5 ms·

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 a

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".
  - verzali 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
      [dead]
    - ChocolateGod 2y ago
      The EU is great for science and research, but terrible for actually building anything. The UK (although no longer part of the EU) is the homeplace of trains yet can no longer build train tracks.
  - MiguelX413 2y ago
    Why should they be more ahead?
esperent 2y ago
I looked it up - Starlink plan s to eventually have 42,000 satellites. These are small and cheap, that's why so many are needed. It seems likely that the EU is planning for a smaller number - perhaps much smaller - of more powerful satellites. So comparing costs like the probably doesn't make sense.
- slaw 2y ago
  Starlink satellites are not small. > Starlink satellite is roughly 260 kilograms. Iridium System satellite is 680 kilograms.
  - perihelions 2y ago
    The current generation is v2 mini, which is ~740 kg. It's no smaller than Europe's IRIS2 concept (which are unknown, but can't be heavier than 820 kg—see my sibling comment). (And just in case anyone's lost track: SpaceX has already launched over ten times more v2's than the entire (proposed) IRIS2. This is not a case of EU opting to do "fewer, but larger" satellites; they're simply just not competing in the same league).
    - esperent 2y ago
      Well, that brings up two questions: 1. Does the weight of the satellite mean much? The bandwidth/concurrent users etc. is what matters. I know I started this by using the word "small", but I wasn't actually thinking about weight when I wrote that, but rather, capacity. 2. Did the EU itself say anywhere that this is supposed to be competitive with Starlink? Or did the article just frame it that way to gets clicks?
  - esperent 2y ago
    I think 260kg is small for a satellite. For comparison, GPS satellites weigh around 1000kg. Google's AI results told me that there are standard classifications for satellites, with 10-100kg being "micro" and 100-500kg being "small". I wasn't able to verify that elsewhere though. But in any case, what I really meant was lower capacity per satellite. Until we can get numbers to compare the capabilities of each satellite, comparing launch costs doesn't mean anything. It's almost certain that Starlink will have lower costs, but probably not as much lower as people are trying to imply here, given that I also found some claims that the entire Starlink fleet of satellites is expected to run 100-200 billion USD.

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".
- verzali 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
    [dead]
  - ChocolateGod 2y ago
    The EU is great for science and research, but terrible for actually building anything. The UK (although no longer part of the EU) is the homeplace of trains yet can no longer build train tracks.
- MiguelX413 2y ago
  Why should they be more ahead?

esperent 2y ago

I looked it up - Starlink plan s to eventually have 42,000 satellites. These are small and cheap, that's why so many are needed. It seems likely that the EU is planning for a smaller number - perhaps much smaller - of more powerful satellites. So comparing costs like the probably doesn't make sense.

slaw 2y ago
Starlink satellites are not small. > Starlink satellite is roughly 260 kilograms. Iridium System satellite is 680 kilograms.
- perihelions 2y ago
  The current generation is v2 mini, which is ~740 kg. It's no smaller than Europe's IRIS2 concept (which are unknown, but can't be heavier than 820 kg—see my sibling comment). (And just in case anyone's lost track: SpaceX has already launched over ten times more v2's than the entire (proposed) IRIS2. This is not a case of EU opting to do "fewer, but larger" satellites; they're simply just not competing in the same league).
  - esperent 2y ago
    Well, that brings up two questions: 1. Does the weight of the satellite mean much? The bandwidth/concurrent users etc. is what matters. I know I started this by using the word "small", but I wasn't actually thinking about weight when I wrote that, but rather, capacity. 2. Did the EU itself say anywhere that this is supposed to be competitive with Starlink? Or did the article just frame it that way to gets clicks?
- esperent 2y ago
  I think 260kg is small for a satellite. For comparison, GPS satellites weigh around 1000kg. Google's AI results told me that there are standard classifications for satellites, with 10-100kg being "micro" and 100-500kg being "small". I wasn't able to verify that elsewhere though. But in any case, what I really meant was lower capacity per satellite. Until we can get numbers to compare the capabilities of each satellite, comparing launch costs doesn't mean anything. It's almost certain that Starlink will have lower costs, but probably not as much lower as people are trying to imply here, given that I also found some claims that the entire Starlink fleet of satellites is expected to run 100-200 billion USD.