sinuhe69
Congratulations! An immensely important achievement, I'd
say.IMO, this success has a great implication for
accessibility and sovereignty of the EU. Although ESA can
launch from French Guiana, the spaceport is an ocean-away
from Europe! That fact alone affects the cost and the
launch cadence for Europe greatly.Now they prove they can
launch directly from Norway with their own production from
Munich and elsewhere and that has immense potential for
the future: much higher launch cadence, significant lower
cost and always-on accessibility.The only way Europe can
have a Starlink similar network is to launch it from their
own soil and reuse the first stage. Also from the
perspective of security, launching spy and other military
satellites from EU soil is the only practical possibility
in this political climate.
|
> walrus01
> The only way Europe can have a Starlink similar
network is to launch it from their own soil and reuse
the first stage.Unfortunately I'm not aware of any
properly funded euro alternative to starlink that that
has progressed beyond the conceptual stage. Even the
Canadian company telesat is far behind and has a
serious debt problem. The two separate "Chinese
starlink" LEO networks being built right now are ahead
of telesat in functional satellites in orbit.The
Canadian government recently promised 2.3 billion to
telesat for polar area services. Realistically maybe
some European nations might have the best chance of
success by absorbing telesat and continuing to pay MDA
to build the satellites for the network.
|
> > luke5441
IRIS² looks on track? Granted, it is not a SpaceX
competitor for consumer Internet. But it is an
alternative for applications where reliance on
SpaceX is not prudent.
|
> > > walrus01
It exists but only in the conceptual / R&D and
politics funding stage right now. I hope it
succeeds but they're going to need significant
amounts of money and real world launch
capability to catch up with SpaceX and Amazon
Leo in live satellites. The contract for
development and design of the satellites was
just awarded on August 31st, which is a
positive sign.
|
> torginus
Europe has always had the Ariane family - it just
wasn't really price-competitive and popular as of
late.
|
> DemocracyFTW2
> Europe can have a Starlink similar networkPlease
don't, this is madness.
|
> dakolli
Dont worry the US will hoodwink Europe back into be a
compliant vassal of the Empire in a few years when
they elect a democrat who pretends to be liberal and
acting in good faith, probably AOC(ia).
|
> > 1294899
Why is this downvoted? This is exactly how US
foreign policy works. The only difference with
Trump is that he says things out loud.This is 100%
what is going to happen. US foreign policy relies
on deception and decade long plans. The big plans
are ruling the Middle East and squash opposition
(Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq done, Iran pending).To
that end Russia had to be kept busy, therefore the
Ukraine proxy war, which has the additional
benefit of tying up the EU and cut it off from
Russian natural resources.It makes the EU
dependent on the US as an energy exporter. These
plans are old and both parties have diligently
executed them.Even with the Greenland annexation
threats there are Democrats who think it wouldn't
be a bad idea, but you should not say it out loud.
|
> > > archole
Russia had to be kept busy, therefore Ukraine
proxy war
No one made Russia invade Ukraine, this is
simply the centuries old russian imperialism
against Ukraine.Also, Syria being in that list
is silly. The Syrian opposition aren't vassals
of the US. The US was never too keen to help
them.
|
> > > > dakolli
your statements are wildly misinformed,
you can't make claims about geopoltics
because you've read a few delusional
reddit threads. The US was extremely
active in supporting the Syrian
opposition, we literally funded the entire
operation, like what reality are you
living in.Your opinion on Russia/Ukraine
is clearly skewed by NATO propaganda,
which I wouldn't blame you for, most
people have had their minds colonized by
NATO propaganda, after all, NATO has a
literal newsletter called "Cognitive
Warfare" where they candidly brag about
it.https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cog
nitive-warfare/
|
> > > > > _djo_
It doesn't matter how much you go on
about 'NATO propaganda', the simple
truth is that Russia invaded Ukraine,
illegally and without reasonable
cause, and did so for its own
interests.What's more, Ukraine was
nowhere near joining NATO, and in any
case Russia's invasion would still
have been illegal and reprehensible
even if it was.
|
> > > > > twoWhlsGud
/s Right, cause it's not like there's
any Russian propaganda out there
competing with it... /s
|
> > > infamouscow
Most people assume the post-WW2 consensus is a
permanent baseline. Historically, there's no
evidence to support that expectation, but it's
easy to see why the illusion persists.
Acknowledging that the current order is
temporary is terrifying, particularly for
those who thrive under it.
|
> > > qlte
> Even with the Greenland annexation threats
there are Democrats who think it wouldn't be a
bad idea, but you should not say it out loud.
If you were talking about like, Iraq in 2003
you'd be correct to point out that majority
being opposed doesn't mean the entire party
was blameless.This is probably the worst
example you could have used to make this point
about aggressive US foreign policy having
support across party lines. There is
absolutely no constituency within the
Democrats that have ever wanted this because
it came entirely from the fevered mind of
Trump and the parody edition of Bush's neocons
in the current admin.The combo of 1. negative
polarization and 2. being completely pointless
and accomplishing nothing makes this about as
unpopular of an idea you could find among
Democrats, in public or private.Iran is also a
bad choice to include in your list considering
Obama was responsible for the JCPOA.
|
> > > DemocracyFTW2
> The only difference with Trump is that he
says things out loud.The only problem with
Flat Earthers is that they say things out
loud. Also, grabbing other people by their
**ies.
|
hypfer
This is a huge success, but it I think also tells us that
the EU is further decoupling itself from the US. Slowly
but steadily.Which is obviously the right thing to do, but
it's interesting that it's not just a hypothetical
anymore.
|
> xyzelement
Does it mean that?Europe has had a space agency for a
while now. So this story isn't "Europeans finally
started to launch for space" but a private European
company chose to launch from a continental
location.It's funny how we can't be celebrate a
European achievement without trying to interpret it
into relationship to the US.
|
> > lostlogin
> It's funny how we can't be celebrate a European
achievement without trying to interpret it into
relationship to the US.It really isn't funny. The
US shat the bed and for now the repercussions are
mainly being felt outside the US. When the US
realises what it's lost it's going to be too late.
|
> > > zzzeek
Oh we (the non idiots here) know full well
what we lost. If Europe has a larger and more
substantial science / technology community,
that will just mean more trips/job offers in
EU for me, so go Europe !
|
> > > > mag7269
As an American, I welcome a multi-polar
world where Europe pulls its weight when
it comes to science, technology and
engineering! More so in geopolitical
matters. It's always been very draining
for one empire or nation to maintain world
peace. The 19th century was Pax
Britannica, the 20th, after WW2, was Pax
Americana, we can now hope that Pax
AmEuropana can offer a counter to the
crazy rapid growth of Asia and also find
common ground with those nations.
|
> > > > > anonymars
What rewards do you think the US is
going to gain from this path it has
begun to travel? Do you think it was
all some noble charity case?The UK is
likely to be an illustrative example,
so it's apt you mentioned it
|
> > > > > > ryeats
You're arguing US imperialism is
the best interest for the whole
world. It was definitely after WW2
considering the alternative but
the only way to keep the US honest
is a little friendly competition.
|
> > > > > > anonymars
> You're arguing US imperialism is
the best interest for the whole
worldWhere? Are you replying to
the right message?
|
> > > > > > plemer
You may be assuming the author of
the comment you're replying to
believes that what is in the best
interest of the US is also in the
best interest of Europe and the
world.
|
> > > > > drysine
>As an American, ... maintain world
peaceI can't believe people are saying
that with straight face. How on Earth
can you see all the wars that the US
has started or had a hand in igniting
and still think that?
|
> > > > > > wallst07
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offe
nsive_realismI think you maybe
believing that War would not have
happened or there was some other
approach without war, ever? I'm
sorry but such beliefs are as
wishful thinking as buying the
world a coke.
|
> > > > > > hdgvhicv
What it tends to mean is "prevent
the US homeland from being
threatened" and "keep US trade
flowing"
|
> > > > > > drysine
> "prevent the US homeland from
being threatened"That's another
thing that puzzles me. How people
claim with straight face that
anyone is threatening the US
homeland.
|
> > > > > > pyrale
> I can't believe people are
saying that with straight
face.That's the consequence of a
broken education system when it
comes to teaching history. Empires
rarely come to terms with what
they did, and never while they're
in power.
|
> > > > > panick21_
Yeah the world piece like all the wars
in the middle east, Vietnam, proxy
conflicts all over the world and so on
and so on. I'm not blaming the US for
all of these wars but they also didn't
prevent them. And the US did overthrow
many democracies and often made things
much worse, Iran being a great
example, but there are many others. I
could go on.Peace in Europe was
maintained mostly by people in
democracies generally wanting to work
together. Yes the US had something to
do with that as they supported that
after WW2 but over the last 50 years,
people in democracies generally don't
fight each other. And more so by the
threat of the Soviet Union that was so
clearly the more dangerous option. Its
easy to make allies if Stalin is on
the other side.And outside of Europe
the US hardly maintained peace.Nuclear
weapons maintained 'peace' between
Soviets and the US more then anything
else.And Europe has always pulled its
weight in science, technology and
engineering.
|
> > > > > > peterfirefly
> VietnamThe US was actually on
the right side in that one (just
like in Korea). The Communists
were not exactly the good guys and
their "agricultural and personnel
reforms" lead to drastically
reduced food production and
starvation and death.Blame the US
for real things instead, such as
supporting the wrong side in
Afghanistan in the '80s or
ensuring the survival of the
Soviet Union in the '40s.
|
> > > > > > kakacik
Tell it to cca 2 millions
civilians that died in Vietnam as
a direct result of failed US
invasion (I really mean just
civilians mostly bombed into
oblivion, entire human lives list
is around 3 million). As in, vast
majority of them would be alive is
US didn't try their failed
adventure. Tonkin gulf is a
classic US made up war for power
mongering reasons.Telling 'we're
the good guys' while regularly
bombing entire villages into
oblivion with napalm on some vague
suspicions ('we heard some gunshot
when flying around so we blasted
them' scenarios). My Lai and many
others.If this is how US
population views their past
fuckups then no wonder we are
where we are, objectivity ain't
easy if one is on the wrong side,
isn't it.Supporting wrong side in
Afghanistan? Against Soviet
invasion? Sometimes, often even
there are no good sides.If you
guys didn't support Soviet union
in 40s (which they vehemently
denied since then but its their
inferiority complex, the issue
with russian mentality since
forever), there would be no
massive eastern front with most
german losses and wehrmacht spread
out too thinly, and D day would be
crushed like nothing. History
would be very different in Europe
and globally.
|
> > > > > > frm88
If you guys didn't support Soviet
union in 40s... You can go even
farther back in time. If the US
hadn't massively relieved the
famine in Russia in 1920/21 there
might have been a chance, Lenin
and the Bolshevik regime wouldn't
have
survived.https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921%E2%80%
9...
|
> > > > > > panick21_
I'm sorry but famine help is a
good thing, not saving millions of
people because it might
potentially overthrow a government
'somehow' isn't a great plan.One
can argue FDR later embrace of
Soviets was way to early and a
direct stab in the back to France
and other European powers.
|
> > > > > > sampullman
It's not so simple, the rampant
corruption under Ngô Đình
Diệm, misappropriation of aid,
etc. shouldn't just be swept under
the rug. Hindsight says remaining
capitalist probably would have
been better for the average
person, but it wasn't so obvious
at the time.Johnson was a
warmonger, exaggerating (or
possibly faking) the Gulf of
Tonkin engagements to justify full
escalation was a crime that led to
the death of 60,000 Americans,
hundreds of thousands more with
PTSD, and 2 million+ murdered
Vietnamese civilians. Not to
mention hundreds of thousands of
birth defects caused by agent
orange and the still ongoing
effort to clean up dioxins from
the environment.
|
> > > > > > torginus
That is an objectively incorrect
take. A common theme in disastrous
US interventions was that they
tried to prop-up a failing
colonial power, which in this case
was France - against the locals
who wanted independence. Ho Chi
Minh was a French-educated leader
who only entered the orbit of the
USSR after failing to secure
support for Vietnamese
independence frome the West.
|
> > > > > > _djo_
The US only became actively
involved in supporting South
Vietnam a decade after it had
achieved independence from France
in 1955, after the negotiated
division into North and South
Vietnam in Geneva, and after the
last French forces left in
1956.The cause of that
intervention was North Vietnam
sending Viet Cong insurgents into
South Vietnam, attempting to
overthrow the government, and
ignoring the South's
sovereignty.That doesn't justify
the US's later transgressions
while engaged in the war, but
their initial support to South
Vietnam was neither unjustified
nor illiberal.
|
> > > > > > torginus
That is a very particular
arrangement of the facts, that
really doesn't have the shape of
truth to it. Vietnam was a former
French colony conquered by the
Japanese WW2, that wanted to
restore their independence.The
Allies liberated South Vietnam,
restoring French colonial rule and
seeking to reconquer the whole
nation. It was deeply unpopular
with the people. Moreover the
South wanted to conquer the north
with French support and US
financing, they fought to a
stalemate and an uneasy peace.Who
violated the ceasefire under what
circumstances is contested, but
ultimately does not really matter
- neither side wanted peace, and
the hostilities would've resumed
anyway one way or another.The end
result was that the US antagonized
a people who were fighting for
their own freedom, and found
itself in an unwinnable war -
creating an allied (or at least
independent) country from a people
you bombed to the stone age is an
impossible task.From this follows
that no, the US military wasn't
just another dozen bombed out
villages away from final victory,
when it was backstabbed by those
peaceniks at home.An ounce of
diplomacy at the right place and
time would've been the best for
both the United States and
Vietnam, and would've netted them
everything they wanted on top of
international goodwill.
|
> > > > > > _djo_
Fair call on the funding, I know
the US was paying for the French
military's involvement for years.
Still, by active support I meant
troops on the ground, which
happened significantly later.Who
resumed the fighting does matter,
as even though Diem refused the
1956 reunification elections that
didn't justify resorting to an
armed insurgency by the North.
It's also not ambiguous, Hanoi's
15th plenum officially authorised
that insurgency in 1959 and formed
groups 559 and 759, and later the
NLF (Viet Cong).They were already
killing hundreds of innocent South
Vietnamese village chiefs,
teachers, and officials by the
late 1950s, trying to create a
local insurgency and insurrection.
That's what the US got involved
with to oppose, and I really can't
say it was a morally wrong
decision at the time. Hanoi had
the option of sticking with
diplomacy and chose to send
guerrillas south instead. You're
giving only the US agency here.
|
> > > > > > panick21_
You can be technically 'right' by
some definition and an
intervention still not being a
good thing.The Southern regime was
incredibly corrupt and dominated
by land owners. Look at the
Philippines for an example of what
happens to a US 'colony' where the
land lords are in
control.Communist Vietnam did some
bad reforms yes, but they also
changed and eventually did a lot
of good things, turning the
country into what it is today.The
US spent decades of war propping
up a regime that was mostly
incapable and killed a lot of
people in the meantime.
|
> > > > > hiddencost
That's nonsense. It's imparted us with
incredible prosperity and peace. The
US is a much poorer and worse nation
due to you and your kind destroying
what we built.
|
> > > > > lenkite
> maintain world peaceMaintain "world
war" (for corpo-profit) -> FIXED
|
> > > > wallst07
I'm an idiot, what have we lost exactly?
Soft Power?
|
> > postingawayonhn
Yes, they've had a space agency, but the only
launchers are expensive legacy vehicles.This
launch is a move towards lower cost and more
frequent launches, that in the US are provided by
SpaceX.
|
> > > nine_k
It's not even the US in general, it's SpaceX
specifically. Only the US and China have
demonstrated reusable rockets, and only SpaceX
demonstrated the actual reuse, the cadence and
the economy of scale that it brings.
|
> > > > torginus
Reuse might turn out not to be the future
- and its SpaceX has embraced this
internally. At least not full reuse, or
not the way most people think of a
reusable spacecraft as a reusable
aircraft. A reusable rocket engine might
only have 2-3 flights in it, if that, with
some routine inspection and maintenance
between them.3D printing has been a game
changer that basically allows you to crank
out rocket engines from raw materials,
which means that building new ones is
cheap and easy. If you look at the Raptor
3 (3D printed), it looks super clean,
thanks to the fact that they integrated
most of the piping into the 3d printed
body, but that means you can't really fix
or inspect it.Which is fine tbh. SpaceX
(and Tesla) has been shown to be pragmatic
not dogmatic when it comes to new
technology. 'Elon time' might be a meme,
but Musk both pushes his employees very
hard, but probably not harder than
possible - and he's willing to take flak
for delaying projects, changing scope or
outright cancellation.
|
> > > > > nine_k
2-3 flights is still quite a bit of
cost-cutting, and some SpaceX Falcon 9
boosters have flown more than 30
times; the median number is about 12,
often very soon after the previous
flight.We are not talking about
forever spacecraft, and even Falcon
9's reusabilility is partial (the
second stage is lost), but even what
Falcon 9 has achieved allows for very
rapid progress, due to the short
feedback loop, including progress in
reliability.
|
> > > > > NetMageSCW
There's absolutely no reason to
believe rocket engines can only do two
or three flights. SpaceX has
demonstrated ten times that with F9
and with Raptor testing.
|
> > > > toomuchtodo
It means the laws of physics allow it, and
anyone willing to invest the time and fiat
to accomplish it can. This means the world
will no longer need to rely on SpaceX for
inexpensive lift to orbit through reusable
first stages, which is objectively good.
No different then China working towards
obviating the need for ASML for EUV
semiconductor manufacturing.
|
> > > > > somenameforme
There are a lot more barriers to
things in the real world. China has
been dedicating immense effort and
brainpower to cloning SpaceX, and
they're still not especially close. I
think a lot of us (certainly including
myself) have no intuition for why this
is, because we live in the software
world where if you see something that
is done then cloning it is generally
just a matter of time and effort. But
there's certainly some 'secret sauce'
at SpaceX that does not seem easy to
replicate.That said I think this is
awesome and hope the EU is able to
make further advances. I have a very
positive view of Musk, but the more
competitors there are in space, the
more likely we able to accelerate
advances and efficiency in that
domain. And I think everybody wins in
that scenario.
|
> > > > > > rbanffy
> because we live in the software
world where if you see something
that is done then cloning it is
generally just a matter of time
and effort. But there's certainly
some 'secret sauce' at SpaceX that
does not seem easy to replicateIn
software, thanks mostly to the
open-source movement, we all have
access to the same materials and
manufacturing processes.In
manufacturing, there are huge
differences in materials and
processes that we need to account
for. On the flip side, this can
allow one to leapfrog the other
rather than replicating them -
it's likely the next reusable
Falcon 9-class vehicle will use a
methalox engine that'll be easier
to maintain compared to Flacon 9's
kerolox ones. China has
demonstrated a novel approach to
vehicle recovery as well (in
addition to landing legs). Future
competitors will have access to
materials current incumbents
didn't have and can't easily adopt
with their current supply
chain.People also forget SpaceX
subverted a lot of the
expectations for reusable rockets
- they didn't use parachutes, but
opted to carry extra propellant
for landing; they didn't eject the
engines, opting instead to reuse
the whole stage; and they built
landing barges because their
rockets would launch towards the
ocean, saving fuel for a boost
back to the launch site. They also
tested capsule landing using the
launch abort rockets, but opted
for parachutes and splashdowns
instead. Still they keep all the
RCS motors in the capsule, making
their expendable service module
very inexpensive in comparison to
Boeing's.All these decisions point
to proven mission architectures so
that followers don't need to
explore architectures that were
explored and dropped.
|
> > > > > > NetMageSCW
To be clear, it was NASA that was
unwilling to have a ground landing
on the abort engines.
|
> > > > > > rbanffy
I am sure they were concerned the
spacecraft exploded during a hover
test.
|
> > > > > > numpad0
> I think a lot of us (certainly
including myself) have no
intuition for why this is,It's
because space programs are job
programs to keep the advanced
rocketry tech available for future
use. The so-called launch market
never materialized. Congresses of
launch capable nations are
completely fine with couple
hundred to low billion dollars
divided by couple launches per
year doing science and gravity
experiments and occasional TV sat
launches. Every dollar "saved" is
every dollar unspent and diverted
away from STEM.Starlink wouldn't
be accounting for like 99.9% of
Falcon 9 launches and 99.9999% of
man made objects in space if this
wasn't the case.China does what it
does because else the world won't
take them seriously, which creates
artificially lower socio-economic
statuses with no benefits to
anyone. They have bunch of
different lineages of space launch
vehicles and production
capacities, they don't need
reusability per se. Same goes for
humanoids - US/CN both have ~zero
chance entering heavy industry
hard robotics used in car plants,
and that leads both into
so-to-speak alternative robotics.
|
> > > > > panick21_
Just because you invest in it doesn't
mean you end up with hugely cheap and
scalable launch.Europe has already
invested far more in rocket then
SpaceX did and isn't close.If your
capital efficiency is far lower, it
might not be inexpensive. If you can
get the scale because you don't have
payloads, its going to be more
expensive.There is a incredibly long
road between 'rocket can land' and
'cheap and scalable launch'. A long
road most people don't see because its
not as flashy as landing.
|
> > > > > > rbanffy
SpaceX was founded on making
launches cheap. Arianespace only
recently decided to develop
reusable launch systems. Up to
SpaceX demonstrating it was
possible, the dominant approach to
cheap launches was in making the
expendable rocket cheap to
manufacture. Nobody needs to be
reminded the shuttle promised
cheap access to space and failed
at that.
|
> > > > > > NetMageSCW
But SpaceX built a cheaper
launcher to manufacture as well as
gaining reuse. There was no one
making an expendable cheaper
rocket before SpaceX either.
|
> > > > NetMageSCW
Didn't Blue Origin already reuse a
booster?
|
> > > thrance
Ariane 5 was the cheapest option available for
a long time, now they're a bit behind. But the
ESA is now working on reusable rockets too, it
seems, with their Themis program.
|
> > > > NetMageSCW
No, Soyuz was the cheapest option, but
they took themselves out of the running.
|
> > anonymars
Have there been other rocket launches from
continental Europe?
|
> > > rbanffy
Britain's Black Arrow could, but it launched
from a RAF base in Australia. Definitely not
continental Europe, but part of Europe if you
consider it from the Eurovision point of
view.A real shame Britain abandoned their own
research.
|
> > > > snowpid
I see your point and I guees this venn
diagram (on 3) needs an update.
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/8/6103453/38-ma
ps-that-explain-eu...
|
> > > swiftcoder
> Have there been other rocket launches from
continental Europe?Continental Europe? yes.
The Russian's Plesetsk Cosmodrome is well
within the boundaries of the European
continent.Continental Europe outside of
Russian influence? no.
|
> > > > cromka
But also: European Union? Yes, French
Guyana is a regular administrative part of
France and a EU territory.
|
> > > > > NetMageSCW
So continental EU :)
|
> > > cccbbbaaa
From a sovereignty perspective, does a launch
from continental Europe actually matter when
Arianespace/CNES/ESA has been launching from
France for decades?
|
> > > > Cyph0n
But French Guiana is a geographically
distant ex-colony, so there will always be
a higher probability of future
inaccessibility. Same applies to New
Caledonia, Martinique, etc.
|
> > > > > ButlerianJihad
How about a spaceport in Caledonia
proper?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S
axaVord_SpaceportHow about the last
time South America contested a little
parcel of
land?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fal
klands_War
|
> > > > > panick21_
Its not an ex-colony, its part of
France and the EU.
|
> > > > > > Cyph0n
It was a French colonial subject
as recently as the 20th
century.Regardless, a launch
facility within Europe seems much
less riskier long term from a
geopolitical standpoint.
|
> > > > > > cccbbbaaa
Although you're right about the
history of French Guiana, using
that term to put on the same level
as New Caledonia is nonsense.
(Same goes for Martinique.)
|
> > > > > > Cyph0n
I wasn't talking about the
historical aspect. Same applies =
the same risk also exists due to
geopolitics and distance. Heck,
didn't New Caledonia see a wave of
protests that were crushed in the
past year or two?
|
> > > > > > cccbbbaaa
> Heck, didn't New Caledonia see a
wave of protests that were crushed
in the past year or two?Yes,
that's why the risk is NOT the
same between French Guiana and New
Caledonia. Both of them are
oversea territories far from the
mainland with a colonial past, but
their current relationship with
the mainland is very
different.Around a quarter of the
population of New Caledonia has
been calling for independence for
decades at this point, with 3
referendum organised during the
last 10 years to resolve this
issue. Only half of the population
was able to vote to the
referendums (and some local
elections, like Congress of NC),
due to local rules than are about
to change-this, incidentally, is
the cause of the protests you are
talking about. On the geopolitical
side of things, the
independentists are probably
propped up by Azerbaijan
(https://www.courrierinternational
.com/article/geopolitique-n...)
and maybe China
(https://www.lefigaro.fr/internati
onal/ambitions-geostrategiq...).No
ne of this holds for French
Guiana. The risk between these
territories is not the same. At
all. Putting them on the same
level by reducing them to their
status as former colonies is
nonsense.
|
> > > > > > Cyph0n
Thanks for explaining. But I am
not sure how this contradicts my
point?Sure, placing launch
infrastructure in French Guiana is
probably less risky than setting
up shop in New Caledonia. Clearly,
the risk profile is not the same
for all of Overseas France.My
point is that if the decision is
between mainland and Overseas
France, the latter introduces
elevated risk in the long term in
general. French Guiana could be
fine today, but it is not
impossible that the next few years
could see the rise of a populist
pro-independence movement that
would eventually impact launch
infrastructure (similar to how it
did for the USSR).Reality is
fundamentally chaotic after all.
|
> > > > orphereus
Doesn't it matter if this part of France
is an ocean away?
|
> > > > > cccbbbaaa
I do not think so, but anyway, it is
definitely not a proof that we are
further decoupling ourselves from the
US, which is the claim made in the
root comment. France has launched
rockets from France for decades. Being
an ocean away does not make Kourou
reliant on the US.
|
> > > > > > orphereus
I think the opposite because in
this specific case we have the US
which has the world's strongest
navy, and the strongest navy by
far in the Atlantic.My opinion is
that there is an implied reliance
on the US "allowing" Europe to
ship the rockets to Kourou and
launch them there.If our relations
ever completely sour, the US
might, for example, take over the
shipping vessels going to Kourou,
kinda like Europe takes over
Russian shadow fleet vessels.Now
all of a sudden Europe has no
means of launching rockets, except
now it can launch to polar orbits.
It might seem a stretch, but there
is a non-zero chance that could
happen, therefore it is better to
have an alternative.
|
> > > > > > rbanffy
> Being an ocean away does not
make Kourou reliant on the US.No,
but it makes it vulnerable to the
US.
|
> > > > > > cccbbbaaa
"Vulnerable to the US" can mean so
many things that it practically
loses all meaning. Even with a
launchpad in continental Europe,
they have many ways to interfere
with this project, from disrupting
the supply chain to carpet bombing
the launch site.
|
> > > > > > rbanffy
A ship crossing the ocean is much
more vulnerable than a launch site
with sophisticated air
defences.The US can also decide to
"free" and "bring democracy" to
the French Guiana because the rich
oil deposits of its continental
shelf won't free themselves.The
point is that a slow ship crossing
the ocean with hard to replace is
very vulnerable in transit.
|
> > > > vik0
There is no sovereignty perspective
because Europe isn't even sovereign to
begin with. For starters it doesn't even
have a common army
|
> > > > > gpm
The sovereignty perspective here is
the perspective of the sovereignty of
the states that make up Europe not the
sovereignty of the entity of the
EU/Europe.Though not every sovereign
state has an army, see Iceland, Costa
Rica, theoretically Japan, etc.
|
> > > pseudohadamard
Yes, but most of them in the early 1940s.
|
> > > AshleyGrant
Orbital? Maybe not. Sub-orbital and ballistic?
Absolutely.
|
> > > > anonymars
Oh yes, I think everyone remembers
Germany's ballistic rockets"Don't say that
he's hypocritical,Say rather that he's
apolitical.'Once the rockets are up, who
cares where they come down?That's not my
department,' says Wernher von
Braun."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjD
EsGZLbio
|
> > > > > globalnode
hehe, yes but if it wasnt for german
rocket scientists the americans and
russians would not have had space
agencies (at least not that early)
|
> > > > > > m4rtink
Well, there was Goddard, Korolev &
quite a few others. But it could
indeed have taken longer if the
military implications were not
clearly demonstrated by Von
Braun.Still, an interesting
possibility of a fully civilian
space program from the start & how
it would look like & how it would
be different.Kinda like in Wings
of Honneamise.
|
> > > > > > dotancohen
Not only the military aspect. His
staff literally were absorbed into
the Russian sand US space
programs. Von Braun himself
famously designed the Saturn V.
|
> > > > > > drysine
>His staff literally were absorbed
into the Russian sand US space
programs.Not really in case of the
USSR. German group in Russia was
isolated and Korolev didn't like
competition. Soviet space program
started by replicating German
rocket, but once all production
chains were created, it was off on
its own course.I highly recommend
English translation of memoirs of
Boris Chertok[0] to anyone
interested in the history of
Soviet space program.[0]
https://www.nasa.gov/history/histo
ry-publications-and-resour...
|
> > > > > > flohofwoe
That was just because the
Russian's didn't trust "their"
Germans as much as the Americans
trusted "theirs". Operation
Osoaviakhim was mostly about
knowledge extraction, not about
cooperation. The other difference
was that the "Russian Germans"
didn't go to Russia on their own
will
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ope
ration_Osoaviakhim).Once the
knowledge was "extracted" the
Germans were allowed to return
though (good thing Stalin was
already dead at that time).Former
Junkers engineer Brunolf Baade
then went on to build the first
and only German jet airliner for
East Germany - which then of
course was cancelled as soon as it
was ready to enter production:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baad
e_152).
|
> > > > > > drysine
>as the Americans trusted
"theirs"Americans didn't trust
either. But then Sputnik happened
and Americans only had oopsnik[0],
so they turned to neglected
Redstone made by von
Braun[1][2][0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vang
uard_TV-3#Reaction[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expl
orer_1[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wern
her_von_Braun#U.S._Army_ca...
|
> > > pvaldes
> Have there been other rocket launches from
continental Europe?Yes. A Spanish private
company launched the Miura 1 from Huelva
(South of Spain) in 2023.In any case it was
programmed to reach only 46 Km high in the
first attempt, and suffered damages after
landing in the ocean at the expected
coordinates.It seems that a loan to finish its
successor, the reusable rocket Miura 5, were
granted in April of this year and that its
first test flight is expected for the end of
2026, so Germany is not the only European
country trying this.
|
> > > carlosjobim
A lot, but just not into orbit. For example
from the Kiruna space base in Sweden.And of
course the original rocket missiles developed
by von Braun and used to bomb London.
|
> > kibwen
> Does it mean that?When the US government funded
SpaceX, it was motivated in no small degree by a
desire to not be permanently reliant on a
geopolitical wildcard (Russia) for getting
astronauts into orbit. Now that the US itself has
become a geopolitical wildcard, savvy countries
know that they need to seek out alternatives to
SpaceX under more stable regimes.
|
> > > drysine
>geopolitical wildcardHow is Russia a
wildcard? What unexpected thing do you think
Russia has done?
|
> > > > qwytw
Authoritarian dictatorships will always
behave in seemingly irrational ways (from
the perspective of sane politicians).
Dictators will always put their personal
ambition and "career" first before their
country's interests.If Russia behaved
rationally they would have made a deal
with Ukraine (decades ago) that protected
the rights of the Russian minorities in
Ukraine and continued massively profiting
from gas and oil exports into Europe.
|
> > > > > drysine
> they would have made a deal with
Ukraine (decades ago) that protected
the rights of the Russian minorities
in Ukraine and continued massively
profiting from gas and oil exports
into Europe.Russia did, many times,
last time in 2010.[0]But the US and
the EU didn't like it, so the coup in
2014 happened with American help[1]
which overthrew democratically elected
president of Ukraine who introduced
the law protecting Russian speaking
Ukrainian citizens.[2]The law was
repelled right after the coup and
Crimeans supported the reunion with
Russia.[0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E
2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...[1]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-
26079957[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language
_policy_in_Ukraine#201...
|
> > > > > > mopsi
There was no coup: Parliament
votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych
on Feb. 22; sets May 25 for new
election
|
> > > > > > drysine
There was no impeachment:
Parliament did not vote to impeach
the president, which would have
involved formally charging
Yanukovych with a crime, a review
of the charge by the
Constitutional Court, and a
three-fourths majority vote in
parliament-at least 338 votes in
favor.[0]
Please don't spread
misinformation[0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revo
lution_of_Dignity#Removal_...
|
> > > > > > mopsi
In English, impeachment is often
used loosely to mean parliamentary
removal from office, which
happened there. You're the one
spreading misinformation with cope
about foreign coups when
Ukrainians simply kicked your
clown out of their house.
|
> > NicoJuicy
Belgian here.I think Trump definitely pushes
allies away much faster than ever anticipated,
that's probably the only achievement from the
current administration.The alliance still stands,
but it's hard to trust the US when the current
president is constantly praising violent dictators
and doesn't seem to grasp the concept of
laws/rules + tries to blame everyone else +
threatens to invade EU countries + the requirement
to bribe him with funds/crypto to have
"alliance".You can know a guy by the friends he
keeps :)Fyi. I used to always use US tech, the
last year I've done my best to adhere to the
"European Souvereign Cloud". My current stack on
US providers is down from 300 € / month to 35€
/ m. And many are following suite ( it's slowly
becoming a requirement for tenders for the
governement + cities)
|
> > > drstewart
Germany is the country where AfD is about to
win big.Good friends you're choosing
there.China has it's own launchers which shows
it's decoupling from Europe now. It's over for
Europe as countries race to be independent
from them.
|
> > > > NicoJuicy
The far right in Europe isn't comparable
even to the right in the US fyi.
|
> > > > cromka
If AfD about to win BIG? Or are you just
skimming the headlines?
|
> rexskimmer
They started developing this rocket in the late 2010s,
way before the current US craziness (or the current
level of craziness anyway). Independent access to
space is always desirable for countries that can
muster the resources, but this is just one of many
companies that appeared back then as a response to
SpaceX's initial success.
|
> > ACCount37
Yeah this is just the effect of SpaceX showcasing
"space launch is no longer the realm of government
efforts only".They kicked off the wave of
commercial space launch - and now, it reached the
EU too.
|
> > smnplk
One would think that ze germans would be among the
first to be conquering space with all that german
engineering.
|
> > > johannes1234321
They are - but in cooperation with others.
Parts of the Orion capsule of the current
Artemis mission program are based on the
German ATV, which is a capsule which was
developed to supply ISS. On ISS there are
German modules like Galileo. German Spacelab
was a major component of many Space Shuttle
missions. German companies like Zeiss provided
optics and laser components for Apollo. To
name a few, besides lots of satellites and
other things. However after WW2 there were
different political decisions, so that Germany
won't build its own rockets, but German
technology was key to Saturn V and Ariane
rockets.Aside from technology, Germany also
got major control centers and mission planning
capability in Cologne and
Oberpfaffenhofen.Most components are there,
but not the political will to go on a national
mission.
|
> > > > sebmellen
I mean, Operation Paperclip and Von Braun
were central to the success of the Apollo
program. The Soviets had a similar
postwar-German-capture program, if I
remember correctly.
|
> > > > > drysine
Not that
similarhttps://news.ycombinator.com/it
em?id=49583883
|
> > > > > > sebmellen
Similar in the sense that they
captured and extracted them, but
you are right that Germans were
not as central to the actual
operations of the Soviet program.
|
> > > > > > drysine
Yep, that did happen
|
> > > rbanffy
> One would think that ze germans would be
among the first to be conquering spaceAfter
the horrors of WWII, Europe decided it would
rather do things collectively than each
country doing its own thing. This resulted in
wonderful things like Concorde, fast rail,
Airbus, and Ariane. Europe became more than
the sum of its parts.
|
> > > randomNumber7
Is this sarcasm or do you still live in the
1980s?
|
> > > ozim
I don't think Germany has favorable place for
orbital launches.For any failure you would
need to have an ocean in the direction of
launch.Also not all orbits are equal because
then you need more fuel etc.It is silly to say
every country has equal opportunity to go to
space because space is only 100km up. That's
not how it works.
|
> > Eupolemos
Eh, you can split us Europeans up into two camps;
those who do not want to see the problem and those
who couldn't look away.The second camp saw the
craziness when the later Bush was elected a second
time.
|
> > > tosapple
one of those bush votes was to ensure he could
clean up his own mess.
|
> > > > tosapple
what kind've voter intimidating sh* is
this? down-voted for being honest,
promoting understanding and
responsibility?jokes on you guys as i
firmly believe bullying racketeering and
intimidation are quite literally terrorism
when applied to population groups
consisting of more than (1)
individual.careful on that slippery slope.
|
> > > > Forgeties79
I'm curious what you mean by this. At face
value it seems like a weird
rationalization but I get the sense I'm
not reading this correctly.
|