Porsche with outrageously expensive cars and one can can very easily create the impression of innovation just by throwing money at a problem. Does Porsche do anything with that in cars that normal people can afford?
Re: (Score:2)
Porsche pioneered 800V systems to enable faster charging. 400V cars can't change that fast. That lead to the widespread deployment of 350kW chargers, by a consortium that included Porsche.
Now you can get a Kia or Hyundai with 800V battery, and while they aren't the cheapest models they are relatively affordable. At least I know a few working class people who drive them.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough!
Re: (Score:2)
It's to ensure that broadband is available to all EU citizens. Broadband is generally good if you live in a city, but the further out you get the worst your connection becomes.
The quicker, easier, and less expensive answer to this problem would be to license Starlink to provide service to customers in EU nations, ergo that is not the purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt the EU trusts Elon Musk. I think they are in a legal dispute with him over Twitter.
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't the nations that are deciding. It is lobbyists for European defense contractors
And the difference there is???
the whole REAL point of this is to gain government cash to European out-classed space launch providers.
That was one of the reasons I mentioned - basically it's a combination of military and economic needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Galileo works fine and while expensive the cost wasn't prohibitive. This new constellation will require some solution with launchers so it may take some years for Ariane to resolve their problems (or possibly they may just launch with SpaceX?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Money grave (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeff has engineering talent under him, and has financial might. His divorce distracted him and all the top talent was already working for SpaceX.
Really? Bezos divorce distracted him and Musk tied up the talent? Blue Origin started 2 years before SpaceX and Bezos had more money. Over 22 years they have made precisely ZERO attempts to launch an orbital class rocket. SpaceX on the other hand has LANDED significantly more than 100 boosters and is developing their FOURTH generation of orbital class rocket and even that rocket has made its first orbital attempt while SpaceX was started 2 years later.
Claiming that "poor Jeff" was under some sort of handicap compared to Musk doesn't cut it. Musk was splitting his attention with trying to make Tesla a success simultaneously while Amazon already was a success for Bezos. Bezos just has no clue on running a Space Company and hired the wrong people to do it for him. Musk picked the right people and backed them.
If Bezos wants to launch an orbital class rocket any time soon his BE-4 engine has to be a success on its long over due first launch (this launch won't be by Bezos company but by ULA) AND he has to actually figure out how to build them in some sort of reasonable quantity with reliability. Either that or buy a company that already has the launch ability.
Re:Money grave (Score:4, Informative)
An addition: Bezos and Blue Origin spend WAY TOO MUCH time, effort and money taking SpaceX to court to try and block their success. Classic dog in the manger actions. Bezos fought the SpaceX winning bid for the lease of LC-39A which was needed for the Crew Dragon launches in 2013. Ten years later SpaceX is making great use of the site and Blue Origin still has not had an orbital launch and no one knows when or if they will. They have sued over and over trying to stop the success of SpaceX rather than working on their own.
When the National Team that Blue Origin was part of lost the bid to provide a lunar lander for the NASA program they sued again to block SpaceX. Blue Origin lost because they bid more than the amount of money that Congress had allocated to the program and their lander had more "issues" than the cheaper and in budget SpaceX bid. Dog in the manger again.
Bezos/Amazon has also sued over SpaceX Starlink because their "planned" Kuiper satellite network (which has launched ZERO satellites to date and won't until AT LEAST next year. They "started" the project before Starlink was begun. Starlink has around 3800 ACTIVE satellites right now compared to the Kuiper 0. Dog in the manger again.
This is just part of Blue Origins "Sue Origin" actions to stop SpaceX from being the success that Blue Origin has failed to be. So don't give us the "Poor Jeff" sob story.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. If you want to look for competition to Elon, look to Rocket Lab's Electron and their other stuff, not Ariane.
You might be right. These satellite internet services just need "a shitload of generic satellites in low earth orbit." So you can give the launch contract to anyone who can lob a few kilograms to LEO. If you're not happy with the launch provider, hell, change launch provider and send the next load up with someone else.
Re:Money grave (Score:4, Interesting)
Galileo Open Services (the GPS-like signals) are useful to improve accuracy compared to GPS alone. Using more satellites gives a better position solution. A lot of GPS satellites are too old to broadcast a second civil-use signal (L2C or L5) on a different frequency, whereas all Galileo satellites do -- and using a second frequency allows correction for about 99% of ionospheric timing error, which is the largest error source for this kind of position solution.
Galileo is also developing precise point positioning via satellite solutions, in the form of their High Accuracy Service (unfortunately abbreviated HAS, making it harder to search for). GPS has no equivalent of that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Phones, watches, geodetic survey receivers, lots of places.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They all run on both and are much better for having Galileo.
The current ruzzian invasion fever is the double-down reason why Galileo and a Starlink competitor are required.
Trumpists would deny accurate GPS to Ukraine.
Boy child Elon already denies Starlink to Ukraine in occupied territory after the whole world laughed at his "genius" plan to end the war!
It is completely about sovereign capability. You rely on others at your own and very real peril.
Re:Money grave (Score:4, Insightful)
. The goal of Galileo was to stoke egos of EUcrates, and allow them to say "see, socialist Europe can do navigational systems just as well as US".
If you have a mobile phone made in the past 5 years you are likely using Galileo without even realizing it (in addition to GPS).
The goal of Galileo was to stoke egos of EUcrates, and allow them to say "see, socialist Europe can do navigational systems just as well as US".
a) Don't be a bigot. You can respond to some news about a non-american country without throwing insults to them. It just looks insecure. You live in a nice country, no need to be insecure.
b) The goal was not to be reliant on another country for a critical piece of infrastructure. Just like the US up to spacex has been working on making their own launcher to no longer be reliant on Russian launchers.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between pissing money away to stop being reliant being reliant on russkies, and to stop being reliant on USA. Only one of them makes sense.
Ok, answer this one then: Now that Galileo is there should the US stop pissing money away on GPS?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about removing the existing GPS satellites, I'm talking about the billions the US is spending (and is yet to spend) with GPS Block III that gets GPS back on par with Galileo in terms of capabilities. By your logic shouldn't the US stop that programme that is spending your tax payers money given that they can just trust the EU?
Also the amount of cell phones that are GPS-only is close to 0 in the past 5 years, and maybe like 10% in the past 10 years.
Re: Money grave (Score:3)
Europe just wants another participation trophy. That's basically the only reason they built Galileo, and why they're always trying to astroturf European versions of American companies and American technology by dumping huge amounts of money into projects that ultimately go nowhere.
For those who don't recall, here's ground zero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Money grave (Score:5, Interesting)
Galileo is vital for national security. As well as providing location services, it provides timing. Sub microsecond timing is very important for a lot of infrastructure, such as cellular networks, and there aren't many good alternatives.
It's so important that when the UK was booted out of Galileo it immediately began looking for alternatives, including bringing back old WW2 era systems in the hope that they could be improved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Relatively few launches, but the technology is quite impressive. Better location accuracy, faster acquisition, better timing resolution, and better immunity to noise/propagation. Of course it's newer than GPS so you would expect it to be more advanced.
Re: (Score:2)
It's so important that when the UK was booted out of Galileo it immediately began looking for alternatives, including bringing back old WW2 era systems in the hope that they could be improved.
And the UK would be wise to do the later, as anti-satellite weapons are a thing, and on Day One of any real first world peer war across the world, the first thing that's going down are satellite communications systems, as various ASAT weapons will destroy them. It'll be comically easy to do, and powers like the US shitcanned all their terristrial systems to save a few bucks. On Day Two, Washington DC and Brussels will be asking "how long will it take to get LORAN back up and running? [arstechnica.com]".
Re: (Score:3)
The old systems don't work so well. They are at lower frequencies so it's hard to derive good timing information from them. They are affected far more by the landscape between the transmitter and receiver.
If there is a hot war and people start shooting satellites down, we will have bigger problems.
Your article is about using LORAN for navigation, where high accuracy isn't all that important for military ships and aircraft. To the extent that the EU is worried about relying on other nations for navigation, t
Re: (Score:3)
As for Galileo, if the situation was reversed, would the U.S. rely for its critical infrastructure on a system controlled by a foreign military? I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure - we're kinda dumb when it comes to what should be obvious national security concerns. Like the sheer amount of our food production we've allowed to be purchased and controlled by foreign powers, including potential (and debatably current) adversaries.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the US was 'astroturfing' then by developing satellites and human spaceflight capability as it was not the first to launch either.
As for Galileo, if the situation was reversed, would the U.S. rely for its critical infrastructure on a system controlled by a foreign military? I think not.
No, by astroturfing I'm referring to creating pork projects all in the name of creating or propping up local industries that either don't exist or do but have a barely noticeable presence and otherwise aren't even interested in entering that market segment, all in the interest of some sort of national pride. That is opposed to say the industries that come out of grassroots efforts within the US.
For example, the US government didn't set out to create Google, rather a few engineers just had an idea and then c
Re: (Score:1)
The US has recently pushed it weight around quite a bit, trying to tell European companies what to do, etc. They make no secret of it, it's just a thing.
As a result, it would be a serious dereliction of duty for the EU not to be able to independent of the US when it absolutely needs to be - eg. in times of war or other serious problems. No one wants to be at the mercy of a (possibly) bully in their hour of need.
If we're supposed to be independent of Russian energy supplies, we need to be independent of US c
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, despite an incredible amount of lobbying and warning against depending on Russian energy on the part of the United States because of what was already well known to be Russia's intentions, Europe, and mainly Germany, wanted to become dependent on Russia anyways and even went out of their way to decommission local energy production in favor of Russian energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Arianespace and some others are looking at reusable vehicles and lower costs, but I imagine at least initially this group will be using other commercial launch services for their constellation.
The bigger worry is the shear number of satellites that are going up. I'm sure everyone involved will claim that they are taking every precaution and fully cooperating to avoid collisions, but all it needs is one unexpected failure mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Overpriced, delayed ync split into unneeded sub-contracts to make the whole European space sector happy.
And you forgot to mention "working just fine". Sure the budget was blown, but the entire western civilisation is built upon blown budgets. SpaceX is very much a complete oddity. Yet we still built bridges, we still went to the moon, and society has not just endured but progressed.
Pretty Crowded (Score:2)
Not only that, but as technology as advances what will happen with the old hardware? Is there a plan for a controlled deorbit?
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink is intentionally in low orbit for lower latency.
They've already deorbited a quite a few satellites, both experimental and some that failed to reach the target orbit, but if one was unresponsive it should dorbit on its own in a couple of years due to atmospheric drag.
They also intend to iterate on the technology quickly, so fast replacement is part of the plan.
Re: Pretty Crowded (Score:1)
The Starlink birds only have an intended lifespan of 5-10 years, after which they deorbit. It's not just a matter of launching them and calling it done. If Europe does actually do anything like this, they're looking at massive ongoing costs. Unless they can replicate falcon 9, which they don't appear to be anywhere close to doing, then they can pretty well forget about doing anything like this in the next ten years, by which time Starlink will be so entrenched that they'll have a very hard time finding a ma
Re:Pretty Crowded (Score:4, Insightful)
It was Pretty Crowded in orbit twenty years ago.
We're now going to witness Greed N. Corruption finish the gilded cage we humans are building around the planet that may become our prison.
For the species that refuses to clean up after themselves, it would be a rather fitting demise to perfect multi-planet travel just in time for World War III to start arguing over who's gonna clean the garbage rings surrounding Planet Ignorance in order for multi-planet travel to be utilized.
Re: (Score:2)
Which orbit and according to whom?
Re: (Score:2)
Which orbit and according to whom?
I'm speaking to the species who hasn't managed to find a way to jettison themselves off this planet due to a century of warmongering feeding Greed instead. Whom do you think I'm speaking to, and which fucking orbit are you broadcasting from?
Your response should be interesting. Like flat-earth interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read what I fucking wrote?
I asked you who is claiming that "it's pretty crowded in orbit". I was not asking who you were talking _to_.
I also asked which orbit you're talking about because space is really fucking big and MEO, for example, is damned near empty.
And the only interesting thing here will be whether or not you admit you didn't actually read what I wrote when you responded with this nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Really not an issue for Starlink or this constellation, or anything else in very low Earth orbit because it's actually inside the edge of the atmosphere, and atmospheric drag will bring down anything that isn't regularly re-boosted.
Outside of the atmosphere, yeah, there's a lot of junk, and Kessler Syndrome is a real possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Really not an issue for Starlink or this constellation, or anything else in very low Earth orbit because it's actually inside the edge of the atmosphere, and atmospheric drag will bring down anything that isn't regularly re-boosted.
I see. And you really think the naturalized rate of atmospheric drag is any match for the unreal speed of capitalistic greed? Please explain why. I'd love to hear your counter-arguments that will convince entire countries to fight their natural human instinct to not give a fuck about the rest of the planet in favor of the next quarterly earnings.
Outside of the atmosphere, yeah, there's a lot of junk, and Kessler Syndrome is a real possibility.
Thank you for being intelligent enough to realize this. We tend to name things that have valid concern, so I'm not quite sure why you're dismissing the "real pos
Re: (Score:2)
Really not an issue for Starlink or this constellation, or anything else in very low Earth orbit because it's actually inside the edge of the atmosphere, and atmospheric drag will bring down anything that isn't regularly re-boosted.
I see. And you really think the naturalized rate of atmospheric drag is any match for the unreal speed of capitalistic greed? Please explain why. I'd love to hear your counter-arguments that will convince entire countries to fight their natural human instinct to not give a fuck about the rest of the planet in favor of the next quarterly earnings.
Meh. Worst case you wait five years and it all clears up.
Can't compete without low cost launch capability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would SpaceX sell or lease an approved 2nd constellation of StarLink for Europe?
Enormous sums of money involved in any event.
Re: (Score:2)
Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be legitimate for example for starlink to have concerns about allowing military use of their network by one side and denying another during a conflict. It would put their satellites at risk from the opposing side in the conflict as well as potentially have political ramifications that could be interpreted as the United States taking a side. If the EU has their own system they can make unilateral decisions on how it is used.
Re: (Score:3)
If they rely on the good will of another country, they're beholden to that. It becomes risky to do things they don't like. Critical infrastructure, like telecoms, becomes just another bargaining chip they can use against the EU.
What if, in a few years down the road during the Donald Trump Jr. administration, while the dollar losing its economic hegemony & renewables are enabling countries to become more energy-independent, the EU decides it'd be in their better inte
Re: (Score:2)
Many commenters on here are missing the point, this is not about cost but control. Elon Musk was generous in providing access to Starlink for the Ukrainian people during their time of need, but he is under no obligation to do so. As a result the EU have seen the value of such a system that is under their own control, so they get to decide how and when it is used. It would be legitimate for example for starlink to have concerns about allowing military use of their network by one side and denying another during a conflict. It would put their satellites at risk from the opposing side in the conflict as well as potentially have political ramifications that could be interpreted as the United States taking a side.
That was true right up until Elon became a fiercely outspoken advocate of appeasing Putin: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
If the EU has their own system they can make unilateral decisions on how it is used.
This is true. The Germans call that 'realpolitik [wikipedia.org]' and whether or not the launch costs are greater than those of Space-X does not necessarily outweigh other considerations by any stretch of the imagination (much as that will disappoint the Muskrats around here). EU states would might be willing to subsidise this network through generous military contracts which is the same model the US
Re:Missing the Point (Score:4, Insightful)
This.
Also, it's not really a 'starlink competitor'. They're not trying to outdo or replace Starlink or even compete with them. It's not aimed at individual private users at all but at government and large scale commercial users, more as an independent fall back system.
Let's face it, when the US goverment decides that some country's use of Starlink goes agains US interests, Starlink will go dark there, period.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's face it, when the US goverment decides that some country's use of Starlink goes agains US interests, Starlink will go dark there, period.
I wonder if that is actually true. Under existing law I don't think there's any legal way for the US government to compel SpaceX to stop offering a service in another country. ITAR works in a lot of similar cases, but that is about exporting technology, not a service. The government could try extra-legal means, of course, such as threatening SpaceX with more rigorous enforcement of other laws, e.g. make the FAA get pickier about launch permits, but judges might shut that down. And the government could alway
Re: (Score:2)
but that is about exporting technology, not a service
For starters, you need to physically get the terminals there. That's very much hardware and exported technology. I'm not aware of any known way to fake or clone Starlink terminals, let alone third party hardware. Existing export clearances can probably be revoked and Starlink would be forced to disable the existing hardware in question.
Re: (Score:2)
but that is about exporting technology, not a service
For starters, you need to physically get the terminals there. That's very much hardware and exported technology. I'm not aware of any known way to fake or clone Starlink terminals, let alone third party hardware. Existing export clearances can probably be revoked and Starlink would be forced to disable the existing hardware in question.
Hmm. I really doubt that SpaceX can disable the hardware. They can only refuse to provide service to it. That would seem to accomplish none of the goals of ITAR, since the hardware is already exported and available for use, analysis, reverse engineering, etc. by the "enemy" country. I'm not sure if that order would hold up to a court challenge.
There are also the downlink stations. Is there some FCC regulation that can allow a company to be ordered to disable Internet communications with a country?
Re: (Score:2)
"They can only refuse to provide service to it."
They can blacklist a terminal. If their encryption and security is as solid as it would have to be in order to offer such a service in the first place, that's as good as bricking it. Sure the terminals can be reverse engineered, but I very much doubt that a fake or clone unit could be used to ursurp any service.
But the specifics of which vector would be used to stop this don't matter all that much. I think it's naive to assume that none exists. It's comple
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither do I ascribe unlimited power to the executive branch in the US. In fact, I believe the US is one of the few places in the world where, all considered, checks and balances actually work really well.
But foreign policy, national interest and national security are, by necessity and by definition, a domain where the executive has an emphasis and a larger amount of slack than elsewhere. That's no different in your country than in mine, and there is a certain justification for it. International politics
Another "benefit" of Brexit (Score:2)
This should provide a shot in the arm for the European space people, and at the same time force the United Kingdom even deeper into Elon Musk's pocket.
Everybody wins.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This should provide a shot in the arm for the European space people, and at the same time force the United Kingdom even deeper into Elon Musk's pocket.
There really needs to be a 'Brexit' equivalent of Godwin's Law.
Godwin's law requires you to actually mention Adolf or the Nazis. I didn't see him actually mention Brexit. Having said that, let me Brexwin this discussion by pointing out that Brexiteers won the referendum in a 48/52% landslide. Brexit then turned into a bloody shambles and it's time Brexiteers finally got over that fact and 'embrace the suck' like the Navy Seals do.
Re: (Score:2)
Sate of the Art (Score:1)
State of the art means "the status quo."
"...will aim to create a state-of-the-art satellite constellation..."
If it "WILL" "AIM" to "CREATE" a status quo sat net in 2024, that means by 2026 they WILL have aimed and CREATED a plan.
Now add 3-5 years for development, deployment, and activation and maybe by 2032 they will have a good circa-2023-tech
network.
Typical Europeans. First to set up a committee. Then to "aim to create", then "plan to create", then "create", then give everybody and his dog a piece of th
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall something about the incredible efficiency SpaceX design/delivery/activation/explosion cycle from a couple of weeks ago...what was it again?
constellation constipation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just more money for SpaceX (Score:1)
Who is going to launch them at an economical price?
Companies are bidding for free money? (Score:2)
cost (Score:2)
Thanks for the nice article (Score:1)
<a href="https://allscamreports.com/scalpfxtrades-review/">ScalpFxTrades</a>
<a href="https://allscamreports.com/rivobanc-review/">RivoBanct</a>
Europe always catching up (Score:2)
Europe: Those g.d. americans did something. We need to have our own. If we can't, we need to hamstring those g.d. americans.
Also Europe: Those g.d. americans need to protect us from those m.f. russians.
Seems like Europe leads only in trains, except you have to exclude China and Japan.
As if there was not too many satellites already (Score:1)