Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated she would raise renewed Starshield disruptions with the US after Ukraine reported problems across the frontline.
Yeah, sure. I also heard the fairy tale number 15 Mio USD before. What one department is charging another department of the same company for a service does not necessarily have anything to do with cost reality, assuming that number is actually real to begin with. Fact is, the list price is around 74 Mio EUR, if you order smaller jobs it gets even substantially more expensive per kg LEO and yet the launch business failed to make a profit in Q3 2026.
You claimed that not having SpaceX style rockets makes launch costs “prohibitively expensive.” which is just BS. Even more so, even Amazon found the service interesting enough to use it for some of their satellites.
Sure, it would be cool to have more cost effective rockets but what we have works well, at a much more moderate price premium than internet pundits like to claim. Europe does not need a 10000 satellite network for its strategic needs not even nearly as many. The main aim is not power projection to the other side of the world but defense and services in Europe.
There were about 120 launches and 2/3 for Starlink.
If the launches sell for $76 million, almost $80m, then 40 of these launches and 80 times $20 million paid for everything to almost break even.
40 times $80m plus 80 times $20 are $3.2b plus $1.6b = 4.8b. That’s $40m per launch.
So you are right, the costs for Ariane 6 launches are not prohibitively more expensive to create a military project. But it can’t become commercially successful, so Europe will bleed money.
Europe does not need a 10000 satellite network
How many are needed? And what happens if Russia starts to shoot them down? Do we have the capacity to replace them?
The main aim is not power projection to the other side of the world
Yet that’s where the satellites should also fly if they circle the world.
but defense and services in Europe.
If Europe fights Russia, why would there be trench warfare like in Ukraine? Wouldn’t Europe have air superiority while Russia has the space technology to fill the sky over the front with shrapnel?
They don’t just sell for 76 mio USD. They sell for much more if you don’t book a full one. How they really earn is pure speculation. The only reliable information are the list prices. The other is that the launch business is not profitable.
For a start a few hundred satellites are needed for strategic purposes. Those will become operational in the next years. Yes, Europe has capacity to replace them. Btw, “shooting down satellites” is something that is in itself very expensive. Which might explain that this is a largely theoretical thing so far.
Not sure what that nonsense in the last paragraph is supposed to be about. I can’t follow the argument. The satellites are among others to harden Ukraine against the antics of some US oligarch, but also the EU. After all that oligarch is known of financing anti-democratic forces in Europe so you can’t really rely on any of his services.
Yeah, sure. I also heard the fairy tale number 15 Mio USD before. What one department is charging another department of the same company for a service does not necessarily have anything to do with cost reality, assuming that number is actually real to begin with. Fact is, the list price is around 74 Mio EUR, if you order smaller jobs it gets even substantially more expensive per kg LEO and yet the launch business failed to make a profit in Q3 2026.
You claimed that not having SpaceX style rockets makes launch costs “prohibitively expensive.” which is just BS. Even more so, even Amazon found the service interesting enough to use it for some of their satellites.
Sure, it would be cool to have more cost effective rockets but what we have works well, at a much more moderate price premium than internet pundits like to claim. Europe does not need a 10000 satellite network for its strategic needs not even nearly as many. The main aim is not power projection to the other side of the world but defense and services in Europe.
Which tells us that the costs are a bit higher than $20 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches
There were about 120 launches and 2/3 for Starlink.
If the launches sell for $76 million, almost $80m, then 40 of these launches and 80 times $20 million paid for everything to almost break even.
40 times $80m plus 80 times $20 are $3.2b plus $1.6b = 4.8b. That’s $40m per launch.
So you are right, the costs for Ariane 6 launches are not prohibitively more expensive to create a military project. But it can’t become commercially successful, so Europe will bleed money.
How many are needed? And what happens if Russia starts to shoot them down? Do we have the capacity to replace them?
Yet that’s where the satellites should also fly if they circle the world.
If Europe fights Russia, why would there be trench warfare like in Ukraine? Wouldn’t Europe have air superiority while Russia has the space technology to fill the sky over the front with shrapnel?
They don’t just sell for 76 mio USD. They sell for much more if you don’t book a full one. How they really earn is pure speculation. The only reliable information are the list prices. The other is that the launch business is not profitable.
For a start a few hundred satellites are needed for strategic purposes. Those will become operational in the next years. Yes, Europe has capacity to replace them. Btw, “shooting down satellites” is something that is in itself very expensive. Which might explain that this is a largely theoretical thing so far.
Not sure what that nonsense in the last paragraph is supposed to be about. I can’t follow the argument. The satellites are among others to harden Ukraine against the antics of some US oligarch, but also the EU. After all that oligarch is known of financing anti-democratic forces in Europe so you can’t really rely on any of his services.
How useful are the satellites if the EU fights Russia? Wouldn’t the money be better spent on other weapons?