3 ms·

Would they be as eager to work with a non American company which could offer the same price etc.? Even an European one? Highly unlikely..

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
They used to use Russian rockets as well just few years back because it was cheaper[1], even though US has an more expensive replacement. I don't see any reason why US won't opt for europe's rocket if it means better cost. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/5674744/how-nasa-became-utterly-dependent-on-russia-for-space-travel https://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/5674744/how-nasa-became-utterly...
- falserum 3y ago
  > Russian rockets as well just few years back because it was cheaper Your link says that US had no homegrown option, when it used russian rockets. The only part that matches “because cheaper”, was atlas rockets using soviet engines, but that also had additional reasoning of keeping russian rocket engineers away from iran and north Korea. So overall, US definitely will subsidise a US company. (If not spacex, then other company which demonstrates competence) Strategically it is a must have capability. If you depend on others, you open your self up for bunch of risks.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    US had space shuttle which was the better in most of the metrics compared to Russia except cost. They knowingly discarded it because Russian rockets were cheaper.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  That not what we’re talking about though. I’m sure they might use their rockets but they wouldn’t support their manufacturer the way they do SpaceX. Even if there were superior foreign options NASA/etc. would rather work with an American company as long as it’s not hopelessly behind.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    Did you even read my comment? NASA was ahead with Space Shuttle in terms of technology(at least not hopelessly behind) but still selected Russian rockets because of lower price. And working with Europe is definitely better for NASA in terms of PR than working with Russia.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

They used to use Russian rockets as well just few years back because it was cheaper[1], even though US has an more expensive replacement. I don't see any reason why US won't opt for europe's rocket if it means better cost. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/5674744/how-nasa-became-utterly-dependent-on-russia-for-space-travel https://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/5674744/how-nasa-became-utterly...

falserum 3y ago
> Russian rockets as well just few years back because it was cheaper Your link says that US had no homegrown option, when it used russian rockets. The only part that matches “because cheaper”, was atlas rockets using soviet engines, but that also had additional reasoning of keeping russian rocket engineers away from iran and north Korea. So overall, US definitely will subsidise a US company. (If not spacex, then other company which demonstrates competence) Strategically it is a must have capability. If you depend on others, you open your self up for bunch of risks.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  US had space shuttle which was the better in most of the metrics compared to Russia except cost. They knowingly discarded it because Russian rockets were cheaper.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
That not what we’re talking about though. I’m sure they might use their rockets but they wouldn’t support their manufacturer the way they do SpaceX. Even if there were superior foreign options NASA/etc. would rather work with an American company as long as it’s not hopelessly behind.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  Did you even read my comment? NASA was ahead with Space Shuttle in terms of technology(at least not hopelessly behind) but still selected Russian rockets because of lower price. And working with Europe is definitely better for NASA in terms of PR than working with Russia.