Been a long time coming, but hopefully if it happens an implosion of the Arianespace semi-monopoly will open the way for the EU to see its own domestic commercial providers grow into genuinely globally competitive options. The EU should be focused on generating demand like Commercial Cargo/Commercial Crew did and then allowing fixed price providers to meet it however they can, vs trying to micromanage means and distribution. I think a fundamental mistake of a lot of the old guard, which is really something repeated over and over throughout modern history, is somehow failing to recognize a potentially positive sum game when they see it. There was so much focus on "protecting jobs", as-in existing jobs doing the same existing thing, as if it was a zero-sum game where any money spent more efficiently getting to space would then just mean that the freed up money evaporated. But massively cheaper, higher cadence access to space opens up entirely new and improved economic opportunities and in turn a lot of new potential jobs. The money saved on getting a kilogram to orbit can turn right around into more kilograms that generate a more lasting return then the money previously burned up in the atmosphere. That's "economic growth" in the most fundamental positive way, delivering humans more value for the same amount of energy/materials.
Ariane has turned into a lumbering zombie that is sucking up financial and political oxygen that much more promising players desperately need. But the EU (and the world) is plenty big enough to support their own SpaceX/Rocket Labs/Relativity/etc and next generation space stations/industry. I'm an American and think our own space efforts are one area of absolutely justifiable pride, but it'd be healthy long term if other democracies and groups of democracies offered some redundancy.
> The EU should be focused on generating demand like Commercial Cargo/Commercial Crew did
The EU has long given up on Cargo supply to ISS and that budget is bound in the Orion Service module.
And Crew wont happen in Europe anytime soon.
They simply don't have those things, and partly this is because of their own bad planning and investment.
> then allowing fixed price providers to meet it however they can
The problem is there are no such provider and there wont be anytime soon. Even if they were, they would be small providers who can't launch 90% of the value that Europe might want to launch to orbit in the next decade.
So sure this is a nice sentiment but its not realistic anytime soon.
> Ariane has turned into a lumbering zombie
It always was. Its just that the American and Russians took themselves out of the game by pure stupidity. So Europe was really the only option left.
I don't think we'd even want to launch crew. ISS is slated to be decommissioned soon so what's the point in spending billions on it? There might not even be another one, the Russians certainly won't be involved. And I don't think ESA will go it alone
For cargo Ariane is in the shitpit yes but they're in good company with ULA etc. SpaceX caught the whole industry unprepared.
Actually there was a big movement for crew launches in the 90s. This died becuase it was gone cost way to much.
In the last 2 years there has been a very big marketing campaign by various austronauts and people from ESA to push the idea of a commercial crew from Europe. You can find various article like 'Getting serious about crewed flight' and stuff like that. So there is defiantly a big movement within ESA and European space that want it. However the political will behind any of that has not been even remotely shown.
> ISS is slated to be decommissioned soon so what's the point in spending billions on it?
ISS wasn't slated for decommission when the Europeans decided to stop doing cargo.
And ISS will not be the last space station in human history.
Also I didn't suggest they should invest in crew.
> For cargo Ariane is in the shitpit yes but they're in good company with ULA etc. SpaceX caught the whole industry unprepared.
ESA used to have the ATV but it got to expensive for them. ULA never cared that much. As soon as cargo went commercial other defense contractors snatched it up and used their own rocket, see Cygnus and Antares . ULA is a pure launch company they wouldn't have anything to do with ISS cargo unless somebody booked the flight.
> I'm an American and think our own space efforts are one area of absolutely justifiable pride
As a public agency, I do see the work of NASA as being "ours", but I don't feel the same about SpaceX. It's a private company and could probably be lured away with the right combination of more money, fewer regulations, and better meme potential.
SpaceX is "ours" in the exact same way as Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc.
It's a company run by Americans in America. Even more so than the other companies I listed because all of the manufacturing is also done here. Pretty much everything the company does is done in this country by citizens due to ITAR.
You are totally wrong. SpaceX is deeply entangled with NASA and DoD. And their primary IP is protected under US regulation, nobody can 'take it away'. And SpaceX launch site and team are essentially purely American. Its crazy to suggested that they could be 'lured away', its a total misunderstanding of the space industry.
Yea, it's like they don't know what ITAR is. If you tried to walk away with the technology men with guns would take it back, you would come back too, dead if you decided to put up resistance.
I feel both sides are exaggerating here - "lured with right combination" and "men with guns". Both of these aren't really working like this in our world.
Ehh ITAR is very serious, national security level stuff. Sure it's not like agents will have you assassinated, but you will definitely be taken by men with guns (the police/FBI) if you try and export that tech.
There was some discussion in some rocketry forum of possible collisions between tech export and the First Amendment. I think this is still a somewhat open question.
You may end up in case of "You can avoid the rap, but you cannot avoid the ride". And the avoidance would cost a lot.
Of course you might get a national security letter silencing you from even talking to the judges, getting put in a nice trap if you try to garner support to defend yourself on what you did you could run into further issues.
SpaceX would only be willing to make that jump if it were fine never getting a contract from the US government again, which means the US economy and/or state imploded.
The dead part is the only exaggeration. That would be a last resort.
If you tried to pack up SpaceX (so to speak) and its technology and move it overseas, the FBI would arrest you and promptly stop you. If you put a fight, they would respond accordingly. That's assuming you were in a position to order that attempted move (you'd have to be Musk, Shotwell probably couldn't get very far given Musk's ownership position).
SpaceX is a very significant national security matter for the US Government and military industrial complex. Of course they would kill you if you legitimately threatened that critical cornerstone; first they'd try to reason with you, maybe subtly threaten you not to try it, then they'd attempt to arrest you (and then in private try to make their point more loudly); if there were no other options, they would kill you to stop the transfer.
This isn't Medtronic or Anheuser-Busch we're talking about. The machine that invades countries, topples governments, takes on other superpowers (Nazi Germany, Empire of Japan, Soviet Union, Russia, China), fights massive wars as it deems necessary (WW2, Korea, Vietnam), and kills people professionally - it needs SpaceX at this point in time (and the future edge that SpaceX launch capabilities may provide).
All of that depends on having a president and congress that would refuse to approve the transfer. Right now, it’s not going anywhere but who knows what the next administration or two might bring to the table.
It also helps when you own a major social media platform when you are trying to get something done.
The only region that could reasonably host SpaceX would be the middle east. You'd get the Saudis or the Qataris using their money cannon to get what they want, and setting up launch operations in the desert, staffed by untaxed and overpaid expats from all over the globe.
And completely aside from that, I really really doubt you'll find people willing to stomach the Musk management/work style outside the US. Just look at the Tesla strikes in Europe.
Americans for of uniquely have the skills and organizational ability, combined with a brutalized work ethic that allows for things like SpaceX to succeed in such a short time.
Ariane has turned into a lumbering zombie that is sucking up financial and political oxygen that much more promising players desperately need. But the EU (and the world) is plenty big enough to support their own SpaceX/Rocket Labs/Relativity/etc and next generation space stations/industry. I'm an American and think our own space efforts are one area of absolutely justifiable pride, but it'd be healthy long term if other democracies and groups of democracies offered some redundancy.