3 ms·

> But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter: Europe needs to be able to put its own military satellites (or anything else critical) up there. Military

> But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter: Europe needs to be able to put its own military satellites (or anything else critical) up there. Military satellites sold to third party countries also won't launch themselves... I'm very surprised the EU and the USA and SpaceX didn't work out a deal to buy a certain number of F9's to be launched and operated from the EU. The EU would pay a (vey high) price to buy outright the rockets, and would agree not to develop a competing rocket design in the next 20 yrs.

CrLf 2y ago
I think you fail to understand the concept of sovereignty.
pavlov 2y ago
> "would agree not to develop a competing rocket design in the next 20 yrs" Isn't the whole point of Ariane to maintain European capability for independent space launches? It would be very hard to spin that up from nowhere after twenty years of complete inactivity.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > would be very hard to spin that up from nowhere after twenty years of complete inactivity That’s not the only alternative.
The_Colonel 2y ago
> The EU would pay a (vey high) price to buy outright the rockets, and would agree not to develop a competing rocket design in the next 20 yrs. It doesn't seem that surprising given the terms.
close04 2y ago
> The EU would pay a (vey high) price to buy outright the rockets, and would agree not to develop a competing rocket design in the next 20 yrs. So the worst of both worlds? It would still be very expensive, but also dependent on a foreign entity and with hands tied for the next decades unable to develop people, skills, or products in that direction.
Propelloni 2y ago
Why? That would be a bad deal for ESA. Instead of being behind 10 years with a fighting chance to catch-up, they would be 20 years behind and dependent on one, maybe two unreliable partners (Musk and maybe the USA under Trump).
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Would that even be possible? SpaceX would need to either provide intense training (engineering, operating, etc) for their rockets, or to provide the staff and facilities themselves; basically the company would need to double its staff (if not more) to support a scheme like that. I mean it makes sense, why not sell off rockets and whatnot commercially like the mass production strategy that Musk has in mind? But I don't think there's enough launches yet to warrant that. In fact, SpaceX is booked full for the next few years already; unless that's intentional, they simply don't have the production capacity to humour that idea.
leoedin 2y ago
European space programs are motivated by jobs, retaining domestic skills and actual usefulness in that order. Funding is allocated to companies based primarily on the country they’re in - funding must be split across all funding countries. ESA is never going to just buy a rocket, because that would completely defeat the point of ESA.

CrLf 2y ago

I think you fail to understand the concept of sovereignty.

pavlov 2y ago

> "would agree not to develop a competing rocket design in the next 20 yrs" Isn't the whole point of Ariane to maintain European capability for independent space launches? It would be very hard to spin that up from nowhere after twenty years of complete inactivity.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> would be very hard to spin that up from nowhere after twenty years of complete inactivity That’s not the only alternative.

The_Colonel 2y ago

> The EU would pay a (vey high) price to buy outright the rockets, and would agree not to develop a competing rocket design in the next 20 yrs. It doesn't seem that surprising given the terms.

close04 2y ago

> The EU would pay a (vey high) price to buy outright the rockets, and would agree not to develop a competing rocket design in the next 20 yrs. So the worst of both worlds? It would still be very expensive, but also dependent on a foreign entity and with hands tied for the next decades unable to develop people, skills, or products in that direction.

Propelloni 2y ago

Why? That would be a bad deal for ESA. Instead of being behind 10 years with a fighting chance to catch-up, they would be 20 years behind and dependent on one, maybe two unreliable partners (Musk and maybe the USA under Trump).

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

Would that even be possible? SpaceX would need to either provide intense training (engineering, operating, etc) for their rockets, or to provide the staff and facilities themselves; basically the company would need to double its staff (if not more) to support a scheme like that. I mean it makes sense, why not sell off rockets and whatnot commercially like the mass production strategy that Musk has in mind? But I don't think there's enough launches yet to warrant that. In fact, SpaceX is booked full for the next few years already; unless that's intentional, they simply don't have the production capacity to humour that idea.

leoedin 2y ago

European space programs are motivated by jobs, retaining domestic skills and actual usefulness in that order. Funding is allocated to companies based primarily on the country they’re in - funding must be split across all funding countries. ESA is never going to just buy a rocket, because that would completely defeat the point of ESA.