It's official: Europe turns to the Falcon 9 to launch its navigation satellites(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
It's official: Europe turns to the Falcon 9 to launch its navigation satellites
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/its-official-europe-turns-to-the-falcon-9-to-launch-its-navigation-satellites/
128 comments
The interview was interesting, while seeming pretty incoherent to me (A.Charmeau mentionning they're on the market and do launches for other agencies while bitching about guaranteed launch numbers being a restriction was weird to me)
Checking other interviews[0], it seems that Airbus (Charmeau's other baby) is doing a ton of research on the side and is pushing a more commercial angle.
All in all, it sounds like he's more invested in Airbus becoming a SpaceX competitor than Ariane becoming a stronger commercial entity...but I'm also way out of my depth and don't know that much about the guy.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zImbRUQDJkQ
Checking other interviews[0], it seems that Airbus (Charmeau's other baby) is doing a ton of research on the side and is pushing a more commercial angle.
All in all, it sounds like he's more invested in Airbus becoming a SpaceX competitor than Ariane becoming a stronger commercial entity...but I'm also way out of my depth and don't know that much about the guy.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zImbRUQDJkQ
Wow, he said the quiet part out loud. One more fun quote from the 2018 article:
> the Ariane 6 will not fly until 2020 at the earliest
Here we are in 2024, and the first flight of Ariane 6 is tentatively penciled in for June. Not holding my breath, but at least a lot of French rocket scientists have been gainfully employed building this useless white elephant.
> the Ariane 6 will not fly until 2020 at the earliest
Here we are in 2024, and the first flight of Ariane 6 is tentatively penciled in for June. Not holding my breath, but at least a lot of French rocket scientists have been gainfully employed building this useless white elephant.
It's so weird how increasingly irrelevant Europe is becoming on the world stage. How is a single American private compan lapping around all of the EU seemingly effortlessly?
Precisely because it is a private company. It’s lapping US Government space flight too, and mainly because it can use its rockets for any customer, not just the defined mission.
Ariane Space is private, too.
United Launch Alliance is also private.
I think there are many reasons for the current situation.
First, Space X has a grand vision and is driven by it. They have excellent management and ingenious engineers.
Second, (IMHO) Obama's economic policies included picking winners. Space X got a juicy contract for many, many missions. The US is buying US first, so Space X has a nice base-line launch volume that enables them to go towards "mass"-manufacturing. As a result, cheaper prices drive demand even higher, increase volume, and lower prices. The US government has a more innovative approach to industry policies than the EU.
This brings me to the third point: what the EU is doing wrong. While the US tends to _buy the product_ of the new industry they want to create, the EU _funds the research_. This leads to the current situation in which Europe, which had a lead in methane engine research[1], has no methane engine, while the US has a company that earns money by launching a reusable methane engine.
Point four applies to the US and EU: While Ariane Space is private, the money comes from the EU and the partner countries (mainly Germany and France). Engineers did not design Ariane 6; it was created by politicians who squabbled about where which part would be developed and manufactured. There were two competing plans, one driven by Germany and one by France, based on which country would benefit more. I'm unsure about ULA, but at least SLS had the same problem.
So, in Europe, government funding comes with strings attached, and it goes towards research. People laugh about the CEO of Ariane (rightfully so for other reasons) when he complains that Europe is not buying enough launches from them to justify reusability. But he is right on this one. A rocket company needs a baseline of demand to justify going into "mass"-production and reusability. _After_ that, the lower prices will create new demand. In my opinion, this is how it worked for Space X and what Europe failed to see.
In my opinion, both Tesla and Space X are good examples of how to establish new industries (from the view of the government):
* find a private entity with a grand vision * buy their product * use economics of scale to drive down prices
The EU has started incorporating some of these ideas in its latest round of research funding.
[1] I don't have hard evidence for this other than that one of the researchers told me. Even if Europe didn't have the lead, we had cutting-edge research.
I think there are many reasons for the current situation.
First, Space X has a grand vision and is driven by it. They have excellent management and ingenious engineers.
Second, (IMHO) Obama's economic policies included picking winners. Space X got a juicy contract for many, many missions. The US is buying US first, so Space X has a nice base-line launch volume that enables them to go towards "mass"-manufacturing. As a result, cheaper prices drive demand even higher, increase volume, and lower prices. The US government has a more innovative approach to industry policies than the EU.
This brings me to the third point: what the EU is doing wrong. While the US tends to _buy the product_ of the new industry they want to create, the EU _funds the research_. This leads to the current situation in which Europe, which had a lead in methane engine research[1], has no methane engine, while the US has a company that earns money by launching a reusable methane engine.
Point four applies to the US and EU: While Ariane Space is private, the money comes from the EU and the partner countries (mainly Germany and France). Engineers did not design Ariane 6; it was created by politicians who squabbled about where which part would be developed and manufactured. There were two competing plans, one driven by Germany and one by France, based on which country would benefit more. I'm unsure about ULA, but at least SLS had the same problem.
So, in Europe, government funding comes with strings attached, and it goes towards research. People laugh about the CEO of Ariane (rightfully so for other reasons) when he complains that Europe is not buying enough launches from them to justify reusability. But he is right on this one. A rocket company needs a baseline of demand to justify going into "mass"-production and reusability. _After_ that, the lower prices will create new demand. In my opinion, this is how it worked for Space X and what Europe failed to see.
In my opinion, both Tesla and Space X are good examples of how to establish new industries (from the view of the government):
* find a private entity with a grand vision * buy their product * use economics of scale to drive down prices
The EU has started incorporating some of these ideas in its latest round of research funding.
[1] I don't have hard evidence for this other than that one of the researchers told me. Even if Europe didn't have the lead, we had cutting-edge research.
> Point four applies to the US and EU: While Ariane Space is private, the money comes from the EU and the partner countries (mainly Germany and France). Engineers did not design Ariane 6; it was created by politicians who squabbled about where which part would be developed and manufactured. There were two competing plans, one driven by Germany and one by France, based on which country would benefit more. I'm unsure about ULA, but at least SLS had the same problem.
This isn't surprising, considering that Ariane Space is fullfilling the role that NASA internal rocket development has in the US.
What Europe lacks is an investment culture, both from governments and private investors. Sums it up pretty much.
This isn't surprising, considering that Ariane Space is fullfilling the role that NASA internal rocket development has in the US.
What Europe lacks is an investment culture, both from governments and private investors. Sums it up pretty much.
" What Europe lacks is an investment culture, both from governments and private investors. Sums it up pretty much. "
True though the German goverment invests more into rocket startup to get Private Space working.
Europe has way too much investment culture from governments. All of my friends are creating startups with no decent go-to-market plan, but with 2 PhDs (as required to get BPI funds), a few keywords like “eco-blockchain in the AI cloud”, and BPI funds. It’s a waste, and they spend years on public funds. It also hikes the developer salaries, so there are no developers left for companies who are making real-world products.
I am not sure which program you are referring to, but I know of "EXIST," which is essentially funding for a team of four graduates, one of which has to be business-focused. The explicit goal is to use that time to write a business plan and find investors. That, at least, is a good program, in my opinion.
> This brings me to the third point: what the EU is doing wrong. While the US tends to _buy the product_ of the new industry they want to create, the EU _funds the research_.
The US also has a lot of "fund the research" style programs: anything with a costs-plus contract. SLS is the current example in rocketry, but most past NASA programs were costs+. The commercial fixed-price contracts are a newer and more successful development, at least for things where new science isn't needed and only engineering development is required.
The US also has a lot of "fund the research" style programs: anything with a costs-plus contract. SLS is the current example in rocketry, but most past NASA programs were costs+. The commercial fixed-price contracts are a newer and more successful development, at least for things where new science isn't needed and only engineering development is required.
Yes, because that was literally the point of the COTS and Commercial Crew
Europe is now the only large scale producer of well-built commercial aircraft.
The hard part are the engines anyway, which are still from the US (GE, Pratt & Whitney, CFM (that one is partly French)), and from the UK (Rolls-Royce).
Not really. Safran are doing just fine in that space.
With engines ranging from civilian turbo props and turbo fans, to military fighters and helicopters, to rocket engines.
With engines ranging from civilian turbo props and turbo fans, to military fighters and helicopters, to rocket engines.
Man the propaganda flies so fast, I don't know how we're going to survive the internet. Maybe instead of just shoveling the propaganda forward you could back up your wild claim with data? What are the odds of dying by flying in the current line of Boeing planes vs the odds in Airbus? Hint: It's lottery ticket odds both ways, it's the same order of magnitude both ways.
One airline has a fleet of 737 MAX planes, the other a fleet of Airbus 320s.
Are the insurance premiums the same? I don’t know, but I’d be surprised if that’s the case today after all the design and construction problems on the Boeings.
Are the insurance premiums the same? I don’t know, but I’d be surprised if that’s the case today after all the design and construction problems on the Boeings.
Consider my comment less of statement of objective fact than a rhetorical brush-back pitch in response to the ignorant claim of European irrelevance.
Edit: for this not familiar with Baseball analogies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushback_pitch
Edit: for this not familiar with Baseball analogies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushback_pitch
China has entered the chat
Yes, they still have a long way to go, but the C919 is flying and hasn't crashed yet.
Yes, they still have a long way to go, but the C919 is flying and hasn't crashed yet.
Eh if Boeing dies Lockheed Martin can get back into the commercial aviation business fairly quickly. They made the best passenger plane of its time[1] after all...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar
That's a plane designed in the 1960s and last produced in 1984. There's a massive gap in development which Lockheed would need to run through. Why would Lockheed even do this? (assuming there isn't a massive subsidy from US government).
Building a passenger jet isn't even that difficult. The difficult part is making it economical - low weight, fuel consumption, high reliability, parts availability, service/repair centers, training facilities, trained crews ...
Building a passenger jet isn't even that difficult. The difficult part is making it economical - low weight, fuel consumption, high reliability, parts availability, service/repair centers, training facilities, trained crews ...
LMT is the third largest manufacturer of aircraft in the world, after Boeing and Airbus. They've built commercial aircraft before and are the best positioned to re-enter that market if there is a (government-encouraged) opening from massive failures at Boeing. I don't think they'll walk into it unprovoked, but my point is that Boeing isn't the only game in town long-term in the US.
This seems like a peculiar take. Outsourcing one part of your space program while your own capability is still being built, is surely just pragmatic and is hardly a leading indicator (let alone 'the' indicator) for European irrelevance.
If your read the article I linked above and countless adjacent ones you'll see a subtext of blaming "unfair State support" (ie. Pentagon/USG) for SpaceX success. Before spaceX, the target was Boeing.
Ultimately it is really about being desinterested/unambitious/distracted.
Ultimately it is really about being desinterested/unambitious/distracted.
…says the European state-sponsored rocket company.
Yeah, but Boeing/ULA is also way behind of SpaceX
I've heard this called "boomer engineering" and I couldn't agree more
SpaceX has people and procedures with way more flexibility to do stuff (and a lot of unpaid overtime). Which can be good in some cases and bad in others
I've heard this called "boomer engineering" and I couldn't agree more
SpaceX has people and procedures with way more flexibility to do stuff (and a lot of unpaid overtime). Which can be good in some cases and bad in others
I don't get the part with unpaid overtime. As salaries are definitely not the biggest cost for them, why not just hiring twice as many?
Because the number of good metallurgists, physicists, engineers is limited and SpaceX (and I assume probably Arianne as well) have limits on the citizenship of who they can hire
Applying twice the people to a project doesn’t make it go twice as fast. And salaries are their biggest cost.
It doesn't help that most of Europe is facing significant population decline: https://zeihan.com/demographics-part-4-the-european-breakdow...
Anyone care to comment on why this concise response to the parent's question, supported with a link to the relevant data, was down voted? I'm confused.
It's a usual take on any European topic (made by an American?). The website above is about space, now we talk about demographics? How?
this thread is a better one, at least some posters write down arguments about the topic (though I know them) but many heated Americans really disturb the discussion about European politics (EU is in decline, all regulation is bad etc.) it's very annoying.
I mean, they're on par with another American private space company, Blue Origin.
Let me paraphrase an excellent comment on Reddit from the other day, in response to one of the usual lies about how the only reason SpaceX is ahead of the rest of the world is that it got zillions from the US government:
>If large amounts of funding is the only thing required to succeed, Blue Origin would now have a nuclear-powered spacecraft orbiting Pluto.
>If large amounts of funding is the only thing required to succeed, Blue Origin would now have a nuclear-powered spacecraft orbiting Pluto.
Who's dreaming now?
https://twitter.com/tesla4k/status/1676077165983723520
"SpaceX primarily seems to be selling a dream. $50M launch is a dream. Reusability is a dream. How do you respond to a dream? You let people wake up on their own. They (SpaceX) are not supermen. What they can do, we can do. - Ariane space exec, 2013"
https://twitter.com/tesla4k/status/1676077165983723520
"SpaceX primarily seems to be selling a dream. $50M launch is a dream. Reusability is a dream. How do you respond to a dream? You let people wake up on their own. They (SpaceX) are not supermen. What they can do, we can do. - Ariane space exec, 2013"
and that is why europe is so much poorer than us. we really let people dream big, fail and dream big again here and that is amazing.
I'd say that not having two world wars on your soil also helps.
It does, but the European and American economy have really diverged in the last 25 years. 25 years ago economies like Germany, Netherlands etc. were pretty much on par with the US economy (on per capita basis), which is not true anymore. And there wasn't a world war on European soil in the past 25 years.
I would blame: - Mishandling the financial crises after 2008 (austerity measures) - Aging population (low birthrate + not enough immigrants) - Internet businesses really have an advantage in markets that are mono-lingual and most growth came from the internet in the past 25 years. - The EU exists, but the market is still very fragmented.
I would blame: - Mishandling the financial crises after 2008 (austerity measures) - Aging population (low birthrate + not enough immigrants) - Internet businesses really have an advantage in markets that are mono-lingual and most growth came from the internet in the past 25 years. - The EU exists, but the market is still very fragmented.
It's true, the US had to go civilize Europe twice. America is using a lighter hand this time, but that is also because America is relatively weaker now. If Europe needs the US to come civilize it a third time, I think it might not happen. They will simply descend into the barbarism of the great wars without America to come quell them into civilization.
That is one of the most "arrogant asshole" comments I've seen here on HN.
Truth is truth, no matter the tone it is given in.
Truth is truth, but that was not truth. Just saying it was does nothing.
> the US had to go civilize Europe twice.
the first time the US got dragged screaming and kicking into the war... And the second time, they might have sat most of the conflict in Europe if they hadn't gotten war declared on them by Hitler
the first time the US got dragged screaming and kicking into the war... And the second time, they might have sat most of the conflict in Europe if they hadn't gotten war declared on them by Hitler
You need to get out of your bubble more often. Wealth does not equal being civilized.
Easy to dream big when you personally have billions of dollars. Normal people in the US aren't dreaming big or able to fail and take risks. If anything Europe has tons of social safety nets for people to make risky choices.
I have several friends that immigrated from Europe, and they've all made comments about their respective countries that suggest that's not really the case in practice.
Sounds great in theory, but in practice we observe the opposite. Turns out having an bigger reward for taking a risk is a better motivator than having a softer cushion to land on if you fail...
That benefit only exists for the already rich that can tolerate that risk. Who comes from actual modest beginnings and started a company that became successful recently?
Here were talking Elon who was already wealthy and managed to fail upward after making money getting fired from one of the first companies he was involved in.
Here were talking Elon who was already wealthy and managed to fail upward after making money getting fired from one of the first companies he was involved in.
[deleted]
reminds how some exec in 98 or 99 at Yahoo or another top portal at the time refused to buy Google because even though the Google was already the best the portal already had "80% as good" search engine and "as long as they have 80% as good as the best one they would do fine"
Shockingly, Yahoo is still a very profitable, popular property, even if the company itself isn’t doing anything of interest. Especially after Verizon trimmed all the non-essential staff.
And look at Google Search now, it's become dogshit. Sure, it took 20 years, but still.
One needs to know ITAR to know these numbers are not that hard for Chinese launch services.
Chinese accounting is full of state owned companies selling to other state owned companies. It's hard to say what the 'real' cost is.
If I am US company and I'm buying services from a Chinese company, what would I care what their real cost is? The reality is most large industry in the world is subsidized.
The European situation is actually a very close mirror of the American one. Europe lost one option (Soyuz) because of war, retired production of a second option prematurely (Ariane 5), and has development problems delaying a third option (Ariane 6) by multiple years. America's in the same boat: we're phasing out one Russian option (Atlas V, which relies on Russian engines); retired production of a second option (Delta IV); and have a third option years behind schedule (Vulcan).
SpaceX is the only outlier in the pattern. Without SpaceX, the US would be in almost the same position as Europe right now. So I'm skeptical about explanations suggesting some deep systemic differences are at work here.
SpaceX is the only outlier in the pattern. Without SpaceX, the US would be in almost the same position as Europe right now. So I'm skeptical about explanations suggesting some deep systemic differences are at work here.
> Without SpaceX, the US would be in almost the same position as Europe right now.
Yes, without decades of public and private capital and other NASA resources supporting commercial space startups that bred, amongst other highly innovative companies, a world beating launch service and global low-latency satellite constellation the USA would be in the same boat as Europe. That is a big systemic difference! The USA has a much more consistent emphasis on private enterprise backing up state capacity that periodically inject rapid innovation and makes things cheaper even if similar forces to Europe gradually entrench monopolies that slow things down and makes them more expensive.
Yes, without decades of public and private capital and other NASA resources supporting commercial space startups that bred, amongst other highly innovative companies, a world beating launch service and global low-latency satellite constellation the USA would be in the same boat as Europe. That is a big systemic difference! The USA has a much more consistent emphasis on private enterprise backing up state capacity that periodically inject rapid innovation and makes things cheaper even if similar forces to Europe gradually entrench monopolies that slow things down and makes them more expensive.
Europeans don't need private enterprise/initiative. We can rely on the grand vision and foresight of state institutions who always make timely, sustainable and efficient decisions.
so you think there is no private space industry in Europe? Do you work in that field?
Compared to the US's SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, Sierra, and others, no, Europe has no private space industry to one order of magnitude. (Spare me the talk about how Arianespace and Airbus are "private".)
Rocket Lab could have chosen Australia to move to. It could have moved to Canada, or to an ESA member nation and thus gain access to Kourou. But it chose the US despite the ample existing competition there.
Rocket Lab could have chosen Australia to move to. It could have moved to Canada, or to an ESA member nation and thus gain access to Kourou. But it chose the US despite the ample existing competition there.
I still think it's a shame that falcon 9s probably won't get launched out of french guyana. (for ITAR reasons, and/or turnaround time)
It was a really nice place to launch soyuz rockets out of.
It was a really nice place to launch soyuz rockets out of.
> as well as Project Kuiper satellites for its primary commercial customer, Amazon.
ESA subsidised by Jeff's hatred of Elon. And millions of taxpayers, of course.
ESA subsidised by Jeff's hatred of Elon. And millions of taxpayers, of course.
But Amazon also contracted with SpaceX: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/12/01/amazon-buys-spacex-rocke...
only after the board sued.
Which I found to be an impressive feat of governance in this day and age.
>ESA subsidised by Jeff's hatred of Elon.
Isn't it ESA subsidizing Jeff's hatred of Elon? I thought Amazon is paying less than market rate so as to keep Arianespace workers busy.
Isn't it ESA subsidizing Jeff's hatred of Elon? I thought Amazon is paying less than market rate so as to keep Arianespace workers busy.
Don't we in Europe have our own space rockets?
They do but not to this orbit. The smaller Vega rocket is still putting smaller satellites into orbit. Until the Ariane 6 comes online ESA is outsourcing to spaceX (which while unfortunate is better than paying the Russians to launch a Soyuz from Guiana).
They should go with the Indians too so they don’t put all their eggs in one basket.
why is using spacex unfortunate?
Because it forces the EU to depend on the US to access space. The main points of the ESA and Galileo GNSS are so Europe doesn't have to depend on the US for access to space.
No. Ariane 5 is retired, and 6 is still in development.
Other launchers are not currently available.
Other launchers are not currently available.
It's a very unfortunate situation. I don't understand why they didn't keep Ariane 5 going until 6 was ready - I've worked in the space industry (in the US) and customers would pay us ungodly amounts of money to not change something even when costs started rising because of old instrumentation, lack of knowledgeable and alive personnel, or our own suppliers going out of business/getting bought out and killing the product line we needed. They'd pay 2-3x the cost of a redesigned product (which would be subject to the same level of testing as the original) just to keep the old one, with the mindset that "it hasn't failed in 50 years so it won't fail now". I mean we're talking about measurements being made with pen plotters because they'd get angry that "something changed" if we sent them a digital plot taken on the same equipment.
Well they put their eggs into one Arianne 6 shaped basket, hoping that it won't delay much. It got delayed by a lot.
> I don't understand why they didn't keep Ariane 5 going until 6 was ready
It is not as if the US had no capability gaps. For a long long while they had to buy seats from Russia to get their astronauts to the ISS.
> we're talking about measurements being made with pen plotters because they'd get angry that "something changed" if we sent them a digital plot taken on the same equipment
That level of conservativism doesn’t sound entirely healthy to be honest.
It is not as if the US had no capability gaps. For a long long while they had to buy seats from Russia to get their astronauts to the ISS.
> we're talking about measurements being made with pen plotters because they'd get angry that "something changed" if we sent them a digital plot taken on the same equipment
That level of conservativism doesn’t sound entirely healthy to be honest.
>It is not as if the US had no capability gaps. For a long long while they had to buy seats from Russia to get their astronauts to the ISS.
There is a slightly different situation here, which is that the Space Shuttle was kinda... not that safe. I didn't like that either but for human rated spacecraft the requirements are all more strict, for good reasons. Unfortunately, those reasons are mostly things like Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia. But overall I think I agree.
>That level of conservativism doesn’t sound entirely healthy to be honest.
We weren't convinced it was either. Did you know they don't make parts for pen plotters anymore? Somehow the customer was surprised by this. We did manage to convince the right people there to allow the switch eventually but it was a struggle.
There is a slightly different situation here, which is that the Space Shuttle was kinda... not that safe. I didn't like that either but for human rated spacecraft the requirements are all more strict, for good reasons. Unfortunately, those reasons are mostly things like Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia. But overall I think I agree.
>That level of conservativism doesn’t sound entirely healthy to be honest.
We weren't convinced it was either. Did you know they don't make parts for pen plotters anymore? Somehow the customer was surprised by this. We did manage to convince the right people there to allow the switch eventually but it was a struggle.
It’s not healthy. That’s how you end up with Boeing et al.
The European Space Agency does, but is limited.
The only European country with its own launch capability is Russia.
The UK is notable as being the only country to have had that capability and lost it - which says a lot of the lack of vision and ambition of the British ruling class.
The only European country with its own launch capability is Russia.
The UK is notable as being the only country to have had that capability and lost it - which says a lot of the lack of vision and ambition of the British ruling class.
The problem is we were being very stupid about fascist regimes for a very long time in the West - the peace dividend of the end of the Cold War was treated as permanent even as we watched states like Russia and China become more and more authoritarian again.
Basically the belief that "economic ties would supercede ideology or meglomania". I suspect if Europe had taken a stronger line on Russia and the strategic threat it represented, then they'd have a stronger launch market since "we'll just buy a Russian launch" wouldn't be treated as a serious option (i.e. even the US was treating this as an option for manned spaceflight, and ULA using old Russian engines on their rockets without a home-grown option till Falcon 9 is ridiculous).
Basically the belief that "economic ties would supercede ideology or meglomania". I suspect if Europe had taken a stronger line on Russia and the strategic threat it represented, then they'd have a stronger launch market since "we'll just buy a Russian launch" wouldn't be treated as a serious option (i.e. even the US was treating this as an option for manned spaceflight, and ULA using old Russian engines on their rockets without a home-grown option till Falcon 9 is ridiculous).
I think the word fascist is not accurate of Russia, at least. Maybe just dictatorship is more accurate.
I entirely agree with what you way though. The west is extremely naive in its world view, and has been so for many decades. Silly ideas like "the end of history" are still influencing attitudes even though they are so clearly wrong that no one would explicitly espouse them.
The west has forgotten that not everyone is going to go along with the idea of social liberal free market democracy, and that it is not as appealing to many people from other cultures.
I entirely agree with what you way though. The west is extremely naive in its world view, and has been so for many decades. Silly ideas like "the end of history" are still influencing attitudes even though they are so clearly wrong that no one would explicitly espouse them.
The west has forgotten that not everyone is going to go along with the idea of social liberal free market democracy, and that it is not as appealing to many people from other cultures.
From the article:
However, this lack of access to space should come to an end soon. The ESA has shipped stages of the first flight hardware for the Ariane 6 rocket to its French Guiana spaceport. While the ESA has not set a specific launch date, it is working toward a window that extends from June 15 through July 31.
And wow, lots of hate for Europe in this thread. Salty much
However, this lack of access to space should come to an end soon. The ESA has shipped stages of the first flight hardware for the Ariane 6 rocket to its French Guiana spaceport. While the ESA has not set a specific launch date, it is working toward a window that extends from June 15 through July 31.
And wow, lots of hate for Europe in this thread. Salty much
It's funny because threads that are critical about the US don't see this type of "leave the EU alone!" comments. It's so weird that even Americans have less of a weird patriotic response to any criticism than Europeans.
> lots of hate for Europe in this thread. Salty much
Extreme hatred and saltier than a salt mine here.
Extreme hatred and saltier than a salt mine here.
> And wow, lots of hate [..] in this thread. Salty much
Arguments involving Musk's products, even tangentially, tend to do that..
Arguments involving Musk's products, even tangentially, tend to do that..
Sort of related question: is it possible to get more precise global positioning from a lot more satellites? I was wondering if a swarm of satellites is capable of GPS.
More satellites is mostly better. Multi-constellation receivers for example can obtain higher precision by using some combination of different GNSS. There is a minimum error you can practically achieve this way that has a fair amount to do with the wavelength, but it does help.
In most cases, though, faster/more reliable fix will probably be a bigger advantage than precision. When you have a partial sky view, more satellites means a better chance of enough satellites falling in that window for a fix.
In most cases, though, faster/more reliable fix will probably be a bigger advantage than precision. When you have a partial sky view, more satellites means a better chance of enough satellites falling in that window for a fix.
I'm curious, hoe do multi-constellation receivers use them all at once? Are the signals just all the same thing? On some level I know they're just atomic clocks, and the governing equations should work if all of them are synchronized, but I can't help but think that feeding data different constellations in all at once wouldn't produce a good result. Or perhaps you can answer somewhat the opposite question - if the data IS all the same, then why are there multiple constellations and standards? Apart from Beidou, which I believe can actually serve as a radio repeater of some kind, aren't they all doin the same thing?
The calculation of a fix from GNSS is actually rather complex and the potential complexity is almost unlimited. The most accurate GNSS fixes are obtained from offline solvers that analyze long-duration (e.g. 24 hour) recordings of the GNSS data streams and use computer models to determine the most likely solution accounting for many types of error. This is all to say that there isn't really one approach to calculating a fix from GNSS, and receivers embedded in devices like phones use pretty simplified methods so that they can run in real-time and with a short time to first fix.
Most GNSS are largely similar, though, and there are certainly enough papers describing how to perform fixing across satellites of independent constellations so I'm sure it's been implemented in at least higher-end devices. Still, I suspect inexpensive consumer receivers are probably calculating a fix per constellation and then combining those. Fixing across constellations requires combining ephemera, time base, etc. data that varies between them, but all of these are known with high precision, you just have to pull them together.
Since most GNSS are mostly the same, new GNSS constellations are usually launched either to improve coverage in a region, or these days with several global constellations, more often for sovereignty reasons. If you have weapons systems that rely on GNSS, it's better to have your own constellation. GPS for example no longer has a wartime selective availability capability (that would deny use by anyone other than US forces) but it did in the past and, if WW3 broke out, it would probably be implemented again. For much this reason different GNSS constellations tend to operate in different bands (not always, though) so that a country can selectively jam adversarial GNSS systems without affecting their own. GNSS has its origins in the military and is still largely a military capability today, with Galileo being the odd one out that focuses more on commercial applications (Galileo's selective availability capability is used to charge a subscription for higher-precision uses).
And some GNSS do have "accessory" capabilities, probably the most prominent being Galileo's two-way search and rescue messaging capability that will compliment COSPAS-SARSAT. But that's always been the way with satellites. For example, the GPS constellation carries detonation sensing equipment for nuclear counter-proliferation. It just saves money to combine payloads.
One of the reasons to not put GNSS constellations in separate bands is that it simplifies the construction of multi-constellation receivers. Of course, it also makes it more difficult to selectively jam. Some combination of these interests mean that GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo are very close siblings in the radio spectrum. It gets surprisingly political.
Most GNSS are largely similar, though, and there are certainly enough papers describing how to perform fixing across satellites of independent constellations so I'm sure it's been implemented in at least higher-end devices. Still, I suspect inexpensive consumer receivers are probably calculating a fix per constellation and then combining those. Fixing across constellations requires combining ephemera, time base, etc. data that varies between them, but all of these are known with high precision, you just have to pull them together.
Since most GNSS are mostly the same, new GNSS constellations are usually launched either to improve coverage in a region, or these days with several global constellations, more often for sovereignty reasons. If you have weapons systems that rely on GNSS, it's better to have your own constellation. GPS for example no longer has a wartime selective availability capability (that would deny use by anyone other than US forces) but it did in the past and, if WW3 broke out, it would probably be implemented again. For much this reason different GNSS constellations tend to operate in different bands (not always, though) so that a country can selectively jam adversarial GNSS systems without affecting their own. GNSS has its origins in the military and is still largely a military capability today, with Galileo being the odd one out that focuses more on commercial applications (Galileo's selective availability capability is used to charge a subscription for higher-precision uses).
And some GNSS do have "accessory" capabilities, probably the most prominent being Galileo's two-way search and rescue messaging capability that will compliment COSPAS-SARSAT. But that's always been the way with satellites. For example, the GPS constellation carries detonation sensing equipment for nuclear counter-proliferation. It just saves money to combine payloads.
One of the reasons to not put GNSS constellations in separate bands is that it simplifies the construction of multi-constellation receivers. Of course, it also makes it more difficult to selectively jam. Some combination of these interests mean that GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo are very close siblings in the radio spectrum. It gets surprisingly political.
>The most accurate GNSS fixes are obtained from offline solvers that analyze long-duration (e.g. 24 hour) recordings of the GNSS data streams and use computer models to determine the most likely solution accounting for many types of error.
I actually have a receiver that does exactly this! It is a Trimble Resolution T, available for very cheap (I believe they're from old cell towers), and it's intended exclusively as a time reference. You first run a 24 hour data collection, and it precisely determines your location before storing it. From then on, the receiver only calculates the time. Very cool stuff, I'm planning on building a GPS-disciplined rubidium clock and stratum 1 NTP server with it.
>Still, I suspect inexpensive consumer receivers are probably calculating a fix per constellation and then combining those.
This sounds like a reasonable solution now that you mention it, for an inexpensive device. Part of my confusion is based in the fact that the constellations actually use different reference datums [0]. Wouldn't the different constellations give meaningfully different fixes even if the solution was "perfect"?
I mentioned in another comment that I pretty much forgot that this could be a political thing. That's a very good point and I don't know why I didn't think of it. Especially with selective availability, which as far as I understand, the US government could just turn on again at a moments notice.
[0] https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Reference_Frames_in...
I actually have a receiver that does exactly this! It is a Trimble Resolution T, available for very cheap (I believe they're from old cell towers), and it's intended exclusively as a time reference. You first run a 24 hour data collection, and it precisely determines your location before storing it. From then on, the receiver only calculates the time. Very cool stuff, I'm planning on building a GPS-disciplined rubidium clock and stratum 1 NTP server with it.
>Still, I suspect inexpensive consumer receivers are probably calculating a fix per constellation and then combining those.
This sounds like a reasonable solution now that you mention it, for an inexpensive device. Part of my confusion is based in the fact that the constellations actually use different reference datums [0]. Wouldn't the different constellations give meaningfully different fixes even if the solution was "perfect"?
I mentioned in another comment that I pretty much forgot that this could be a political thing. That's a very good point and I don't know why I didn't think of it. Especially with selective availability, which as far as I understand, the US government could just turn on again at a moments notice.
[0] https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Reference_Frames_in...
> It gets surprisingly political.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)...
> I can't help but think that feeding data different constellations in all at once wouldn't produce a good result
Obviously if you just mix up the bytes willy nilly then nothing good will come out of it.
How familiar are you with the terminology of mathematical optimisation? If you are then the intuition is that each satelite provides a different error term in one big function you are trying to optimise. The “knowns” you plug in to the terms are your observations (pseudorange, phase, etc) and the orbital parameters of the satelite broadcast by the satelites. The unknowns you are trying to solve are the x,y,z,t coordinates of the receiver you have. You are trying to find the unknowns which minimise the sum of the error terms. The error terms of the various constellations might have slightly different ”shapes”, but you can still run your optimisation them the same. As you add more satelite the number of unknowns remain the same (4), but you are adding more and more equations to your overdetermined system. When things are not pathological that leads to a better, more precise fit.
> aren't they all doin the same thing
Even if they were, sometimes it is valuable to have your own toy. If Russia is having a war in some region of the world and the US decides to turn off the GPS signals there is not much Russia can do about that. It is a US satelite and the US adjusts it as they see it fit.
If Russia has their own satelites and the US would like to deny them this the US have to attack Russian assets directly. That is a very different ball game.
Obviously if you just mix up the bytes willy nilly then nothing good will come out of it.
How familiar are you with the terminology of mathematical optimisation? If you are then the intuition is that each satelite provides a different error term in one big function you are trying to optimise. The “knowns” you plug in to the terms are your observations (pseudorange, phase, etc) and the orbital parameters of the satelite broadcast by the satelites. The unknowns you are trying to solve are the x,y,z,t coordinates of the receiver you have. You are trying to find the unknowns which minimise the sum of the error terms. The error terms of the various constellations might have slightly different ”shapes”, but you can still run your optimisation them the same. As you add more satelite the number of unknowns remain the same (4), but you are adding more and more equations to your overdetermined system. When things are not pathological that leads to a better, more precise fit.
> aren't they all doin the same thing
Even if they were, sometimes it is valuable to have your own toy. If Russia is having a war in some region of the world and the US decides to turn off the GPS signals there is not much Russia can do about that. It is a US satelite and the US adjusts it as they see it fit.
If Russia has their own satelites and the US would like to deny them this the US have to attack Russian assets directly. That is a very different ball game.
I think I know enough about optimization problems for what I need, but GNSS seems like a step up. I guess my though is that optimization clearly works fine within a single constellation because all of your information is definitely good, but across constellations are you guaranteed that they will necessarily agree? Or maybe more concretely - are my position and time in a theoretical "perfect" fix the same on GPS vs Galileo vs GLONASS etc exactly the same?If not, is splitting the difference closer to ground truth? I think that depends on what reference datums they use, and they're not the same [0].
Regarding the political aspect - you're right, and it's easy to forget about. I could say something cynical about that but I'll leave it.
[0] https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Reference_Frames_in...
Regarding the political aspect - you're right, and it's easy to forget about. I could say something cynical about that but I'll leave it.
[0] https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Reference_Frames_in...
[deleted]
Define exactly what you mean by "a swarm of satellites"? Each satellite in a GPS style constellation (and I haven't looked into the details, but I believe that all of the major GPS competitors use the same technique- Galileo, GLONASS, Beidou) has its own atomic clock in space and really can only do satellite navigation stuff[1]. Generally speaking, in the medium altitude orbits preferred for this mission, 24 is minimum for world-wide network. Having some more of these specific, large satellites is good: it helps you have more of them in sight at any given moment anywhere in the world, which should give you better accuracy, though having them too close to each other doesn't really help that much, and it helps to have some in reserve so if there is a problem with one you can activate another and quickly fill the gap. According to wiki there are 31 GPS sats operational (plus four in orbit but on reserve), 31 (plus five in orbit but on reserve) Beidou, 23 operational Galileo, and 24 GLONASS operational. So you can see that all of the major operations are at about the same number of satellites for a traditional global satellite navigation system.
It might be possible to do a different technique and use a swarm of internet satellites: something like how the TRANSIT (aka NAVSAT) system could, in theory, provide navigation from satellite internet machines. In practice you'd need to know each member of the swarm's orbits very precisely to have sufficient accuracy with their Doppler shift, which means that you prefer station-keeping burns to be infrequent[2], and because they are in low orbit- lots of drag, so they need to regularly burn- that's harder to do (this is why the existing systems use medium orbits). Also, a TRANSIT style operation can't really give you turn-by-turn directions on your cellphone, it was about updating a very powerful submarine inertial guidance system with big honking mechanical gyroscopes every few days, the INS on your phone isn't nearly good enough to handle turn-by-turn directions with TRANSIT update rates.
1: Japan has their own Just Japan system, QZSS, which I have vague memories is different, but I don't remember enough to explain it.
2: The way these systems work, you can never really have more accuracy than you know the satellites location in space. In general, you want ground based systems to track and update orbital parameters after every satellite burn to get the necessary accuracy.
It might be possible to do a different technique and use a swarm of internet satellites: something like how the TRANSIT (aka NAVSAT) system could, in theory, provide navigation from satellite internet machines. In practice you'd need to know each member of the swarm's orbits very precisely to have sufficient accuracy with their Doppler shift, which means that you prefer station-keeping burns to be infrequent[2], and because they are in low orbit- lots of drag, so they need to regularly burn- that's harder to do (this is why the existing systems use medium orbits). Also, a TRANSIT style operation can't really give you turn-by-turn directions on your cellphone, it was about updating a very powerful submarine inertial guidance system with big honking mechanical gyroscopes every few days, the INS on your phone isn't nearly good enough to handle turn-by-turn directions with TRANSIT update rates.
1: Japan has their own Just Japan system, QZSS, which I have vague memories is different, but I don't remember enough to explain it.
2: The way these systems work, you can never really have more accuracy than you know the satellites location in space. In general, you want ground based systems to track and update orbital parameters after every satellite burn to get the necessary accuracy.
>1: Japan has their own Just Japan system, QZSS, which I have vague memories is different, but I don't remember enough to explain it.
Japan's QZSS is complementary to America's GPS and also covers Australia and everywhere in-between due to its orbit.
For generally practical purposes, it can be considered part of GPS. Any GPS receiver in range can receive its signals.
Japan's QZSS is complementary to America's GPS and also covers Australia and everywhere in-between due to its orbit.
For generally practical purposes, it can be considered part of GPS. Any GPS receiver in range can receive its signals.
On the receiver side, yeah.
On the satellite side, I had vague memories they were weird when I wrote that. From some quick googling I think they are doing a trick with clock synchronization from ground stations to avoid needing an atomic clock in space, since over Japan and Australia they will always have LOS to a ground-station (which they can use in place of the atomic clock as the master time source for each satellite)[1]. At least, that's what the 2008 Ph.D thesis "Remote Synchronization Method for the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System: study of a novel satellite timekeeping system which does not require on-board atomic clocks"[2] suggests that they were doing. That was published before the QZSS system actually flew, so I still am not sure if they actually went that way or stuck with the conventional atomic-clocks-in-space approach. So maybe they are unique in not needing so much hardware in space, perhaps?
1: GPS, designed to deal with at least the opening stages of nuclear war, had as a design goal the ability to operate without ground stations at least for a while, and there are large swathes of the world that don't have suitable ground stations, so they had to go with the atomic-clocks-in-space route to provide global coverage. By focusing on just a small area and ignoring the 'must operate for several days during a nuclear war' case, QZSS maybe could get away with something cheaper.
2: https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/9386...
On the satellite side, I had vague memories they were weird when I wrote that. From some quick googling I think they are doing a trick with clock synchronization from ground stations to avoid needing an atomic clock in space, since over Japan and Australia they will always have LOS to a ground-station (which they can use in place of the atomic clock as the master time source for each satellite)[1]. At least, that's what the 2008 Ph.D thesis "Remote Synchronization Method for the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System: study of a novel satellite timekeeping system which does not require on-board atomic clocks"[2] suggests that they were doing. That was published before the QZSS system actually flew, so I still am not sure if they actually went that way or stuck with the conventional atomic-clocks-in-space approach. So maybe they are unique in not needing so much hardware in space, perhaps?
1: GPS, designed to deal with at least the opening stages of nuclear war, had as a design goal the ability to operate without ground stations at least for a while, and there are large swathes of the world that don't have suitable ground stations, so they had to go with the atomic-clocks-in-space route to provide global coverage. By focusing on just a small area and ignoring the 'must operate for several days during a nuclear war' case, QZSS maybe could get away with something cheaper.
2: https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/9386...
I can only answer from theory, but the geometric dillution of precision decreases with N, the number of independent measurements of satellite signals.
In practice, there's a floor to the noise which is a reasonable lower bound on your uncertainty.
There's also factors that can't really be overcome from more sats, like multipath effects.
In practice, there's a floor to the noise which is a reasonable lower bound on your uncertainty.
There's also factors that can't really be overcome from more sats, like multipath effects.
Guessing here but i bet this is one of the line items in the starshield project with the feds, but not a very big commercial concern as GPS is "Good enough" for most applications.
However, this would require different hardware on both the sats and the ground stations.
You'd prolly need much better coordination algo's too.
However, this would require different hardware on both the sats and the ground stations.
You'd prolly need much better coordination algo's too.
We already have that swarm. Considering most chipsets can receive 4 or 5 GNSS networks with up to 3 bands. That's a lot of signals.
Elon tweeted at one point that the swarm of Starlink sats could indeed be used for a GPS-like service, but that it's a low priority and won't happen for a while.
In theory, yes. But it's diminishing returns, and requires more and more capable hardware as you include more.
Under ideal conditions GPS is already accurate to 30cm, which is frankly astonishing on a planet of 200 million square miles.
Under ideal conditions GPS is already accurate to 30cm, which is frankly astonishing on a planet of 200 million square miles.
cm and square miles in the same sentence
You're half-way there, keep it up !
You're half-way there, keep it up !
More precise, perhaps. There are a whole lot of GNSS satellites up there already, but they comprise four separate systems, so you need to know a lot of inter-system timing bias information in order to fuse them into one big effective constellation.
If you meant a single LEO swarm operated by a single entity, yes that's possible too, and there are proposals to do it, because LEO birds can provide much stronger signals, you'd have a decent shot of it working indoors and stuff.
But, the ground-segment necessary to keep track of the clocks on a large number of satellites would be formidable. They'd also be out of view of ground stations for a larger portion of their orbits (since they're so much lower), which means some new work in tracking the clock drift, which is one of the main limitations on accuracy.
If you meant a single LEO swarm operated by a single entity, yes that's possible too, and there are proposals to do it, because LEO birds can provide much stronger signals, you'd have a decent shot of it working indoors and stuff.
But, the ground-segment necessary to keep track of the clocks on a large number of satellites would be formidable. They'd also be out of view of ground stations for a larger portion of their orbits (since they're so much lower), which means some new work in tracking the clock drift, which is one of the main limitations on accuracy.
[deleted]
Why cant the EU use ISRO rockets?
Because they're more expensive and inferior? There's a reason that ISRO's only launches in like the last 5 years are domestic launches, and two launches for a competitor to Starlink that needed an alternative after Russia invaded Ukraine (and ended up launching twice as many satellites with SpaceX regardless).
What the hell are you talking about? In the past five years ISRO has launched 177 satellites for 19 different countries. I remember watching one for Singapore just last week.
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1883677
How is it inferior? It’s the same orbital insertion and they have a near 100% success rate.
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1883677
How is it inferior? It’s the same orbital insertion and they have a near 100% success rate.
The vast majority of those satellites are basically a joke. They're all tiny cubesats, and the entirety of their commercial space program in that period could probably fit on a single Falcon 9: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_satellites_lau...
I think some of the larger payloads cannot be launched by ISRO at the moment
The cost of launch on most of these projects is not the main cost component.
If you spent years and hundreds of millions on the payload, you are willing to pay more to launch on a platform with a very proven track record, like Falcon 9.
If you spent years and hundreds of millions on the payload, you are willing to pay more to launch on a platform with a very proven track record, like Falcon 9.
carabiner(2)
These have to be spy satellites. GPS is just a timing signal, in space. Technology we had 40 years ago. There is no way you need $100M to build this and have special government authorization to collect the debris.
1. These will be the most accurate GPS satellites available for civilian use. Precision costs money.
2. GPS has huge military implications. These satellites will be leveraged by the military. There are literally military secretes involved in these satellites.
3. The 100M is for the launch, not the satellites. Space X's standard fee is 67M/launch. It seems fair to attribute a lot of the premium to extra security costs around handling military technology.
2. GPS has huge military implications. These satellites will be leveraged by the military. There are literally military secretes involved in these satellites.
3. The 100M is for the launch, not the satellites. Space X's standard fee is 67M/launch. It seems fair to attribute a lot of the premium to extra security costs around handling military technology.
US spy sats cost an order of magnitude more. Like a billion. And you don't spy from 22000km. That's a GNSS orbit. You do that from low earth orbit. It makes no sense being 40x as far away than you need to, needing that much more magnification (if optical) or signal strength (if EM espionage)
I'm pretty sure this is just Galileo. Yeah it's just timing but Galileo has high accuracy and does SAR reception too. And it's government so the price goes up :)
Also, the EU as an entity does not have a military or espionage agency. If someone does that in Europe it's coming from a country, not the whole EU.
I'm pretty sure this is just Galileo. Yeah it's just timing but Galileo has high accuracy and does SAR reception too. And it's government so the price goes up :)
Also, the EU as an entity does not have a military or espionage agency. If someone does that in Europe it's coming from a country, not the whole EU.
Right, Europe's GNSS birds have the same extra carrier as the current US GPS birds, but whereas the US can say "That's for military use" the EU can't because it does not have a military, so it says that's a "Public safety" feature.
There was another comment about how the $100M is for the rocket and not the satellites, but I'm here to point out that Aerojet Rocketdyne is charging something like $100M to refurbish existing RS-25 engines from the Shuttle era for Artemis, per engine. In case it's not clear, that's not $100M to build the engine, it's already built and tested, it's $100M to "refurbish."
> Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a rocket which we can use ten times—we would build exactly one rocket per year," he said. "That makes no sense. I cannot tell my teams: 'Goodbye, see you next year!' [0]
European "strategic autonomy" in a quote.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/ariane-chief-seems-f...