Preparations are under way for a rocket test flight in Norway that could make history and give Europe greater independence from the market leader in orbital launches, the United States.
Isar Aerospace says it is planning to launch on 24 March between 12.30pm and 3.30pm CET, weather permitting.
Some background info on the company:
Isar Aerospace was founded by former students of the Technical University of Munich, who already participated in the WARR group which also won Elon Musk’s Hyperloop competition several times.
They received fundings from (among others) Airbus, NATO and a former SpaceX executive Bulent Altan (who studied at TUM as well).
Very impressive achievement already and a real hope for European space programs and independence!
Will there be a live feed of the attempted launch?
Unfortunately not.
It’s a few days, but they now have a planned livestream on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKLQxe2MvpQ
This is an absolute basic necessity for a European Starlink, isn’t it?
Well, to be able to independently launch it: yes. But once the satellites are up, who cares about the car dealers-in-chief?
& There’s already Eutelsat; their satellites already seem to be providing internet much like Starlink: https://www.eutelsat.com/de/satelliten-dienste/satelliten-internet-breitbanddienst.html
Eutelsat has geosynchronous orbits, which allows them to provide service over a much larger area per satellite and doesn’t require very many satellites to serve a consistent geographical area as the earth rotates and the satellites orbit the earth.
Problem is, though, geosynchronous orbit is 35,786 km altitude. Light travels at 3.0 x 10^8 m/s. So any signal takes 120ms to get to the satellite, and 120 ms to return. Any signal is going to have a 240ms latency at a minimum, and that’s just physics.
Starlink satellites have an altitude closer to 600 km. Light only takes about 2ms to get to that altitude, and 2ms to return. So the satellites add only about 4ms, which makes for easier and more seamless communication.
In order to compete with starlink for most typical Internet applications, it’ll require a bunch more satellites orbiting at much lower altitudes.
Eutelsat merged with OneWeb in 2022, which has satellites orbiting in LEO at 1,200 km.
So I suppose they also have access to that.
I don’t know much about this but I think these low earth orbit satellites bump into ozone molecules occasionally so their orbits will deteriorate after 5 years or so. That is to say, you need to replenish regularly.
You are right that low orbit satellites aren’t in a stable orbit and eventually fail in a matter of years. I think it very much depends on what the intended useage would be for a european constellation:
-
How much coverage do we want? Global or just the continent+ a bit more?
-
Would it just be for critical systems or are we also looking for economic independence?
-
What about bandwith and latency, how much do those matter?
All that would influence how many satellites are neccesarry and which orbits would be suitable. And also to what degree cost efficiency would play a role.
How much coverage do we want? Global or just the continent+ a bit more?
I admit I don’t know much about orbital physics, but I don’t see how you can have consistent coverage of Europe 24 hours per day and low pings comparable to Starlink without also covering the entire globe. Geosynchronous or sun synchronous orbits require a minimum ping of 240ms, round trip.
If you want to be effective, you need to drift south as much as you drift north to get adequate coverage - still a circular orbit, just tilted off the equator. This causes a real problem, because northern Europe is far enough north that you have to pretty much cover the whole world, anyway. Also, the more you move from the equator, the more bands of satellites you will need to have coverage at all times. The other part in the Starlink system is the requirement for some number of base stations to connect to the internet backbones. Further iterations are reducing this need, but it will never be 0.
What this means is, it would be cheaper for Brazil or the Middle East to have local satellite internet than it is for Europe, China, or Australia. In fact, if Europe had a low-orbit satellite internet offering, it would be more cost effective to sell it worldwide because they would be close to that just covering their own needs. Which is also the position Starlink has chosen to be in.
-
I suppose it could be done launching those satellites from French Guyana still
Commercial/private spaceflights are dumb and shouldn’t exist. Just more trash that flies at bullet speed in our orbit.
I mean you do need satellites if you want to have satellite internet.
Critical infrastructure shouldn’t be in private hands. As Musk perfectly demonstrates right now.
I mean true, but putting it in state hands encourages stagnation and will eventually leave you unable to compete globally. Also if someone tries to do stupid shit like Elon you can just nationalize the company or enforce some other harsh consequence. He does shit like this because he knows nobody can punish him.
but putting it in state hands encourages stagnation and will eventually leave you unable to compete globally.
NASA sent people to the moon in the seventies. SpaceX must be happy if their rocket gets into low earth orbit without falling apart.
It’s a widespread myth that capitalism is best at innovation. Quite the contrary is true. Most (real) innovations get developed with public resources in public institutions and private companies then take it and commercialize on it.
The internet, the touchscreen, computers, heck even AI, all developed with public money.
Also if someone tries to do stupid shit like Elon you can just nationalize the company or enforce some other harsh consequence.
And as we see it doesn’t and will never happen in our current system.
He does shit like this because he knows nobody can punish him.
And that’s the reason why no unelected individual should have control over so many resources which usually only countries have.
NASA sent people to the moon in the seventies. SpaceX must be happy if their rocket gets into low earth orbit without falling apart.
Okay I’m all for Musk hate but there’s a reason SpaceX came to prominence and it’s not because their rockets are always falling apart. Hell, the whole reason we’re now talking about a European space industry is because of Starlink, so clearly capitalism was able to innovate that. Europe is now realizing it’s falling behind because they have nothing to compete with SpaceX.
It’s a widespread myth that capitalism is best at innovation. Quite the contrary is true. Most (real) innovations get developed with public resources in public institutions and private companies then take it and commercialize on it.
It’s a myth that capitalism has a monopoly on innovation, but it’s also a myth that capitalism can’t innovate. Public institutions and universities usually make the big breakthroughs, but the commercialization is also important. Taking something from a proof of concept in a lab into factories all over the world and then continuously improving it is innovation. Governments around the world made the computer, but it was Steve Jobs who put it in people’s homes.
And as we see it doesn’t and will never happen in our current system.
That seems more of a problem with lack of spine than anything else.
SpaceX came to prominence and it’s not because their rockets are always falling apart.
Ok, please tell me one thing they did to advance space exploration. And please don’t say reusable rockets that bring down costs, because this is still a pipe dream.
Hell, the whole reason we’re now talking about a European space industry is because of Starlink, so clearly capitalism was able to innovate that.
We already had satellite internet long before Starlink. In fact, Starlink is a bad idea if you consider astronomy and space exploration.
https://www.space.com/satellite-megaconstellations-spacex-starlink-interference-astronomy
The only reason Starlink was created is that Elon wanted to play online games while on some island and didn’t get the latency down for it to work well. (Source: my dog)
Jokes aside, why do you need ultra-high-speed internet always and everywhere? For emergencies or normal usage, it definitely doesn’t matter if a request takes 10ms or 250ms.
Taking something from a proof of concept in a lab into factories all over the world and then continuously improving it is innovation.
But does it need private institutions for that? Innovation, at least in my opinion, means making possible something we previously thought was impossible. Production and distribution aren’t.
If something is truly wanted or needed, people will manufacture and distribute it easily without the need for private corporations to tell us what we need.
continuously improving
If you think that money is the driving factor, how would you explain the entire open-source ecosystem?
That seems more of a problem with lack of spine than anything else.
Huh? Of whom? The billionaire-sponsored politicians?
Ok, please tell me one thing they did to advance space exploration. And please don’t say reusable rockets that bring down costs, because this is still a pipe dream.
Since its founding in 2002, the company has made numerous advancements in rocket propulsion, reusable launch vehicles, human spaceflight and satellite constellation technology.
-Wikipedia. I don’t know nearly enough about space exploration to explain these advances, but again if they weren’t good at what they do they wouldn’t be the biggest space launch provider in the world (even counting national programs).
Jokes aside, why do you need ultra-high-speed internet always and everywhere? For emergencies or normal usage, it definitely doesn’t matter if a request takes 10ms or 250ms.
I don’t know why but Ukraine was using it so clearly it’s good for something. It’s also useful for people in remote places where there’s no good internet otherwise, or to avoid government censorship.
But does it need private institutions for that? Innovation, at least in my opinion, means making possible something we previously thought was impossible. Production and distribution aren’t.
I don’t think anyone in the 80s thought a smartphone was possible, nor did anyone in the 50s think the Macintosh possible. Maybe it didn’t have to be private institutions making them, but it was.
If something is truly wanted or needed, people will manufacture and distribute it easily without the need for private corporations to tell us what we need.
No? For a lot of modern technology decades’ worth of infrastructure and know-how are needed to even think about making the stuff, and most of that is the product of private investment and development. I, as someone from the Middle East, don’t have access to that infrastructure and know-how and therefore am forced to pay through the nose for an American phone or a Japanese car. You can make the argument that private innovation is nonexistent or unnecessary only by using the results of decades upon decades of private innovation. You only need to look to the Global South to see what happens when you don’t have that.
If you think that money is the driving factor, how would you explain the entire open-source ecosystem?
A lot of it (but not all) is in fact developed by developers in companies. Also there are many applications where the best option is closed source, one example being Excel.
satellite internet is already a thing and there are already thousands satellites in space
None of them European.
Eutelsat?
There’s no need for every country in the world to have their own starlink
Yes, but it sure helps when your internet connection can’t be turned off by foreign powers on a whim.
So does every country need a satellite army in case someone decide to attack their starlink?
