3 ms·

I disagree. It is good to have more than one design. It is not exact duplication so alternative approaches are taken. We have more than one design if one proves

I disagree. It is good to have more than one design. It is not exact duplication so alternative approaches are taken. We have more than one design if one proves flawed. We avoid creating a monopoly. We could maximise economies of scale by having one car manufacturer that made a small number of models. No one would suggest that is a good idea. Even the Soviet Union did not go to the extreme of having only one design for every possible product.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> It is good to have more than one design SpaceX has multiple designs generations ahead of anything in Europe in this category. (China is catching up, but it too is retracing Hawthorne's path.) Themis is cool. But it's duplicating what SpaceX did fifteen to twenty years ago and what China has been working on for ten. Methalox, open cycle gas generator, steel tanks...there aren't any daring design decisions here. And there shouldn't be. This is a solved problem. (Again, that doesn't mean Europe shouldn't be solving it independently. But it's not innovating anything here.) Consider an alternate universe where NATO isn't in shambles. Europe can use SpaceX for LEO. And in the meantime, it can focus on other designs, other categories. Maybe a different fuel. Maybe a novel engine. Maybe something entirely extra-atmospheric. Maybe it's a breakthrough in satellite design, or habitat science. Instead of replicating Falcon 1/9 and Raptor, there could be a genuinely new design. We don't get that, because Europe has to secure its launch sovereignty. That is the cost. > We could maximise economies of scale by having one car manufacturer that made a small number of models Mature market. Multiple optima. See my comment on Airbus and Boeing. When you're pathfinding, you want multiple bets. When you're pursuing, R&D benefits from scale.
- kybernetikos 1y ago
  I think that often theres a difference in ability to put capital to work between the US and europe. Lots of innovative work has happened in Europe, but it often gets bought by US or Asian capital, or gets outcompeted by vastly more resourced US competitors, or just withers on the vine from a lack of investment. Sabre seemed a really interesting space approach that failed from lack of funding.
  - _w1tm 1y ago
    > I think that often theres a difference in ability to put capital to work between the US and europe. It’s because the EU is 27 different countries with different regulations while the US is 1. Some work is being done to fix this but remains to be seen if we can reach a point where we have unified capital markets instead of national ones.
    - graemep 1y ago
      That does not prevent something like this project happening which includes 23 different European countries, and not even through the EU. The point of the EU is to provide unified markets, and capital flows pretty freely between major European economies (including those outside the EU) so I do not think that is it.
      - nradov 1y ago
        Meanwhile three of those EU member states can't be manage to cooperate on their 6th-generation fighter programs. https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-france-europe-fighter-jet-defense-aviation/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-france-europe-fighte...
        graemep 1y ago
        That is something that remains outside the EU's remit because it is military and decision lie in the hands of member states. I was rebutting a claim that differences in regulations preventing capital flows. That is not true in general in our globalised world (capital clearly flows freely between many countries) and certainly not true in the EU. It is possible that the EU loses somewhat from not having the central budget that the US federal government has which which to back big projects, but, in most cases, the bigger EU states are big enough to back most things (as is the UK) but will not do so. The lack of fiscal centralisation in the EU also affects its financial stability but I do not think that is directly related to this problem. As for sixth general fighters, a number of smaller economies than Germany alone have or plan their own sixth generation fighters, or have done so (some programmes have merged). Again, a difference in attitude and priorities.
amelius 1y ago
You're talking about a different kind of redundancy. This was about parties who don't 100% trust each other. > We have more than one design if one proves flawed. One of the parties ends up with the right the design, the other will have a flawed design.
- prasadjoglekar 1y ago
  Trust but verify; that's a Russian proverb I'm told. Verification and ability to verify comes with having some leverage. This brings some leverage to the table.
wuschel 1y ago
Absolutely. Healthy Competition helps to spur innovation and value value provided to the customer.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> It is good to have more than one design SpaceX has multiple designs generations ahead of anything in Europe in this category. (China is catching up, but it too is retracing Hawthorne's path.) Themis is cool. But it's duplicating what SpaceX did fifteen to twenty years ago and what China has been working on for ten. Methalox, open cycle gas generator, steel tanks...there aren't any daring design decisions here. And there shouldn't be. This is a solved problem. (Again, that doesn't mean Europe shouldn't be solving it independently. But it's not innovating anything here.) Consider an alternate universe where NATO isn't in shambles. Europe can use SpaceX for LEO. And in the meantime, it can focus on other designs, other categories. Maybe a different fuel. Maybe a novel engine. Maybe something entirely extra-atmospheric. Maybe it's a breakthrough in satellite design, or habitat science. Instead of replicating Falcon 1/9 and Raptor, there could be a genuinely new design. We don't get that, because Europe has to secure its launch sovereignty. That is the cost. > We could maximise economies of scale by having one car manufacturer that made a small number of models Mature market. Multiple optima. See my comment on Airbus and Boeing. When you're pathfinding, you want multiple bets. When you're pursuing, R&D benefits from scale.

kybernetikos 1y ago
I think that often theres a difference in ability to put capital to work between the US and europe. Lots of innovative work has happened in Europe, but it often gets bought by US or Asian capital, or gets outcompeted by vastly more resourced US competitors, or just withers on the vine from a lack of investment. Sabre seemed a really interesting space approach that failed from lack of funding.
- _w1tm 1y ago
  > I think that often theres a difference in ability to put capital to work between the US and europe. It’s because the EU is 27 different countries with different regulations while the US is 1. Some work is being done to fix this but remains to be seen if we can reach a point where we have unified capital markets instead of national ones.
  - graemep 1y ago
    That does not prevent something like this project happening which includes 23 different European countries, and not even through the EU. The point of the EU is to provide unified markets, and capital flows pretty freely between major European economies (including those outside the EU) so I do not think that is it.
    - nradov 1y ago
      Meanwhile three of those EU member states can't be manage to cooperate on their 6th-generation fighter programs. https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-france-europe-fighter-jet-defense-aviation/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-france-europe-fighte...
      - graemep 1y ago
        That is something that remains outside the EU's remit because it is military and decision lie in the hands of member states. I was rebutting a claim that differences in regulations preventing capital flows. That is not true in general in our globalised world (capital clearly flows freely between many countries) and certainly not true in the EU. It is possible that the EU loses somewhat from not having the central budget that the US federal government has which which to back big projects, but, in most cases, the bigger EU states are big enough to back most things (as is the UK) but will not do so. The lack of fiscal centralisation in the EU also affects its financial stability but I do not think that is directly related to this problem. As for sixth general fighters, a number of smaller economies than Germany alone have or plan their own sixth generation fighters, or have done so (some programmes have merged). Again, a difference in attitude and priorities.

amelius 1y ago

You're talking about a different kind of redundancy. This was about parties who don't 100% trust each other. > We have more than one design if one proves flawed. One of the parties ends up with the right the design, the other will have a flawed design.

prasadjoglekar 1y ago
Trust but verify; that's a Russian proverb I'm told. Verification and ability to verify comes with having some leverage. This brings some leverage to the table.

wuschel 1y ago

Absolutely. Healthy Competition helps to spur innovation and value value provided to the customer.