181–190 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps eventually Ariane Next/SALTO, with an architecture very similar to Falcon 9? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next
If the timeframe is 2027, why not Ariane 5 or 6? Ariane 6 is supposed to have its maiden flight in 2023. Ariane 5 is already in use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of Starlink is that it's economically unfeasible to reach everywhere. Specially in rural areas, neither cables, fiber optics or 5G will make it. Keep wasting money in Europe.
If there is a point to bring electricity into a village, then there is a point to bring there also a fiber.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> are not visible to people when the satellites are in the shadow of the Earth (at night) Night is altitude dependent. Satellites can be in sunlight while the ground below is pitch black. (That said, I find the complaints about visual pollution silly.)
Out of interest, where do you live on the light polltion map [1], Bortle scale [2]? Do you have any sense of what you're missing out on or how bright and distracting tens of thousands of LEO sats glinting in the sun are, or to what degree they mess up long exposure visible astronomy shots, or the noise they make for radio astronomy? I have no issue believing that you find "complaints about visual pollution silly" ..…
Class 2. I can just appreciate the night sky with satellites in it. (They’re fun to watch.)
> to what degree they mess up long exposure visible astronomy shots, or the noise they make for radio astronomy
One is a luxury pass-time. For the other, there are workarounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> too expensive What's your source for good cost of launching satellite communication networks? Would you like to show us the reasoning here? > it should have invested proactively in next gen satellite direct to device tech If the current one works - why would they? For defence usage, reliable is better than next gen usually. (Something something next gen F35 still not usable) > I wonder where cost competitive launch…
> What's your source for good cost of launching satellite communication networks? - falcon 9 - $2700/kg - falcon heavy - $1400/kg - ariane 5 - $9000/kg > If the current one works - why would they? This is just low quality flame bait. If any of the before-mentioned (US) companies succeed commercially long-term, they will transform world-wide internet access especially in less developed countries. For clarification: as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is a point to bring electricity into a village, then there is a point to bring there also a fiber.
Infrastructure has to be self financed otherwise it's a waste of resources. That's why rural areas do not have internet. It fails every time
2027 seems quite ambitious. Curious what launch vehicles they're planning to use.
Perhaps eventually Ariane Next/SALTO, with an architecture very similar to Falcon 9? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next
[flagged]
I'm from the US originally and emigrated about 10 years ago; I think you're conflating different aspects of technology. The boom of US tech isn't superior infrastructure, it's that tech is a very lucrative investment vehicle so it gets a ton of attention. (Well, it was anyways, not sure what 2023 is going to do to this) While I understand what you're saying, I think what you're observing and commenting on is the huge…
No, it's not.
(No, "SpaceX's US government launch contracts = US government subsidies" is not true.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And even there, if you look at the sheer amount of R&D projects funded by the EU... Anyone serious can't say the EU doesn't invest massively in R&D. Interestingly enough, most of what I see funded and successfully becoming products are incremental development (increasing wireless bandwidth for specific apps or constraints, improving industrial productivity or getting to next gen for any tech) and few moonshots. I wor…
This kind of incremental development has been criticized a lot, precisely because it discourages scientists from trying anything audacious. Developing a slightly more efficient telegraph line every year still does not beat inventing e-mail. Whenever you introduce large bureaucracy into any process, risk mitigation becomes the main goal of the most important actors, at the cost of all the previous goals.
Incremental research is needed, and as a collaborator or downstream from many of these projects, the developed tech is often disruptive in many ways, be it cost reduction (keeping the industry competitive) or creating new features, improving safety of security of the products. Yes, developing a slightly better telegraph has its use and it doesn't beat inventing email but email itself was a incremental progress from telegraph, telex, fax, BBS, internet... Haven't seen a 747 assemble itself from a DARPA project yet.
A lot of the cutting edge stuff on all kinds of wireless or fiber communication is funded through the EU and I'd say looking at funded projects year after year you can see lots of research lab work percolate quite quickly to a large network of SMEs that then provide new services to lots of European companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Galileo has been operational for a few years. Even customer mobile devices Support and use it. Further more the British had a referendum and decided to leave on their own. Quite hard to call that force out. In fact it's impossible to expell a member state.
Operational? Yes. Reliable? No. It has had numerous outages in the last 4 years. How do you explain several non-EU states being members of the Galileo programme - namely Switzerland and Norway? Hell, even China invested into it in 2003. And yet, the UK which invested almost a quarter of its funding is booted out on the basis of an unrelated political issue? It doesn't make sense. The British even offered to continue…
The UK were in because of their EU membership. No one could have taken that from them besides they themselves.
And once you are out you get treated like any 3rd party state. If you want a special deal you better bring some time and be prepared to start fresh.
The desire "to get Brexit done" in a very tight timeframe, pushed by populist politicians, did not allow for that.
The whole deal of the EU is to make cooperation between countries easier and to act as a single voice.
The UK reaps what they sowed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the recent major advances in generative AI appear to have come from the US. The US is an extremely innovative country, no matter its faults.
Do you know where stable diffusion was developed?