Quote from: eeergo on 12/17/2020 08:15 amIt would be against its interests and investments to strongly support maintenance-intenstive, non-resilient megaconstellations instead of the more robust ground technology it has become a forefront player on. Of course, if Spain can do this, most mid-sized countries with a reasonably large economy can too.Satellites (launched from one place, and self deorbiting when not working properly) and isolated (but essentially single design and made in mass quantities) ground stations are maintenance intensive, and fixed fiber running in a myriad different directions is *not* maintenance intensive? That seems counterintuitive, so please justify that if you would.
It would be against its interests and investments to strongly support maintenance-intenstive, non-resilient megaconstellations instead of the more robust ground technology it has become a forefront player on. Of course, if Spain can do this, most mid-sized countries with a reasonably large economy can too.
The UK and the EU could do a deal made in heaven. The UK gives the EU a stake and access to OneWeb while the EU gives the UK a stake and access to Galileo.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 12/28/2020 05:53 amThe UK and the EU could do a deal made in heaven. The UK gives the EU a stake and access to OneWeb while the EU gives the UK a stake and access to Galileo.That’s too logical for either side I expect.
It seems that SpaceX and OneWeb chose orbital height & inclination, that were optimal for their LEO megaconstellations. What if in the future other countries or companies wanted to place their megaconstellations at exact same orbital height & inclination.
SpaceX have only 5 years before it will need to start replacing first launched Starlinks. What articles of international law can other countries and companies use in the future, to force them limit number of ST at exact orbital height & inclination and share it with their constellations.
They better get started yesterday on a fully reusable system then, if they want even a small hope of succeeding. Ariane 6 won't cut it if SpaceX can launch more tonnage to orbit per year for a couple hundred million than the entire European launch industry has over its total existence to date.
Quote from: ZachF on 01/09/2021 10:09 pmThey better get started yesterday on a fully reusable system then, if they want even a small hope of succeeding. Ariane 6 won't cut it if SpaceX can launch more tonnage to orbit per year for a couple hundred million than the entire European launch industry has over its total existence to date.Not necessarily, for the same reason Ariane or Proton didn't kill off Atlas or Delta: the requirements for maintaining domestic competence ('do we have the knowledge and infrastructure to build and launch a carrier rocket?') and capability ('can we launch satellites without being beholden to any other nation who may suddenly decide not to launch our satellites?') can outweigh pure launch cost.
"From the first idea about Galileo through to the first operational service in Europe, it has taken 20 years; we don't have 20 years [for this new project]," observed Jean-Marc Nasr, the head of Airbus Space Systems, which leads the feasibility consortium."Speed is of the essence here. The idea of the European space infrastructure has been on the table since early 2020. We cannot have the first service in 2040. If we do that, we are dead."We have to have the service operational at the end of this decade at the latest. And this requires all of us to work as a team to deliver the best competitive service and technical background to Europe."
The industry consortium devising a satellite network to keep the European Union from falling too far behind the megaconstellation goldrush is weeks away from nailing down key criteria.The group has already made initial proposals on elements including frequency and orbital characteristics, according to Dominic Hayes, frequency manager for the EU space program at the European Commission’s Defence Industry and Space (DEFIS) department.“They’re presenting those as firm deliverables in the course of the next few weeks,” Hayes told SATELLITE 2021’s EMEA + Asia Digital Forum May 18.
Eutelsat has jeopardised its involvement in a new EU space-based internet service by investing alongside the UK government in the satellite broadband company, OneWeb, the EU’s internal market commissioner has warned.“We took good note of their decision to participate in a project that is in direct competition with the European initiative. I do not see how, structurally, an entity can have stakes in two competing projects,” said Thierry Breton, who also oversees the European Commission’s tech policy, at the launch of the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA).The new EU constellation was “absolutely critical for our autonomy, for our sovereignty, for our future. So, we will not compromise,” he added.
And some food fights: EU questions Eutelsat for taking stake in OneWeb
[Thierry Breton, EU commissioner] suggested he was unhappy with the industry group’s progress on the satellite communications study. “To tell you the truth, it was very interesting, it was important, but not too innovative,” he said of the first results from that effort. He said the EU will commission a second study involving smaller businesses and startups, rather that the larger companies involved in the first one. They will provide a report within two months.
The head of France’s Space Command appeared to endorse the European Commission’s proposal for a mega-constellation of satellites in low Earth orbit to preserve spectrum and orbital-slot rights in the face of U.S. and Chinese advances.Gen. Michel Friedling acknowledged that the business models of broadband constellations has yet to be proven. But given the strategic implications, he said, their ultimate profitability, while important, “is not the subject here. It’s sovereignty.”
Not that kind of sovereignty. If megaconstellation satcom becomes essential for governments and business in Europe, the EC doesn't want to be reliant on foreign entities to provide it (and take it away at their whim, as happened with Symphonie).
Quote from: high road on 12/18/2020 09:55 amand ESA's very public calling out of SpaceX not being responsive when ESA had to move one of their satellites to avoid a collision with a SpaceX satellite. You mean the ESA thanking SpaceX for their response*, while simultaneously using it as a point to emphasise the need for a global platform for communicating conjunctions and collaborating on avoidance (rather than the current non-mechanism of 'erm, send them an email, or maybe a fax?')? The ESA only pointed the finger of blame within the minds of tabloid headline writers, not in reality.*QuoteContact with Starlink early in the process allowed ESA to take conflict-free action later, knowing the second spacecraft would remain where models expected it to be. [...] “No one was at fault here, but this example does show the urgent need for proper space traffic management, with clear communication protocols and more automation,”
and ESA's very public calling out of SpaceX not being responsive when ESA had to move one of their satellites to avoid a collision with a SpaceX satellite.
Contact with Starlink early in the process allowed ESA to take conflict-free action later, knowing the second spacecraft would remain where models expected it to be. [...] “No one was at fault here, but this example does show the urgent need for proper space traffic management, with clear communication protocols and more automation,”
this is the German part of ESA. They are generally quite positive toward SpaceX. The British were extremely vocal on twitter and had initiated "tabloids" wave.
Europe has good infrastructure as it is
