SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The bid includes large players such as Airbus Defence and Space, Eutelsat, and SES:
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.
[...] 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. Both the budget and the timeline for this project are likely very ambitious, given the amount of coordination needed and the unlikelihood that Europe's Ariane 6 rocket will have the spare launch capacity to get hundreds of satellites into low-Earth orbit starting in the mid-2020s. The Ariane 6 rocket will not debut until 2024 at the earliest.
However, European officials felt as though they had to make this move. Fundamentally, the continent faced a difficult choice. Europe seeks to remain a major player in spaceflight activities, which increasingly includes satellite-based communications. However, European officials did not want to be beholden to Elon Musk and his Starlink constellation, which already provides secure global communications like those to be delivered by IRIS². European government leaders are already wary of relying on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket for the launch of some if its satellites. Officials were similarly disposed toward Amazon's Project Kuiper constellation.
China is also developing its own megaconstellation, but Europe clearly did not want to hand over its secure communications to a global rival with questionable intent. That left OneWeb. But this network is partially owned by the United Kingdom—which very publicly exited the European Union a few years ago—and may not have the capacity to meet all of Europe's needs.
[...] The real challenge is coordinating all of this. There are serious questions about how all of these big partners can work together and whether the bureaucracy of the European government can get this project moving forward expeditiously toward the 2027 target date.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Sunday May 07, @05:12PM (1 child)
I winder why you appear to think that every bit of the surface of this planet has to have access to the WWW? As far s I can see right now all the intewrwebby has given us is a group of wacko billionaires who want to control the planet. Now don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with a decent profit from one's labors and wit, but the gaming of that profit into monopolistic and rent seeking powerhouses, is to me that worst of human enterprises.
Now if the idea is to get information to the most distant places on the planet, it seems to a better use of funds and labor to use proven methods to enlighten the masses. For instance, do you have any idea how many books can be printed and distributed for even a fraction of the billions it costs to blast a rocket into space? Or how many miles of cable or fiber can be laid for those billions? Also for fast exchange of information, how many microwave transmission towers can be installed, for just some of those billions?
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Sunday May 07, @09:32PM
I'm unclear what point you're trying to make.
Are you saying the internet shouldn't be available to every person on the planet? Are you volunteering? Who should choose who gets access and who doesn't?
Are you saying the internet invented rent-seeking monopolistic powerhouses? Did I hallucinate Dole, Standard Oil, or the despotism of Feudal Lords over subjects trapped literally from cradle to grave?
Are you saying physical books are more impactful than access to the entire internet?
Are you saying you prefer on-the ground infrastructure over off-world infrastructure? If so, why? Before you assert "It's cheaper!", consider that T-Mobile is spending $60 Billion on their 5g network build-out vs. Starlink's $30 Billion. Just comparing the sticker price makes Starlink look good; If you dig deeper and compare on a per-person or per-square-mile basis there's no competition whatsoever.
The only strong argument I can make against LEO satellite constellation internet service is the danger of Kessler Syndrome. That's a nontrivial risk, but all indications are that problem is being taken seriously by all parties involved.