Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

2026-03-1317:27110163www.newscientist.com

The reliable internet connections provided by Starlink offer a huge advantage on the battlefield. But as access is dependent on the whims of controversial billionaire Elon Musk, militaries are looking…

Starlink’s satellite constellation provides a reliable internet connection to almost anywhere on Earth, conferring an advantage on the modern battlefield. But it is also run by controversial billionaire Elon Musk, presenting a risk to militaries that could easily find themselves cut off. So, now countries are racing to build their own version.

The Starlink network consists of almost 10,000 satellites that offer internet connections across most of the planet via small dishes on the ground. The company says it has more than 10 million paying civilian customers, but the service is also used militarily. Modern warfare is a data-intensive business, with intelligence, video feeds and drone control instructions being beamed back and forth 24 hours a day.

Unlike radios, which can be easily jammed by adversaries, Starlink’s signals point straight up from ground stations to space and are relatively robust. And because receivers are cheap, they can be issued to small military units and even used on remotely operated ground and aerial drones.

But in a world where global tensions are ratcheting up and states are seeking sovereignty in everything from computer chip manufacture to nuclear deterrence, relying on a foreign service like Starlink to coordinate troops is considered increasingly risky. Especially when it is controlled by a mercurial figure like Musk.

Both Ukraine and Russia have used Starlink since the 2022 invasion, with reports suggesting that Russia has guided attack drones with it. But in February, the company restricted access to registered users and effectively shut Russian troops out of the service. The move is reported to have had serious repercussions for Russia’s ability to coordinate its military and provided Ukraine an advantage, at least in the short term. No other nation wants to find itself in the same boat.

The European Union is building its own version called Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite (IRIS²), which will have around 300 satellites, but isn’t due to begin operating until 2030. China is also building the Guowang network, which will have 13,000 satellites, but currently has fewer than 200, and the Qianfan constellation, which is also still in the early stages of construction. Russia’s planned Sfera constellation has encountered delays.

Even European states are working to develop their own versions separate from the EU. Germany is in talks to create its own network, which is still on the drawing board, and the UK retains a stake in satellite internet provider Eutelsat OneWeb, having saved its precursor from bankruptcy because the technology was so important. A British start-up called OpenCosmos is also working on a similar system, ironically with backing from US intelligence agency the CIA.

Anthony King at the University of Exeter, UK, says it is “striking” that a private communications company can hold such a powerful position on the world stage today, able to allow or deny an advantage in future conflicts, but that affluent superpowers will catch up given time. “Of course, the Chinese will have one, and do have one [of current lesser size], so they will have secure satellite digital communications in any future conflict,” he says.

Skyrocketing costs

Although Starlink is a private company, Barry Evans at the University of Surrey, UK, says it was heavily funded for strategic reasons by the US government and even offers a more secure militarised version called Starshield.

“You’ve got governments relying on an individual, which is one of the things that worries Europe,” says Evans. “[Musk] turns it off in various countries at various times. There’s a lot happening and, for the UK, it’s quite worrying because we don’t have the funding, really, to launch our own system.”

Evans says that even Russia and China are well behind Starlink, which has the advantage of being wholly owned by rocket company SpaceX and therefore able to launch its satellites more cheaply and on its own schedule.

Creating these vast networks isn’t a one-off cost, but requires costly maintenance and the continual launch of new satellites to replace older units as they fail or run out of the fuel they need to maintain a stable orbit. Because the UK lacks a launch capability of its own, it would always have to rely on another country to some extent, even if it were to create its own satellite constellation.

Ian Muirhead at the University of Manchester, UK, who served in military communications for over two decades, says that armies once used radio, then later began to deploy what was essentially a temporary mobile phone network when they went into battle, allowing soldiers to communicate over distance.

But as militaries shrank after the cold war, this became prohibitively expensive and difficult, says Muirhead, so militaries began using satellite communications instead. However, doing so relied on small numbers of proprietary satellites and required expensive and bulky hardware on the ground. Starlink offers even greater ability, at far lower cost and complexity, at least on the ground.

Muirhead says it also offers an advantage when space warfare with an adversary is considered. “Because there are lots of them, they can’t just destroy a satellite and call it done – they’re always overhead,” he says.

SpaceX didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Topics:


Read the original article

Comments

  • By kolinko 2026-03-1317:5010 reply

    The thing is - without Falcon9 / Starship they really cannot - both China and EU are ~10-20 years (sic) behind SpaceX, and without thousands of satellites on LEO you just cannot have terminal similar to SpaceX's.

    (And don't get me started on how bad Iris2 is/will be. It's a program that EU has to shut down discussions on how terribly behind we are.

    The last time I checked, a year ago, EU's plans were to have first Falcon9-level flights around 2035 (!!!), and that was assuming no delays, so absurdly optimistic. Adding a few years for ramping up the production, 2040 is the earliest we can have optimistically something like Starlink from 2020.

    • By icegreentea2 2026-03-1319:153 reply

      I'd broadly agree that EU is pretty behind the curve. But I think China is probably only ~5 years max behind the curve in terms of Starlink.

      But in terms of defense needs, I don't think you actually need the thousands and thousands for reasonable returns. DoD/NRO has bought maybe ~500 Starshields (https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/03/26/spacex-starshield-...) from SpaceX.

      I think China is well within reach of being able to put up those numbers within a few years, even if they don't get re-use figured out (which I think they will within a 2-3 years - basically what SpaceX did from the first landing attempts to success).

      • By bryanlarsen 2026-03-1320:331 reply

        China did 92 launches in 2025. If they only need to put up 500, and if they can put up 22 per launch like SpaceX can, they have the capability now, let alone 5 years from now.

        • By polalavik 2026-03-1321:363 reply

          i don't get why more folks aren't just going for the much cheaper option like this https://www.solaris-suborbital.space/

          • By adolph 2026-03-1322:221 reply

            That looks like a very cool option and effort. Like the Chinese balloons that overflew the US in the last (few?) years, it would likely be challenging to shoot down. Otoh, it might cause some diplomatic disagreements about overflight.

              There are a number of competing theories in international law, with varying 
              criteria, to delineate the upper limit delineating airspace versus outer 
              space. This debate is unsettled. [0]
            
            There may also be some technical challenges having to do with beamforming rf to the vehicle. Starshield like Starlink has the predictability of orbital vehicles for tracking. It would be interesting to understand how a ground station focuses on the solar glider.

            0. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...

            • By triage8004 2026-03-146:261 reply

              Found those balloons very strange, hope they were up to something nice

              • By The_President 2026-03-1512:48

                Probably silently dispersing an exothermic surprise.

          • By jacobgkau 2026-03-1321:45

            There might be less societal objection to "satellites in space orbiting the planet" than to "planes flying continuously over the same area," even if both can be used for similar purposes. I'd assume it'd also be easier to disrupt suborbital systems like that than satellites, but I could be wrong.

          • By ExpertAdvisor01 2026-03-1322:322 reply

            Because they will be destroyed immediately

            • By nine_k 2026-03-1323:032 reply

              To shoot something down at 70,000 ft (21 km) all you need is a conventional military jet fighter, and a long-range rocket, or even a MiG-31 with a conventional cannon. At best you can make these birds cheaper than the rocket + flight time.

              Something that flies at the upper edge of the stratosphere, at 40-50 km (160,000 ft) would be hard to reach with currently available means. You can of course fire a THAAD at it, but you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well.

              • By pacificmint 2026-03-140:101 reply

                > you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well.

                You can fire a THAAD at one Starlink satellite, but probably not at 8000 of them.

                For comparison we’re currently producing THAAD interceptors at a rate of 96 a year (though Lockheed is aiming to increase it to 400).

                • By nine_k 2026-03-141:32

                  Exactly; it's a limited and very expensive capability. Nobody would want to spend it on a $100k stratospheric flying vehicle, if the latter existed. It does not exist though, if you do not count weather balloons.

              • By ExpertAdvisor01 2026-03-1410:40

                The f-22 balloon kill was at the same height as the altitude quoted on their website .

                Like you said either any fighter jet + missile or an high altitude jet + auto cannon will shoot it down reliably.

                This is probably a good solution for redundancy if you already have air superiority.

            • By The_President 2026-03-1512:51

              They won’t be shot down over land without debris falling to the ground.

      • By maxglute 2026-03-142:49

        >put up those numbers within a few years,

        And potentially exceed Starlink cumulative payload a few years after that.

        US via SpaceX generates most launches/payload due to reusability PRC built 2x more disposable launch vehicles. PRC figures out disposables and they can operate reusable fleet 2-3x the size of US and simply throw more payload per year and catchup/exceed cumulative SpaceX volume in a few years. A few years after, permanent kgs in space advantage due higher replacement as old hardware deorbits.

      • By kolinko 2026-03-140:181 reply

        Spy satellites you can have way fewer, but for an internet connection you really need Starlink's scale. Otherwise you need full 360 deg view of a horizon (good luck with that on the battlefield), and a much higher power use.

        Having said that, I double checked the numbers - it would take ~60 launches at the minimum to replicate Starlink 1.0. This is how many launches China does per year right now. So it is doable indeed for them, just absurdly expensive - $10-$30B, but they can afford that.

        EU on the other hand - no way. We're doing 5 launches a year with Arianne, due to incompetent management over the last decade. Unless China or US allow us to use their infrastructure, we have no way of doing all this.

        • By icegreentea2 2026-03-1415:26

          Ya, I guess one other thing to China's advantage is that they don't need true global reach. They can prioritize coverage over their relevant latitudes (roughly the same as contiguous USA). From what I understand from Starlink distributions, roughly ~60% of the overall Starlink constellation is required for that latitude range.

    • By bryanlarsen 2026-03-1318:133 reply

      Falcon-9 first landed in 2015 and was regularly landing within a couple of years. So being 10 years behind means "almost ready to go".

      suborbital Yuanxingzhe-1 landed may 2025, and orbital Zhuque-3 was really close to landing in December. Long March 12A also tried in December although it wasn't as close to success.

      So if China is 10 years behind, they've caught up. We won't know if they're 10 years or further behind for a couple years more, though.

      And while China may be 10-15 years behind on their Falcon-9 equivalents, they're likely less than 10 years behind on their Starship equivalents.

      • By sigmoid10 2026-03-1319:044 reply

        China also had made industry espionage their way to go in these things. They are not even hiding it anymore. It's almost comical how much they copied SpaceX. And I'd be surprised if they hadn't supply-chained themselves into some level of access in all the big aerospace corpos by now. But Europe? Developing this kind of stuff from scratch in a few years without an unregulated messy startup ecosystem and no army of state sponsored hackers? No chance.

        • By emkoemko 2026-03-140:451 reply

          whats the issue with that? US just cloned the Iranian drone.... all countries do this

          • By sigmoid10 2026-03-1513:181 reply

            Anyone who has seen a picture of that drone could copy it. Heck, I bet DJI or similar could make a better version just by looking at it if they really wanted to. The drone markt is super saturated with cheap, practical components. But copying a self landing rocket is simply not possible without knowing a ton of internal details that you will never get from watching videos of it.

            • By emkoemko 2026-03-160:19

              "Anyone who has seen a picture of that drone could copy it." and yet they bragged about taking one and reverse engineering it to make a clone.... so your saying US of A couldn't copy it by picture alone? it took them this long to get a intact one to clone?

        • By Liftyee 2026-03-1319:532 reply

          Curious - Any sources? Looking at publicly available details and copying them might be intellectually dishonest if it was a piece of coursework, but this isn't an academic research project. Taking features from something that's known to work is the fastest way to get to something working.

          If there's actual smuggling of designs or trade secrets going on, I'd be more interested. But if it's just "the rocket looks the same on the outside", that's hardly "industrial espionage".

          • By mwambua 2026-03-1320:57

            Bloomberg's podcast "The Big Take" has been running an interesting series on Chinese industrial espionage called "The Sixth Bureau". Here's a link to the Youtube playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38L5UzLwt-s&list=PLe4PRejZgr...

          • By buckle8017 2026-03-1320:062 reply

            [flagged]

            • By bryanlarsen 2026-03-1320:10

              Sure, they're trying. But there's no evidence they've succeeded in stealing anything other than open source intelligence from SpaceX.

              There's a lot of open source intelligence about SpaceX rocket designs available.

            • By throw310822 2026-03-1320:43

              Be serious, do you think defense industry normally respects other nations' industrial secrets?

        • By cyberax 2026-03-1322:071 reply

          > China also had made industry espionage their way to go in these things.

          They're even espionaging from themselves in the future!

          Dude, have you ever _been_ in China? They don't need espionage, they're now way ahead of the world in technology, except in a few areas like biotech research and semiconductor manufacturing.

          For the last decade, China has been having more engineers in _training_ than the total number of engineers in the US. Sure, the quality of Chinese universities is not that great, but the sheer number of them has its own power.

          • By noosphr 2026-03-1322:122 reply

            I strongly suggest to anyone who thinks this isn't true to go to Shenzhen and then SF.

            One feels like the future. The other feels like you will get shot.

            • By inglor_cz 2026-03-1323:251 reply

              Rockets are notoriously complicated, though. Only a few nations even managed to get to the orbit, and not for a lack of trying.

              SpaceX is a rare bird - a space startup that actually achieved not just spaceflight, but (so far only partial) reusability of launchers. Most space startups died long before that, including Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace. Given that they are gone, we don't think of them often, but the total graveyard of defunct space startups is quite sizeable.

              Russia seems to be slowly losing their space capabilities. The EU still does not have a human-rated launcher. These aren't small entities either.

              Getting to space is a dangerous business with extremely thin security margins, where previous experience matters a lot.

              I think China will eventually have reusable rockets, but it will take some time.

              • By cyberax 2026-03-1323:56

                China has at least two startups that launched rockets into space. Zhuque-3 launch even almost landed a booster.

                It's the second-mover advantage. Once you know that something is possible, you can often avoid exploring all the dead ends.

            • By mikkupikku 2026-03-1323:02

              Nonexistent relevance to rockets.

        • By joe_mamba 2026-03-1320:121 reply

          >China also had made industry espionage their way to go in these things.

          Few layman know this but France is one of the biggest industrial espionage players active in the US and Europe, after Israel of course.

          In fact, according to Wikileaks diplomatic cables from Berlin quote: "France is the country that conducts the most industrial espionage [in Europe], even more than China or Russia."

          Basically, every nation on the planet engages in espionage for its own benefit if they can get away with it. There's no honor amongst thieves.

          Singling out China as if they're the only ones doing it, or the ones doing it the most, is both naive and hilarious.

          • By bdauvergne 2026-03-1321:191 reply

            Diplomatic cables are not a source of truth, they are heavily biased. The fact they had to be stolen does not give them more weight. There is a lot of bias in US governmental opinion on french technology that such a small country cannot be so advanced without stealing; opinion which started with the french nuclear and space program. My opinion on those discourses about France, China or the USSR in the past are just mostly propaganda from the US MIC to ensure continued funding.

            • By joe_mamba 2026-03-1321:36

              >Diplomatic cables are not a source of truth, they are heavily biased.

              As opposed to...?

      • By pie_flavor 2026-03-1319:002 reply

        The first rocket may take off sooner than 2040. But Starlink is not just a rocket, it is a complete business process, with a launch regularity and price. A Starlink satellite's worth of space on a Falcon 9 costs 500k-750k. With about ten thousand satellites, which last about five years, this means maybe a billion and a half per year spent on the space arm of the business, not counting ground stations. If they had to spend, say, ten times this, Starlink wouldn't be profitable today. And that's pretty much reality: the Ariane rocket costs ~$100m to Falcon's ~$15m (nobody knows what Zhuque-3 costs); I think cost per kg is 5000 vs 900. You could get it down to ~1.5B a year by narrowing it to just the latitudes overhead the EU, but then you cut the potential revenues too and have the same problem.

        • By jopsen 2026-03-1320:552 reply

          > but then you cut the potential revenues too and have the same problem.

          How many starlink clones are there really customers for?

          Many people have fiber, and in an urban area you'll probably prefer 5G, if you can't get fiber or wired internet.

          Starlink is great if you live in the middle of nowhere, but few people do.

          Even if you could do a competitive launch cost, the number of customers is limited.

          • By kolinko 2026-03-140:21

            All the airlines, all the trains, and other government-supported entities may have a strategic interest to use a local version of Starlink. But everyone else? I don't think anyone will buy a service that will be 10x more expensive, 10x slower and 10x more energy hungry than Starlink -- this first mover advantage may be hard to beat.

          • By db48x 2026-03-1320:59

            Starlink is equally great no matter where you live :)

            But you’re right, in urban areas it should be possible to do better. If you can get 1Gbps symmetric fiber then get the fiber. Sadly in the US it is not always possible to do better than Starlink, even in urban areas. It’s gotten better in the last decade, but many cities are still stuck with really bad options due to bad choices in the past.

        • By IshKebab 2026-03-1319:39

          Sure but the Chinese military can easily afford that.

      • By standardUser 2026-03-1319:37

        China is a full blown superpower and it should surprise no one when they catch up to or surpass the West in technical feats.

    • By db48x 2026-03-1317:581 reply

      SpaceX will happily launch satellites for competitors. OneWeb has bought launches from them, for example.

      • By bryanlarsen 2026-03-1318:062 reply

        Or at least they were while anti-trust still had some teeth. Trump's DOJ is highly unlikely to go after Starlink for refusing to launch for a competitor, let alone another nation's military.

        • By zitterbewegung 2026-03-1318:261 reply

          To be future proof for more administrations you don't want a monopoly at any step. you really want at least three competitors at minimum. Large companies in tech have realized this by now since the 90s. Recently TeraWave was launched by SpaceX due to the inherent risk (and this is a direct competitor to SpaceX. See https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/21/bezos-blue-origin-satellite-...

          • By fragmede 2026-03-1319:011 reply

            What's confusing about that is Jeff Bezos is funding TeraWave to also compete with Amazon who is also launching their own Starlink competitor for satellite Internet?

            • By zitterbewegung 2026-03-1319:32

              If you are good at making businesses then why not make more?

        • By db48x 2026-03-1320:33

          I’m not even sure that anti–trust laws come into it; they just want as many launch customers as possible. Better to earn some money off of a competing constellation rather than earn nothing, right?

    • By thisislife2 2026-03-1322:131 reply

      India's ISRO already competes with SpaceX for these launches ( ISRO puts 36 OneWeb satellites in orbit - https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/isro-successfully-... ), despite not having any reusable launch vehicles (reason - it's in the top 5 in space technology and just cheaper - Why it costs India so little to reach the Moon and Mars - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9xlgnnpzvo ). Once it masters reusable launch vehicle technologies, it'll be hard to compete with ISRO on commercial launches.

      • By kolinko 2026-03-140:222 reply

        36 compared to 10000. This is 2-3 orders of magnitude. It's like a corner store trying to compete with Walmart.

    • By jmyeet 2026-03-1318:132 reply

      The story I like to tell is about the Manhattan Project. This caused a debate in US strategic circles that set policy for the entire post-1945 world. Debate included whether a preemptive nuclear strike on the USSR was necessary or even just a good idea.

      Anyway, many in these circles thought the USSR would take 20 years to develop the bomb if they ever did. It took 4 years. The hydrogen bomb? The USA tested theirs in 1952. The USSR? 1953.

      China now has decades of commitment to long-term projects, an interest in national security and creating an virtuous circle for various industries.

      The US banned the export of EUV lithography machiens to China but (IMHO) they made a huge mistake by also banning the best chips. Why was this a mistake? Because it created a captive market for Chinese-made chips.

      The Soviet atomic project was helped by espionage and ideology (ie some people believed in the communist project or simply thought it a bad idea that only the US had nuclear weapons). That's just not necessary today. You simply throw some money at a few key researchers and engineers who worked at ASML and you catch up to EUV real fast. I said a couple of years ago China would develop their own EUV processes because they don't want the US to have that control over them. It's a matter of national security. China seems to be 3-5 years away on conservative estimates.

      More evidence of this is China not wanting to import NVidia chips despite the ban being lifted [1].

      China has the same attitude to having its own launch capability. They've already started testing their own reusable rockets [2]. China has the industrial ecosystem to make everything that goes into a rocket, a captive market for Chinese launches (particularly the Chinese government and military) and the track record to pull this off.

      And guess what? China can hire former SpaceX engineers too.

      I predict in 5 years these comments doubting China's space ambitions will be instead "well of course that was going to happen".

      [1]: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/china-want-buy-nvidi...

      [2]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinas-explosive-...

      • By ciupicri 2026-03-1318:435 reply

        > many in these circles thought the USSR would take 20 years to develop the bomb if they ever did. It took 4 years.

        Because some people committed treason and gave the technology to the Soviets.

        • By kelnos 2026-03-1319:12

          Yes, but how they got it is irrelevant. They got it, and that's what matters.

          China can (and does) do the same for current tech today, through whatever means.

          (Also, GP's comment directly said what you said; not sure what your comment adds to the discussion.)

        • By bluGill 2026-03-1319:08

          Some people will give it to china too. We have even caught a few (in other industries).

        • By adrian_b 2026-03-1320:471 reply

          Because of the traitors, the Soviet Union has gained a few years, but the end result would have been the same.

          At that time, there were a few good Russian nuclear physicists, and they have also captured many German physicists and engineers.

          Actually I think that the effect of the information provided by the traitors was much less in reducing the time until the Soviet Union got the bomb than in reducing their expenses for achieving that.

          In the stories that appear in the press or in the lawsuits about industrial espionage the victims claim that their precious IP has been stolen. However that is seldom true, because the so-called IP isn't usually what is really precious.

          The most precious part of the know-how related to an industrial product is typically about the solutions that had been tried but had failed, before choosing the working solution. Normally any competent engineer when faced with the problem of how to make some product equivalent with that of a competitor, be it a nuclear bomb or anything else, can think about a dozen solutions that could be used to make such a thing.

          In most cases, the set of solutions imagined independently will include the actual solution used by the competitor. The problem is that it is not known which of the imagined solutions will work in reality and which will not work. Experimenting with all of them can cost a lot o f time and money. If industrial espionage determines which is the solution used by the competitor, the useful part is not knowing that solution, but knowing that there is no need to test the other solutions, saving thus a lot of time and money.

          • By kazen44 2026-03-1322:35

            also, the knowledge about how a nuclear bomb works wasn't a secret. The way to produce one was the hard part to figure out. Without the espionage, a industrialised country like the USSR would have figured out how to produce an atomic bomb eventually.

        • By fakedang 2026-03-145:02

          How Industrial Espionage Started America's Cotton Revolution

          https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-industrial-esp...

        • By palmotea 2026-03-1319:17

          > Because some people committed treason and gave the technology to the Soviets.

          American big business is pretty much doing that every day, handing over technology to increase China's manufacturing tech level.

          Pretty soon China won't need it anymore. If the massive incompetence of the US government and business establishment is defeated, the the industrial espionage will start to go in the other direction. More likely is the US just declines, becoming little more than a source of raw materials and agricultural products to fuel advanced Chinese industry.

      • By pyuser583 2026-03-147:51

        The Soviet Atomic Project was helped by starting early and capturing massive amounts of fissile material at the end of WWII.

        British scientists helped some.

        But the spies at Los Alamos were giving updates on US progress, not delivering secret technology.

    • By tristor 2026-03-1319:421 reply

      All of that, and the funny thing is /that is the easy part/. Moving payloads to space is just incredibly expensive, but not fundamentally hard in the same way that post-launch coordination of satellite constellations and RF tuning to support things like mobile connectivity are (I can connect to Starlink satellites from my iPhone through T-Mobile).

      • By bryanlarsen 2026-03-1319:48

        Connecting to a cell phone and/or selling a phased array antenna that can track an object travelling 17,000 mph for $300 is crazy hard.

        But a military is going to be fine with an antenna that costs $3000.

    • By ergocoder 2026-03-1410:26

      How did Starlink get so far ahead of everyone that everyone else is 20 years behind?

      We like to hate Elon, but damn this is impressive.

      Even China cannot catch up, and they can direct their resources and people to do anything.

    • By RobotToaster 2026-03-1322:101 reply

      I'm wondering if we will see a resurgence in direct to geostationary, It seems like it should be a lot easier to cover the planet when you only need a few satellites.

      • By kolinko 2026-03-140:25

        Bandwidth, input latency (250ms absolute minimum), energy use and antenna size (mattering for mobility and military). I don't think there is a way for geo to compete.

    • By assaddayinh 2026-03-1318:09

      [dead]

    • By thisislife2 2026-03-1318:017 reply

      Can you explain what makes Falcon9 / Starship special (or needed) to launch these satellites? China, India, EU, Japan etc. all have the capability to launch satellites. So why is a Falcon9 / Starship a particular requirement?

      • By mooreds 2026-03-1318:052 reply

        Cost, maybe? It is one thing to ship up a valuable satellite (which they all can do). But to ship up 1000s of satellites (and keep doing it in perpetuity, because IIRC they don't have a long lifetime[0]) gets expensive.

        0: Looks like 5 years. https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html

        • By SlinkyOnStairs 2026-03-1318:482 reply

          Another major detail is that SpaceX is simply burning enormous amounts of money on this.

          Starlink's revenue is comparable to the ESA's entire 5 billion euro budget, and it still looks like starlink is not net-profitable as a service. (And kessler syndrome avoidance is already pushing up costs with the lower orbits)

          The chief problem "stopping" other countries from developing a starlink competitor is that starlink simply doesn't make all that much sense if your country is capable of basic infrastructure construction. Fiber runs are expensive but not that expensive.

          • By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-1318:592 reply

            > it still looks like starlink is not net-profitable as a service

            Starlink was profitable in 2024 [1] and should be materially profitable once V3 goes up.

            > kessler syndrome avoidance is already pushing up costs with the lower orbits

            This hits everyone. And it’s not a serious cost issue. Starlinks are still being deorbited before they need to be due to obselescence. And the propellant depots SpaceX is building for NASA tie in neatly if the chips stablise enough to permit longer-lasting birds.

            > doesn't make all that much sense if your country is capable of basic infrastructure construction

            Infrastructure gets blown up and shut off. Hence the military interest.

            [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-much-does-starlink-make-this-...

            • By SlinkyOnStairs 2026-03-1319:092 reply

              > Starlink was profitable in 2024

              Those are revenue figures.

              > This hits everyone. And it’s not a serious cost issue.

              That it affects everyone just makes the problem worse. If China or the EU does commit to a starlink competitor, there's even more crowding in orbit. Even more collision avoidance required.

              > Starlinks are still being deorbited before they need to be due to obselescence

              That's the point. These things are not staying up long, and they're staying up shorter and shorter.

              The constellation is both expensive to build and to maintain. That makes it a lot of trouble compared to running a bunch of fiber once and having only occasional maintenance trouble when some idiot drags a backhoe through it.

              > Infrastructure gets blown up and shut off. Hence the military interest.

              The military interest is real, but it remains to be seen how much money they're willing to put up for it. Higher latency more conventional satellite internet will have significant cost savings in comparison.

              • By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-1319:24

                > Those are revenue figures

                And also net income.

                > just makes the problem worse

                Did you skip the part where it’s not a serious cost issue? None of these birds are even close to being propellant restricted.

                > These things are not staying up long, and they're staying up shorter and shorter

                Because they’re being intentionally deorbited to make room for better birds. They don’t have to be deorbited as quickly as they are. But overwhelming demand makes it a profitable bet.

                > it remains to be seen how much money they're willing to put up for it

                $70mm per year for 22 birds [1].

                [1] https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-space-force-contract

              • By toomuchtodo 2026-03-1319:111 reply

                What would the cost be to deny these orbital altitudes?

                • By SlinkyOnStairs 2026-03-1319:432 reply

                  Incalculable.

                  The cost isn't in paying someone to not use the orbit, it's that the busier a part of space gets, the more expensive it becomes to do collision avoidance and station keeping.

                  What makes this impossible to calculate is that there's an unknown exponential involved. The more satellites, the more collisions that need avoiding. And the higher the chance that one avoidance will create new future collisions.

                  At some point the space is simply so busy that collisions can no longer be avoided.

                  • By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-1320:51

                    > What makes this impossible to calculate

                    It’s really not impossible to calculate, particularly if you’re trying to cause damage.

                    The answer is it’s cheaper to shoot down individual satellites than try to create a localized cascade. Kessler cascades propagate too slowly, and degrade too quickly in low orbits, to be useful as a military tactic. In high orbit one could feasibly e.g. deny use of a geostationary band. But again, it’s cheaper to just shoot down each satellite.

            • By estearum 2026-03-1319:021 reply

              From the PCMag article:

              > For example, although the Starlink subsidiary reported $2.7 billion in revenue for 2024, the same financial statement doesn’t account for the costs of launching and maintaining a fleet of nearly 8,000 Starlink satellites.

              ???

              • By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-1319:30

                Later: “The document also shows the Starlink subsidiary registered a net income of only $72.7 million for 2024. The year prior, the subsidiary incurred a net loss of $30.7 million. However, the financial statement notes the subsidiary purchased nearly $2.3 billion in Starlink hardware and services from the SpaceX parent last year.”

                Those figures, to my understanding, include cost of services and launch in COGS.

          • By bluGill 2026-03-1319:021 reply

            starlink has some travel niches where it makes sense. However not many cross the ocean. military where you can't trust the nearby infrastructure is the other big one. Disaster recovery where the local system is not working isn't big enough to fund anything though it will use whatever they can get.

            • By fragmede 2026-03-1319:08

              The cruise ship industry is $78B of revenue. He airline industry is $840B of revenue. Between the two, I think Starlink has enough customers crossing the ocean to be profitable, given how hard they drive down costs.

        • By victorbjorklund 2026-03-1320:17

          Because the Chinese govt doesn’t have money to burn…

      • By samrus 2026-03-1318:03

        Has to be the cost. A reusable launch vehicle is such a ridiculously better value proposition that it creates a discrete evolution. Some things just arent feasible to do without them

      • By tartuffe78 2026-03-1318:031 reply

        Starlink is apparently 65% of all active satellites, it would be very expensive to emulate that without super efficient launching capabilities.

        • By palmotea 2026-03-1319:161 reply

          > Starlink is apparently 65% of all active satellites, it would be very expensive to emulate that without super efficient launching capabilities.

          But does a military really need that many to get the necessary capability? Would a smaller constellation be sufficient, especially without competing civilian users?

          • By iSnow 2026-03-1321:481 reply

            >But does a military really need that many to get the necessary capability?

            No. The German army wants a constellation of initially 40, and later just over 100 satellites. They do not want or need to replicate the massive Starlink numbers.

            • By kolinko 2026-03-140:36

              The numbers just don't add up there. With just 40-100 satellites they need to be GEO, and this means crappy transfers, big lags (200-300 absolute minimum, more 500ms), and most importantly - big, power hungry antennas.

              It's a PR project to calm people down, not a real solution.

      • By maxglute 2026-03-142:35

        It's more tempo, less cost, resuable has faster turn around time, so more launch per unit of time. Long March 5 is ~$3000/kg, or ballpark enough to F9/kg, but disposables can't launch every few days.

      • By kolinko 2026-03-140:32

        Reusability. Even if money were not an issue, other nations need to build a new rocket for every launch, and it's extremely hard/impossible to catch up.

      • By tekla 2026-03-1318:082 reply

        None of those countries (well probably except China) have any significant launch capacity to deploy constellations

        • By bluGill 2026-03-1319:061 reply

          They can build it in a few years though. It takes money and can be done overnight but there is nothing about that that costs 10 years. 10 years got to the moon - from a much lower base. 10 years means you are starting with college graduates and building it from no previous experience - or you already have a lot but only are putting minimal budget into improving.

          • By kolinko 2026-03-140:411 reply

            Apollo mission was a national mobilisation project that's size happened once/twice in a century. And it still took 10 years. There is no willpower to do that right now in EU.

            Right now we, in EU, plan to have first reusable vehicles (Ariane Next) in around 10 years - around 2035. And that is for the first vehicles, not for scaling up the production.

            • By AngryData 2026-03-161:27

              The Apollo mission was also starting from way behind what you would start with today though. Any aerospace engineer grad today has decades of science and engineering to stand upon.

        • By thisislife2 2026-03-1322:021 reply

          India is already one of the cheapest service providers for such launches - ISRO puts 36 OneWeb satellites in orbit - https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/isro-successfully-... (They are ofcourse working to create a reusable launch vehicle too).

          • By ExpertAdvisor01 2026-03-1322:36

            Not true. The reason why they launched with India is because Russia got sanctioned.

      • By AtomicOrbital 2026-03-1416:27

        spacex has cost advantage due to rocket lands back on launch pad not getting destroyed like all others

  • By _whiteCaps_ 2026-03-1318:163 reply

    In Canada, the CF is working on rebuilding their expertise in HF radio, as they realized that in case of large scale conflict, satellite systems aren't going to be dependable.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_Affiliate_Radi...

    • By elevation 2026-03-1318:41

      Any serious journalist/aid work efforts should be doing the same. It's too easy for countries to disable terrestrial internet to suppress reporting. And it's too easy for AI to generate believable but false video evidence. But if you can afford to put a man on the ground, he can get information into the next hemisphere with just a sandwich sized radio and a spool of wire -- a fantastic backup against inevitable systemic disruptions.

    • By Joel_Mckay 2026-03-1318:36

      Canada has a lot of obscure technology that would normally fall under export restriction in the US.

      The problem I have with the Canadian business culture was there is zero protection on a global scale for your company, privacy, and or personal safety. =3

    • By spwa4 2026-03-1318:253 reply

      Ever notice just how many countries seem to be pretty convinced war is coming? And don't tell me it's all Trump, at the very least they believe that whoever follows Trump isn't going to be very different. Plus it's mostly EU that's rearming, and surely they aren't afraid they'll be attacked ...

      • By roughly 2026-03-1318:322 reply

        EU had a reliable military and technological partner in the US until circa 2016, and maintaining that belief became untenable in 2024. The reason EU countries are all of the sudden investing in onshoring critical military capabilities is that until Trump it’s been the policy position of the US to prevent them from doing so by doing it for them, a policy we inaugurated after WW2 and expanded during the Cold War for various reasons that we seem very sure don’t apply anymore.

        • By spwa4 2026-03-1318:351 reply

          I've worked in defense tech. This is true, but it should be described much more as "Europe believed US would save their ass - for free, and did nothing" (with exceptions, like France, and some token efforts within NATO) The US was not holding back much within NATO.

          • By jltsiren 2026-03-1319:221 reply

            It's more that most European countries had little reason to spend money on defense. Until recently, Finland and Sweden were small countries close to Russia but outside NATO, and their defense spending was similar to West European NATO members. In other words, nobody saw any real military threats to Western / Northern Europe, and the NATO security guarantees had more political than military value. Then Russia invaded Ukraine, and the threat environment changed.

            I'm less familiar with the situation in Eastern Europe. Many countries joined NATO as quickly as possible, because they understood the Russian doctrine and saw a real threat there. Russia tries to surround itself with puppets / friends / allies, by force if necessary, to avoid having to fight in its own territory. Many East European countries didn't want to be part of that so soon after the fall of communism. But it looks like the idea of being in friendly terms with Russia instead of fully committing to the West never went away.

            • By spwa4 2026-03-1410:341 reply

              You know, we're saying the same thing. The TLDR is that Europe systematically refused to spend even token amounts on defense, despite agreeing to spend more in international treaties (and then cheating on what little spending they do, e.g. "raising a bridge" for a tank to pass under it, as defense spending. Coincidentally doing this saved the maintenance spending that the government had unlawfully delayed. And most countries raised more bridges "for tanks" than they had tanks in the first place, and widened them to boot. This then was the promised defense spending ...)

              They have such beautiful names for this: "The end of history". Yes, really. "The peace dividend". "The unipolar moment". "Military-to-civilian conversion".

              The idea of all these is slightly different, but boils down to that because first the cold war ended and then communism "died" with the Soviet union, democracy would just win everywhere without any effort from anyone (or at least, no effort from anyone but the US). Because of this wars and militaries and ... would just end. Because why would you have these between trade-based democracy? Let's just leave some military rescue units in place and get rid of the rest!

              In reality it was progress that ended. Or, at least, a lot of technological progress ended with the end of defense spending. For example, the EU (technically France), was the first nation with a starlink-like satellite network. Of course it was version 0.01beta of starlink, not remotely close to the capabilities of the current version, but it did do packet transmission over very long distances). I have helped write software to make it's use more tolerable. They let it wither and die, just like everyone since.

              • By mopsi 2026-03-1412:21

                  > They have such beautiful names for this: "The end of history". Yes, really. "The peace dividend". "The unipolar moment". "Military-to-civilian conversion".
                
                Who is this "they"?

                  * "The end of history" - coined by Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist.
                  * "The unipolar moment" - coined by Charles Krauthammer, an American political columnist.
                  * "The peace dividend" - older term, popularized by George HW Bush, an American president.
                  * "Military-to-civilian conversion" - older term, popularized by Seymour Melman, an American professor of industrial engineering.

        • By yostrovs 2026-03-1319:112 reply

          Europe wouldn't spend the agreed 2% of GDP on the military. Many presidents for many years tried to make them comply with the agreement, but they just ignored it. It was thought better to spend on the healthcare of the public and mock Americans for not having universal government healthcare. Many people in countries in Europe, like Spain and Ireland, that effectively don't have militaries, are still laughing and mocking.

          • By roughly 2026-03-1320:141 reply

            Again, this was a considered policy choice on the part of the United States. Unipolar military supremacy bought us a quiet Europe, a stable and high dollar, and the ability to set the terms on nearly every other negotiation we made with European countries. This was an intentional trade: we will spend on the military so you don’t have to. In the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, some US policymakers deluded themselves into thinking geopolitics didn’t exist anymore, and so we’ve come to start bitching more about our side of paying that bill, but we bought the American century with military spending.

            And, to be clear, the US not having health care is a policy decision on the part of the US, not some lack of funding, as becomes clear when one looks at the expenditure per capita on healthcare in the US compared to other developed countries.

            • By yostrovs 2026-03-1422:131 reply

              American supremacy was due to the previous superpowers smashing themselves against each other, and then being relatively poor for decades after while rebuilding the continent.

              • By roughly 2026-03-150:30

                Sure, but we also spent time, money, and effort building a unipolar system and getting buy-in for that from Europe as a considered strategic choice. To turn around and then say “they’re freeloading” when the policy of the United States was to encourage them to freeload so we had unfettered control over large sections of the world’s geopolitical policy - yes, they took the deal we offered.

          • By Timon3 2026-03-1413:432 reply

            Which agreement are you referring to? The commonly cited 2% agreement that I'm aware of was for 2025 - which all members reached. When was Europe ever non-compliant?

            • By spwa4 2026-03-1511:571 reply

              It's part of the conditions for NATO membership. Oh and to have 4% as a target.

              Of course they have renegotiated, and so now the target is 2% by 2027, with all historical arrears forgiven, and several countries have already publicly announced they agreed to it, won't do it (Ireland and Spain I'm aware of, I doubt they're the only ones)

              You could also see this as most countries joining, promising to do this starting in 1949. Not even in the first years did most countries do this (except France). So most countries are let's generously say 1% of GDP in arrears, for 75 years now ...

              • By Timon3 2026-03-1512:18

                > It's part of the conditions for NATO membership. Oh and to have 4% as a target.

                Could you please share where the 2% were defined in the requirements since 1949, and where the 4% are currently defined?

                As I already stated, the 2% requirement I'm aware of was negotiated in 2014, to be reached by the end of 2024. If this is indeed where the 2% come from, it's obviously completely ridiculous to act like the member countries didn't meet the requirements - it wasn't a requirement of the treaty they signed!

              • By Timon3 2026-03-1423:15

                So yes, you're talking about the target of 2% by 2025. Why are you saying that the countries didn't comply with the target, when they did?

                If the US wanted the 2% target to be met before then, you should have negotiated an earlier deadline. Don't agree to one deadline and then cry because an arbitrary earlier one hasn't been met.

      • By bryanlarsen 2026-03-1318:591 reply

        Militaries have to always behave like there is a war coming soon. They might not believe that one is coming soon, but they have to behave like it is. If they don't, they won't be prepared when one does happen.

        • By spwa4 2026-03-1322:21

          This is politicians rearming militaries, not militaries rearming themselves. You're right that militaries want to arm, but they've been trying for a very long time, and just been denied, and denied and denied some more.

      • By iSnow 2026-03-1321:52

        Some EU member states are bordering Russia, of course they are afraid the next war will be on their soil.

  • By cameldrv 2026-03-1322:312 reply

    I think also underappreciated is that Starlink can be used for purposes other than communication. It's already physically capable of acting as a giant radar, and SpaceX has gotten a missile tracking contract, and the E-7 wedgetail radar plane has been cancelled, which the DoD had publicly said was because it is obsolete given what's possible from space. It could be that they're planning on launching another radar constellation, but my guess is that it's already up there and it's called Starlink.

HackerNews