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.

• icegreentea2

  today at 7:15 PM

  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).

• bryanlarsen

  today at 6:13 PM

  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.

  • sigmoid10

    today at 7:04 PM

    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.

    • Liftyee

      today at 7:53 PM

      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".

      • buckle8017

        today at 8:06 PM

        Be serious, you don't really need a citation to know the CCP is using industrial espionage to advance their defense industry.

        • bryanlarsen

          today at 8:10 PM

          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.

    • joe_mamba

      today at 8:12 PM

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

      France is one of the biggest industrial espionage players active in the US and Europe, after Israel.

      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."

      Every nation 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, both naive and hilarious.

  • pie_flavor

    today at 7:00 PM

    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.

    • IshKebab

      today at 7:39 PM

      Sure but the Chinese military can easily afford that.

  • standardUser

    today at 7:37 PM

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

• db48x

  today at 5:58 PM

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

  • bryanlarsen

    today at 6:06 PM

    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.

    • zitterbewegung

      today at 6:26 PM

      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-...

      • fragmede

        today at 7:01 PM

        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?

        • zitterbewegung

          today at 7:32 PM

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

• tristor

  today at 7:42 PM

  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).

  • bryanlarsen

    today at 7:48 PM

    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.

• thisislife2

  today at 6:01 PM

  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?

  • mooreds

    today at 6:05 PM

    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

    • SlinkyOnStairs

      today at 6:48 PM

      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.

      • JumpCrisscross

        today at 6:59 PM

        > 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-...

        • SlinkyOnStairs

          today at 7:09 PM

          > 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.

          • JumpCrisscross

            today at 7:24 PM

            > 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

          • toomuchtodo

            today at 7:11 PM

            What would the cost be to deny these orbital altitudes?

            • SlinkyOnStairs

              today at 7:43 PM

              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.

              • today at 8:08 PM

        • estearum

          today at 7:02 PM

          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.

          ???

          • JumpCrisscross

            today at 7:30 PM

            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.

      • bluGill

        today at 7:02 PM

        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.

        • fragmede

          today at 7:08 PM

          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.

  • samrus

    today at 6:03 PM

    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

  • tartuffe78

    today at 6:03 PM

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

    • palmotea

      today at 7:16 PM

      > 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?

  • tekla

    today at 6:08 PM

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

    • bluGill

      today at 7:06 PM

      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.

• jmyeet

  today at 6:13 PM

  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-...

  • ciupicri

    today at 6:43 PM

    > 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.

    • kelnos

      today at 7:12 PM

      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.)

    • palmotea

      today at 7:17 PM

      > 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.

    • bluGill

      today at 7:08 PM

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

• assaddayinh

  today at 6:09 PM

  [dead]

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...

• elevation

  today at 6:41 PM

  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.

• Joel_Mckay

  today at 6:36 PM

  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

• spwa4

  today at 6:25 PM

  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 ...

  • bryanlarsen

    today at 6:59 PM

    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.

  • roughly

    today at 6:32 PM

    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.

    • yostrovs

      today at 7:11 PM

      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.

      • roughly

        today at 8:14 PM

        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.

    • spwa4

      today at 6:35 PM

      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.

      • jltsiren

        today at 7:22 PM

        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.

I think the next big war will involve a kessler syndrome, not because people start firing off anti-satellite weapons (since there's a strong component of MAD in doing that) but because the belligerents will have their own multi-thousand satellite constellations in orbit and they will quit coordinating with one another on collision avoidance.

• bryanlarsen

  today at 7:05 PM

  Starlink is redeploying to 300 miles. Many consider Kessler to be impossible at 300 miles. Any unpowered satellite at a 300 mile orbit will deorbit within a couple of months. But a collision means fragments which deorbit faster because they have a higher surface/weight ratio, and because orbit disturbances lower that time considerably. Any single disturbance that raises aphelion lowers perihelion.

• childintime

  today at 6:56 PM

  A smaller player like North Korea and Iran would not have as much to lose. Iran is doing something similar today, suicide bombing everything it can.

  • krunck

    today at 8:11 PM

    Iran also has a space program with Satellites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Space_Agency

• tehjoker

  today at 6:58 PM

  These LEO satellites are low enough that I imagine a Kessler situation would self-resolve within a few years.

Starlink's first customer was supposed to be the US Army. I am curious what requirements they did not meet.

• pantsforbirds

  today at 8:04 PM

  There is a separate entity, StarShield, that the US military uses. I think it's a fully separate set of satellites, but I'm not 100% on that.

They have suddenly discovered what engineers have been telling them for about 80 years, and theoreticians have known for 100+ years is actually true: directional beams that cannot realistically be distrupted + satellites out of reach + even if you can you can only take ALL satellites out of orbit (ie. including your own, not just the enemy's). So on future battlefields, everyone will have livestreaming.

Do governments and militaries even believe in the laws of physics? I mean that exactly this was going to happen (undisruptable radio comms + robots, on the battlefield) was perfectly predictable near ~about 1960, and it's an absolute miracle that it took so long to come to pass.

And even that is assuming you're only willing to believe in demonstrations. For physicists it must have been a theoretical certainty that this was coming before WW1 was done.

Starlink direct connect LTE support is simply going to bury any telecom that ignores the technology.

Essentially, anyone with a smart-phone will now be able to text home from anywhere without specialized equipment. Elon can take a victory lap on that product.

Competitors naive enough to underestimate what it took to build Starlink are going to find spectrum auctions already well out of their league. =3

There's a deeper message here. I believe that countries around the world are moving towards a stance that the US is an unreliable partner and that their national security depends on not being reliant upon the US.

An obvious place for this is that I think the EU will follow China's stance on not wanting to be beholden to US tech companies. The EU will bootstrap this by requiring EU government services to be hosted on platforms run by EU companies subject to EU jurisdiction. Think EU AWS. This is easier said than done.

But this is really a consequence of the current administration having absolutely no idea what they're doing and they're intentionally and unintentionally destroying American soft power.

Another way this can come to pass is that the EU decides that the US is an unreliable partner for their security needs so you will find that various weapons, vehicles, platforms, etc for EU militaries will be supplied by local companies, particularly if the US effectively abandons Ukraine.

Starlink is just another piece of that.

The current administration paints NATO as Europe taking advantage of the US. It could not be more wrong. NATO is a protection racket for the US to sell weapons and control European foreign policy.

We kind of saw a precursor to all this with GPS. For anyone who has been around long enough, GPS used to be less accurate, deliberately. Why? Because defence (apparently). There was a special signal, Selective Ability ("SA") [1], that military gear could decode to be more accurate.

Fun fact: one of the clues to the first Gulf War was that the military turned off SA on the commercial GPS system because they couldn't procure enough military equipment so had to use civilian gear [2].

I think Europe was slow to learn the lesson of being completely reliant on the US but we did end up with Glonass and Galileo as a result.

To exert the kind of control the US does through tech platfoorms, the US needs to be predictable and reliable can't be too overt with exerting political influence such that American imperial subjects can pretend they're still independent. This administration has shattered that illusion.

[1]: https://www.gps.gov/selective-availability

[2]: https://www.spirent.com/blogs/selective-availability-a-bad-m...

• pantsforbirds

  today at 8:01 PM

  You can't simultaneously argue that NATO is a "protection racket" for the US to sell weapons and control European foreign policy, and also argue that the EU would be in trouble without the current levels of US participation. Either NATO is a scam that exploits Europe, or it's a security umbrella that Europe needs.

  The "protection racket", in particular, is very dishonest. The US has spent 3-4% of GDP on defense for decades, outspending the rest of NATO combined, while the majority of NATO members continuously fail to meet their monetary contributions. Most of America's allies would not be able to fund their generous social programs if the majority of their military capabilities weren't directly tied to the implied threat of the US military interceding.

  America's allies haven't necessarily been that reliable for us either.

  During Operation Prosperity Guardian, Houthis started attacking commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea, directly threatening European trade routes, and the US could barely get token naval contributions from allies. The US deployed an entire carrier strike group while Norway sent ten staff officers, the Netherlands sent two, and Finland sent two soldiers. France, Italy, and Spain refused to participate; Denmark contributed a single staff officer while being one of the primary beneficiaries of the US naval protection.

  With Operation Epic Fury, the US asked to use jointly operated bases for staging, and Spain banned the US and then demanded that the American tanker aircraft leave. The UK refused to provide any support until drones hit a UK base in Cyprus, and even then, their mobilization was extremely slow. They weren't even able to deploy their carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales, without getting an escort from France. Canada praised the removal of Iran's nuclear capabilities, while providing no support and heavily criticizing the operation itself.

  Can we actually be clear on "reliability"? There is not a single defense analyst in the world who seriously believes the US wouldn't IMMEDIATELY defend Canada if Russia launched an offense against them. The unreliability comes from trade policy (which I think is mostly dumb, but is also very much not a one-way action), hesitancy to fund Ukraine at levels that aren't being matched by NATO allies, and Trump's blustering about "adding a 51st state" (no one seriously believes the US is going to annex Canada).

  America will continue to act as a deterrent against military action for her allies, and said allies will still not have to commit to the spending that would be required to field a military that is actually a near-peer to China or Russia.

  Having said all of that, I 100% support America's allies building out their own cloud infrastructure and bringing defense R&D and manufacturing back locally. Israel has been moving to cut direct dependency on the US and instead acts as a partner in new joint defense capabilities. I think a similar strategy for Canada and Europe would be best for all.

  I'm honestly not sure how practical an EU counterpart to Starshield is, but maybe a partnership with SpaceX would allow them to more realistically diversify while the EU builds up its space capabilities.

  • bryanlarsen

    today at 8:08 PM

    > no one seriously believes the US is going to annex Canada

    Many people believe that the US annexing Canada is a higher probability than either China or Russia doing so. All three are very low probabilities.

• palmotea

  today at 7:25 PM

  > There's a deeper message here. I believe that countries around the world are moving towards a stance that the US is an unreliable partner and that their national security depends on not being reliant upon the US.

  That's not a bad thing, because the EU has been a mooch since the end of the Cold War, at least. It's unfortunate it took two terms of Trump for them to finally chance their attitude.

God can we have an alien invasion already PLEASE

12 000 years of this shit

• bluGill

  today at 7:13 PM

  Sorry, relativity is against it. They - if they exist (a debate I'm not touching) - don't even know we are here. Even if they knew we are here they can't get here.

  • Razengan

    today at 7:20 PM

    Or have a hands-off policy like we do with uncontacted tribes and some protected animal populations etc.

    I'll settle for anything to be honest. A sign, a derelict, an artifact, a fossil, an echo.. anything to distract humans from shitting on each other for a little while at least.

    • bluGill

      today at 7:26 PM

      Again, physics says they can't. relativite and signal degrigation is hard. the energy of a star outside our arm of the galaxy isn't easy to detect, much less any signal of lower power.

      • johnnyanmac

        today at 8:05 PM

        Our current knowledge of physics says they can't. Who knows what others figured out. We still can't even explain 80% of the mass we measure.

[dead]

It's worth pointing out that aside from Elons behavior the real issue with Starlink is that it's insolvent. Starlink does not make money. (The solvency gap is hotly debated) But that fact means it's long-term reliability is in question. No military wants to risk that kind of system dependency.

• vardump

  today at 7:25 PM

  Anything to back that up? Starlink is widely considered profitable.