Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

reneweuropegroup.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 500 posts

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#351

Post by panick21_ »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #227
amm wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Falcon 9 Success Rate - 173 / 184 (94%) - Most of it LEO Falcon 9 Max Payload - 22 tons LEO, 8 tons GTO when all the conditions perfectly align and then it still kinda sucks. Falcon Heavy Success Rate - 5 / 5 (100%) - No track record Falcon Heavy Max Payload - 83 tons LEO, 26 tons GTO Ariane 5 Success Rate - 110/115 (95.7%) - 7 to 10 tons GTO, Most of it GTO Falcon Heavy's cost is still theoretical, when it has barel…

Wow this post is peak delusional nonsense.

Falcon family: 208/210 --> 99% (if you want to include AMOS its 98.57%)

> Falcon Heavy's cost is still theoretical

Its cost is unknown (so is that of Ariane 5), but its price is pretty well known. And costumers care about price and not cost.

> Ariane 5 works, extremely well.

Ariane 5 is end of live. It was incredibly expensive to the point where even Arianespace itself flew more missions with Russian rockets. It had a peak launch rate of 7 per year. Anybody with a brain has known Ariane 5 needs to be replaced since at least 10-12 years.

Outside of the Arianespace launched mostly Russian rockets, they just had a string of recent failures. Not to mention that they had issues with Ariane 5 that grounded the rocket for a very long time and the Swiss government had to provide emergency funding so they could make the launches leading up to Webb happen.

Arianespace will also consume more then 5 billion for the Ariane 6, a rocket that is mostly a slight upgrade over the Ariane 5 built with part that have been in development for a long time. This is more then the complete cost of the Falcon 1/Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy and reusability program have cost SpaceX.

The first step in improvement of European space is to not delude ourself of where we actually stand.

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#352

Post by panick21_ »

runlaszlorun wrote: post #290

This is probably something that the US (or other major powers) should really think about doing too. Military tactics and capabilities have generally been driven by communications capabilities. For example, radio communication technology was at least as important as the tank in for the German blitzkrieg. This becomes all the more important with drones, etc. I just punched up some quick numbers to make sure I’m not tal…

The US is already doing this, and not just once. They are already working with multiple of next gen network providers. And they are also doing their own.

The DoD will have access to multiple such constellations and use all of them.

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#353

Post by panick21_ »

tpmx wrote: post #48
Havoc wrote: post #3

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

No, Ariane Next is not even being seriously worked on. For this rocket to exists there will be at least 3-5 years of political discussions. The Ariane 6 has not even flown yet and Ariane 6 was already very decisive.

If Ariane 6 first flies this year, don't expect funding for a new rocket for at least 5-10 years and then at least 5 years of development.

Any Ariane Next will not exist before 2030 and likely not before 2035.

The only viable European rocket is the Ariane 6. And that has already been booked by Amazon. So unless they want to kick out Amazon, there is no way this will launch before 2027.

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#354

Post by panick21_ »

microtonal wrote: post #114
tpmx wrote: post #48

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.

Ariane 5 is done. Ariane 6 will launch maybe once this year. And then its already massively overbooked. So much so that many of its launches will likely fly on Falcon 9.

And on top of that Amazon has bought a huge amount of launches. Flying these will take many years.

Its unlikely that they have capacity. Realistically this is a ~2030 at best, not 2027.

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#355

Post by scotty79 »

Why this infatuation with low Earth orbit? Why not put just few satelites further out, like every other satellite internet provide does except starlink?

EDIT:

To people bringing up latency. Far away satellite has them far enough that they cover large area so the signal goes to satellite and back and that's it. Distance introduces latency.

But in case of constallation packet must bounce through multiple satellites and/or ground stations to arrive at the target so that introduces latency too. So it's usually not great either.

EDIT 2:

Never mind. Apparently Starlink manages to get pretty decent latency so far: https://blinqblinq.com/starlink-latency-and-ping-times/

The question reamins, if the goal is for the Europe to have a backup system for disasters such as armed conflict is the ping really key factor?

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#356

Post by scotty79 »

RedShift1 wrote: post #30

I don't like putting more junk into LEO than we absolutely have to because it disrupts our space telescopes (which the EU has also invested over 1 billion euro in). I much rather have the funding go to improving land based internet infrastructure.

I don't like putting out huge amount of objects on any orbit because if they collide bits of them might spread to any orbit depending on the size of chunks and exact collision geometry.

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#357

Post by 58028641 »

scotty79 wrote: post #355

Why this infatuation with low Earth orbit? Why not put just few satelites further out, like every other satellite internet provide does except starlink? EDIT: To people bringing up latency. Far away satellite has them far enough that they cover large area so the signal goes to satellite and back and that's it. Distance introduces latency. But in case of constallation packet must bounce through multiple satellites and…

Doesn’t that have higher latency (further distance) and lower speeds (more users per satellite)?

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#358

Post by forrestthewoods »

scotty79 wrote: post #355

Why this infatuation with low Earth orbit? Why not put just few satelites further out, like every other satellite internet provide does except starlink? EDIT: To people bringing up latency. Far away satellite has them far enough that they cover large area so the signal goes to satellite and back and that's it. Distance introduces latency. But in case of constallation packet must bounce through multiple satellites and…

Latency

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#359

Post by renewedrebecca »

scotty79 wrote: post #355

Why this infatuation with low Earth orbit? Why not put just few satelites further out, like every other satellite internet provide does except starlink? EDIT: To people bringing up latency. Far away satellite has them far enough that they cover large area so the signal goes to satellite and back and that's it. Distance introduces latency. But in case of constallation packet must bounce through multiple satellites and…

latency.

Re: IRIS²: The EU’s Response to Musk’s Starlink

#360

Post by scotty79 »

0xDEF wrote: post #36
RedShift1 wrote: post #30

I don't like putting more junk into LEO than we absolutely have to because it disrupts our space telescopes (which the EU has also invested over 1 billion euro in). I much rather have the funding go to improving land based internet infrastructure.

Putting more junk in LEO is a serious problem but SpaceX started this and now others will also enter the market. Why should Starlink have monopolistic control over the high bandwidth SATCOM market?

> Why should Starlink have monopolistic control over the high bandwidth SATCOM market?

They don't. There are other satellite internet providers they just don't use LEO constallations.

Post reply on HN