A satellite space race is threatening a fresh row between Trump and the EU
A geopolitical rift could emerge as Europe pushes to develop its own technology amid US dominance.
This newsletter was brought to you by Sonder London. Follow us on LinkedIn here. And thanks for reading.
Hello, and welcome to this week’s edition of The View from Space.
🛰️ In The Telegraph, James Warrington argues that the strategic and political significance of satellites has sparked searching questions about who ‘holds the keys to these antennas in the sky’ and that concern is ‘starting to take hold among European executives and government officials as they discuss sovereignty more broadly’:
‘Space technology has been developing rapidly as rivals race to fill coverage gaps in remote rural areas. Meanwhile, conflicts in Ukraine and, more recently, Iran, have underscored how satellites can provide a critical emergency lifeline when conventional networks are taken offline.
In a rare display of innovation, Britain has been at the forefront of this celestial revolution, with O2 launching Europe’s first satellite mobile service earlier this month.
Yet beneath the excitement over shiny new technology, concerns are mounting about how much of it is developed by American companies. Critics warn that control of critical infrastructure risks being monopolised by a handful of US billionaires.
Today, Elon Musk’s Starlink has a network of 10,000 satellites, putting it well ahead of rivals in space-based internet infrastructure. Meanwhile, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos has also been starting to invest heavily in the technology.
Bigwigs across the EU are starting to take note. Recently, they have been pushing for a “sovereign” satellite solution that will bring the technology close to home.
However, the move could have serious consequences. In doing so, the bloc risks provoking the ire of the Trump administration, potentially opening up a major geopolitical rift in an escalating space race.’
🗣️ Our MD, Victoria Pearson, argues in Satellite Evolution that the way we talk about space in Europe risks putting off investors:
‘Across the Atlantic, they do things differently. Yes, it’s a generalization; but by and large space communication tends to stress scale, speed, and open competition. We hear about launch cadence, falling costs, private demand, and export markets. Public agencies, likewise, frame space as an industry that can grow, sell services, and attract capital, and isn’t just a tool for national defense. Of course, security matters, but so does growth, trade, and return. The language of space in the United States suggests a real breadth of opportunity, not just control. There is a general climate of sector optimism.
That tells investors two main things. First, that the sector can expand beyond a single state customer. Second, that there will likely be several exit routes over time, whether through trade sales, public markets or secondary deals. In finance, credible exit options reduce perceived risk and lower required returns. The message is clear: security matters, but capital can enter, scale, and leave.’
📡 Satellite operator SES said a missile had struck its teleport in Israel, reports SpaceNews:
‘The Luxembourg-based company said a small portion of the geostationary antenna field was damaged, adding that no injuries were reported and the impact did not affect the main facility at Emek Ha’ela.
“Power, internet connectivity, and all services not dependent on the impacted antennas continue to operate normally,” SES said March 11 via email.
“We activated our business continuity plan and are working closely with customers. Restoration paths are in place, with recovery activities already underway.”
The site is one of 45 teleports worldwide that SES operates to provide gateway connectivity and control for its broadband and TV broadcast satellites in geostationary orbit. It also has nine teleports dedicated to broadband satellites in medium Earth orbit.
SES pointed to “significant back-up and redundancy capabilities” but declined to provide more details about them or the site, which it said is a commercial facility, although it also serves government customers.’
🌍 Culture, not cash, is the biggest obstacle to European rearmament, argues NewSpace Capital Partner Daniel Biedermann in Defense Opinion:
‘The European Space Agency has been behind some outstanding work, but the present geographical return system entails awarding industrial contracts to countries of the same value as that which those countries have paid in. In other words, pay in €100, get €100 back in contracts.
National defense budgets work in the same way, and the rules did not appear by accident. Governments use them to support domestic industry and protect jobs. But incentives drive behavior. So, when money is tied to national return, companies think nationally, lobby nationally and build nationally.
The result is duplication.
Countries across Europe are building similar systems in parallel instead of pooling effort. The Leopard tank is a good example of this. On paper, it’s one platform. In practice, there are many different versions. Why? Because each country modifies it to suit their own requirements and their own industries.’
🇪🇺 Europe must wean itself off American technology, FibreCoat CEO Robert Brüll writes in European Interest:
‘Europe is not poor. With few exceptions, we enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world. But the threat posed to Europe by Russia, the twelfth-largest economy in the world, is clear proof that having a lot of cash, or even being willing to spend a lot, is not the same as being safe and able to deter hostile actors. Here lies Europe’s difficulty. Not only is it dependent on the United States in the abstract, but practically, its systems – systems that are now the backbone of defence – are full of American technology. It’s a commonplace in cybersecurity and software engineering that whoever owns the code, the keys, or the architecture is the ultimate controller of the technology. This means that much European equipment and technology is in fact controlled by the U.S. The U.S. could, on paper, restrict European access to that same technology or withhold the updates it needs to run well. In theory, Europe could instead turn to China for that technology, but that would bring about the same problems and a different kind of dependence.
It would be easy to say that this is so unlikely as not to be worth thinking about. I hope that’s true. But recent years have surely made it clear that the future remains as impossible to foresee as ever. In 2002, the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan said that arguing against globalisation was like ‘arguing against the law of gravity’; yet the story turned out to be more complicated. After the financial crisis, trade growth stalled, protectionism rose, there was strategic decoupling, and, more recently, a turning-inwards by certain countries. Very little is inevitable in geopolitics, and that’s why Europe mustn’t be complacent.’
🪞 British astronomers are ‘alarmed’ by plans to use space mirrors to light Earth at night, reports ITV:
‘Dr Robert Massey, Deputy Executive Director at the RAS, said: “These proposals would not only have a disastrous impact on the science of astronomy, they would also hinder the right of everybody on Earth to enjoy the night sky. That is unacceptable.
“The stars above us are a valued part of human heritage – deploying more than one million exceptionally bright satellites would utterly destroy this and permanently scar the natural landscape.”
According to Reflect Orbital’s website, the company plans to launch 50,000 satellites by 2035, with the first two expected to be launched by the end of the year.’
🚀 And SpaceX will reach 10,000 Starlink satellites in orbit after its Falcon 9 launch from California: