12 ms·
ESA Votes to Suspend Roscosmos Partnerships
- bdcravens 5y agoBodes well for SpaceX.
- dmead 5y agoBodes badly for international peace prospects.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoWhat peace? The peace before Russia began annexing territory?
- largbae 5y agoThat one. Yuval Noah Harari in a recent TED talk noted that we could measure the peace of an era by the percent of world GDP spent on military. He suggested that the period between the Berlin Wall coming down and this invasion was a significant historical low.
- DaedPsyker 5y agoI don't think you honestly need a high GDP for conflict and violence. There has been a number of genocides that have happened since the Berlin wall came down, that were not performed by advanced military equipment. World's GDP spent on military I would argue applies more to inter-state violence, which is comparatively more rare than violence within the state.
- waffleiron 5y agoI agree it seems overly simplified to the point of being useless. A single Columbia class submarine (without munitions) costs the same as (approx) 10 million loaded AK47's. The two of these would have very different effects on peace, especially not considering where those AK47's are used. World GDP also doesn't account for purchase parity. A state with cheaper labour building the exact same weapon as a state with more expensive labour would still result in the same weapon being created.
- sph 5y agoDoes SpaceX collaborate at all with the European Space Agency? Still, I do not understand this thirst at seeing a private company monopolising space travel. It's that old "this is good for Bitcoin" meme all over again. I reckon I'm one of the few on this forum that doesn't hold SpaceX stock.
- brian_herman 5y agoSpaceX isn't a publicly traded company. Tesla is though.
- 1_player 5y agoNever said it was. It's a private company as opposed to a government funded agency.
- gliptic 5y agoBut that means almost nobody on HN can possibly hold SpaceX stock.
- 1_player 5y agoFair enough, I stand corrected. Still, I wanted to point out that it's a company, not a government agency. Publicly traded or private doesn't change my point.
- gameswithgo 5y agoprivate companies also build esa rockets, and the space shuttle, and saturn v, in partnership with government space programs. spacex human flight is also in partnership with nasa.
- ThisIsTheWay 5y agoIt's likely a very very small group, but I am certain there are some ultra high net worth members of HN that are SpaceX investors, either directly through family offices, or indirectly through private equity funds.
- Rebelgecko 5y agoThe impression I got from the statement is that the 4 canceled Soyuz launches will most likely move over to Ariane 6. Exomars is probably SOL for at least 2 years
- panick21_ 5y agoProblem being that Ariane 6 doesn't yet exists and until they have free capacity and a even remotely high flight rate it will take years. Ariane 6 already has planned flights, then you need to move over 4 flights from Soyuz and then OneWeb has another 6. It will take many years for the Ariane 6 to complete all these things and it will be far more expensive.
- s5300 5y agoI’m wondering if we’re going to end up seeing SpaceX bringing down the ISS cosmonauts into neutral territory by the end of this debacle.
- ThisIsTheWay 5y agoI'm wondering if NASA will change their plans for Mark Vande Hei to return on Dragon instead of Soyuz. His return is planned for later this month, so I suppose we'll know pretty soon.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- RobertoG 5y agoIt would be a good thing coming from a bad thing if space get more funding in the EU. Now, without the Soyuz, maybe there is a chance of a manned spaceflight program. Starting from the Space Rider (1) all the components are there, I think. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Rider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Rider
- bigcat123 5y ago
- fsh 5y agoGood. Human spaceflight is mostly symbolic anyway, and there are plenty other launch vehicles for the satellites that do the actual science.
- panick21_ 5y agoThis is not in fact true, the reality is that actual launch vehicles right now are incredibly tight and if you take out the Russian rockets, there is a huge issue with launching these sats.
- trhway 5y ago
- dvlat 5y agoLook, they say that the sample is representative, but is it really? Let me try this: "According to the survey (the sample is representative) around 20% Russians support the war" You won't trust me, but why do you trust the quoted resource without verification? The two countries are at war and while Russian propaganda is horrible, it doesn't mean that everything else is 100% true. Note that I'm not blaming the victim, the situation is close to black and white. I'm only asking whether you really believe that 75% people support the ongoing war and support starting war with multiple other countries? There's one more aspect. Even if the sample is representative by sex/age/income/education level etc, some people may be scared to tell their opinion to a stranger over the phone. The government labeled those against the war as traitors and who knows what's the real intent of people asking such questions over the phone. How do you think, if the war was so popular, would there be a need for stricter laws and calling people traitors?
- trhway 5y agoI lived in USSR, and suppression of speech and opposition is exactly needed to have such high popularity. The transition into 199x shown that informed population doesn't allow to sustain such high popularity, and this is why Russian regime has been tightening the screws back over the last 22 years. >some people may be scared to tell their opinion to a stranger over the phone Yet, there is no need to enthusiastically point to a next country. Almost all pointing to the same one is extremely suggestive of it being a genuine result. >I'm only asking whether you really believe that 75% people support the ongoing war and support starting war with multiple other countries? Yes. Of course most of those people aren't going to fight themselves. And it will take some time and more sanctions before they start to question the situation. With all the sanctions the life in Russia is still much better than at the beginning of 199x, and until that the Russians feel just fine finding satisfaction in resisting that "American attack on them". And don't forget that "Ukraine was with American help making nuclear and biological weapons to attack Russia".
- npunt 5y agoI'm mildly concerned in the next 20 years Russia will blow up a few satellites and cause a huge amount of LEO space debris that makes it harder for everyone else to launch, just because they can't compete. I imagine something like offering internet access that gets around their firewall might be a precipitating event. Space is getting more important and with their space program in precipitous decline but still having some capabilities, the winning move for them might be to deny it to everyone. Fits their scorched earth approach to adversaries. I feel it rests on what their post-Putin leadership is like and whether their relationship with China is maintained or takes a turn for the worse.
- labster 5y agoIf Russia intentionally causes a Kessler cascade in LEO, I’m pretty sure it triggers Article V, and the orbits will be clear for centuries before the next launch.
- roenxi 5y agoRussia's invasion of Ukraine is being opposed by NATO, and they are fighting troops on the ground holding NATO-built weapons, NATO-built planes and controlling NATO-built drones. Possibly with training from NATO countries. From the Russian perspective, I expect they already understand that they are at war with NATO. Since Russia can't "win" a war with NATO in any reasonable sense, it is really just a question of how scorched-earth they feel like going in defeat.
- google234123 5y agoBoth Russia and the US have fought and lost many wars where the other supplied their enemy in the Cold War and nothing bad happened.
- katbyte 5y agoPeople died. Bad things did happen. Many of them. May I suggest “never escalated to nuclear war”? Also it almost did a few times.
- travisporter 5y agoMain Engine Cutoff is a great podcast that recently had some interesting speculation on what could happen to the space industry because of this
- themgt 5y agoOneWeb is in deep trouble. Other than tiny Vega, Arianespace has done only 3 launches on its own rockets vs. 10 on Soyuz since 2021. Sounds like it's time for the EU to actually build a space program. The era of hard power is back. With Vulcan waiting on years delayed BE-4 (and New Glenn on BE-4 and rest of the rocket as well), SpaceX launching Starlink constellation on its own reusable rockets is looking like the only game in town for a while. https://www.arianespace.com/launch-log/ https://www.arianespace.com/launch-log/
- pabs3 5y agoSome blog posts related to the EU and innovation: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/european-innovation-and-capabilities/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/european-innovation-and-ca... I especially like this one "How Tech Loses Out over at Companies, Countries and Continents" about outsourcing: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/how-tech-loses-out/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/how-tech-loses-out/
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago>We barely develop any software here anymore. So even very European companies like like Nokia and Ericsson, that are now trying to tell us that they are building our European telecommunication infrastructure. They’re actually not, they’re getting that built by other people in other countries far away. Anything having to do with server and PC development and manufacturing, there’s nothing left of that in Europe anymore. Preach it! Outside of FOSS contributions, commercial EU software industry is in a sorry state, unless you count the crypto trading and fintech platforms getting millenials and zoomers to gamble their little money they have on stonks and crypto coins because they can't afford to invest in decent real estate, which I don't think is a healthy industry to promote as far as SW innovation goes. All great EU innovation comes out universities and research and institutes funded mostly by EU taxpayer money, and the good innovations get immediately bought up by US or Chinese big tech, with the duds and left overs being bought by clueless European dinosaurs like Siemens, Daimler, T-Systems, etc. So basically our tax money is funding US and Chinese tech dominance because EU old money and EU governments are too cheap and clueless to invest in local tech and instead are focused on offshoring everything and investing only in perpetuating the real estate bubble and living off rent seeking while taxing the skin off your back, and most people suffering from rampant inflation and now rampant energy costs because EU leadership didn't bother investing in energy self-sufficiency. Not exactly a healthy environment to breed good competitors for AWS, Google, Apple, Nvidia, Tesla and Microsoft, despite the social safety nets, when you're being financially squeezed from all directions.
- 908B64B197 5y agoAt this point are ESA and Rocosmos even relevant? SpaceX completely dominates the launch market and has a 15 years lead on everyone. Short of countries bared from purchasing launch services due to ITAR and nationalist job programs everyone is seriously lagging behind America.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cardanome 5y agoIs seems like people have forgotten any lesson the cold war gave us. About the principles of peaceful coexistence that allowed us to be alive today. Anything that can further the mutual understanding in culture, art and science between peoples is a good thing. It is our duty to do anything to ensure the peace. People seem to prefer to advertise their moral rightfulness even at the risk at dooming humanity. After all, everyone who doesn't agree must be a Putin-loving traitor. Putin's Russia might be a fact of live for many years still to come and we will need to live with them. I know people wish otherwise but that is not how the world works.
- gameswithgo 5y agoWe have been doing that with Russia for 30 years and clearly it had no positive impact, maybe we can try again soon but right now we have more pressing matters. Also this was really russias call to end space cooperation, not EU.
- cardanome 5y agoPutin was pretty pro-West, even wanted Russia to join NATO when he started out. Analyzing what happened and how the mistakes can be avoided might be a good step. I recommend watching this video of Vladimir Pozner speaking about it at Yale University. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ As for right now, I guess the main thing is to support the refugees as best we can and pray they will be able to return soon.
- notahacker 5y agoWe can live with Russia and share cultural experiences with Russians without directly funding its military industrial complex though. Not to mention the practical complications introduced in cooperating with Roscosmos by Putin's unilateral decision to end the peace. It's safe to say ESA has dropped contractors for a lot less.
- cardanome 5y agoThe space programs goals is primary to further scientific research, not sure how it directly contributes to the military. Nobody ended any peace. The fight between Putin's Russia and NATO is purely on the ideological and economic level. It was the decision of NATO to escalate it. Ukraine was neither part of EU nor NATO. The war has nothing to do with NATO other than them supporting the other side. Were the support for Syrian rebels or the bombing of Libya military attacks on Russia? No. NATO countries have invaded plenty of countries. People just have more sympathy with Ukrainians because they are not "brown people".