Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

billfitz24 t1_ixd7w11 wrote

Bring it on. A space race ultimately makes everyone a winner, as long as some moron doesn’t put weapons up there in the process.

133

SuperSaiyanCockKnokr t1_ixdf3am wrote

Narrator: They all put weapons up there

157

ChoopAdoop t1_ixep3su wrote

".. but the weapons were already in space, and had been for quite some time."

8

seanflyon t1_ixg24nl wrote

Any spacecraft with propulsion is a weapon if you want it to be.

5

SakiraInSky t1_ixi084g wrote

As long as we don't allow incels or nuevonazies up there, it should be ok.

2

SlickMouthedFool t1_ixef3sy wrote

Yup, and I think Europe is seeing the danger of being economically dependent on the US, China, or Russia.

Good for then to be striving for independence as humanity forays into space.

Also, the more independence we have, the more stable what we build will be.

Centralization and monopolies are just inherently unstable.

I want to see European, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian space agencies collaborating and competing with NASA

31

toodroot t1_ixefqhp wrote

ESA/JAXA/ISRO/NASA do collaborate on a regular basis.

16

Arcosim t1_ixen9ce wrote

ESA also collaborates with China. From the Dragon programme, the Smile mission, components in the ChangE probes and a possible European visit to Tiangong in the works (regarding the station, Tiangong will host several European experiments).

It seems to me that of all space agencies ESA is taking the most diplomatic approach.

13

RanDumbGuy80 t1_ixfkkzt wrote

What......what do you think a space race is?

What supremacy would Europe seek in space, with respect to China & the U.S.?

Our nations don't "race" each other because they just want us all to have better lives.

I agree that a true space race will usher in new tech, but only after wildly increasing the EU's debt burden (increased taxation) & making the world a little more dangerous to live in.

5

billfitz24 t1_ixfnsqq wrote

How about establishing a colony on the moon?

3

RanDumbGuy80 t1_ixft2q2 wrote

To what end?

In a perfect world, a "moon ISS" would conduct science experiments and potentially mine He3 for use in fusion reactors. International cooperation would foster technological developments that will better life for all humankind.

But in reality, over the long term, the moneyed interests of our world will engage their respective governments to carve up the moons' resources via military control.

The same exact scenario is playing out in the Arctic ocean, right now.

China and the US want moon bases because, militarily speaking, virtually NO nation has the ability to project force on the moon. Moon based weapon systems would need virtually zero defensive protection, and would become the ultimate threat deterrent here on Earth.

Which would better enable the powerful interests within those countries to walk all over everyone else.

Our governments do not exist to serve you and I. They exist to further the agendas and wealth of the ruling class.

We do not go to the moon for the betterment of humanity.

We go to the moon for the betterment of the powerful here on Earth.

Some of us may be lifted up, economically speaking, as part of that process, but that's not the goal - that's a byproduct of the goal.

And let me be clear - I'm all for going to the moon and beyond. But sugarcoating the why of the thing, and the who will benefit the most - that doesn't help you make rational decisions in your own best interests.

9

radioli t1_ixgeros wrote

One major by-product would be a stretching industry chain that brings millions of high-paid professional jobs to a continent of billion. This is at least much better than the currently unproductive financial games.

The ultimate cure for modern feudalism is another industrial revolution with exponential growth.

3

RanDumbGuy80 t1_ixhdr13 wrote

I could agree with your statement, but I'd stress that the flip side of that coin is the debt burden created by the state.

There is no free lunch here.

You and I won't be alive when that debt must be paid back. Our children and grandchildren will have subsidized our high-paying jobs with their higher taxes.

We will have stolen that choice from them, made it for them, and they will have to live with the consequences of our actions.

Maybe we'll have made the right call. Maybe we'll have made their lives better.

Maybe we'll have just made their lives more complicated. More dangerous.

Either way, we'll have taken away their choice of how much of their paycheck is devoted to the state's debt.

That's how government "races" work. We spend money we don't have, and ask future generations to pay for it.

I'd ask you, how do you like the choices your grandparents made for you? How do you like how much of your paycheck feeds your country's debts, or your country's military industrial complex?

I think I'd rather have had a say in those decisions my grandparents and parents made on my behalf.

But you are right - it has the potential to create a huge value chain with high-paying jobs. If they remain in the West....

3

Faustinwest024 t1_ixfkwky wrote

They have had tungsten rod projectiles concepts for a while since the cold wars

2

KaminasSquirtleSquad t1_ixeo7dm wrote

Does it though? What about space debris? What about crowding the orbits? If the practice favour soeed over safety and looking forward to prevent future issues, it certainly would not benefit everyone.

1

DeadFyre t1_ixe4pf9 wrote

The winners are the aerospace contractors who collect all the money wasted on what is an expensive, polluting publicity stunt.

−15

lagavulinski t1_ixei56b wrote

You can say that about a lot of things, like, "The winners are the internet providers who collect all the money wasted on what is an expensive, polluting publicity stunt." but you're using the internet right now, so clearly the internet is not a publicity stunt. You already use GPS everywhere you go. Who the hell do you think set up those satellites in orbit? Clearly GPS is not a publicity stunt.

The irrational, illogical reasoning you've got is that there can only be winners or losers. That's not how the world works.

7

HolyGig t1_ixem6ev wrote

>The irrational, illogical reasoning you've got is that there can only be winners or losers.

That is actually what you are doing. China and the US are "winning" in space while Europe is losing, according to this statement which you are defending.

Europe already has Galileo. They already have independent access to space. Your examples makes no sense. This is a French politician whining that Europe should spend more on space because most of that money would go to French companies lol, not because they actually give a fuck about space.

−6

lagavulinski t1_ixevi61 wrote

What statement am I defending? I think you're lost. I'm responding to the person who says that aerospace contractors are the only winners here. That's just factually completely wrong.

With regards to the statement about the need to compete in space: Historically, in the context of developing the next generation/era of technologies (agriculture, horse riding, archery, sailing, the whole industrial revolution, technological revolution, information age, and now, the space age), countries that don't invest in gaining the knowledge and innovation in that technological age tend to get left behind. By pushing to be competitive with the leaders in the field, it forces advancements on a quicker timeline, and benefits everyone.

Edit: You're just going to downvote me without any counter-argument?

2

HolyGig t1_ixeyruo wrote

Somebody is certainly lost, yes.

We are not talking about individual countries, we are taking about Europe. The French want Europe to pay them to be the space power on behalf of the whole EU. If you don't see any issue with that then I don't know what to tell you.

>aerospace contractors are the only winners here.

A singular French aerospace contractor specifically, but yes that would be correct.

−1

DeadFyre t1_ixem18q wrote

No, you can't. Whiners on the internet pay for the privilege of going onto the internet with their own money. They pay their ISP, and the platforms that cater to their whining earn money from sponsors, all without anyone being coerced into paying someone else.

If you want to DONATE to a space exploration plan, or volunteer time, I salute you. Enjoy it! Live your best life. But I would just assume not fund a manned mission to the Moon or Mars when there is no practical benefit to any human, save the small slice of contractors and government employees who will be paid money out of my taxes to do the damned thing.

−16

bookers555 t1_ixeqeo6 wrote

I have no idea why people so ignorant on the technologies that space travel research has brought us even come to the space subreddit. Seems like this sub has way too many people for whom science is just knowing "fun facts".

14

GameTourist t1_ixeuieo wrote

exactly that, and it also completely ignores the economic stimulus it generates

7

DeadFyre t1_ixftkrq wrote

I'm perfectly aware of what technologies were pioneered in the Space Race. That was 60 years ago, and there's no reason to believe any of those technologies required a lunar mission to achieve. But that's not my principal objection. You want to fund scientific research, I am with you. You want to fund research into the physics necessary to unlock energy sources that can get us to an adjacent solar system, I am on board.

What we're doing is none of those things. We're re-using 1960's technology to go back to a place we've already been, and thence re-using 1960's technology to visit another planet in the solar system, and plant a flag and a plaque. That's IT. There's no payoff, no other objective, no practical payoff for the billions in taxpayer dollars and millions of tons of CO2 we'll be producing to carry of what can only be a P.R. stunt.

We don't have the technology to terraform Mars, or to even build a permanent settlement there. You want to colonize the solar system? Start by creating a self-sufficient settlement in Antarctica. Because that's about a hundred times more feasible than Mars. Prove you can do that, and then we'll talk.

0

lagavulinski t1_ixeu1eh wrote

>But I would just assume not fund a manned mission to the Moon or Mars when there is no practical benefit to any human, save the small slice of contractors and government employees who will be paid money out of my taxes to do the damned thing.

Amazing. You're in the Space subreddit, and you think that all of our exploration has no practical benefit? I'm sure Krog the caveman said the exact same thing 10,000 years ago when his buddy Glab started building the first raft/boat for fishing in the river and getting to the other side.

6

DeadFyre t1_ixfsxn2 wrote

At present level of technology, it's certain to have no practical benefit. There is no habitable planet within the reach of our current propulation technology, nor within the THEORETICAL limits of any technology we have postulated. It's just not feasible. So, all that is left is an expensive P.R. stunt. If you'd take a second to research the matter yourself and use a little objectivity, you'd agree with me.

0

lagavulinski t1_ixfy2wd wrote

Again, I'm amazed that you're on the space subreddit. Habitable planets? Is that the only purpose for innovating in any form of space age technology? It is most definitely an epic failure of imagination to assume (as you said, "all that is left") that space has no other practical purpose or benefit. I'm not even going to start listing them. If you don't have an idea what they could be, it won't even make sense to you.

I run a design and engineering firm, I am an investor, and sit on an incubator board to provide funding to new medtech startups. I've bet on many, many companies over the years, and only a few make it, but I've learned two things in the last 35 years. One: Failure and improvement can lead to riches, and Two: I've always failed to predict where tech goes, but it has always been better than what I anticipated.

3

ferrel_hadley t1_ixdf4hk wrote

Europe is still mentally competing with ULA, its industry (other than OneWeb) is still built around communications being single large geostationary satellites. It is paying for a decade of laboured, unimaginative responses to an industry that was moving from statist to more free market orientated.

There will be numerous component manufacturers who will have an active future in space. But until they realise it is not a new generation of rockets, but a paradigm shift in how space is being commercialised, they will be flat footed and atrophying.

Its not 2005 anymore.

30

CurtisLeow t1_ixefu7g wrote

It's debatable how "European" OneWeb is. A majority of the company is owned by Asian companies. The satellites are built in Florida. Then the satellites are launching on American and Indian rockets moving forward.

10

toodroot t1_ixegy0e wrote

Eutelsat is merging with OneWeb and will have 50% of the combined company.

Also the American and Indian rockets are only completing the first generation constellation. It is not expected that future generations will also launch on the same rockets.

Also that Florida factory is a 50/50 partnership between OneWeb and Airbus.

3

CurtisLeow t1_ixej3tn wrote

There’s definite European involvement. But it might be more accurate to call the company a multinational company, given that a majority of the workforce and a majority of the owners aren’t in Europe. Essentially the company is based in Europe for tax purposes. Maybe after the merger you can call it European.

4

ataraxo t1_ixenhmv wrote

The original company (WorldVu) was registered in Jersey (obviously for tax purposes) and for a long time the headquarters were in Arlington, VA.

But they moved to London (that was initially home to the backup operation center and some employees) after the bankruptcy when the UK government invested in the company.

I think a majority of the workforce is now in London. Whether UK is part of Europe or not is up for debate (not part of EU/ESA anymore, on an island...)

2

Resigningeye t1_ixgfnl4 wrote

UK is still part of ESA and reasonibly well integrated with the European space sector.

1

toodroot t1_ixeov5x wrote

After meeting a guy who wanted to argue to the death that Russian-built rockets launched from Russian-built launch pads in Russian territory were European, I decided to stop worrying about that label.

1

toodroot t1_ixdob8t wrote

SES, a Luxembourgish-French company, owns Greg Wyler's pre-OneWeb constellation, O3b, which is in medium earth orbit.

8

ataraxo t1_ixelyqr wrote

And SES is about to launch the new generation of satellites O3b mPOWER that are built by Boeing and launched by SpaceX. The first generation was built buy Thales Alenia Space and launched on Soyuz operated by Arianespace. So they are moving away from the European space industry.

1

Arcosim t1_ixensjg wrote

Europe needs to go fully ahead with the development of the SUSIE spacecraft, one of the best reusable space vehicle concepts currently out there.

3

toodroot t1_ixer797 wrote

Susie launches on top of A64, so it expends the whole rocket other than Susie.

How would you compare it to Dream Chaser? Which is no longer a concept, I suppose.

2

toodroot t1_ixdofva wrote

Apparently the US is just as threatening to Europe as China, in space.

Where do they find these "leaders"?

19

ferrel_hadley t1_ixdrwws wrote

In the same way Boeing is a competitor to Airbus so SpaceX is a competitor to Arianespace.

Just to emphasises ESA build part of the Orion space craft. This is not a geopolitical rivalry that is being talked about.

19

Ok-Worker5125 t1_ixdxi2e wrote

Its a weird way to put it when we are literally allies and have died by the millions and hundreds of thousands for each other.

6

umpalumpaklovn t1_ixf0by9 wrote

Such allies that subsidies for EVs extend only to NAFTA, after EU helped enforce semiconductor sanctions on China.

Or steel tariffs or many other things

3

LaunchTransient t1_ixe5if3 wrote

>we are literally allies

Until America decides we aren't, and then we're all in the shit.The US typically is friendly with us until we get in the way of their business interests or show any kind of deviation from US foreign policy.

And, no offence, you guys have a bit of a identity crisis every election cycle, declare us military freeloaders and randomly slap us with tariffs because supposedly we're a threat to American industry. And then the next election cycle you are all "I wanna be friends!" again.

Edit: sure, downvote if you want, but this is why we can't fully trust you guys.
We like you a hell of a lot more than the alternatives, but we're also aware that the US's interests don't always align with ours, and when they don't, we can't rely on you.

2

HolyGig t1_ixeo1rj wrote

>Until America decides we aren't, and then we're all in the shit.The US typically is friendly with us until we get in the way of their business interests or show any kind of deviation from US foreign policy.

Says the people signing tech and investment deals with China. Says the people who spent the last decade ignoring all warnings about Russia and now American taxpayers are footing the bill because Europe can't handle its own backyard. Again.

Man sometimes I wonder why we even fucking bother lol. Europe should be allowed to drown in its own hubris one of these days.

11

toodroot t1_ixepwx1 wrote

European taxpayers got stiffed, too: that Soyuz launch pad in South America is now idle, and Arianespace appears to have had to give OneWeb some of their money back when Russia stopped launching OneWeb.

−2

HolyGig t1_ixewp7a wrote

European taxpayers should have gotten stiffed. It was their votes and their leadership which led to that outcome. Co dependence was literally the strategy. Meanwhile Americans have already spent $40B with Biden looking for $40B more to fight a war we had no agency in creating.

Independence from the US is great and all but partnering with scum to achieve it is both hypocritical and counterproductive.

7

[deleted] t1_ixgeoyd wrote

[deleted]

5

HolyGig t1_ixidenu wrote

Who else's sake would it be for if not Europe's? The US itself does hardly any business with Russia and is not threatened by them in any way shape or form. Europe's security is of vital importance to US interests even if Europeans themselves don't seem to give a shit.

A little off topic but the overall theme is independence from the US

1

ferrel_hadley t1_ixeb8me wrote

>Until America decides we aren't, and then we're all in the shit.

The US typically is friendly with us until we get in the way of their business interests or show any kind of deviation from US foreign policy.

This is a real low level understanding of international relations. There have been big rifts with the US in parts of Europe over many issues. Yet the over all relationship is probably the closest set of relationships in world history. It has a long history, really starting with the Atlantic Charter in 1942 but both have strongly stood for a rules based world order built around free trade and democracy for all the post war years.

Europes economy is about the same size as the USs, its technical skills are on a par if Europe wants to have its own human rated space vehicle, then it can pay for it instead of the endless paper studies like Hermes and half hearted team ups with Russia like Orel.

> and randomly slap us with tariffs because supposedly we're a threat to American industry.

Battles over tarrifs and subsidies are as old as the relationship. Europe is no slouch in defending its own corner, but compare that to the way the non western world interacts.

You seem to have more emotions than reasons.

5

LaunchTransient t1_ixecnk3 wrote

>You seem to have more emotions than reasons.

No, I'm a pragmatist. You have Americans asking "I thought we were allies!?" - we are - until the US decides to break off that relationship. So Europe as a collective has to behave in such a way that our interests are insulated from the whims and vagaries of the US.

It's like living with a dog. The dog can be really friendly with you and help you with stuff and defend you - but it can still turn around and bite you.
Europe is also fully aware of the US's propensity for trying to dominate a field. The US doesn't mind junior partners, but friction arises when they face up against equals. As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, this is why the US slammed the door on Britain after they finished the Manhattan Project. America wanted to be the only one with the bomb.

So I wouldn't say it is at all "lead by emotion" to treat the US with an appropriate amount of caution.

0

ferrel_hadley t1_ixeduvt wrote

>It's like living with a dog. The dog can be really friendly with you and help you with stuff and defend you - but it can still turn around and bite you.

An emotive analogy that once again betrays no understand of trade relation of international politics.

> this is why the US slammed the door on Britain after they finished the Manhattan Project

Really its a far more complex picture than that. Churchill delayed making it a joint project until the US was so far ahead there was little to share. By then a few specialists joined the team for things like the shaped charges on the plutonium bomb but they had little impact.

You are likely thinking of the Peierls calculations the UK gave to the US in 1940 as part of the Tizard mission, but then the UK went its own way for several years not realising the sheer scale of what the US was doing.

You are all over the place. The US has been flying European astronauts since Ulf Merbold in 83. Europe does not have its own because it wont pay for it.

You seem to know that little about the topic you think you are an expert.

6

LaunchTransient t1_ixeio0x wrote

>An emotive analogy that once again betrays no understand of trade relation of international politics.

No it's an excellent analogy. The US and Europe relationship works because we agree more often than we don't, and we get more stuff done than we would if we had constant knives in each other backs. But that doesn't mean that if the US can get an advantage over Europe, it will refrain from doing so out of respect.

>You are likely thinking of the Peierls calculations the UK gave to the US in
1940 as part of the Tizard mission, but then the UK went its own way
for several years not realising the sheer scale of what the US was
doing.

I'm also talking about the joint funding, the procuration of Uranium, the design and construction of gaseous diffusion plants, etc etc. It wasn't an equal involvement, but the US violated the Quebec agreement because it suited it.
The point I am making here is that the US dealt in bad faith because it had the advantage.

>The US has been flying European astronauts since Ulf Merbold in 83. Europe does not have its own because it wont pay for it.

The US didn't fly them for free. And lest we forget the interlude between 2011 and 2020 where the US was reliant on Soyuz "Because the US wouldn't pay for it". Stones and glass houses.

>you think you are an expert.

Who claimed I was an expert? Do I need to be to have an opinion?

−1

ferrel_hadley t1_ixgr2lg wrote

>The US didn't fly them for free. And lest we forget the interlude between 2011 and 2020 where the US was reliant on Soyuz "Because the US wouldn't pay for it". Stones and glass houses.

Liar. The US paid for Shuttle, paid for CrewDev, paid for Ares I and Orion. The gap was down to changing priorities mandated by the politicians and speed that what they paid for was delivered by the commercial sector.

I am not sure what your point is related to space beyond a childish tantrum about "USA bad". But its reddit, the best way to win an argument is being uneducated and angry.

1

Mr-Tucker t1_ixf0b3u wrote

> its technical skills are on a par

Proof? Show me an SSTO. Or a reusable. Corner the market. 'Cos the US has Silicon Valley, and Europe doesn't.

−1

LaunchTransient t1_ixf4831 wrote

>Show me an SSTO.

You may as well ask "show me a Unicorn" because an functional SSTO doesn't exist.

>Or a reusable.

One South African guy sets up a company in the US to light the fire on the concept of reusables and you guys are immediately "Oh yeah, we came up with that". Its a very recent development in aerospace, and launch vehicles take years to design, and years more to get funding to progress beyond the drawing board.

>Cos the US has Silicon Valley, and Europe doesn't

Europe has ASML and the US electronics manufacturers would be dropped back to the 80s without them.

−1

Mr-Tucker t1_ixf7m5v wrote

> Its a very recent development in aerospace

DC-X? SASSTO? Beta? Phoenix? C'mon, the idea has been there for decades, and building something like the SASSTO is cheap compared to the Ariane 6.

​

>drawing board

All the drawing boards' showing is the Ariane 6 and Vega. Ariane NEXT is due for the 2030s, by which point that architecture will be obsolete due to Starship (we can hope it's ONLY Starship and not the New Shepard, New Armstrong and Neutron and as well).

−1

LaunchTransient t1_ixf9e56 wrote

>the idea has been there for decades

The idea of fully reusable LVs has been around for ages, but no one has managed to come up with a working concept until SpaceX. (And STS and Buran are only partially reusable, and neither delivered on their supposed savings).

I don't disagree that Europe has dragged its feet on the space front for a while, but commercial space has kind of emerged as a happy accident - the Boeing/Lockheed monster was as fat and bloated as European bureacracy until SpaceX suddenly started showing them up.

1

Mr-Tucker t1_ixglgzx wrote

How long has it been since the first F9 booster landed? 7 years? What has Ariane done in the meantime to not transform into Motorola?

−1

Ok-Worker5125 t1_ixefmyy wrote

I mean dude they are right about us having a identity crisis every 4 years. We literally almost erupted into civil war because of annoying orange. Like I love my country, willing to die kind of love, but you have to give credit where credit is due.

−5

HolyGig t1_ixeo9g8 wrote

Yes that is called democracy. Europe is pretty familiar with it last I checked

6

Ok-Worker5125 t1_ixeokih wrote

I'm not saying they aren't familiar with the idea of democracy lmao. Did someone have a bad day or something?

−4

Horsebreath10 t1_ixhfggw wrote

And Europe isn't divided? Hahahaha! It's just as bad as America or worse.

2

LaunchTransient t1_ixhgboy wrote

We have the excuse that its literally 30-odd countries in a loose partnership together, and for the most part the big players are consistent.

Look, you want to be pissed with the fact that Europe says it cannot unconditionally trust the US, fine. Tell me which nations does the US unconditionally trust?

1

Ok-Worker5125 t1_ixefcvt wrote

No dude you are completely right. It's the biggest problem we have. Our institutions change so frequently and the people in charge of us aren't always even mediocre

0

Cheap_Doctor_1994 t1_ixg76gx wrote

Wehave an identity crisis??? Y'all can't even get together with each other. Half of you aren't our allies, and one who is supposed to be, refuses to lift a finger to help Ukraine and is actively blocking Sweden and Finland from becoming our formal allies. The only thing we can count on from Europe, is that if we want anything, we have to do it alone, but they'll come running to us for help constantly. We can't rely on you.

−2

Reggie222 t1_ixepg6o wrote

This is a child's view of international relations.

−3

hhffvdfgnb t1_ixf80tq wrote

Roughly half of our voters are knuckle-dragging gullible MAGA morons. You are right to be concerned.

−4

MindControlledSquid t1_ixf8e80 wrote

> and have died by the millions and hundreds of thousands for each other.

Ummm? Am I missing something?

0

toodroot t1_ixeopgd wrote

> This is not a geopolitical rivalry that is being talked about.

How do you know what this French politician thinks?

1

Hydra57 t1_ixdpc32 wrote

France. They get off on viewing the US adversarially.

9

Owny33x t1_ixfz3ik wrote

It's not about being adversaries, he's just saying that he wants Europe to put more money into space R&D, not to lack too far behind the others. That's a good thing for everyone. And besides the european space agency is largely involved in the Artemis program and provided instruments for the JWST.

Just because the US is the big player doesn't mean its allies should stop all effort. Imagine if the US was like "ok the Japanese make reliable cars, we are allies, let's stop developing cars." That would be weird...

2

cloudjianrider t1_ixdx2kh wrote

Saved their asses twice and not for their good manners

−3

LaunchTransient t1_ixe4nv1 wrote

They helped significantly in your war of Independence

11

cloudjianrider t1_ixf4pxm wrote

Yes so why are we lumped in with China? James Webb for instance was a collective effort by space agencies all around the world and I’m pretty sure it was sent into space with a French rocket. We’re supposed to be a team!

4

LaunchTransient t1_ixf5msl wrote

>We’re supposed to be a team!

I've explained it elsewhere, but in short its because the US behaves very erratically towards Europe. Sometimes you are friendly, other times you are threatening to pull out of Nato. Your companies are often very predatory, and the US has frequently put itself in positions where it tries to take advantage of Europe or dictate Europe's foreign policies.

While Europe would like it always to be a friendly relationship, we know that the US's ambitiousness means we can easily fall prey if we aren't wary.

And FWIW, the US isn't viewed in the same light as China, we just don't want to be dominated or be reliant on you.

2

toodroot t1_ixf81wx wrote

We're discussing Bruno Le Maire lumping the US in with China, it's right there in the headline and the article.

1

toodroot t1_ixf7tlf wrote

Europe also provided one of the JWST's instruments.

2

Shorzey t1_ixdyfm5 wrote

>Saved their asses twice and not for their good manners

Way more than twice

The Libyan war and US involvement in it was a direct result of France wanting Libyan oil and its long history of bloodshed with Gaddafi throughout Africa

Vietnam was a collapsing French colony that they gave up on after a decade of assistance was provided to them by European allies and America. America just went WAY too far with it and used it for its own political dealings because of trash presidents

4

Arcosim t1_ixeoaca wrote

When it comes to geopolitics, it is. If Europe truly wants to be a major player in the space-based industries of the 21st century (and also militarily), it needs to secure a fully domestic, modern and affordable launch and spacecraft system of its own. Depending on other powers will only put Europe in a weak position (what's preventing some future Trump-like US president from deciding to block Europe's access to space if Europe can't develop a domestic launch system).

2

zek_997 t1_ixed7nv wrote

I'm sorry, but we simply do not want to rely on the US until the end of times. As a very pro-europe person I would love to see a strong united Europe capable of standing on its feet and being able to compete with other geopolitical superpowers. This js specially relevant in today's world with the rise of authoritarian regimes such as China.

This does not mean that "US bad" or that we see the US as an opponent. Rather we want to remain allies but an alliance between equals, not a one-sided alliance where one of the parties has all the power. Plus, we want to be able to truly contribute to mankind's exploration of space and achieve amazing things, like the US and Russia have been doing for decades now.

−1

toodroot t1_ixedqs5 wrote

I'm pretty sure that the guy in this article doesn't agree with you.

7

3255803 t1_ixey8dh wrote

Europe is far behind in space technology. It's relying mostly on American equipment. They are not willing to spend huge amounts of money in research. Even when they spend funds it's usually a waste of time and money due to corruption and bad management.

14

CallMeKik t1_ixfel9m wrote

I’d like to know more, why do you say it’s been a waste of time?

6

3255803 t1_ixgk3cd wrote

Because many projects are done just to spend free european funds, no one really cares about the result.

2

bremidon t1_ixgwfc3 wrote

I've done government funded projects here in Europe. You are dead on right. They make a lot of noise about it being spent right, but nobody checks, and as long as the right numbers are on the right lines, nobody is going to check.

We actually did our best to do everything right, but it was scary how nobody cared what we were doing.

3

3255803 t1_ixhz6bz wrote

I know the feeling, I'm also in Europe working in the satellite communication industry, that's how I know we're far behind USA or China. As you say, nobody cares, even myself lately.. got tired of being underpaid in a place where nobody really cares about anything, all they do is talking, meetings and promises but nothing good ever happens. Wish I can change my career while I still can, before I get too old..

3

AmeriToast t1_ixf352d wrote

I am all for more cooperation in space with Europe. I just don't see it anytime.soon. they are so far behind as it stands, it doesn't look like they will catch up.

11

toodroot t1_ixf92r5 wrote

Europe built Orion's service module, which is flying right now. There are also a bunch of collaborations underway for earth science.

5

Decronym t1_ixee54s wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ESA|European Space Agency| |ETOV|Earth To Orbit Vehicle (common parlance: "rocket")| |HALO|Habitation and Logistics Outpost| |ICBM|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile| |ISRO|Indian Space Research Organisation| |Isp|Specific impulse (as explained by Scott Manley on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |JAXA|Japan Aerospace eXploration Agency| |JWST|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| |LV|Launch Vehicle (common parlance: "rocket"), see ETOV| |SES|Formerly Société Européenne des Satellites, a major SpaceX customer| | |Second-stage Engine Start| |SSTO|Single Stage to Orbit| | |Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit| |STS|Space Transportation System (Shuttle)| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|

^(12 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 6 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8330 for this sub, first seen 22nd Nov 2022, 20:29]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

4

Simoxs7 t1_ixeykgh wrote

Well I think its too late but altleast they recognized it now…

3

Mr_Lumbergh t1_ixfqm5o wrote

Or we could work together. They don’t need to be “against” the US nor should the US be against them.

3

nova9001 t1_ixft2t3 wrote

I hope Europe is going to take space race seriously instead of just relying on US like they have always been.

Unfortunately money is always the problem and its depends if Europe can get the money together.

3

Soupjoe5 OP t1_ixd0s85 wrote

Article:

The French government wants Europe to raise its game in space.

PARIS — Europe has to boost its strategic autonomy in space to compete with the likes of China and the United States, French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire said Tuesday.

Speaking as ministers from the European Space Agency's 22 member countries convene in Paris to firm up a record €18.5 billion budget running for between three and five years depending on the program, Le Maire said that capitals needed to pay for "autonomous access to space."

"There must be a single Europe, a single European space policy and unwavering unity to face Chinese ambitions and American ambitions," said Le Maire.

While Europe has its own satellite systems to monitor climate change and provide geolocation services, it has no capability to send its astronauts to space or offer commercial satellite communication services, for example.

The summit, being held next to the Eiffel Tower at the Grand Palais Éphémère, comes as NASA's Artemis test flight rounds the moon as part of a trial run for sending humans back to the lunar surface this decade, and with the future of the International Space Station in doubt.

Talks at the two-day conference will cover funding for everything from research projects to weather satellites, such as Aeolus which can monitor global wind flow, along with a Mars mission and extra cash for a secure communications satellite system proposed by the European Commission and targeted at competing with Elon Musk's Starlink.

But the haggling comes amid soaring inflation and a cost-of-living crisis which puts public space spending in focus.

"There is a price to pay for independence and we stand ready to pay the price," said Le Maire of his government's intention to meet new funding requests from ESA, a non-EU organization but with overlapping membership.

France is typically Europe's aerospace leader but during the last ESA summit in 2019 Germany overtook it as the largest single contributor to the budget.

Before the summit got underway on Tuesday, Le Maire, and his German and Italian counterparts Robert Habeck and Adolfo Urso, agreed to help finance the delayed European rocket system Ariane 6, along with Vega C, which are launched from French Guiana.

The deal heads off differences between the three countries over how best to develop rocket tech, with fierce competition for commercial and governmental satellite launches and an end to cooperation with Russia's Roscosmos because of the war in Ukraine.

"This is a very good starting point for Europe ... and for the space ambitions that we all want to share and move on over the next years," said Le Maire.

1

i81u812 t1_ixdrx2u wrote

There must be a single Europe, a single European space policy and
unwavering unity to face Chinese ambitions and American ambitions," said
Le Maire.

"There is a price to pay for independence"

​

This guy is a bit much.

1

mahaanus t1_ixfckyg wrote

>"There must be a single Europe, a single European space policy and unwavering unity to face Chinese ambitions and American ambitions," said Le Maire.

Someone needs to sit down the French and explain to them that the US is an ally.

1

TexasTokyo t1_ixgedp4 wrote

With France running the whole show, of course.

1

samk002001 t1_ixhnatu wrote

Did he not remember when the US banned China from ISS, and China built one for themselves. The US can’t even make a pair shoes without importing from mainland! What leverage does US have left to be so bold?! 😂

1

Tjam3s t1_ixhrrzt wrote

They're already doing it. Artemis 2 is meant to establish HALO, a base capable of house 4 astronauts for 30 days on the moon. It's not a lot, but it's a start

1

chem-chef t1_ixoekdn wrote

They indeed should, but before that, solve thw energy issues first!

1

Hoosier_Jedi t1_ixg91zn wrote

Competing against the US in space really needs to be way further down on the list. Standing up to China is a real priority.

−3