Live data from Hacker News

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

reneweuropegroup.eu

401–410 of 500 posts

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

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is "here"? There are plenty of places in Europe with mediocre Internet infrastructure. It is not universally "great" by any measure.

So pressure your governments so that they invest in infrastructure either directly of by incentivising private companies while keeping them in competition with each other. Even some poor European countries have amazing internet connectivity right now.

I have reliable gigabit fiber, my internet is just fine. But I have plenty of colleagues in some parts of Europe that still have chronic issues with crap internet. Most of these are not in small villages, they are just subject to the whims of companies that simply don't care for whatever reason.

The quality of internet access is pretty variable most places in my experience, and there is more to it than just the notional bandwidth of the network drop you get. Some do it better than others but universally good quality internet for a country-sized region is still pretty atypical.

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

#402
post #28

There is always bashing if there is something about the EU and its national projects, not always deserved. However sometimes I wished HN showed more of local projects. For example: has there been a post about the European AI? https://www.aleph-alpha.com/

This is a bit crazy to me since it seems like there is a constant, almost never ending praise for everything related to Europe here. But I totally get that it's probably a difference in what topic we browse and what comments we read, so your experience is just as valid. I guess it's just surprising to me!

I worked for the EU gov. and I believe that Europeans are more naive about the foundations of EU than Americans are about the US.

And far more sensitive about it.

All Americans are cynical about their own country and government.

The EU is a wierd entity, and few Europeanns have a true understanding of the mechanisms of power, the horrible democracy deficit; a result of a kind of 'blind faith' in institutions, and a naivte with respect to the power and motivation of their leaders.

I guess it's a bit like the 'faith' we have in something like the UN, it's all well meaning, but when you look at operational elements it's bizarre. There's a kind of utterly detached academic view that permeates UN culture, it reminds me of Brussels.

The French population roundly rejected the trety of Lisbon, the French government went ahead with it anyhow, and future referendums in Europe were annulled because the elite had no will to allow the plebes to have a voice. In their view, the plebes woudl be too dumb to make the calculation.

The European Court of Justice is one of the most insane things in Judicial history of the world - it was never granted the powers it has (!), rather, it 'took them'. ECJ 'Judicial Supremacy' is the longest political sleight of hand in history. It's a bit mind-melting and the smoke that the institutions throw up to try to imply legal foundations are established. In Germany, they still contest the legitimacy of ECJ Supremacy, as they should, but it's not allowed to be talked about outside Germany. If they bring it up in the UK or Poland it's considered 'alt right' inanity.

Nobody ever voted for Ursula Von Der Leyen and nobody even knew who she was (outside of Germany) before the election - and yet - she speaks for everyone now! Because Democracy! All of the arguments in support of this system of choosing leadership fall flat, like Russians justifying their invasion of Ukraine. European elite could 'fix' that specific representation problem instantly, they very actively don't want to.

Those are tiny examples, there are so many more.

Commenters here and other places are super pro-EU in a way that if it were some other country we'd recognize it as being very nationalist, but for some reason, maybe because the EU is not quite a country, we judge the defensiveness by a different standard. Americans might say things that are effectively pro-America, but rarely in a directly nationalist manner. No Americans is going to run on about some government program, rather more like a story about something that is 'great', but which happens to be in America.

Also, for some strange reason the Swiss are the other hyper-sensitive nationalist group here in that if you say anything they will come out like an Army. I'm not necessarily complaining, just nothing that oddity. Also maybe Canadians, except nobody ever talks about them (or rather 'us' as I am Canadian).

As for satelites, we have every right to be skeptical - the EU is 20 years behind in this regard and talk is cheap.

They are 'reacting' to this war, which is a function of careless strategic orientation of the past.

Maybe this 'wake up call' will reveberate into other sectors.

.... it was amazing to see Germany drop it's dependance on Russian Oil very quickly, I'm sure we are all as impressed by that as Ukrainian resilience in the face of invasion. So let's hope for more than Satelites.

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

#403
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The big projects like Starlink are extremely subsidized by the US government No, it's not. (No, "SpaceX's US government launch contracts = US government subsidies" is not true.)

This question was, lest say, discussed between the EU and the US for litteraly decades regarding Airbus subsidies and Boeing subsidies. The former came directly the latter came through government contracts. Government contracts are one of the easiest ways to subsidize a company, and SpaceX got plenty of those.

There is a waste over estimation on how large SpaceX government contracts are.

You are ignoring that Airbus is also getting additional government contracts. Arianespace gets massive infrastructure subsidy, they are gone get at least 5 billion all said and told for Ariane 6, and that does not cover the last 20 years of sub-component level development for things like the engine and the solid fuel. Lots of the testing and development for sub-components is all done in govenrment funded institutions that all have their own public funding.

In addition to Arianespace has received lots of 'contracts' for development of things like engines, carbon fiber second stages, different re-usability prototypes and the list goes on.

And when all that is done, Ariane 6 will STILL GET GOVERNMENT contracts, such as launches from ESA, EU governments projects like Galileo and countries own launches.

SpaceX actually likely lost money on development of Dragon 1 and Crew Dragon. The had incredibly competitive bids and the govenrment got absolutely amazing deals by anybodies accounting.

For Arianespace to claim SpaceX is subsidized and that's why they can launch cheaper is simply the height of hypocrisy and and Arianespace actually knows that they are outright lying when they say that.

The reality is Arianespace and Europe dominated the market for 20 years and barley made any technological or price progress in that time. Even in the 2010s they mostly launched Russian rockets developed in the 1960s. If that's not a complete failure I don't know what is.

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

#404
post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sounds like the EU I know and loathe. /EU citizen from the north

I'm from Switzerland and we help finance that stuff. Specially the Vega rocket, a total piece of crap that shouldn't exist.

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

#405
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Nope, there wouldn't be a chronic debt crisis in the Eurozone if the Germans really held so much sway.

Germany wants that crisis because it's the only way it's moribund industries can be competitive in the global market. Well not any more after their dependence on Russian gas exploded in their face, but for the past 20 years.

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

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the US already have strong contracts with SpaceX? ... of course one can question how safe they are given Musk's condition.

Genuine question, what do you mean by “Musk’s condition”?

They are gaslighting a prominent man because he is from a different political tribe to theirs and they believe that by denigrating him they are defending their own tribe from “the other”

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

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think inflation in the EU is roughly at the same level as the UK right now. edit: apparently this is a controversial statement

Its actually higher than in the UK. https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?con...

Euro Area inflation is significantly lower than UK, same as Germany, France, Spain, ...

In the EU as a whole it's slightly higher because of the East countries (Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, ...) where inflation is crazy high because of their dependency on Russia for energy.

UK is in the very West of Europe, not East, and not reliant on Russia as East countries are. The economic impact of Brexit has just been significant, as it was supposed to be. Everybody knew it would be. Brexit was never about economy, but mainly sovereignty. That's a legitimate trade-off, of course, and many in the UK prefer to be a bit poorer in exchange for less dependency on their neighbours. I respect that. But it's important not to fool oneself thinking that leaving the highest economy in the world (EU economy was bigger than US' before UK left) was going to be good for the UK economy. That's just nonsense.

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

#408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many of the benefits could be achieved with better methods, other then putting a French style barley democratic bureaucracy on top of all existing democracies. The reality is also that almost non of the people in the countries were actually asked if they wanted to join. There is a difference between being pro European integration and pro existing EU structure.

how where people not asked if they wanted to join? mind you, European integration is a major political pillar in national politics of basically all countries inside of europe and its periphery. People vote on parties based on there political program, and most people seem to want to vast economic benefits being a member states brings. (heck, ukraine is basically fighting a war at the moment about an issue which basica…

I mean those problems are well understood. There are not that many parties to vote for and people vote for the party they dislike least. Some of those parties wanted to join the EU. In general it was elites that wanted to join the EU, not the party base. People might have voted social domestic because they wanted domestic labor laws but instead their country was integrated in essentially a super-national state.

The reality is most people vote primary for domestic polices, and the extent what the EU would do was not understood by voters at the time. There is a difference in initially joining and then having very little choice in the continue growth of that institutions power.

And in fact, in many places where aspects of the EU were put to a popular vote it actually fails.

There is also the reality that things like the EU/Euro were political projects and that Germany after the Cold War had to agree to some of these things in order for France and Britain to accept its unification.

People certainty were not asked if Eastern nations should be allowed to join the EU. Again, shouldn't a popular vote be in order when an institution like the EU considers adding a new member that can massively impact its economy and will receive untold billions in subsidies?

I'm Swiss so for me, a decision of such huge importance should actually be based on a popular vote. Not 'well in the 70s leftist parties were broadly more popular'. And once you are in, its incredibly hard to get out, and that is by design.

A real European Union based on fundamentally pro European pro Democracy principles would have been established over many steps and many votes. This would give some granularity to the choices. Maybe the population like one aspect of the many EU polices, but not the other.

In Switzerland we rejected the EG, but we joined Schengen, both based on popular vote. We join institutions such as ESA and many others. That seems to me to be a much better process of incrementally growing together.

> the state of most of europe during the 1950's i wouldn't judge them so harshly for it.

Lets not pretend the EU was formed in the 1950s.

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

#409
Starlink is available to consumers. This is not and will not be. Flagged for being super misleading.

I would love some actual Starlink competition. My parents live a 15 min drive into the mountains and due to the topography there is no cell phone service nor incentive to provide it. Starlink is the only realistic option they have for usable internet. They had viasat before and the latency is so high it was garbage to use.

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

#410

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…

The van Allen radiation belt [1] starts at 650 km (and ends at 58,000 km). The satellites would probably have a shorter lifetime if they were higher.

Since the speed of light is 300,000 km/s, adding 300 km adds one millisecond of delay, or 2 milliseconds to a roundtrip. Doesn't seem a lot for satellite internet?

Geostationary orbit is at 36,000 km, then for lag that is indeed problematic as it's then 240 ms for a round trip. Still bearable.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Post reply on HN