companies

The secret of Chinese AI companies to compete without Nvidia chips: electricity subsidized by Beijing

by

Everywhere we look, there is artificial intelligence. Everyone talks about it, but what is its fuel? It’s not the data or the chips: it’s the electricity. While in the West technology companies are looking for how to power their data centers —increasingly energy hungry—, China has decided to take a different step. Beijing has designed an energy subsidy for its technology sector with a clear objective: to make the energy that powers the digital brains of its next generation of chips cheaper. Energy subsidy. Since September, the Chinese Government banned large national technology companies —including Alibaba, ByteDance and Tencent—acquire artificial intelligence chips from the American Nvidia, in an attempt to strengthen local production. However, the consequence was immediate: national processors consume more electricity. According to The Chosun Dailygenerating the same number of tokens with Chinese chips requires 30% to 50% more energy than with Nvidia’s H20, which sent electricity bills skyrocketing and led companies to complain to regulators. To make up for that gap, local governments introduced grants that cover up to a full year of operating costs, according to the Hong Kong media on.cc. In those provinces, industrial electricity was already 30% cheaper than in the developed coastal areas of the east, but with the new incentives the price could fall to 0.4 yuan per kilowatt-hour, a record figure for the Chinese technology industry. ¿How does the energy plan work? The scheme is relatively simple, but strategic. Local governments offer electricity discounts of up to half to data centers that use chips produced within the country. Operators that use foreign processors – such as those from Nvidia or AMD – are excluded from the program. In addition, the energy provinces receive direct support from the State to finance the discounts, with the aim of reducing dependence on technological imports and compensating for the increased consumption of local chips. According to the Financial TimesChinese data centers that rely on domestic semiconductors are, for now, less energy efficient, but the subsidy seeks to bring their costs in line with those of more advanced foreign chips. These regions—Guizhou, Gansu, and Inner Mongolia—have become hotbeds for data center clusters, thanks to their abundance of hydropower and coal. There, companies like Alibaba or Tencent are building new facilities to house their generative AI models, taking advantage of lower energy costs and tax incentives. This policy combines three strategic priorities: making energy cheaper, promoting domestic chips and reinforcing technological sovereignty. In a context of United States restrictions, each subsidized kilowatt is also a political statement. An industrial policy with a geopolitical charge. Behind the energy plan is a long-range political commitment. The Chinese Government intends for its technology companies to progressively replace imported chips with domestic processors, even if this implies higher costs in the short term. The electricity subsidy acts as a temporary bridge for national giants to adopt local chips without losing competitiveness. This measure is included in a broader national strategy of technological self-sufficiency. As the Financial Times explains in its series The State of AIChina is using its “society-wide mobilization capacity” to accelerate the development of artificial intelligence. The country already leads the number of patents and scientific publications in AI, and although the United States maintains an advantage in chips and talent, the gap narrows every year. Analyst Dan Wang, quoted by the same media, points out: “China has achieved a unique balance between engineering capacity, state control and massive industrial deployment, allowing it to advance faster than other countries in the practical application of AI.” Meanwhile, in the West… China’s decision contrasts with the energy challenges of the United States. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned that the real bottleneck of AI It is no longer the chips, but the energy. In fact, he explained that many companies accumulate chips that they cannot connect due to lack of power supply. Both Microsoft and Google are already studying building modular nuclear reactors to power their future data centers, a sign of the enormous energy consumption that artificial intelligence requires. While Silicon Valley seeks electricity, China subsidizes it. This asymmetry reflects two different models: one guided by state intervention and the other by market competition. Both pursue the same goal—sustaining the artificial intelligence revolution—but with opposite philosophies. A future plugged into the State. The Chinese subsidy not only alleviates costs: it redefines the relationship between the State and the private sector in the age of AI. As analyst Arnaud Bertrand observed, US restrictions pushed China towards a different model: more efficient, more open and more collective. “By operating under hardware limitations, Chinese companies have learned to optimize resources and share open models like Qwen or DeepSeek,” wrote Bertrand on the social network That strategy, based on efficiency and diffusion, could give China a long-term advantage in global adoption, since any company in the world can download and adapt its models. The country that controls the plug. China isn’t just making the chips that power its artificial intelligence. It is also building the electrical grid that makes them possible. In a world where data is the new oil, Beijing has decided to subsidize the fuel of the digital brain. While the West debates how to connect its supercomputers, China plugs them in at a reduced price. And in this race, whoever controls the plug could end up controlling the future. Image | FreePik and FreePik Xataka | The world of AI has a problem: there is no energy for so many chips

which companies are winning in the great rearmament of Spanish industry

by

Europe has entered a new era of rearmament. The Russian invasion of Ukraine reopened a arms race that seemed surpassed, and the governments of the continent have returned to look at their defense industry with urgency. In that map of reactivated factories, million-dollar contracts and multinational programsSpain occupies an important place. From Navantia to Indra, from ITP Aero to Escribano, the country has a network of companies that design frigates, radars, engines or intelligence systems for the most ambitious projects in Europe. This is the portrait of who is who in the Spanish defense, how much they really weigh and what role they play in the rearmament of the continent. Opportunities and challenges in European rearmament A study prepared by PwC For the employers’ association, TEDAE offers a precise overview of the industrial weight that defense has today in Spain. According to this report, published in 2024, the Defense, Security, Aeronautics and Space industries generated 21,919 million euros of GDP (1.4% of national GDP) and 260,049 direct, indirect and induced jobs. The document does not establish a ranking, but it does make it clear that the Spanish defense ecosystem is one of the most diversified in Europe. Reading it helps to dimension the magnitude of an industrial fabric that supports a good part of European rearmament. The momentum of the sector does not advance without friction. In an interview with El Paísthe president of Indra, Scribe Angelrecognized that Spain still lacks a giant comparable to Rheinmetall, Thales either Leonard. “We need a greater dimension,” he noted, adding that the objective is not to create a “national champion,” but to consolidate a fabric where companies cooperate and share capabilities. A vision that reflects both the ambitions and the internal tensions of the integration process in Spanish defense. Industrial reactivation is not enough on its own to guarantee sustainable defense. The Elcano Royal Institute warns that the rearmament effort It cannot be measured only in investment figures or signed contracts. In one of his recent analyses, he points out that “the revitalization of Spanish defense will only be sustainable if it is based on strategic and national security criteria.” To do this, it proposes reinforcing the so-called “strategic culture”, a long-term vision that transcends industrial logic and that makes it possible to clearly define what role Spain wants to play in the European security framework. “The revitalization of Spanish defense will only be sustainable if it is based on strategic and national security criteria” With this warning on the table, European rearmament is also understood as an exercise of concrete capabilities. Behind every contract, every European program, there are factories, engineering and shipyards that support the modernization effort. Spain is not starting from scratch: it has a network of companies that have grown in the heat of the great projects of NATO and the European Union. Some of them are public, others private, but they are all part of the same ecosystem that is once again gaining prominence today. The names that are defining the new defense industry in Spain Navantia It is the main reference of the Spanish naval industry and an essential piece in European rearmament. From its shipyards in Ferrol, Cartagena and Cádiz Ships have left for the Spanish Navy and for navies around the world, like the F-100 frigates or the Avante corvettes. Currently, it concentrates efforts on two strategic programs: the F-110 frigates, with a contract of 4,325 million euros, and the S-80 submarines. The F-111 “Bonifaz”, the first unit of the F-110 series, was launched on September 11, 2025 and the delivery of the first ship is scheduled for 2028. In submarines, the S-82, the second unit of the S-80 classes, He was sponsored on October 3, 2025. One of the frigates that bears the Navantia seal But there is more. With revenues of 1,528 million euros in 2024 and more than 5,600 employeesthe public company is committed to the model “shipyard 4.0” to modernize and thus respond to the growing demand for maritime capabilities of its clients. Indra acts as the technological backbone of Spanish defense: integrates C4ISR systems, radars, electronic warfare and simulation, and is the national coordinator in the FCAS program for the sensor and combat cloud pillars. His legacy in Eurofighter —with avionics, defensive aids and modernizations— is complemented by sustained defense contracting. Indra closed 2024 with 4,843 million in income and a portfolio of 7,245 million. To this he adds “combat cloud” demonstrators with the Air and Space Army. The PW800 engine is behind the first transatlantic flight powered by 100% sustainable aviation fuel ITP Aero is the literal and figurative engine of Spanish defense. Specialized in design, manufacture and maintenance of turbines, is part of Europe’s most advanced programs, from the Eurofighter to the future FCAS system, where it leads in Spain the development of the new generation engine. In 2024 he allocated 102 million euros to R&D—55% more than the previous year—and closed the year with 1,612 million in revenue. Its industrial expansion includes the Ajalvir plantwith a million-dollar investment for maintenance of GTF engines, and the reinforcement of its Zamudio center. These investments consolidate its role as a strategic propulsion supplier in NATO and the EU. SAPA is the great Spanish specialist in armored vehicle mobility and one of the few European companies with their own capacity to develop new generation transmissions. Its technology equips to the vehicle 8×8 Dragon of the Army. Besides, has been selected by General Dynamics Land Systems to supply transmissions to US Army programs linked to the replacement of the Bradley (XM30), a long-term industrial agreement valued by the press at up to 5,000 million euros. Based in Guipúzcoa, the company works on hybrid and electric systems for military platforms, in line with trends. Escribano Mechanical & Engineering represents the most dynamic face of the new Spanish industrial fabric. Specialized in remotely controlled weapon stations (RWS), optronics and smart ammunition, the company has managed to position itself as a key supplier of … Read more

The United States is offering millions of dollars to quantum companies. In exchange, he wants to keep a piece of each

by

The United States has opened a new stage in its industrial policy. This time it is not about aid without return or simple soft loans: Washington is offering millions of dollars to quantum companies in exchange for a share in its capital. The information comes from the Wall Street Journalwhich points out that the agreements seek more than just supporting promising companies. The message is clear: the Government wants to ensure a seat at the table for a technology that can reconfigure the economy and global power for decades to come. The initiative fits into a chain of recent decisions in which Washington has been deepening its presence in sectors considered strategic. The Government transformed almost 9,000 million dollars in previous aid to Intel in a participation close to 9.9% and obtained special rights in US Steel to oversee sensitive corporate decisions. He also supported MP Materials in the critical mineral chain. The signal is clear: when the sector is considered vital, Donald Trump’s White House seeks to stay on board. When public money also buys influence Conversations affect some of the most visible names of the American quantum ecosystem. According to the newspaper, companies such as IonQ, Rigetti Computing and D-Wave Quantum They are negotiating with the Department of Commerce the entry of the State into their capital. Other firms, including Quantum Computing Inc. and Atom Computing, are studying similar deals. Operations would start from a minimum of 10 million dollars per company in this initial phase, with the possibility of more applicants joining as the program progresses. The conditions are not limited to a mere public investment. The Commerce Department is studying formulas ranging from equity stakes to intellectual property licenses, royalties or revenue sharing schemes. The conversations are led by Paul Dabbarformer executive of the quantum sector and current number two in the department, according to published information. At this stage there are no closed agreements, but the approach indicates that the State seeks a tangible return and supervision tools. Washington’s interest is not explained only by financial reasons. Quantum computing is emerging as one of the technologies with the greatest capacity for industrial transformation. These machines promise to solve calculations that would take eons to current systemswith potential applications in fields such as drug design, advanced materials or highly complex chemistry. Adding to this momentum is international competition, with companies like IBM, Microsoft and Google involved and China advancing its own quantum race. The security dimension adds another layer of urgency. Quantum algorithms are projected to They may violate traditional encryption systemsincluding RSA and ECC, exposing both sensitive communications and critical infrastructure. The risk is not limited to the future: the strategy known as harvest now, decrypt later suggests that malicious actors are already collecting encrypted data for decryption when this capability becomes available. Given this scenario, Fortinet highlights the need to move towards post-quantum cryptography and strengthen networks and systems. The practical potential of this technology is well illustrated by the pharmaceutical sector. McKinsey highlights that quantum can transform drug development by enabling precise molecular simulations, something that classical calculus and pure AI fail to always capture. Large companies are already testing these systems to study proteins, evaluate chemical reactions or reduce experimental steps. This ability to model complex structures from scratch promises to accelerate research, improve the success rate in trials and shorten times to market for new therapies. The implementation of this approach is not limited to companies. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Commerce Department reorganized the office responsible for the scientific side of the CHIPS program and recovered several billion dollars that had been allocated to previous technology initiatives. The political message is transparent: the Executive wants public investments to be measurable and for the State to have mechanisms to benefit when the funded projects mature, especially in sectors with high strategic involvement. The shift raises dilemmas typical of a more interventionist model. Public participation can facilitate stability in strategic sectors, but it also opens the door to conflicts between technological, industrial or political priorities. The central doubt is to what extent the presence of the State will affect the pace of decision and the flexibility that the most competitive sectors demand. There are still relevant unknowns. The final percentages that the State could reach or the exact conditions that would accompany the participations are not known. According to the information available, the agreements are still in the negotiation phase and could be modified before being closed. It also remains to be seen what commitments will be required of companies and whether there will be associated performance or governance criteria. At this point, the process is moving forward, but a definitive schedule for awards or formalization of agreements has not yet been announced. Images | Dynamic Wang | D-Wave Quantum | Xataka with Gemini 2.5 In Xataka | The United States and China have finally met to resolve the trade war: one will give in on tariffs, the other on rare earths

When asked if AI is a bubble about to burst, big technology companies have just responded: hold my cap

by

The AI ​​race is about computing power and data centers the size of entire cities. And that doesn’t exactly come cheap. Big Tech is spending indecent amounts of money so as not to be left behind in AI and the fear that everything is a bubble flies over the environment. That doesn’t seem to stop them. Microsoft, Google and Meta have announced that they are increasing their planned spending on AI. what’s happening. Microsoft, Google and Meta have just presented their results for the last quarter and there are two pieces of news. The good thing is that all three have managed to increase their income. The not-so-good news is that they have sent a message to their worried investors: they are going to spend even more money than they planned on data centers and AI infrastructure. More wood. That AI is a bonfire of money we already knew it. Now we know it’s going to get even bigger. Meta had planned that Capex (capital expenditures) for 2025 would be $66 billion. Now they just said that The total will be between 70 and 72,000 million. And not only that, next year it will be even bigger. For its part, Alphabet (Google) had planned a Capex of 75,000 million, but they confirm that They will spend between 91 and 93 billion dollars. Finally, Microsoft has not given the annual data, but in this quarter They have spent 34.9 billion dollars5,000 million more than planned. In 2026 they expect spending to be even higher. Planned CAPEX REVISED CAPEX goal 66 billion 70-72 billion +24% GOOGLE 75 billion 91-93 billion +23% microsoft 30,000 million (quarterly) 34.9 billion (quarterly) +23% Also more income. Don’t panic, or at least not too much. All three have achieved record profits in this period. Meta earned 51.24 billion, Google 102.3 billion and Microsoft 70.1 billion, an increase of 26%, 16% and 13% more than the same period last year. All three assume that the numbers will continue to grow, and that is precisely what Those who warn of a bubble are not so clear. It’s not AI, it’s the cloud. In the case of Microsoft and Alphabet, the main vector of revenue growth is their cloud business, a trend that It started in the previous quarter and has continued to increase. Google Cloud generated 34% more revenue thanks to growth in “core products, AI infrastructure, and generative AI solutions.” In the case of Microsoft, its cloud services brought in 26.8 billion, 33% more than last year. And I published it. Meta is building data centers like there’s no tomorrow, but it doesn’t have a cloud business. Mete has something else: Facebook and Instagram. Its income comes largely from advertising and Zuckerberg assures that the good numbers come precisely because They are applying AI to improve their advertising systems. Not so fast, Zuck. Although Meta is the one that has increased its income the most compared to last year (26%), its shares have fallen 8% after announcing that it would continue to increase spending on AI. It seems that investors have quite a few doubts about their latest decisions, such as spend a million to create your superintelligence team or the plan to spend $600 billion in data centers. Image | Pixabay In Xataka | OpenAI is burning money like there is no tomorrow. The question is how long can he last like this?

Europe has done the only thing it could do to compete with SpaceX and China in space: merge its largest companies

by

Europe has grown tired of watching from the sidelines how SpaceX and, increasingly, Chinaredefine the rules of the game in space. The continent’s response was inevitable: a historic fusion. The three European aerospace giants, Airbus, Leonardo and Thales, have signed a memorandum of understanding to combine its spatial divisions into a single, colossal enterprise. Merge or die. This is not news that we break every day. It is the most ambitious move in the European aerospace industry since the creation of the MBDA missile consortium in 2001. And at the same time, it is not an offensive move, but a strategic survival maneuver. Given the agility of reusable rockets and Elon Musk’s megaconstellations, the fragmentation of Europe had become an unsustainable burden. Now, the plan is to create a European champion with the critical mass necessary to at least be able to compete. A colossus about to be born. The agreement, which It’s been brewing for months. under the code name “Project Bromo”, it will give rise to a new company that, if approved by regulators, could be operational in 2027. The figures used give an idea of ​​the scale of the operation: a combined annual turnover of 6.5 billion euros, and nearly 25,000 employees spread throughout Europe. Airbus will have the majority stake with 35%, while the Italian Leonardo and the French Thales will share the rest almost equally, with 32.5% each. Despite the majority of Airbus, the government of the new colossus will be “balanced” and under joint control, as reported by the companies. What does each one contribute? Each partner will contribute his crown jewels in the space sector. Airbus will contribute with its Space Systems and Digital Space businesses. Leonardo will bring its Space Division to the table, including its valuable stakes in Telespazio and Thales Alenia Space. Thales will mainly contribute its shares in those same joint ventures (Thales Alenia Space and Telespazio) and Thales SESO. Why it was inevitable. The harsh reality is that Europe was falling behind, and very quickly. SpaceX’s disruption has been brutal, especially on two fronts: launch and satellites. While Europe continues recovering lost ground With the development of its Ariane rockets, Elon Musk’s company has not only radically lowered the cost of putting something into orbit, but has flooded the sky with its Starlink constellation and its military version, Starshield. Beating SpaceX is no longer possible. On October 19, the company surpassed a staggering number of 10,000 Starlink satellites launched in just over 300 launches of the Falcon 9 rocket. This network of small satellites has cannibalized the traditional market for large and expensive geostationary satellites, the pillar on which the business of European companies was based. The only thing Europe can do, and what this new giant is destined to do, is recover its technological sovereignty in space and, with it, its security. Image | Airbus In Xataka | “We are the company that has developed an orbital rocket the fastest”: PLD Space, one step away from making history from Spain

Delivery companies in China deliver 5,400 packages per second. Your solution to master this logistics: the ‘robofurgos’

by

Shenzhen’s train stations are bustling with passengers coming and going during the day, but when night falls they fill up with another type of traffic: robovans. They are small autonomous vehicles that are dedicated to delivering packages and are increasingly common in China. Robovans. If we call autonomous taxis robotaxis, it is fair to call ‘robovans’ that way. They count in Nikkei Asia These small vans have a capacity of 3 cubic meters and their maximum load is 500kg. They move slowly and emit an audible signal to avoid colliding with pedestrians. If they detect anyone closer than two meters, they stop. Its objective is to transport packages to the platforms, where operators load them onto trains and then deliver them to a logistics center. Neolix. It is the company that has deployed the most robovans to date. It is headquartered in Beijing and on your website They boast that they have already deployed 10,000 units in 300 cities, across fifteen countries. According to its president, Will Zhao, they expect the number to increase to 10 million robovans in the next ten years. Challenges. Despite Neolix’s enthusiasm, the reality is that autonomous delivery has quite a few limitations. The most notable is that the robovans are much slower than human delivery drivers. Furthermore, at the moment they are quite limited to closed spaces such as stations or airports and involve quite a high expense. According to Zhao, they hope to increase the speed as they become safer, until they reach the point where they are more effective than traditional delivery. Leaders. It makes sense that China is leading autonomous delivery because it is also a leader in online shopping. According to data from the China State Post Office, In 2024, 5,400 packages were distributed per second and the average was 100 packages per person per year. To put it in context, in 2024 in the United States the average was 66 packages per year per person. Price war. Competing in the largest online commerce market in the world causes price wars between different companies to be fierce. The market continues to grow and the volume of packages is enormous, but profit margins are very small. Some of these companies are JD Logistics, ZTO Express, SF Holding, ZTO Express and Meituan. Immediate delivery. Overnight shipping may seem fast to us, but in China it is unacceptable for most consumers. Companies are investing a lot of resources in same day deliveriessome even in just half an hour. This pressure especially affects food delivery, where there is a price war that is causing losses for companies like Meituan or JD.com and also for the restaurants themselves, who are forced to carry out very aggressive online promotions with ridiculous margins. They count on Bloombergthat there are cafes that need to send eight orders to equal the profit they would obtain from a single in-person sale. Image | Neolix In Xataka | Amazon has been stuck for years in a project that promised to revolutionize deliveries: the use of drones

There are foreign bus companies trying to compete with Alsa and Avanza. And Spain is making it impossible

by

The Spanish bus map is in the process of changing. Routes that do not make money, corridors that no one wants to access, companies that want to completely liberalize the sector and the doubt of, to what extent, foreign companies can enter to play in a foreign country. And Spain is trying by all means to ensure that the latter does not happen. What’s happening? If we adhere to Spanish regulations, right now a company dedicated to the transport of passengers by bus You cannot make international trips with stops to drop off and pick up travelers within Spain. Not, at least, permanently. The rule only allows this service to be carried out temporarily, in order to protect national routes. That is, this prevents a company from opening a route, for example, between Lisbon and Paris and from picking up and dropping off passengers within Spanish territory at its stops within Spain (in Madrid and Barcelona, ​​for example). It is understood that if this is possible it would be a direct competition to those who have been awarded those corridors. How do buses work in Spain? Spain uses a concessional model for its bus lines. This means that a broker goes out to tender and companies present their proposals playing with the price. The best offer is the one takes the concession and the one that begins to operate during the agreed years. The system has its advantages and disadvantages. Confebús, an association that defends this model, points out that it gives security to the client because transportation is guaranteed during the agreed years and a route cannot be abandoned. Companies like FlixBus are contrary because they understand that competition is limited and that they prevent the company from adapting to new circumstances. These circumstances, for example, leave some expired concessions or concessions that have never been put out to tender. It is especially serious on bus lines where a high-speed railway operates in parallel, since the train is much more competitive in price and time. Of course, the main people affected by the abandonment of these lines are the residents of towns with intermediate stops. And what about international travel? For some time now, Europe has wanted to liberalize the sector, as it has done with trains. Despite this, Spain is resisting and although at first it was proposed to jump to the direct competition model, finally we want to maintain the concessional system but with profound changes in the current map. With this system, services through cabotage are prevented. That is, the company picks up and delivers passengers within the same country along an international route. This is the argument of Avanza and Alsa to defend the latest ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union that has ruled in favor of Denmark before the opening of a file from the European Commission. However, the case that both companies put forward is not very representative of the open debate in Spain. What has happened in Denmark? Denmark has regulated the occasional bus service that operates through cabotage in the country to a maximum of seven calendar days in a month. The formula is also applied at other times in France, as both companies use in a statement collected by 20Minutes. Understanding that this contravened community rules, the European Commission has opened a file against Denmark but the Court of Justice of the European Union closes it, understanding that Denmark does not prevent the service, it only regulates it. That is, a company can act with a discretionary service through cabotage but within the regulations established by the country. But… what is discretionary? Here is a big part of the issue. European bodies have been discussing Whether or not Denmark allows cabotage service through discretionary routes but not regular routes. Discretionary routes are those that do not have a fixed route or established times. That is, they do not always leave on the same day of the week and at the same time from a specific city, for example. They are the typical routes for trips by tourists or supporters who go to watch a soccer match in another country. The limitation of those seven consecutive days within the same month that Denmark applies is designed so that foreign companies do not compete unfairly with their national companies, offering a regulated service camouflaged as discretionary. Implications in Spain? None. This is what FlixBus defends. The travel company maintains that this regulation, contrary to what Avanza and Alsa points out, has nothing to do with the regular and international routes that companies like them propose for our country. Routes in which they would use cabotage to make the line more efficient. They give as an example the route between Trier (Germany) and Madrid that FlixBus has requested with intermediate stops in Zaragoza and Barcelona that passengers could use to move within the national territory. The line has not been authorized and FlixBus appeals to the resolution of the European Commission of April 16 that forces Spain to open its lines to this service. Spain filed an appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. What is Spain doing? Place all obstacles to the entry of new actors or the liberalization of bus lines, as demanded by Europe. The approval of the Sustainable Mobility Law On October 8, 2025, article 50 was eliminated, which allowed certain routes to be authorized in free competition. That is, for now, the battle to open new international routes that allow the transfer of travelers within the same country continues. Spain has the obligation to comply, if we adhere to what is required by the European Commission, but, for the moment, it still has not given the green light to this possibility. Photo | FlixBus and Eleazer Glez In Xataka | Until a few years ago, the towns between Madrid and Valencia had trains and buses. Now they only have one problem: the AVE

NASA has had enough of SpaceX and will offer the return to the Moon to other companies. Elon Musk has not taken it well at all

by

NASA’s strategy to return to the Moon has just been blown up. In a series of television appearances and public statements, the acting administrator of the US space agency, Sean Duffy, has announced a change of course: NASA is going to reopen the public tender to build the manned lunar landing module (HLS), a contract that until now was held by SpaceX alone for the Artemis III and IV missions. Because. The official reason is transparent: “We are in a race against China,” confirmed Duffy in an interview with CNBC. And in this race, “SpaceX is falling behind.” “Competition and innovation are the keys to our dominance in space, so NASA will open HLS production to Blue Origin and other large American companies.” “The president and I want to reach the moon during this president’s term.” The decision ends NASA’s “all-to-SpaceX” bet and reopens a multibillion-dollar battle for the most crucial contract in modern space exploration. As expected, Elon Musk has not remained silent. The hell of space refueling. To understand NASA’s frustration, you have to look beyond the delays in Starship test flights. The real bottleneck is the mission architecture itself. As analyzes Daniel Marín in Eurekathe lunar version of Starship is a giant 52-meter rocket that cannot reach the Moon without first refueling in low Earth orbit. This operation is of unprecedented complexity due to Starship’s cryogenic liquid fuel, which tends to evaporate. This is not a simple fuel transfer; It requires multiple launches of tankers (up to 15 or 20) to fill one or several orbital tanks that will then transfer hundreds of tons of liquid methane and oxygen to the lunar Starship. It is a technology that has never been tested on this scale. While SpaceX continues to deal with problems with its prototypes (Musk assures that version 3 of Starship will be able put 100 tons of cargo into orbit in 2026, but that was precisely the promise with version 2), NASA has gotten nervous. Every SpaceX delay is an unforeseen victory for China, whose lunar program is advancing at a methodical pace to put astronauts on the Moon before 2030. The Chinese Lanyue lunar module is much simpler than Starship. Plan B is Blue Origin. Duffy’s statement is not a bluff. There are already at least two clear alternatives on the table that NASA is seriously considering. Plan B is Blue Origin. But when Duffy mentions Blue Origin, he is not referring to the Blue Moon Mk 2 HLS module that Jeff Bezos’ company is already developing for the future Artemis V mission (and which, ironically, also requires complex orbital refueling). As revealed Eric Berger in Ars TechnicaBlue Origin has been quietly developing a plan B: a modified version of its Blue Moon Mark 1 lander. This vehicle, originally designed for cargo only, would be adapted to carry crew. Its great advantage: it would not require refueling in space. It would be a much simpler and faster solution, that we had already mentioned in Xataka. Plan C is Lockheed Martin. Duffy also said “maybe others.” Those “others” are the giants of the traditional aerospace industry, with Lockheed Martin at the helm. Traditional NASA contractors have assured Duffy that they can build an Apollo-style lunar module in 30 months. The proposal, backed by analysis like this one from SpaceNewswould be based on proven technologies: storable propellants (that do not evaporate like cryogenic methane and hydrogen) and already operational subsystems, such as those of the Orion spacecraft. Bob Behnken, vice president of Lockheed Martin, told Ars Technica who are up for the challenge: “We have been working with a cross-industry team… to address Secretary Duffy’s request to meet our country’s lunar goals.” Does it stick? The price. A contract of this type, cost-pluscould skyrocket to $20 or $30 billion, compared to $2.9 billion in the original SpaceX contract. But for Duffy, price appears to be a secondary factor if it guarantees arriving before China. Elon takes out the flamethrower. Elon Musk’s reaction to the threat of losing his lunar monopoly has been visceral and has come in several waves of tweets. First, Musk defended his company’s work. “SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry. Plus, Starship will end up doing the entire lunar mission. Mark my words.” He then moved on to direct attack against your rival with an incendiary claim: “Blue Origin has never delivered a payload to orbit, let alone to the Moon.” The tweet was quickly corrected by Community Notes of X, who reminded Musk that Blue Origin did reach orbit with its NG-1 mission on January 16, 2025. From contempt to insult. Seeing what was coming at him, Musk began to despise the very objective of the Artemis III mission. “A permanently manned lunar science base would be much more impressive than a repeat of what Apollo already did incredibly well in 1969.” A clear message: the race that NASA wants to win is irrelevant. Finally, the SpaceX CEO responded directly to a post by Sean Duffy about the “race against China” with a meme of a Ugandan anti-LGBT activist repeatedly asking “Why are you gay?” A derogatory reaction that makes it clear how bad the announcement felt. Beat China or beat Trump? While the “race against China” is the public justification, Ars Technica suggests a much more mundane domestic political plot. Sean Duffy is not the permanent administrator of NASA, but rather the acting Secretary of Transportation. According to the outlet’s sources, Duffy is immersed in a “fierce internal battle” to keep the job permanently, a position that the billionaire and private astronaut Jared Isaacmanwho apparently has regained his good rapport with President Trump. Duffy’s television appearances would, in reality, be a political maneuver aimed at a single viewer: the president. By showing himself as a leader of action and results, willing to do anything to “beat the Chinese” and achieve a moon landing during Trump’s presidential term (which ends in January 2029), Duffy … Read more

Big tech companies are fleeing China like the plague. Their future depends on it

by

The growing tension between China and the United States is causing a stampede among big technology companies. Apple already made a move at the beginning of the year and now Microsoft and Amazon follow. They are not the first companies that They move from China to manufacture in other Asian countriesbut this migration is different as they are trying to eliminate China from the entire supply chain down to the smallest component level. What is happening. They count in Nikkei Asia that Microsoft wants to manufacture most of its products outside of China and has set a limit of 2026. This movement would affect the production of Microsoft Surfaces and especially data centers, since it is a much more sensitive product. In fact, they have already managed to move a large part of the production of server components because it is a more sensitive product, but their goal is for at least 80% of the components to come from outside China. They also want to move some Xbox production out of China, although in this case they are not being as strict. Why is it important. This move by Microsoft consolidates the trend of big technology companies moving towards independent supply chains from China. It is not a question of patriotism, it is an attempt to ensure their survival and minimize risks derived from the increasingly tense trade warsuch as interruptions in supply and price increases. Besides, in the middle of the AI ​​raceindependence becomes even more necessary. Something has changed. As we said, this is not the first time that technology companies have tried to become independent from China. The improvement in working conditions has made it not so cheap to produce there (although have found ways to retain manufacturing), so its status as the “factory of the world” has been lost in favor of other Southeast Asian countries. However, this time it is a broad movement that covers everything from assembly to materials and components such as PCBs, connectors, cables and fibers. The challenge. Moving the assembly is the easy part, but moving the entire production to the last component is a huge challenge. The date that Microsoft has set does not seem very realistic, especially considering that we are talking about a large production volume. According to Omdiadistribute about 4 million Surfaces per year. amazon. AWS is also moving towards ‘non-Chinese’ production for its AI data centers. They were considering reducing the presence of SYE, their printed circuit board supplier, but realized that it was not so easy to replace them. They are companies with which they have a relationship for decades and offer good prices, as well as quality and great production capacity. Google. Those in Mountain View are also embarking on a similar path. According to Nikkei, they are asking their suppliers to expand server production in Thailand. At the end of 2024 we learned that They planned to invest 1 billion dollars and it seems to have paid off because they have managed to double their production capacity with four new facilities. Image | Flickredited In Xataka | The problem is not that Europe has “expropriated” Nexperia from a Chinese company: it is that it approved its sale just a year ago

They arrive in the middle of the offensive of the Chinese electric companies

by

Tesla has presented in the United States the new “Standard” versions of its two most popular models: the Model 3 and the Model Y. They are the most affordable versions of the range and arrive at a time when the brand seeks to strengthen its position in the face of pressure from competitors. Although the new models already have prices and delivery windows in the US market, in Europe – including Spain – there is still no confirmation about their availability or how much they will cost if they finally reach the old continent. In the United States, the configurator shows the Model 3 Standard RWD at $36,990 and the Model Y Standard RWD at $39,990, base amounts before taxes and handling fees. CNN places the first deliveries between December and January for the Model 3 and between November and December for the Model Y. Compared to the Premium versions, the discount is around $5,000. With this move, Tesla seeks to reinforce the entry-level attractiveness of the range in a more competitive environment, without yet announcing changes for Europe. Europe looks at Tesla, but new versions have not yet arrived For now, Tesla’s movement is not reflected in the European configurator. In Spain, the screenshots that we have reviewed show the rear-wheel drive Model 3 at 39,990 euros in cash and the rear-wheel drive Model Y at 44,990 euros, without the “Standard” name or visible equipment adjustments. The card information preserves known autonomy and performance. As of today, Europe continues with the previous offer and without announcing prices or availability for these new variants. Tesla has not redesigned the vehicles from scratch: both ‘Standards’ adopt a metal roof instead of tinted glass. In the Model Y, in addition, the headlights are divided into two independent lenses instead of the continuous light bar. The structure and bodywork remain identical to those of the current Model 3 and Model Y, so the cost adjustment comes through changes in finish and small aesthetic details. Beyond the price adjustment, Tesla insists that the Standard versions offer the same digital ecosystem as the more expensive models. They incorporate a 15.4-inch screen with access to Tesla Theater and Tesla Arcade, comfort modes such as Sentry, Dog and Camp, route planning and vehicle control from the app. The front seats are heated and combine textile and vegan leather, with a heated steering wheel. Tesla has also highlighted the presence of ‘Grok AI’. According to data published by Tesla, the declared range for the Model 3 and Model Y Standard reaches 321 miles, equivalent to about 517 kilometers. The batteries used and the exact motors are not detailed, but the company describes both models as “extremely efficient.” Tesla has not yet offered figures adapted to the European WLTP cycle. The launch of the new Model 3 and Model Y “Standard” comes in an increasingly competitive US market, where electric vehicles are no longer an exclusive territory for Tesla. Brands such as BYD, Hyundai, Nissan or General Motors have expanded their catalog with more affordable models and comparable ranges. In Europe, the pressure is also noticeable: Chinese manufacturers are gaining presence and traditional groups are adjusting prices and strategies to avoid losing ground. As we say, in Europe there is still no confirmation about the arrival of the Model 3 and Model Y “Standard”. Tesla has not communicated dates, prices or details about whether these vehicles will maintain the same name as in the United States or if they will replace the current rear-wheel drive versions. The company usually introduces changes in a phased manner, and the European configurator continues without showing any changes. Until news is announced, the catalog available in Spain and the rest of the continent remains the same as before the launch. Images | tesla In Xataka | Xiaomi has taken the first step to bring its SU7 to Europe: inaugurating an R&D center in the city that makes the most sense

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.