4 ms·

You're missing the fact that if the NRO or similar US government needs launch capacity, the president will bump foreign commercial and government launches. Euro

You're missing the fact that if the NRO or similar US government needs launch capacity, the president will bump foreign commercial and government launches. Europe can't be entirely reliant on the US for launch capability. The same justification was used in the US after the Spanish American war to justify a massive expansion of US shipyard capabilities that was subsidized by contracts for US warships. It worked out well enough, by the end of WWII the US had the most capable navy in the world.

nordsieck 3y ago
> You're missing the fact that if the NRO or similar US government needs launch capacity, the president will bump foreign commercial and government launches. Given the reality of SpaceX's launch schedule, probably not. Unless someone in Europe wanted 40 extra launches a year or something. SpaceX has shown a willingness to sacrifice Starlink launches for paying customers. But from a more philosophical standpoint, I do think that Europe is correct to maintain an independent launch capability.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  SpaceX has redefined what it means to "have a launch capability." They will redefine it even more if Starship succeeds. If the US ends up putting tens of thousands of tonnes into space yearly, build large structures there, will Europe consider the ability to launch a few satellites enough?
signatoremo 3y ago
SpaceX launches every 3 to 4 days. There has been no shortage of F9 for a long time. Also, the majority of SpaceX’s launches are for Starlink, not US’s government. SpaceX would gladly bump those launches for paying customers. The Euclid mission that occurred last week was only booked in December 2022, extremely short lead time for a commercial launch. Independent space launch capability isn’t an issue. Clinging to obsolete technologies is. Ariane 6 was still on the drawing board when F9 landed for the 1st time. Since then F9 has landed consecutively - yes landing - more times than consecutive launches of any other rockets. Almost twice the number for Ariane 5. All occurred in the last 7 years, compare to 30 years for Ariane 5. Yet Europe refuse to revise the design. Now they are looking at a design that wouldn’t be competitive with F9, a decade later.

nordsieck 3y ago

> You're missing the fact that if the NRO or similar US government needs launch capacity, the president will bump foreign commercial and government launches. Given the reality of SpaceX's launch schedule, probably not. Unless someone in Europe wanted 40 extra launches a year or something. SpaceX has shown a willingness to sacrifice Starlink launches for paying customers. But from a more philosophical standpoint, I do think that Europe is correct to maintain an independent launch capability.

pfdietz 3y ago
SpaceX has redefined what it means to "have a launch capability." They will redefine it even more if Starship succeeds. If the US ends up putting tens of thousands of tonnes into space yearly, build large structures there, will Europe consider the ability to launch a few satellites enough?

signatoremo 3y ago

SpaceX launches every 3 to 4 days. There has been no shortage of F9 for a long time. Also, the majority of SpaceX’s launches are for Starlink, not US’s government. SpaceX would gladly bump those launches for paying customers. The Euclid mission that occurred last week was only booked in December 2022, extremely short lead time for a commercial launch. Independent space launch capability isn’t an issue. Clinging to obsolete technologies is. Ariane 6 was still on the drawing board when F9 landed for the 1st time. Since then F9 has landed consecutively - yes landing - more times than consecutive launches of any other rockets. Almost twice the number for Ariane 5. All occurred in the last 7 years, compare to 30 years for Ariane 5. Yet Europe refuse to revise the design. Now they are looking at a design that wouldn’t be competitive with F9, a decade later.