EU Deploys New Government Satcom Program in Sovereignty Push (spacenews.com) 32
The EU "has switched on parts of its homegrown secure satellite communications network for the first time," reports Bloomberg, calling it part of a €10.6 billion push to "wean itself off US support amid growing tensions."
SpaceNews notes the new government program GOVSATCOM pools capacity from eight already on-oribit satellites from France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Luxembourg — both national and commercial. And they cite this prediction by EU Defense and Space Commissioner Andrius Kubilius.
The program could expand by 2027. "All member states can now have access to sovereign satellite communications — military and government, secure and resilient, built in Europe, operated in Europe, and under European control," [Kubilius said during his opening remarks at the European Space Conference]... Beginning in 2029, GOVSATCOM is expected to integrate with the 290 satellites in the Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite constellation, known as IRIS2, and be fully operational... "The goal is connectivity and security for all of Europe — guaranteed access for all member states and full European control."
SpaceNews notes the new government program GOVSATCOM pools capacity from eight already on-oribit satellites from France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Luxembourg — both national and commercial. And they cite this prediction by EU Defense and Space Commissioner Andrius Kubilius.
The program could expand by 2027. "All member states can now have access to sovereign satellite communications — military and government, secure and resilient, built in Europe, operated in Europe, and under European control," [Kubilius said during his opening remarks at the European Space Conference]... Beginning in 2029, GOVSATCOM is expected to integrate with the 290 satellites in the Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite constellation, known as IRIS2, and be fully operational... "The goal is connectivity and security for all of Europe — guaranteed access for all member states and full European control."
Re:Full control* (Score:5, Informative)
Except for the encryption keys which were all issued by the US.
"Continuously rotating keys".
You don't have to use the keys given. You can make your own. Like your own SSL, TLS, or SSH keys, just longer, and with a different algorithm. Discontinuous functions with constant key rotation is hackable, true. Not sure how long that would take now, in 2000 it was calculated to take over a million years. And remember that part "continuously rotating"? You get one message with that key, now start over. With Enigma, they got complacent by only changing keys every 24 hours. Now change the keys for each message. Even "Back when" - it took on average 48 hours to find one day's key. As much intelligence was from signals analysis and frequency of messages than actually reading the content. Today, your system should be sending random null messages nearly continuously.
Combined with the rest of the world abandoning the USA's SWIFT banking system and SABRE air reservations outside of dealing with the USA (Still running on Oracle 5? Not sure, haven't kept up with it since 2000). That's the issue with a "trusted partner" that thinks it is cool to shit all over their "allies". At some point, they stop being friends. Or allies. Or tame.
American Exceptionalism isn't, and hasn't been since the end of WWII. We've been going on momentum, and people went along with it because the US did not do anything very objectionable to them. Now we are. We should be building longer tables, not higher walls. Because as King Gustavus Adolphus knew, it's cheaper to talk than to go to war, and you can quietly reach for a bigger hammer while talking.
and exploitable by Israel. **cough** **NSO** **Pegasus**
Which are already dealt with by using different algorithms but go ahead and say it ain't so. Won't change the facts that the current administration's incompetence and the leadership of a senile old geezer with dementia has alerted the rest of the world that the United States is in decline, and come grab a few mouthfuls off the quivering flesh of a sessile, impotent mountain of blubber. Not that the left is that much better, but at least it understands the importance of alliances. Even if some of them are unwise to the point of screaming frustration.
Here are the hard facts: It is time and past to dispense with both major parties and start working on real solutions using real thought and real intelligence. We've rested on our collective laurels for 80 years now. Like the failed man recalling his glory days as the high school linebacker, everyone's heard the stories but what have you done for us lately, and how are you going to do it with that pot belly and dementia?
Re: (Score:3)
Combined with the rest of the world abandoning the USA's SWIFT banking system
FOR FUCK SAKE. SWIFT IS NOT AMERICAN. SWIFT is European. It was created in Brussels in Belgium in 1973, it's HQ is still in Belgium. SWIFT was set up out of fear of what might happen if a single private and fully American entity controlled global financial flows. It's entire reason d'etre is to have something under European control so that America doesn't control the entire world's banking.
Huh... (Score:2)
If they ever film a comedy about this, and everybody relaxed after hearing the next filming location, that would be a satcom sitcom site comm set calm.
Re: (Score:1)
One at a time?
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Interesting)
Who said anything about launching satellites? The spacenews article uses the phrase "launches government satcom program", which is different from "launching government satellites". It also mentions using satellites "already on-orbit". The slashdot title uses the word "Deploys", which avoids this confusion.
Their stated goal is for the satellites to be "built in Europe, operated in Europe, and under European control." They don't say "launched by Europe".
A more relevant question might be if the satellites have non-European electronic components.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive the previous poster. He has an American education.
Re: (Score:2)
A more relevant question might be if the satellites have non-European electronic components.
I'm sure they do. But I bet most/all of those can be sourced outside the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that the first satellite was launched in 1957?
Re: (Score:3)
The reusable first stage Themis is assembled and will fly later this year, see picture https://cnes.fr/en/projects/th... [cnes.fr] of course the whole project will take some years to complete, but it's not like starting from scratch.
Re: (Score:2)
How is Europe going to launch satellites without a reusable rockets?
The same way it's been launching them for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way it's been launching them for decades.
Driving them to the top of the ice wall?
Re: Sovereignty, but for who? (Score:2)
Re: Sovereignty, but for who? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
A real problem is only the whole commission can be send packing, not individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
The Secretary of X and Supreme Court judges in the US are all "unelected" as well. In principle PROTUS is "unelected" by that difinition. But they are all appointed by someone elected.
Uh, what?
"The Secretary of X"? What are you on about? Is this an anti-Musk thing, or are you referring generically to all cabinet members in the US gov't?
"Supreme Court judges in the US are all "unelected" - Uh, yeah - do you really want the people to vote in Supreme Court Justices? Yeah, major decisions involving serious issues should be decided by someone that hires campaign consultants, takes polls, and makes decisions to win voter support, not based on actual laws - sounds awesome. Every SCOTUS decision
Re: (Score:2)
The European Commission is elected, just indirectly. It is a process of several steps, which combine proposals, vetting, interviews and European Parliament confirmation. Not much different than, say, the US congress electing the various executive branch administrators.
Also, the citizens of Europe today are a lot more sovereign, and over a much larger territory than they were 50 years ago, because the EU is still taking the public opinion more seriously than any other confederation in existence.
So, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Right.
Re: Sovereignty, but for who? (Score:2)
Weak, low energy troll. Sad.
Hey, how's Galileo GNSS going? (Score:2)
2003 Europe "We don't want to depend on US GPS systems!"
2006: EU mints Galileo collectible coin! (/snort)
(2 decades follow)
Dec 2026: 26 of 30 operational satellites.
So we should expect this new SATCOM program to be operational by...2049... maybe?
Hey, at least we'll probably have a collectible coin for it minted by 2030!
Re: (Score:2)
Galileo was grounds up (satellite, launchers, ground control), to the cost of billions, while this Satcom project is extending existing military communications systems to new members. The IT equivalent is: Galileo is like building an AWS competitor, vs. launching additional VMs in an existing datacenter.
Re: (Score:2)
2003 Europe "We don't want to depend on US GPS systems!"
2006: EU mints Galileo collectible coin! (/snort)
(2 decades follow)
Dec 2026: 26 of 30 operational satellites.
Dec. 2026 - really? Checks calendar...
So we should expect this new SATCOM program to be operational by...2049... maybe?
I guess you missed this line:
SpaceNews notes the new government program GOVSATCOM pools capacity from eight already on-oribit satellites from France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Luxembourg — both national and commercial.
More winning (Score:2)
It's quite something to watch the decline and fall of the american empire.
Unfortunately most americans can't see what's happening.
Re: (Score:2)
The folks in the EU all banded together to be able to do big things like this collectively - that's great. I don't see this so much as a rejection of all things American, but instead an evolution of the EU states becoming more independent, more self-reliant.
Why should EU member-states rely on other countries for satcom, when collectively they have the ability to meet their own needs - that's great!
de Gaulle would be somewhat pleased... (Score:2)
...as he never had much faith in the USA.
although he probably would be unhappy that France isn't the dominant economy of Europe