Congratulations! An immensely important achievement, I’d say.
IMO, this success has a great implication for accessibility and sovereignty of the EU. Although ESA can launch from French Guiana, the spaceport is an ocean-away from Europe! That fact alone affects the cost and the launch cadence for Europe greatly.
Now they prove they can launch directly from Norway with their own production from Munich and elsewhere and that has immense potential for the future: much higher launch cadence, significant lower cost and always-on accessibility.
The only way Europe can have a Starlink similar network is to launch it from their own soil and reuse the first stage. Also from the perspective of security, launching spy and other military satellites from EU soil is the only practical possibility in this political climate.
> The only way Europe can have a Starlink similar network is to launch it from their own soil and reuse the first stage.
Unfortunately I'm not aware of any properly funded euro alternative to starlink that that has progressed beyond the conceptual stage. Even the Canadian company telesat is far behind and has a serious debt problem. The two separate "Chinese starlink" LEO networks being built right now are ahead of telesat in functional satellites in orbit.
The Canadian government recently promised 2.3 billion to telesat for polar area services. Realistically maybe some European nations might have the best chance of success by absorbing telesat and continuing to pay MDA to build the satellites for the network.
IRIS² looks on track? Granted, it is not a SpaceX competitor for consumer Internet. But it is an alternative for applications where reliance on SpaceX is not prudent.
It exists but only in the conceptual / R&D and politics funding stage right now. I hope it succeeds but they're going to need significant amounts of money and real world launch capability to catch up with SpaceX and Amazon Leo in live satellites. The contract for development and design of the satellites was just awarded on August 31st, which is a positive sign.
Dont worry the US will hoodwink Europe back into be a compliant vassal of the Empire in a few years when they elect a democrat who pretends to be liberal and acting in good faith, probably AOC(ia).
Why is this downvoted? This is exactly how US foreign policy works. The only difference with Trump is that he says things out loud.
This is 100% what is going to happen. US foreign policy relies on deception and decade long plans. The big plans are ruling the Middle East and squash opposition (Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq done, Iran pending).
To that end Russia had to be kept busy, therefore the Ukraine proxy war, which has the additional benefit of tying up the EU and cut it off from Russian natural resources.
It makes the EU dependent on the US as an energy exporter. These plans are old and both parties have diligently executed them.
Even with the Greenland annexation threats there are Democrats who think it wouldn't be a bad idea, but you should not say it out loud.
your statements are wildly misinformed, you can't make claims about geopoltics because you've read a few delusional reddit threads. The US was extremely active in supporting the Syrian opposition, we literally funded the entire operation, like what reality are you living in.
Your opinion on Russia/Ukraine is clearly skewed by NATO propaganda, which I wouldn't blame you for, most people have had their minds colonized by NATO propaganda, after all, NATO has a literal newsletter called "Cognitive Warfare" where they candidly brag about it.
It doesn't matter how much you go on about 'NATO propaganda', the simple truth is that Russia invaded Ukraine, illegally and without reasonable cause, and did so for its own interests.
What's more, Ukraine was nowhere near joining NATO, and in any case Russia's invasion would still have been illegal and reprehensible even if it was.
Most people assume the post-WW2 consensus is a permanent baseline. Historically, there's no evidence to support that expectation, but it's easy to see why the illusion persists. Acknowledging that the current order is temporary is terrifying, particularly for those who thrive under it.
> Even with the Greenland annexation threats there are Democrats who think it wouldn't be a bad idea, but you should not say it out loud.
If you were talking about like, Iraq in 2003 you'd be correct to point out that majority being opposed doesn't mean the entire party was blameless.
This is probably the worst example you could have used to make this point about aggressive US foreign policy having support across party lines. There is absolutely no constituency within the Democrats that have ever wanted this because it came entirely from the fevered mind of Trump and the parody edition of Bush's neocons in the current admin.
The combo of 1. negative polarization and 2. being completely pointless and accomplishing nothing makes this about as unpopular of an idea you could find among Democrats, in public or private.
Iran is also a bad choice to include in your list considering Obama was responsible for the JCPOA.
IMO, this success has a great implication for accessibility and sovereignty of the EU. Although ESA can launch from French Guiana, the spaceport is an ocean-away from Europe! That fact alone affects the cost and the launch cadence for Europe greatly.
Now they prove they can launch directly from Norway with their own production from Munich and elsewhere and that has immense potential for the future: much higher launch cadence, significant lower cost and always-on accessibility.
The only way Europe can have a Starlink similar network is to launch it from their own soil and reuse the first stage. Also from the perspective of security, launching spy and other military satellites from EU soil is the only practical possibility in this political climate.