Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Reddit-runner t1_ixhxasc wrote

Yes, they COULD catch up, but instead they throw billions at non-reusable rockets, which can never compete with Falcon9, let alone Starship.

22

pietroq t1_ixhy8u6 wrote

IMHO we can't catch up until a seismic change in how innovation is handled. SpaceX is innovating faster. This means that the gap is increasing, not decreasing.

22

Reddit-runner t1_ixi3wi2 wrote

>IMHO we can't catch up until a seismic change in how innovation is handled

I think the "easiest" way would be milestone based fixed-cost contracts. But that would kill about every big aerospace-related company we have right now...

10

panick21 t1_ixj0rp5 wrote

Europe doesn't really have the space companies willing to take that risk in real numbers.

4

Reddit-runner t1_ixj149t wrote

>Europe doesn't really have the space companies willing to take that risk in real numbers.

Yes. Obviously.

Why else do you think I proposed milestone based fixed-cost contracts?

That way even relatively small companies can stem the finacial burden and quickly grow.

−1

panick21 t1_ixj2twk wrote

That requires banks to lend those companies money, or investors to pay that until they get some money from the contracts. Given that these companies are unproven this is unlikely to happen.

Maybe for some tiny projects, and that would make sense to build up the industry, but not for really serious stuff.

4

Reddit-runner t1_ixj61sp wrote

When the milestones are close enough together the risk for investors is relatively small.

So each milestone would be a "tiny project" within "really serious stuff".

2

ballthyrm t1_ixi2v3t wrote

They should change gear TBH. Maintain the rockets for national security reason but expand to other opening fields with this new cheap access to space.
Europe is very good at building satellites and space stations parts.

3

toodroot t1_ixirezn wrote

Satellites are a much bigger part of the space market than launchers, yet Europe seems to want to throw all of their subsidy money into commercially-disastrous launchers.

1

rouille t1_ixix0op wrote

That's entirely false. Europe has been and is still quite strong at commercial satellites. Maybe Europe needs to invest more in launchers because it is lagging behind on that front?

2

toodroot t1_ixiye22 wrote

I agree Europe has been and is still quite strong at commercial satellites.

1