8 ms·

EU signs $11B deal for sovereign satellite constellation to rival Starlink

61 points by gniting 2y ago

bt3 2y ago
Honest question, but how do we as a society culturally align on who has the right to space in low Earth orbit? I understand there are treaties that prevent ownership of space in general, but it seems like at some point you could reach such density of satellites that at best, it impairs function, and at worst creates potential collisions.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  1. Governments sit together in a room and design rules. This isn't happening and isn't happening anytime soon. 2. Common sense, first come first serve with big organisation (SpaceX, Amazon, China) communicating directly.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    > 1. Governments sit together in a room and design rules. This isn't happening and isn't happening anytime soon. Huh? The ITU has been assigning slots in GEO for decades. There's defined minimum distances based on the application parameters (the more directed the ground-side antennas are, the less separation you need to hit a particular signal-to-interference target) etc. While there are currently no physical "slots" in LEO to my knowledge, the frequency assignments used by LEO constellations are absolutely coordinated by the ITU, and implemented by participating countries, as well.
    - panick21_ 2y ago
      I was talking more about further iteration of things like the Outer Space Treaty. There is currently very little chance that this will be evolved to systemically handle things like space junk and so on. The Artemis Accords are the closes, but that's sign up based, much more coalition building then global cooperation.
- ls612 2y ago
  It's gonna be a long while until we reach that point. For comparison, there are roughly 10000 airplanes in the air at any given time in a 5 mile band above the surface and the skies are pretty clear outside of some congested airports. In orbit you have the advantage of 3D, where satellites can be in a band a few hundred miles thick. Unless someone goes and intentionally creates vast quantities of uncontrolled space junk I think LEO won't have too many issues.
AustinDev 2y ago
11B to launch 300 sats. Starlink costs SpaceX about $1M on the highest end for construction and launch per sat. True cost is likely lower by 20-30% for SpaceX and Starship will drop this further. Given the history of the EU, I think it's likely the environmental laws in will end up killing this before they can build a proper constellation, regardless of cost. I think they got a bad deal.
- lm28469 2y ago
  > EU does nothing HN: aha look at these losers they never do anything > EU does thing HN: aha look at these losers they're doing something we already did
  - SllX 2y ago
    Nobody has ever argued in the history of Hacker News that the government of the European Union does nothing. The article also indicates this is for secure government comms rather than than public internet use; so it’s not exactly a competitor to Starlink. The interesting part is that it’s a small constellation numbering in the hundreds, which is an arrangement similar to Starlink, but not nearly at their existing scale or future ambition.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pie420 2y ago
    I don't see anything wrong here. here's what could also happen, but has not: > EU does thing the US hasn't HN: OH SHIT USA NEEDS TO HURRY UP AND DO THING TOO EU just needs to stop being behind technologically.
    - margana 2y ago
      EU constantly does things the US hasn't - such as consumer protection laws. But HN response to that is always "oh no EU is bullying US companies".
    - 2y ago
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I wonder if Europeans view this as crony capitalism or getting fleeced?
- rtsil 2y ago
  As a European, I view this as preserving our strategic independence and wish we'd do more in more domains.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    That's more or less what I suspected. I think it is fascinating to see the cultural differences on these topics. In the US, both parties of voters are extremely critical of such partnerships, claiming either corruption or waste. Why do you think this is? Are the EU voters less price critical to spending? Are they simply more trusting?
    - pie420 2y ago
      what are you talking about? this is happening all the time in the US with Spacex+USGOV, Boeing+USGOV, etc.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        The US government often takes the role of purchasing services and contracts, whereas the EU seems to favor more direct funding of corporate projects, like the one this article mentions, or the Airbus 380. That said, I was talking about the sentiment around these activities, where much of the US is fairly hostile to the idea.
        panick21_ 2y ago
        The EU needs to directly fund these project because otherwise they just don't happen. When the US produces many of these things just happen. Starlink basically just fell from the clear blue sky into DoD lap. Leapfroging their own plans by about 4 generations. This is because the US has more dynamic companies, a bigger internal market, that can access far greater level of funding, all the way from startup to grand investments. > where much of the US is fairly hostile to the idea. I'm not sure this is universally true. When it comes to military its the opposite. The US has broad support for the militarily, and in the military budget financed projects like GPS, like F22, F35 and so on. The Us military right now is planning multiple constellations in addition to extending Starshield. In the US many of these things just happen out of the public view, internal to the govenrment. When in the EU this is all negotiated as part of bilateral agreements that are far more public.
perihelions 2y ago
Here's the orbital stuff if anyone was wondering: - "That funding will go towards the development and launch of satellites in three orbits. Eighteen satellites will operate in medium Earth orbit (MEO) at an altitude of 8,000 kilometers, providing Ka-band services. A “LEO High” shell at about 1,200 kilometers will include 264 satellites with Ku- and Ka-band services. The system will also include 10 or more satellites in a “LEO Low” shell between 400 and 750 kilometers intended to support incubation of future technologies. " and - "The next step for IRIS² is a one-year design phase that will also include “consolidation” of the supply chain of contractors for the satellites. A critical design review is planned for early 2028, with launch of the satellites projected to take place in 2029 and 2030. The constellation will require 13 Ariane 64 launches, 10 for the LEO High shell and 3 for the MEO shell." https://spacenews.com/europe-signs-contracts-for-iris%C2%B2-constellation/ https://spacenews.com/europe-signs-contracts-for-iris%C2%B2-... ("Europe signs contracts for IRIS² constellation") (Put together, you can constrain the mass of the satellites as <820 kg: for the LEO-High shell, 10 launches of A64, at a maximum of 21,650 kg each, divided by 264 units. That'd be intermediate between v1 and v2 Starlinks).
jurschreuder 2y ago
Why is the US so hostile against Europe lately?
- Caius-Cosades 2y ago
  Why wouldn't host be upset at a vassal or serf that gets too uppity?
ElectRabbit 2y ago
Well.. Galileo was yelled at too for a very long time. But it got quite good in the end. Why? - Galileo HAS. Offers precision down to 30cm without additional correction data - Also it offers crypto graphically signed navigation data (OSMNA) which basically eliminates spoofing attacks Both for free.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
emchammer 2y ago
It's too bad that we cannot do this as a single global shared and provably neutral type of system. In the spirit of the US-USSR cooperation with Apollo-Soyuz. Most of the rival geo-navigation constellations operate on more or less the same frequencies and coordinate their chip codes. It works but it also raises the noise floor for everybody.
- lxgr 2y ago
  If you can demodulate the signals, they're not noise! That technique is called SIC (successive interference cancellation). Basically, you start with the strongest one, demodulate it, subtract it from the source signal (which removes it as a noise component), rinse and repeat. Besides that, the benefit of having more satellites available in difficult geometric arrangements (urban canyons, steep valleys etc.) most likely more than makes up for the slightly decreased SNR in situations where you can view "too many" satellites at once, to say nothing of the additional operational redundancy.

61 points by gniting 2y ago

bt3 2y ago

Honest question, but how do we as a society culturally align on who has the right to space in low Earth orbit? I understand there are treaties that prevent ownership of space in general, but it seems like at some point you could reach such density of satellites that at best, it impairs function, and at worst creates potential collisions.

panick21_ 2y ago
1. Governments sit together in a room and design rules. This isn't happening and isn't happening anytime soon. 2. Common sense, first come first serve with big organisation (SpaceX, Amazon, China) communicating directly.
- lxgr 2y ago
  > 1. Governments sit together in a room and design rules. This isn't happening and isn't happening anytime soon. Huh? The ITU has been assigning slots in GEO for decades. There's defined minimum distances based on the application parameters (the more directed the ground-side antennas are, the less separation you need to hit a particular signal-to-interference target) etc. While there are currently no physical "slots" in LEO to my knowledge, the frequency assignments used by LEO constellations are absolutely coordinated by the ITU, and implemented by participating countries, as well.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    I was talking more about further iteration of things like the Outer Space Treaty. There is currently very little chance that this will be evolved to systemically handle things like space junk and so on. The Artemis Accords are the closes, but that's sign up based, much more coalition building then global cooperation.
ls612 2y ago
It's gonna be a long while until we reach that point. For comparison, there are roughly 10000 airplanes in the air at any given time in a 5 mile band above the surface and the skies are pretty clear outside of some congested airports. In orbit you have the advantage of 3D, where satellites can be in a band a few hundred miles thick. Unless someone goes and intentionally creates vast quantities of uncontrolled space junk I think LEO won't have too many issues.

AustinDev 2y ago

11B to launch 300 sats. Starlink costs SpaceX about $1M on the highest end for construction and launch per sat. True cost is likely lower by 20-30% for SpaceX and Starship will drop this further. Given the history of the EU, I think it's likely the environmental laws in will end up killing this before they can build a proper constellation, regardless of cost. I think they got a bad deal.

lm28469 2y ago
> EU does nothing HN: aha look at these losers they never do anything > EU does thing HN: aha look at these losers they're doing something we already did
- SllX 2y ago
  Nobody has ever argued in the history of Hacker News that the government of the European Union does nothing. The article also indicates this is for secure government comms rather than than public internet use; so it’s not exactly a competitor to Starlink. The interesting part is that it’s a small constellation numbering in the hundreds, which is an arrangement similar to Starlink, but not nearly at their existing scale or future ambition.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pie420 2y ago
  I don't see anything wrong here. here's what could also happen, but has not: > EU does thing the US hasn't HN: OH SHIT USA NEEDS TO HURRY UP AND DO THING TOO EU just needs to stop being behind technologically.
  - margana 2y ago
    EU constantly does things the US hasn't - such as consumer protection laws. But HN response to that is always "oh no EU is bullying US companies".
  - 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I wonder if Europeans view this as crony capitalism or getting fleeced?

rtsil 2y ago
As a European, I view this as preserving our strategic independence and wish we'd do more in more domains.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That's more or less what I suspected. I think it is fascinating to see the cultural differences on these topics. In the US, both parties of voters are extremely critical of such partnerships, claiming either corruption or waste. Why do you think this is? Are the EU voters less price critical to spending? Are they simply more trusting?
  - pie420 2y ago
    what are you talking about? this is happening all the time in the US with Spacex+USGOV, Boeing+USGOV, etc.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      The US government often takes the role of purchasing services and contracts, whereas the EU seems to favor more direct funding of corporate projects, like the one this article mentions, or the Airbus 380. That said, I was talking about the sentiment around these activities, where much of the US is fairly hostile to the idea.
      - panick21_ 2y ago
        The EU needs to directly fund these project because otherwise they just don't happen. When the US produces many of these things just happen. Starlink basically just fell from the clear blue sky into DoD lap. Leapfroging their own plans by about 4 generations. This is because the US has more dynamic companies, a bigger internal market, that can access far greater level of funding, all the way from startup to grand investments. > where much of the US is fairly hostile to the idea. I'm not sure this is universally true. When it comes to military its the opposite. The US has broad support for the militarily, and in the military budget financed projects like GPS, like F22, F35 and so on. The Us military right now is planning multiple constellations in addition to extending Starshield. In the US many of these things just happen out of the public view, internal to the govenrment. When in the EU this is all negotiated as part of bilateral agreements that are far more public.

perihelions 2y ago

Here's the orbital stuff if anyone was wondering: - "That funding will go towards the development and launch of satellites in three orbits. Eighteen satellites will operate in medium Earth orbit (MEO) at an altitude of 8,000 kilometers, providing Ka-band services. A “LEO High” shell at about 1,200 kilometers will include 264 satellites with Ku- and Ka-band services. The system will also include 10 or more satellites in a “LEO Low” shell between 400 and 750 kilometers intended to support incubation of future technologies. " and - "The next step for IRIS² is a one-year design phase that will also include “consolidation” of the supply chain of contractors for the satellites. A critical design review is planned for early 2028, with launch of the satellites projected to take place in 2029 and 2030. The constellation will require 13 Ariane 64 launches, 10 for the LEO High shell and 3 for the MEO shell." https://spacenews.com/europe-signs-contracts-for-iris%C2%B2-constellation/ https://spacenews.com/europe-signs-contracts-for-iris%C2%B2-... ("Europe signs contracts for IRIS² constellation") (Put together, you can constrain the mass of the satellites as <820 kg: for the LEO-High shell, 10 launches of A64, at a maximum of 21,650 kg each, divided by 264 units. That'd be intermediate between v1 and v2 Starlinks).

jurschreuder 2y ago

Why is the US so hostile against Europe lately?

Caius-Cosades 2y ago
Why wouldn't host be upset at a vassal or serf that gets too uppity?

ElectRabbit 2y ago

Well.. Galileo was yelled at too for a very long time. But it got quite good in the end. Why? - Galileo HAS. Offers precision down to 30cm without additional correction data - Also it offers crypto graphically signed navigation data (OSMNA) which basically eliminates spoofing attacks Both for free.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

emchammer 2y ago

It's too bad that we cannot do this as a single global shared and provably neutral type of system. In the spirit of the US-USSR cooperation with Apollo-Soyuz. Most of the rival geo-navigation constellations operate on more or less the same frequencies and coordinate their chip codes. It works but it also raises the noise floor for everybody.

lxgr 2y ago
If you can demodulate the signals, they're not noise! That technique is called SIC (successive interference cancellation). Basically, you start with the strongest one, demodulate it, subtract it from the source signal (which removes it as a noise component), rinse and repeat. Besides that, the benefit of having more satellites available in difficult geometric arrangements (urban canyons, steep valleys etc.) most likely more than makes up for the slightly decreased SNR in situations where you can view "too many" satellites at once, to say nothing of the additional operational redundancy.