2 ms·

Pff bit of this bit of that. Trying to compete in the private market against SpaceX is questionable. The system isn't cutting edge and at best will be in the pr

Pff bit of this bit of that. Trying to compete in the private market against SpaceX is questionable. The system isn't cutting edge and at best will be in the private market with massive subsidies. Doing a huge constellation is 'in' but doing so when you can't even figure out how to design decent rocket doesn't make sense. We end up spending much more government money then the US ever did on Starlink, and we don't even get a decent rocket out of it. In fact, Europe is massively subsidising Amazon, just so the Ariane 6 can pretend it has costumers. And then we will launch this constellation with Ariane 6 and then everybody will pat themselves on the back declaring their 'vision' as a great success. Creating some LEO constellation for government and military maybe not a terrible idea. But 10 billion is less then SpaceX paid for the complete Falcon 9 development and the initial version of the constellation. And the government maybe paid a few billion at best. So we are paying 10x is more, for getting about 10% the value. And we will give a huge subsidy to Amazon as well. That just not really a great use of strategic resources. I would prefer to first figure out some basic, change the structures, start small and use contractors that can actually deliver. I don't actually see an urgent need for a 10 billion $ LEO constellation right now. Maybe get the rockets right and iterate on the technology for a while. Its like, Germany for example can't get the trains to run on time, the military is a complete basket case with many much bigger needs then secure LEO constellations, but LEO constellation is what every 'great' power must have. Sending old military equipment to Ukraine is to hard, lets slow ball that, but copying Starlink so we can also have secure unhackable LEO constellation that is a huge priority. I do think investing in critical infrastructure makes sense, but I don't have to be happy about how its actually done. So I don't really care about spending 10 billion. But the process of how decisions are made and how they are executed, is something I do care about. For example, it was utterly embracing watching Arianespace bumble along looking like complete and utter buffoons for 10 years, embracing Europe on a global stage. And did anybody get taken to account for a complete and systematic mismanagement? Have those contractors suffered any consequences? Of course not, here is another 500 million $ go and do a research project about the basics of reusable rockets.

lxgr 2y ago
> The system isn't cutting edge and at best will be in the private market with massive subsidies. It's intended for governmental use (which includes the military). As such, there's no need for it to be competitive with any private marketing offering. > So we are paying 10x is more, for getting about 10% the value. Such is the price of strategic independence. Or would you really feel better if the EU were completely dependent on staying on good terms not only with the US (whose soon-to-be leader is publicly considering to let some of its adversaries "do whatever the hell they want" with Europe), but also US-based companies essentially being able to charge the EU whatever they want for space launches due to a lack of alternatives?
- panick21_ 2y ago
  Its explicitly designed to also see private use, and sold to governments as such. They want to claim that this can subsidize the government operation. This is the exact same playbook that they use with the Ariane 6. Don't worry, its operation will be subsidized by commercial contracts. And then the actual commercial contract is a billion+ $ for Amazon. > Such is the price of strategic independence. If you only get 1% of value for every project, then its simply 100% impossible to actually have broad strategic independence. This is just basic math. There are 1000s of things that you could talk about in regards to strategic independence, if you have to spend 10-100x for each one, then you will simply fail to achieve it in 95-99% of them. And if you are in a position where you can't even get close to the goal of overall strategic independence you need to prioritize. Is a LEO constellation really the most important of those things? If your goal is not consumers streaming Netflix, but resistant military communication, what would a constellation look like that was focused only on that. Strategic thinking is about priorities and using resources in the most efficient way possible to the greatest possible effect. This is specially true in Europe where the money for such things are incredibly limited.

lxgr 2y ago

> The system isn't cutting edge and at best will be in the private market with massive subsidies. It's intended for governmental use (which includes the military). As such, there's no need for it to be competitive with any private marketing offering. > So we are paying 10x is more, for getting about 10% the value. Such is the price of strategic independence. Or would you really feel better if the EU were completely dependent on staying on good terms not only with the US (whose soon-to-be leader is publicly considering to let some of its adversaries "do whatever the hell they want" with Europe), but also US-based companies essentially being able to charge the EU whatever they want for space launches due to a lack of alternatives?

panick21_ 2y ago
Its explicitly designed to also see private use, and sold to governments as such. They want to claim that this can subsidize the government operation. This is the exact same playbook that they use with the Ariane 6. Don't worry, its operation will be subsidized by commercial contracts. And then the actual commercial contract is a billion+ $ for Amazon. > Such is the price of strategic independence. If you only get 1% of value for every project, then its simply 100% impossible to actually have broad strategic independence. This is just basic math. There are 1000s of things that you could talk about in regards to strategic independence, if you have to spend 10-100x for each one, then you will simply fail to achieve it in 95-99% of them. And if you are in a position where you can't even get close to the goal of overall strategic independence you need to prioritize. Is a LEO constellation really the most important of those things? If your goal is not consumers streaming Netflix, but resistant military communication, what would a constellation look like that was focused only on that. Strategic thinking is about priorities and using resources in the most efficient way possible to the greatest possible effect. This is specially true in Europe where the money for such things are incredibly limited.