Comment by DataDive

6 hours ago

If I understand this correctly the Europeans hope that by banning the spectrum where Starlink operates, they will spur the development of home grown operators that provide the same service ... is that realistic?

The europeans reserve strategic resources so that they can manage supply chain risk, since they consider the US one.

The US (dependably) proves them right, by threatening their supply lines.

Even if we don't spur the development of home grown operators (and IMO launch on the scale of Starlink is somewhat unrealistic any time soon), it will at least prevent us getting get another incidental dependency on US systems which we can be threatened with loss of access to at any point.

Of course, why wouldn't it? There's nothing unique about SpaceX's sattelites, or about putting them in orbit.

https://ioplus.nl/en/posts/these-are-the-six-european-altern...

  • The internal cost per tonne to low Earth orbit differs vastly between SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Ariane’s best offer:

      Vehicle                       Cost / tonne
      Falcon 9 (booster recovery)   ~$2 million
      Ariane 64                     ~$5 million
      Starship (projected)          <$500,000
    

    To meaningfully compete, European launch providers must try to match these costs, then spend a decade putting these vehicles into orbit. That’s no easy task.

  • nothing unique about it but they come in last and own the market from companies in this field for decades. EU rulz!!11

Europe doesn't need the same service. A far higher percentage of homes in Europe have access true high speed internet over fiber or wires than the US does. Europe can get itself the same capability with far fewer satellites.

It is, there are lots of European launch companies that will have their first launches in 2027 and all target cheap launch services which is the key to Starlink. Isar Aerospace has already put a payload in orbit, but they are only one of many.