The Dark Space War between Europe and the United States Is Upgraded, and the Sea of Stars Will Not Escape from America‘s “Little Courtyard High Wall”
On September 9, under the glass dome of the Grand Palais in Paris, the first international space summit opened as scheduled. Government officials, businesses and scientists from about 120 countries gathered in this magnificent building built for the Exposition Universelle of 1900, preparing to discuss issues surrounding space cooperation, industrial regulation and more.
However, this event, on which French President Macron placed high hopes, met with a loud “space slap” before opening.
Four U.S. space companies, including SpaceX, Blue Origin, Stock Space Company, and Nebula, announced their withdrawal. This lineup, which could be called the “half of the world” of U.S. commercial space, all fled at once. The organizers of the Paris Summit estimated that they would have to change the PowerPoint overnight, which also made this originally star-studded summit instantly lose much of its color.
International opinion calls the U.S. action a “boycott.” But anyone with good eyes can see that this, on the surface, is a corporate absence, but behind it reflects deep differences between Europe and the United States on regulation of the space industry, commercial competition, and development paths. French astronaut Thomas Pesquet said bluntly: “The space enterprise has been geopolitically interfered with.”
According to several foreign media reports, White House officials had previously told U.S. space industry representatives that France had not coordinated with the United States during the preparation of this summit, and accused France of “anti-competitive behavior.”
What‘s more, according to The Politico, in a private conference call, a White House official informed companies such as SpaceX and Stock Space that participating in the event “might seem like tacit support for EU policy positions.”
Why are the United States so nervous? The answer lies in a law.
Currently, the European Union is advancing the implementation of the European Space Act, the first comprehensive framework for regulating space activities in the European Union, covering core issues such as security, cybersecurity, resilience, and the long-term sustainability of space activities.
According to the proposal, the relevant regulations will apply to operators providing space services and data in the EU, requiring them to obtain prior authorization and designate a legal representative within the EU.
Simply put: You want to come to Europe for business? Yes, but first you need to find a “local guarantor” in Europe.
The United States is worried that such regulations might increase the cost of U.S. satellite companies entering the European market and put them at a disadvantage in competition, so they simply withdraw collectively.
If the EU Space Act is a game at the rule level, then spectrum allocation is a naked scramble for interests.
Just in May of this year, the European Commission passed a new 2 GHz satellite band allocation proposal to implement differentiated quota management for the core spectrum of mobile phone direct satellite services. According to this proposal, European Union companies can accrue at least two-thirds of the spectrum resources in this band, while non-EU companies such as Starlink under SpaceX and Amazon Leo under Amazon can only compete for the remaining third of commercial spectrum shares.
What is the frequency spectrum? It is the “life line” of satellite communication. The 2 GHz S-band mobile satellite-specific frequency spectrum is a key core resource for ordinary smartphones to achieve direct satellite communication in ground communication blind areas.
Currently, the frequency band license is held by U.S. companies Viasat and EchoStar, and the existing operating license will expire in May 2027. The European Union seized this time window to redesign spectrum allocation, making it clear that it wants to “open the door” for local companies.
What makes the United States even more nervous is that Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Vodafone, and Spanish Telecom are conducting preliminary negotiations on forming an alliance, planning to jointly bid for satellite spectrum resources that the European Union plans to reserve for local operators, directly competing with SpaceX‘s Star Chain business.
Translated into plain English, it means: Space is just that big, and there are just that many good locations. Do you want to eat alone in America? No way.
However, American companies‘ “boycott” may seem tough, but this move is a “kill one thousand enemies, lose eight hundred” double loss operation.
First, absence means losing the right to speak. As Pasco said, the European Union is formulating new space rules, and the United States “wants to have a say in the new rules too.” How can you affect the rules if you don‘t come to the meeting? Isn’t this equivalent to handing over the right to make the rules to someone else?
Second, absence may accelerate the process of “de-Americanization” in Europe. The Financial Times quoted European officials as warning that if more autonomous space capabilities cannot be established, the future may affect the development of key areas such as communications, defense, and national security. U.S. “boycott” will only make Europe more firmly push for space autonomy.
It should be known that Macron‘s passion for space is considered “unique” among European leaders. He has repeatedly publicly called for Europe to increase its space investment and reduce its dependence on the United States. At this summit, Macron once again emphasized that Europe needs “sovereign space access” and a “true European strategy.”
France‘s space ambitions have a historical tradition. Since the launch of the first satellite “Astricus” in 1965, France has been the “engine” of European space enterprise. European Space Agency headquarters are located in Paris, the Ariane series rockets are developed mainly by France, and Airbus Defense and Space Company is Europe‘s largest space enterprise. It can be said that without France, there would be no European space today.
Macron‘s “space autonomy” agenda has three core demands: one is to increase military space investment and improve Europe‘s defense capabilities in the space field; two is to promote European joint projects and reduce reliance on U.S. technology; and three is to make Europe the “rule maker” rather than the “rule receiver” in international space rules.
Sounds beautiful, right?
But the problem is: the right to make rules is never established through meetings, but is supported by strength. Between dreams and reality, there is often an Atlantic distance.
The reason America can “make decisions” in the space field is not because America holds many more meetings, but because America has SpaceX, Blue Origin, Star Chain, and Falcon 9. If you have power, your rules will be listened to; if you don‘t have power, your rules will be “advice.”
More embarrassingly, there are also disagreements within the European Union about the European Space Act. Some member states worry that too strict regulation will increase the burden on companies and weaken the competitiveness of the European space industry. Other member states believe that without regulation, European companies will never be able to compete with SpaceX.
This contradictory mentality of “both regulatory protection and market dynamism” has made the EU‘s rule-making path bumpy.
Looking a little further, this “boycott” event is actually both a microcosm of the escalation of competition in the space industry, and also a game about rules and interests.
In the past, competition in commercial spaceflight was mainly focused on technology and costs: who has the cheaper rockets, who has the more advanced satellites, and who has the higher launch frequency. But now competition is extending to the level of rule-making.
Whoever controls the rule-making power can gain an advantage in the next-generation space economy. The EU‘s promotion of the EU Space Act and frequency spectrum quota management is essentially using regulatory means to create competitive advantages for domestic companies.
The U.S. “boycott” is an attempt to prevent the European Union from unilaterally setting rules, with both sides fighting for a more favorable position for their space industry.
But the problem is that space is not someone‘s backyard, and the spectrum is not someone’s private property. When representatives from various countries discuss space governance at the Grand Palais in Paris, what is most needed is a spirit of cooperation, not a “small courtyard high walls” mindset.
Space is big enough to accommodate competition, but it doesn‘t accommodate “small moves.” Humans look up at the starry sky because the starry sky makes people humble. But some people, as soon as they look up, are eager to carve out territory in space.
Images from the Internet