5 ms·

A huge strategic weakness is depending on a foreign country (perhaps even worse - one moody individual) for your launches.

Reason077 2y ago
SpaceX is a 100% American company. Moody individual notwithstanding, they are no less American than Boeing or ULA or anyone else.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  I don't get what your point is. I didn't question if it's an American company or not. Edit: ok, got it now. This is about a European rocket serving European strategic needs, why would I be talking about USA?
- Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
  > SpaceX is a 100% American company. It's a huge fucking problem if you're not American. If you don't want to be subject to American law. If you don't want your technology inspected or tampered with by Americans. If you don't want the transaction to be in dollars (extra-territoriality of US law on all dollar transactions). If you don't want to deal with the problem of American citizens and companies subject to FISA, who could face severe repercussions in the US if they don't spy or facilitate spying on their non-American clients.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - piva00 2y ago
      Because the USA needs NATO and other shit to have soft power and keep its hegemony. Shit like what you said truly makes me wonder about the state of education in the USA when you don't understand a basic geopolitical principle your country has enacted for 80+ years, with massive benefits.
      - inglor_cz 2y ago
        Unhappy marriages are unstable, even if they make economic sense. Drag too much resentment into a relationship and people may do the irrational thing. I was witness to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Economically, it didn't make sense to do that. But the Slovaks really resented Czech paternalism and wanted to go their own way.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        Europe needs the US more than the US needs Europe as far as NATO is concerned, the defence spending disparities speak for themselves. I sincerely question the logic behind our servicemen putting their lives on the line for someone resenting America this bad.
        piva00 2y ago
        > Europe needs the US more than the US needs Europe as far as NATO is concerned, the defence spending disparities speak for themselves. As far as the USA hegemony is concerned, NATO is an instrumental piece of soft and hard power. You are parroting Trump's arguments about defence spending as if the US spending is only concerning NATO, the US spend a lot in defence because it's been your bread and butter to maintain a global reach as a superpower, the moment you lose this you'll see America's influence diminish, if that's what you wish please go ahead and pull out but so far it's been very beneficial to you in the USA to be the de facto global enforcer during Pax Americana. > I sincerely question the logic behind our servicemen putting their lives on the line for someone resenting America this bad. Geopolitics are not based on feelings, it's based on advantages and trade-offs, your feelings don't matter for this. Coming from a person that once said in a comment "love is a mental illness" you seem to be quite the non-rational actor, with knee-jerk reactions when your feelings are hurt. Try to comprehend that the life as you know as an American is dependent on keeping your dollar as the most powerful currency, which demands being backed by the most powerful military, with the most trading routes possible, and with trade as stable as possible around the globe. NATO is just a piece of the puzzle, it's not about what the others allies feel about you. You are also forgetting 4 years of Trump with a possible re-election of this piece of shit, there are reasons for allies to be resenting America, it's becoming unstable and less trustworthy.
    - realityking 2y ago
      This goes both ways. While the US is certainly open to having scientific payloads launched by non-US launch providers (e.g, JWT) it’s strictly not launching military payloads from non-US spaceport or from non-US vehicles. Given this stance, why should other NATO partners fold their own programs? The situation would entirely different if SpaceX was 20% German owned and the US would allow Ariane to compete for military payloads. As an aside, both ESA and the German Armed Forces habe used SpaceX in the past and ESA, EUMETSAT, and the UK Armed Forces have planned launches with SpaceX. There is far from a dogmatic perspective in Europe to only use Ariane for launches.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        The EU should absolutely have their own launch vehicle, that's undoubtedly a good thing. What I was getting at is, if Europeans resent the US so much then why the sincere hell should we (Americans) defend them? I would much rather see our servicemen protect actual friends rather than "allies" who sneer at us.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    In practice, those who seek launches on commercial markets don't mind all those America-related complications much. The US isn't really interested in the secrets of some Malaysian or Brazilian TV satellite.
    - TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
      They don't until they compete with some big US company which has direct contacts into government. Then it suddenly matter.
    - Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
      > The US isn't really interested in the secrets of some Malaysian or Brazilian TV satellite. Once again, compliance with US regulations, including export control, dual-use goods and tax regulations, can be weaponized, and has been in the past. Maybe the TV satellite manufacturer has also supplied a weather satellite to Brazil that contains technologies covered by export control, bingo. Your satellite and your assets in the USA are frozen until the manufacturer provide all the information needed to decide whether or not it was a spy satellite. The godamn Mars rover is covered by 14 export control technologies. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/1008-satellites-final-rules/file https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/1008-satell... It's a minefield and it was designed to be one. I know of several non-defense companies whose first question on the phone is "are you a US person as defined by FATCA and FISA ?".

Reason077 2y ago

SpaceX is a 100% American company. Moody individual notwithstanding, they are no less American than Boeing or ULA or anyone else.

The_Colonel 2y ago
I don't get what your point is. I didn't question if it's an American company or not. Edit: ok, got it now. This is about a European rocket serving European strategic needs, why would I be talking about USA?
Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
> SpaceX is a 100% American company. It's a huge fucking problem if you're not American. If you don't want to be subject to American law. If you don't want your technology inspected or tampered with by Americans. If you don't want the transaction to be in dollars (extra-territoriality of US law on all dollar transactions). If you don't want to deal with the problem of American citizens and companies subject to FISA, who could face severe repercussions in the US if they don't spy or facilitate spying on their non-American clients.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - piva00 2y ago
    Because the USA needs NATO and other shit to have soft power and keep its hegemony. Shit like what you said truly makes me wonder about the state of education in the USA when you don't understand a basic geopolitical principle your country has enacted for 80+ years, with massive benefits.
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      Unhappy marriages are unstable, even if they make economic sense. Drag too much resentment into a relationship and people may do the irrational thing. I was witness to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Economically, it didn't make sense to do that. But the Slovaks really resented Czech paternalism and wanted to go their own way.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Europe needs the US more than the US needs Europe as far as NATO is concerned, the defence spending disparities speak for themselves. I sincerely question the logic behind our servicemen putting their lives on the line for someone resenting America this bad.
      - piva00 2y ago
        > Europe needs the US more than the US needs Europe as far as NATO is concerned, the defence spending disparities speak for themselves. As far as the USA hegemony is concerned, NATO is an instrumental piece of soft and hard power. You are parroting Trump's arguments about defence spending as if the US spending is only concerning NATO, the US spend a lot in defence because it's been your bread and butter to maintain a global reach as a superpower, the moment you lose this you'll see America's influence diminish, if that's what you wish please go ahead and pull out but so far it's been very beneficial to you in the USA to be the de facto global enforcer during Pax Americana. > I sincerely question the logic behind our servicemen putting their lives on the line for someone resenting America this bad. Geopolitics are not based on feelings, it's based on advantages and trade-offs, your feelings don't matter for this. Coming from a person that once said in a comment "love is a mental illness" you seem to be quite the non-rational actor, with knee-jerk reactions when your feelings are hurt. Try to comprehend that the life as you know as an American is dependent on keeping your dollar as the most powerful currency, which demands being backed by the most powerful military, with the most trading routes possible, and with trade as stable as possible around the globe. NATO is just a piece of the puzzle, it's not about what the others allies feel about you. You are also forgetting 4 years of Trump with a possible re-election of this piece of shit, there are reasons for allies to be resenting America, it's becoming unstable and less trustworthy.
  - realityking 2y ago
    This goes both ways. While the US is certainly open to having scientific payloads launched by non-US launch providers (e.g, JWT) it’s strictly not launching military payloads from non-US spaceport or from non-US vehicles. Given this stance, why should other NATO partners fold their own programs? The situation would entirely different if SpaceX was 20% German owned and the US would allow Ariane to compete for military payloads. As an aside, both ESA and the German Armed Forces habe used SpaceX in the past and ESA, EUMETSAT, and the UK Armed Forces have planned launches with SpaceX. There is far from a dogmatic perspective in Europe to only use Ariane for launches.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      The EU should absolutely have their own launch vehicle, that's undoubtedly a good thing. What I was getting at is, if Europeans resent the US so much then why the sincere hell should we (Americans) defend them? I would much rather see our servicemen protect actual friends rather than "allies" who sneer at us.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  In practice, those who seek launches on commercial markets don't mind all those America-related complications much. The US isn't really interested in the secrets of some Malaysian or Brazilian TV satellite.
  - TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
    They don't until they compete with some big US company which has direct contacts into government. Then it suddenly matter.
  - Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
    > The US isn't really interested in the secrets of some Malaysian or Brazilian TV satellite. Once again, compliance with US regulations, including export control, dual-use goods and tax regulations, can be weaponized, and has been in the past. Maybe the TV satellite manufacturer has also supplied a weather satellite to Brazil that contains technologies covered by export control, bingo. Your satellite and your assets in the USA are frozen until the manufacturer provide all the information needed to decide whether or not it was a spy satellite. The godamn Mars rover is covered by 14 export control technologies. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/1008-satellites-final-rules/file https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/1008-satell... It's a minefield and it was designed to be one. I know of several non-defense companies whose first question on the phone is "are you a US person as defined by FATCA and FISA ?".