224
Finnish companies Nokia and ICEYE partner with Ukraine to develop sovereign satcom capability
(united24media.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2026
224 points (99.1% liked)
Ukraine
12815 readers
95 users here now
News related to Ukraine
Community Rules
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for invaders is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·[Combat] videos containing footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
π© No AI slop
β Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
π³ Defense Aid π₯
π³ Humanitarian Aid βοΈβοΈ
πͺ Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Neither of them have the capabilities to put up and maintain a network like that. Even if they could, itd be their capacity and more and they want to launch other things.
You need global coverage on any given orbit to ensure continuous service, and theyd need multiple rings to cover the entire area they need covered.
Thats a lot of satellites and launches.
Edit: if you didnt care about low latency you could do less satellites, but they need low latency for much of what they do.
Not the whole world, but every satellite that wants to serve downtown Paris, has to serve the whole world on that orbit. They need a satellite perpetually going over downtown Paris which creates global coverage for that orbit. Europe is big. Thats going to be a lot of rings. (Edit Paris was just a figurative example, it would need to be in the cell range, not directly over)
Depending on the orbits maybe that never reaches Africa, or never reaches Russia. Im not really sure which orbital planes they'd use or are even possible. That comes down to where they launch from.
To attack thousands of km into Russia though to be useful like starshield is to Ukraine in a war situation, they would probably want that covered. At leaat partially.
Edit: clarity, but also this global orbit requirement is part of what helps fund the network. Now they can also offer service to other countries that line up on their orbits. Starlink wouldn't be profitable if it just served the USA. Trying to perfectly cover the USA got them extensive coverage around the globe though. If this is military use only, it wouldn't need to be as dense as starlink though as itd have less usage so less bandwidth needs.
Edit: i was just looking more into this, but orbits arent over the same spot repeatedly. A dish that goes over Paris on orbit 1 might not reach Paris again until orbit 6. That means you need even more rings, which brings true global coverage closer.
Weβve had geostationary internet satellites for a reaaaaaaaaaally long time now. You canβt just hand-wave away why LEO satellites are so preferred.
As you said geostationary have substantial lag. If you want to send a message to someone it can work, but to be precicesly controlling things its not realistic. Its upwards of 600-700ms delay. People who have to use it don't like it, that's why Starlink won people over. They want to build a LEO network though.
They could definitely go for less satellites at a medium height and find a balance on usable ping, and that could save some launches. (edit: bigger but fewer satellites at medium orbits could mean more fuels as well to stay up longer on their own, but they would need more fuel as well to deorbit at the end of their lifespan. I don't know how that would balance out. But I'm sure you could get more than 5 years like the LEO ones are planned for, as long as the hardware is designed to last longer too)
The thing with these LEO satellites is if something goes wrong, they will come down in ~5 years. If you go much higher, it could be decades or hundreds of years. Everyone who screams about kessler syndrome because of Starlink is wrong, but the higher you go with a constellation, the higher the risk becomes.
You are accusing others of being confidently incorrect? Thatβs rich.
LOL dude.
LEO has no kessler risk because they come down too quick.
As you go into higher orbits, you know like the MEDIUM orbits I was talking about so they stay longer with still low pings, the chances of something happening increase and there will still be a lot.
Geostationary is not a medium orbit, and yes the risk isn't as high there, but that is not what they want to build.
edit: To be clear, were talking about Kessler here, and the 'chances of something happening' is that something goes wrong and a true kessler syndrome happens. 0% chance in current LEO like starlink. As you go higher, the % goes up, at least in the low latency area.
Edit: Like China blew up their own satellite in the 800km range, and that debris is going to remain in orbit for hundreds of years now. If we put a constellation in an orbit around 1500km, so we can triple Starlinks latency of 20-50 to 60-150, it'd stay up there for millennia if something happened. That's the risk of a true kessler syndrome. Nobody cares if we fuck things up for a few years down so low with these existing constellations. The world would shrug its shoulders in annoyance.
Eutelsat also has sattelites up, but they mostly use them to broadcast TV.
Ya, that's the Eutelsat OneWeb constellation.
It's at around 1200km and 650 satellites. It was put up with Soyuz rockets until the war started and then SpaceX (edit: and India) put up the rest.
Looks like SpaceX is about to launch some of the first replacement satellites, but Arriane has some flights booked as well.
https://www.eutelsat.com/media-press/media-centre/news/eutelsats-oneweb-renewal-moves-toward-launch-first-new-satellites
Isn't that like the point? That they're developing the capability?
This was about making the satellites for it. Not about launch capacity.
Its a big step for sure and you can't do one without the other, but their current rockets and plans arent a good fit for it yet.
Edit: I just want to emphasis the "yet". I'm not saying they can't, but they'll need to plan for it.