Alternative to Starlink

[u/sotoythegreat]

I’ve been thinking about this lately: could Europe initiate a crowd-funded version of starlink? The idea is that a EU institution (maybe ESA?) could materialize the whole design of the service and technological components, and then people could invest their money to get a share of the profits. This money could go into both manufacturing and maintenance.

This way we would have both sovereignty over such a critical communication medium, maybe pose a legit competitor to the monopoly of starlink but also it could work as a blueprint for more such EU projects. Do you think that something like this would be feasible?

[u/VeryTolerantDave]

We already are. It's already being built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS%C2%B2

IRIS² (Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite) is a planned multi-orbit satellite internet constellation to be deployed by the European Union starting in 2029.

ESA is already involved as well.

The European Space Agency (ESA) is responsible for development and deployment of the system and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) is responsible for the governmental service provision.

[u/sotoythegreat → u/VeryTolerantDave]

Im talking more about the funding and growth model. Are 300 satellites enough to compete with starlink?

[u/VeryTolerantDave → u/sotoythegreat]

There's Eutelsat OneWeb, which is more expensive than Starlink but does provide some commercial services. They have afaik around 650 satellites in orbit (which still pales compared to starlink's 10000, but it's at least something).

[u/sotoythegreat → u/VeryTolerantDave]

I get it that that there are alternatives that are currently operational. I’m just asking if the funding scheme I’m considering will work to maybe propel a new or already existing network to catch up with starlink.

[u/trisul-108 → u/sotoythegreat]

Iris needs to satisfy EU needs, not necessarily compete directly with Starlink. It is also difficult to compare them due to the radically different architectures. Iris are positioned higher and have larger coverage, but that affects throughput.

We cannot just count the number of satellites ... it is necessary to understand exactly the goals and needs and go from there. I don't think that a direct replacement makes any sense.

It is the same with all US tech that we seek to replace. For example, it makes no sense to replace Microsoft Products one-on-one ... in reality we need to ditch the reliance on Excel spreadsheets and replace them with AI-built specialist apps.

[u/Sol_System209]

There's no way to (directly) compete with starlink. But alternatives (IRIS²) are brewing.

[u/sotoythegreat → u/Sol_System209]

I guess you misspelled no, but why tho?

[u/Sol_System209 → u/sotoythegreat]

In short: Starlink is, perhaps, decades ahead of everybody else if not in funding, then in space acces or even in (laserlink) technology. So even if you would get the amount of funding, a 1 on 1 competitor to Starlink will not be possible also important to note about the funding is when and how much will the investors get their so called profits from this investment.

[u/this_toe_shall_pass]

Starlink and SpaceX reusable launchers are intrinsically connected. You can't crowdsource a constellation like Starlink without the launcher capacity. So first you'd have to crowdsource a brand new high cadence, cheap lift capacity. 

Nobody can say this won't work, it's more that it would be difficult to prove the business case in a world where Keppler and Starlink and IRIS² exist. And you'd have to also add all the capex for the launching company. There are a few European initiatives for reusable launchers but those still aren't aimed at Starlink level launch cadence, but just cheaper_than_Vega territory. 

If you want an alternative to Starlink then you already have IRIS^2. Fewer but higher performance satellites, needs much fewer launches per year for building up and maintaining the constellation, higher latency than Starlink but comparable or better bandwidth. 

Also in general Europe doesn't have the Silicon Valley or US tech sector level of investment available. And that includes the retail investors because Europeans have various state level schemes for social security and pensions so have less disposable income to gamble on investments, especially something with such huge upfront capex and long wait on returns because the constellation needs to be built up.

[u/Dry_Tie_9731]

The EU is distributing trillions to outdated agricultural industries; how about investing in the future for once, instead of just crumbs for research?

[u/Rejowid]

We already do all crowd-fund public infrastructure and ESA - it's called taxes. And we all profit from them, when they provide us services free of charge.

There's a massive difference between private for-profit companies, like SpaceX, and public, international organisations like ESA. They operate on completely different principles and in different legal frameworks.

A crowd-funding of a public project would be extremely risky and tricky from legal standpoint:

• You want to build public infrastructure, but expect it to be for profit, and those profits are supposed to be given to the shareholders - in reality, dividends happen at a much higher and more involved level of shareholding. The best we could have would be probably a publicly traded company, so you could by a share and hope it would increase in value over time.

- Just try to consider all the possible public backlash that could happen. If you buy a product on kickstarter and the company doesn't deliver - it's shitty for you, but not a problem overall, you were just a sucker. If it's ESA - the possible reputation risk is ginormous.

- There's probably a reason why we usually don't fund public infrastructure and governmental projects through crowd-funding. Some companies, like European Sleeper choose to offer people bonds for "investing" https://www.europeansleeper.eu/invest - which is basically a loan. Slightly easier, but not really necessary for governmental organisations that can get much more money.

[u/wolflance1]

The backbone of Starlink is the rocket launch capacity. Because Starlink isn't just some satellites but a whole networked constellation of them.

US launches 180-190+ rockets every year. China launches 90+ rockets every year.

Even Russia launches 15+ rockets every year.

EU, the entirely of it, launch an abysmal 7+ per year.

Alternative to Starlink? IRIS2? They are just pipe dreams. People claiming "we are already working on it" have no idea what they are talking about.

Russia would've completed a barebone constellation of their own Starlink (the Rassvet, which already has 30+ satellites in orbit) and use that to pulverize Ukraine in the war before EU launched the first satellite of IRIS2 (in 2029!).

For the record, Starlink has 11,000+ satellites in orbit.

EU would have to wait until at least 2050s to have a barebone working IRIS2 constellation, assuming no further delays. By that point who knows what kind of more advanced stuffs US and China already cooked up and put into orbit. EU is fated to forever chasing outdated trends.