Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight(isaraerospace.com) |
Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight(isaraerospace.com) |
Interestingly there still seems to be a difference in approach between "few launch, expected to go well" in europe and "many launch as trial and error" in the US, with other countries falling somewhere in between those two limits, it's often seen as a threat here of "if we don't do more more often we won't make any progress" but ignoring the economical side (and I think it's fair, given than even with massive subsidies SpaceX is not financially viable until it feed itself through Starlink) it's been a remarkable series of years for new European vehicules launch success.
Also one thing I have to point:
> Europe now has sovereign access to space.
I understand what is meant here, and of course said company need to push that forward, but French Guyana is full french territory, it's not even a foreign territory. It's part of the EU (known as the outermost region of the European Union), EU law applies, it's citizens are EU citizens, EU citizens from other countries can freely move and work and live there ... It's technicaly more EU than Norway.
But less Europe than Norway, sure. Still, on the context of "sovereign access", I would argue both side of that coin have their attributes, and for long term sovereignty I would prefer EU territory instead of "inside-europe-Belarus" for exemple.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Technology_Control_Reg...
I would put it as a much greater likelihood that the US would decide to mess with export-control permits for various subsystems than a theoretical scenario where they begin intercepting western European flagged cargo ships on the way from Europe to French Guiana.
Deep down, we're an annoyingly arrogant little country with delusions of grandeur salivating at the thought to prove to our EU neighbors how strong we meant it when we said we would accept to oppose the US in case of military attack and I think they knew we may actually mean it and not back down when it start (see also: Denmark leak about how France was essentially willing to provide whatever to help defend Greenland).
I'm not saying this in a "we're awesome" way, more like a hard case of the TACO, bullies avoid the ones who punch back. Nothing would be happening in Iran right now if they had not believed in advance Iran would lie down like Venezuela did after losing its leader, though most would say confusing the two situation makes no sense.
Ultimately this is so much lost time and resources for nothing of value, it's so utterly disappointing...
Is Inside-Europe-Norway not better then Belarus? I would consider us (norway) a stable and good partner to the EU.
Give us 25 years and we will join EU if it still exists:)
Misinformation
If that's correct, then yeah, I struggle to find much to be upset about with this list. $106M federal loan against what they've built feels, I don't know, about correct for a telecom. Light even. The tax abatement stuff sounds gross but not surprising.
(There are other forms of subsidy than this list would show, though! So, yeah, always going to be an argument.)
Unless Great Orange or his successor/s would start having ideas
(Don't actually answer that I don't want to start a big off topic discussion, just saying if we want to be logically consistent...)
> I understand what is meant here, and of course said company need to push that forward, but French Guyana is full french territory, it's not even a foreign territory.
Does French Guyana have a usable space rocket? Cause if not then you are completely missing the point of what "space access" means here. It's not about a spot from where to start the rockets. It's about being able to build them. No matter French Guyana or Norway or central Berlin.
And that's obvious to everybody including yourself, so why you opened the French-nationalist angle here with lots of angry messages with all sorts of politics is unclear to everybody watching.
Yes: the Ariane rockets. "French Guyana" is part of France, which is part of the EU.
> Incidentally, the early investment for Isar came from Bülent Altan, the Turkish ex-SpaceX guy who was in charge of the guidance system for Falcon-1, Falcon-9 and Dragon. [0]
It turns out that Altan was an angel investor in Isar, and then co-founded VC firm Alpine Space Ventures [1] and continued to invest in Isar, among other space ventures in Europe.
> Europe now has sovereign access to space. [...] Customers around the world now have a sovereign launch option at their disposal.
They apparently try very hard to ignore Arianespace.
"First commercial space company to successfully deliver satellites into orbit, from the European continent" is probably the most correct title while remaining fairly interesting.
Congratulation to the team.
These milestones are necessary to advancement of human race as we need new planets to occupy.
But, we needed clear path going forward. I am both pro to advancement but with caution kind of guy.
We absolutely do not
However, these are just my thoughts you can have different.
We can't even positively terraform Earth to stop the climate crisis here. Why does anyone think we need to be terraforming elsewhere? Just terraform here!!! Make the planet we are on more hospitable to human life!
It's not like we're running out of space, and the global population is about to start dropping.
Mars on the other hand, what's the worst that could happen? Someone writing the Coca Cola logotype across the red?
We are doing it right now. It just for some reason some people call it "climate crisis".
From a scientific perspective in case of the Earth "more hospitable to human life" = "warmer".
Edit: it should be Isar not ISAR
This is a huge achievement and every person involved should be very proud.
Please oblige me by not writing anything political in reply, let's just celebrate!
a permanent self sufficient colony on antarctica is a bit more like it, but still pretty ambitious
Separately, I've been wondering how uneven human progress is. I think we have come a long way in electronics (relays to vacuum tubes to transistor to … to an M5 chip) but in some other domains, like moving objects through space, we are basically mostly reliant on thrust generated by burning fuel (EV's are a genuine advance, but mostly due to battery tech).
I think the more options there are for access to space, the more likely we are as a species to launch useful payloads that will help us understand how we fit in and how we can better manage our own situation. It is disconcerting to see the night sky fill with constellations of satellites but there is hope that they will be used for productive purposes.
So we’re just bidding our time, waiting until the midterm elections to weaken the right, and then afterwards, we’ll just be counting the days until he’s out of office. Hopefully he’ll be replaced with someone who is at least halfway competent - it amazes us how almost everything the touches gets completely screwed up
It's not really West Germany that caused the weak economy of the East Germany. The handling of reunification did suck, but you can't just will a strong industrial base into existence neither.
Compete, sure. But disregard SpaceX's valuation, that's driven by Musk's cult of personality rather than business fundamentals.
I apologise for the tactlessness, but it just made me think of Tom Lehrer's lyrics about Wernher von Braun:
> "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department" says Wernher von Braun.
If that is true, then only because the company doesn't immediately have to fight Arianespace. It is France that has the strongest existing know-how and longest history in rockets, going further back than Arianespace. The gap between WW2 rocket development and now is so long that German history with rockets may as well not exist.
Meanwhile Germany had to deal with partition, reunification and now the biggest economy in Europe and also build an economic empire without firing a single shot. That’s why I said Germans would be the only nation that can actually execute the know how into being a frontier. Maybe France can actually learn a thing or two from the Germans on how to build an empire even after losing two world wars
And yet, all currently existing rocket designs capable of reaching (and staying in) orbit can trace their design back to the Aggregat 4 and the engineers (and slave labour) that built it.
well they exist in both US and Soviet at the time
Isar is a good fallback for sovereignty and national defense! But, if Germany wants to compete with SpaceX in earnest, they will need to re-orient a large portion of their national economy around it. They are raising something like $100 billion for their launch complex in LA currently.
In its original form, the Monroe doctrine declared attempts by European monarchies to reconquer the newly independent Spanish states to be an unfriendly act toward the US. It did not declare US domination over them, as it's commonly misunderstood nowadays.
https://www.exim.gov/news/ex-im-bank-approves-1054-million-l...
Unless the solar was also supplied by SpaceX (possible;unlikely) that amount doesn't reflect what SpaceX got
i.e SpaceX gets it's cash immediately and the debtor is the Israeli launch company.
(Does that constitute a subsidy to SpaceX or the foreign company?)
The launch failed and SpaceX was on the hook for the money or a replacement launch as covered here
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/10/26/israels-spacecom-books...
There was also financing for other launches like this https://spacenews.com/ex-im-bank-finances-spacex-launch-deal... and I wonder why it wasn't included. I also wonder if Spacecom, the Israeli provider didn't get other EXIM loans for its launches.
SpaceX has been trying to get actual federal subsidies for ages but has been failing. (RDOF, BEAD)
As for the tax abatement, it's the exact tax abatement other companies have got in the past, not something custom created for SpaceX.
SpaceX spent ~$7 million a day before swallowing xAi (monumental error IMO) I don't know what amount is supposed to be massive compared to its size.
Who then gets to decide? You?
It's a new world. He who has the biggest guns makes the rules.
I don't like it, but in the Caribbean [probably throughout the world] these days, you really are dealing with the raw realities of power in a way you didn't have to previously.
I doubt the EU has the stomach to confront Trump. And French Guiana is not Africa, there will be no China coming to save them.
2. Isar Aerospace is the first fully private European company (a startup) to do this. Arianespace and the Ariane rockets have heavy state/ESA involvement.
3. It is the first launch to orbit from geographically European soil. French Guiana is politically part of France, but geographically obviously part of South America.
4. Why would everyone have to launch from the same place, in your esteemed opinion? Why are some US payloads launched from California, some from Florida, and soon some from Texas and Louisiana?
5. Are all launch locations equally suitable for all orbits? Are all orbits equally suitable for all missions?
6. Norway is a lot closer to the rest of Europe than French Guiana is.
7. Why was SpaceX newsworthy, particularly on a startup-centric site, when NASA already exists?
To go even further: ~60% of Ariane Group revenue is from the french state, for their nuclear launch system. The whole ariane space rocket is their side show, a way to reduce cost for France by getting the market to pay some of the R&D.
Good point re/ depending on auto makers, though. That also applies to all of Germany…
It's priorities rather than absolute costs that matter here. Germany could absolutely do all of SpaceX as almost a rounding error, but probably has better things for that money to get spent on.
It makes far more sense to colonize the Arctic, the Gobi desert, the peaks of the tallest mountains, and similar places here on Earth before even contemplating the colonization of Mars. Let's first have a 10M-strong self-sustaining megacity at the South Pole before contemplating absurd projects like a Mars colony.
I have different take on this. We already shown significant decline in Fertility rate of whole world. Its right now 2.2 against nearly 5 in 1950s till 1970. 2.1 is replacement only. So, we are sorted there from occupying Glaciers,Mountains, etc.
Moreover, Average age of many countries are increasing. That might need support in near future. Migration is filling up that gap in Western world.
As per current prediction world population will peak around 2080s and then decline.
Problem is that decline. Since, Governments are working on selling futures (e.g. Bonds). We need new frontier to make things exciting for new generations up ahead.
There's no great mystery, and a colony on Mars will not change this even one iota.
Asteroid hits wouldn't come even close. The worse disease imaginable would not make the air as permanently dangerous to life as Mars' atmosphere is. So what exactly would motivate this move?
Even to this day the western German, especially the older ones considers the Eastern Germans as a second class citizens and there hasn’t been any significant investment in Eastern part to build an industrial base (except for in Berlin and its suburbs) by any government even though the west payed a tax (solidarity) especially for that.
Dresden is not a Berlin suburb. When it comes to investment in semiconductor industry, Dresden has likely seen more than the entire rest of Germany together.
Also Dresden is only one city and what about the rest of the former East German states?
Given what we did on short notice for Greenland, I think we would be willing (not eager, but willing) to have a hot war.
I hope we can scrape it all back to the bedrock foundations of our country before we rebuild anything. I don't want any foundation built on top of this festering layer of bullshit. I'm afraid we will still have foundation problems in the future if we don't examine the reasons why it failed this time and set the rebuilt country up with one less failure mode.
Let's do this once. As they say where I'm from "There's only two ways to do anything - do it right or do it over."
> Hopefully he’ll be replaced with someone who is at least halfway competent
That's the point. You've vote for this guy TWICE. So probably when we talk about 58% disapprove, those 58% disapprove him not because of what he's doing, but because he's doing it to little and to incompetently.
It is scary that you want to replace him with another Trump, but "at least halfway competent". Oh boy!
But do agree that we did all voted for him twice, so saying that maybe this is actually what it means to be an American could hold some truth. Still, don’t think so, he’s clearly one of, or the most divisive person in modern American history. It seems like most people here either love him or hate him with every fiber of their being.
Maybe you are not. But what about other 58%? In the end, you have elected him twice, and it's not like the guy was pretending to be the other person. Trump did exactly what everyone have expected him to do, if only incompetently and ineffectively.
I know a lot of folks who voted for the man, almost all of them would love for a competent alternative. Unfortunately, in the last election, neither were competent, so a lot of it was a coin toss.
the election results speak for themselves. Trump got more votes than he did in 2016 - americans by and large saw his shitshow and decided they wanted more
The US has repeatedly proven that ITAR is for them as much of a military thing as it is an economic one, and that they're willing to use it against allies. If we refuse to learn that lesson, it's on us not them.
I'm actually surprised anyone ever thought it was not a military thing.
There are a whole bunch of military suppliers across Europe who are in the same boat as MBDA.
Simply put, the US as an ally is less predictable than previously and that has knock-on effects across every sphere.
In hindsight the whole world should have planned for the "what if America goes Nazi" eventuality.
Perhaps should be described as "sale is forbidden by default, but deals are common".
This goes 100% for either completed weapons, or components that can be directly used as a weapon, then you have "dual-use", and the less directly it's a weapon, the more free you are to do what you want.
… although, even we didn’t expect him to be as unhinged and impulsive as he has been. It’s been crazy here.
But as for competent alternatives during last election, would think a young, vibrant, thoughtful Kamala Harris would have done a better job - Still, if I’m being honest, I was not a big fan of hers even though I would have voted for her (was out of state during the last election and voting got too complicated). So, I can understand if this turned off voters.
… although, if you were referring to Biden, then yeah, truly neither were competent choices.
But that's absolutely not true. People are so wealthy right now that they can afford practically an unlimited amount of children. The avoidance of having children is almost entirely shaped by the cultural environment and not economic environment.
> relying on an entire community to do it together
I am not sure that it ever was a case. "Relying on an entire community" to raise children generally meant that children were raised mostly by themselves.
Cultural factors are certainly a part of it, but probably mostly in the sense that we are (rightfully, I believe) far less willing to let children die young or get maimed. But economic factors are a huge thing; I don't know where you live that you thing young people "can afford practically an unlimited number of children", but in most of Europe and the USA it is in fact impossible for the bottom 50+% of young couples to even support themselves, not to mention a child, on a single income. And it's also very hard to raise a child 0-4 in a city while working full time+.
> "Relying on an entire community" to raise children generally meant that children were raised mostly by themselves.
No. Children, historically, after they became capable of roaming around, were raised by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings etc. Even when they were away from adults, they'd be roaming near the village in groups with older children.
I don't think it matters at all. Of course, we are, but there is a huge gap between "not let children die young or get maimed" and what is happening with child raising now.
> but in most of Europe and the USA
bottom 50+% of young couples would have zero problems to support even 20 children per couple. How do I know it? Because in other parts of the world other people easily support like 5+ kids on 10+ times less amount of resources than this bottom 50% of young couples in the Europe and the USA have. So it is purely cultural phenomenon.
> were raised by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings etc.
No, they (generally) weren't raised that way. Historically, "raised by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings etc" mean that they were like 5% of the time "raising by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings", and other 95% of the time raising by themselves (and maybe by neighbor's dog, best case scenario)
> Even when they were away from adults, they'd be roaming near the village in groups with older children.
I mean right now there is zero problems to raise 20 children per couple this way in the cities. Except for the cultural perception.
How utterly stupid any individual action is will be a matter of discussion for decades. But the pace has moved towards urgent for at least half a dozen prominent countries.
And the rest of Europe loves you for that! But we're also very worried if that'll all remain so if Le Pen or Mélenchon win next year.
Macron finished the traditionnal left and right wing parties, which were too large and rotten to the core, but it's left us with a large center and two extremes, it's high time we have the normies left and right come back.
As long as they are more terrified of losing to the extremists they'll try to keep it together as long as they can. I hope they don't become too corrupt in the process.
The problem is France used to be the world's superpower, with an economy bigger than the one of the UK. Literally number one.
Then the monarchy fell and all it took was a mere 15 years for that little arrogant man that Napoleon was to get its arse (and France's arse) handed to him in Waterloo in 1815.
15 years to throw away centuries of greatness: what an amazing success the revolutionaries managed to pull. They fucked up so bad they realized it and tried to, peacefully, re-instate monarchy, but it was too late. Charles X was king of France after the Waterloo SNAFU (1824 to 1830) but it was too late to fix things.
It's nice and all, on paper, to want no king. But France is considered to have lost, forever, its place as the world's n 1 superpower when Napoleon lost in Waterloo.
I'm not saying monarchy is better: what I'm saying is that the french revolution coincides with France losing its status as the world's 1st super power.
And France has been arrogant ever since but it went from 2nd to 3rd to 4th to 5th to 6th to now 7th place.
It's a never ending fall.
With the biggest public deficit and the biggest public debt in the entire EU, and the level of primary education going down the drain (university is still doing OK), I fear it's only ever more pain ahead for France.
The country is literally crumbling left and right and communists, siding with islamists (the party of Melenchon are downright commies, who understood that if they were cozy with islamists, they'd get a chance a winning the elections), are planning to destroy the little that's left of France's past grandeur.
If you think those in charge now are negative towards their own country, you haven't seen anything should either the communists (Melenchon) or the national-socialists (Le Pen / Bardella: which are for a national preference with a deeply socialist program) win the next elections.
Besides an aching aircraft carrier France still has the atom bomb and that's it.
No more money. No more education.
France is toast.
P.S: the biggest success, from their leftist point of view, of french intellectuals is managing to present national-socialists as "far right" (as if they were fascists)
And I am no history expert, so am unsure of this myself, but in my humble opinion, the idea that monarchy is why France lost its place in the world doesn’t seem like a major factor.
Overall: I don't think any country should be on top. I'm glad France is not number one, and I hope it remains strong but never get in that position again. Part of why I love the EU is that no one, not even us or germany, is strong enough to fully impose its will without concession. Some would disagree with that, but they clearly don't know their history. So ... I'm not sure what your point is, but I think I disagree with it.
I wander how "national-socialist" sounds in other European languages, and whether it might have some history of referring to fascist movements. Say, what would the Germans call someone like that? Nationalsozialistische? I don't remember if there is any history about someone who called themselves that being a fascist...
Great for whom, exactly?
No offense to France, I don't really care one way or another, but didn't Macron also say he would deploy French troops in Ukraine? Where are those troops? Surely Ukraine is an "EU neighbor". They're currently suffering from an actual aggressor (Putin), not merely theoretical (Trump).
France says a lot of things.
You all need to watch actions more than what people say.
I'm not aware of any sale of a US weapons system containing European parts being blocked by any European government. It has been done within Europe, but only for major components, such as Germany's blocking at one point of sales to Saudi Arabia.
AFAIK, he said he didn’t rule out doing that while the war was ongoing (https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/27/europe/france-macron-troo...), and he signed a declaration of intent to do that if a peace deal with Russia is made (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c17zee20qpzo)
Neither are what you imply he said.
Interesting. Thanks for letting me know a Ukraine-Russia peace deal will never be signed.
No he did not, he said he refused to rule it out: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/french-preside...
So I would recommend making sure to inform yourself properly rather than assuming what you read (or thought you read) is correct
> Surely Ukraine is an "EU neighbor". They're currently suffering from an actual aggressor (Putin), not merely theoretical (Trump).
But as you said, they're NOT EU, not in an official military alliance with France. If you cannot see the difference between the two situation, I can't make it any clearer for you.
If you're saying "we should do the same for those that are out that for those that are in", what you are saying is "being in has no purpose, why take the commitment". I believe your point of view is as wrong as can be.
This was 2+ years ago and in the years since Russia has captured even more territory and is now bombarding Kyiv. And still no French troops.
Again, France says a lot of things.
[1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2024/03/14/war-in...
(And these regs aren't complete nonsense; the technologies regulated by these are useful for guided munitions. It just so happens missile technologies are fully commoditized by now and also happens to be immensely useful for totally peaceful purposes too)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassenaar_Arrangement
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Technology_Control_Reg...
Note that dual-use items (which Wassenaar regulates) and MTCR are not the same as the US's ITAR 'see through' rule which it uses to block third party sales of systems that contain even small numbers of US components.
For dual-use items, the EU's Directive 2021/821 governs things and broadly authorises exports to the United States through EU General Export Authorisations (EUGEAs) that don't require individual approval.[0]
[0] https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/help-exporters-and-importe...
https://www.brusselstimes.com/153970/wallonia-faces-new-chal...
But this is the one-component-is-the-weapon, with everything going in one direction version of such a rule. An F35 has 300,000 components from 19 countries, so you can imagine what a maze the agreements for that one are.
It's also not just about the weapons and the danger they pose. It's also about jobs. Know-how (both spreading and restricting know-how). And even the traditional "synergy" (you've designed helicopter blah, hence you make radio component so-and-so, so how about you manufacture NATO standard blah radios and antennas) and the occasional monopoly (it's kind of secret but there aren't many companies that can make the obvious alloy needed for the trust vectoring to name one obvious thing)
Our side is NATO, and we make weapons that are designed to push the global integrated worldview and human rights ("America and it's allies") that we espouse as an alliance. And this view permeates all weapons. For NATO guns, one, you'll never get ridiculous ammo stores (that would enable you to eliminate a population for example), we all work on these weapons together, design them together, and if you try to use your own ammo, everything will fail. Most NATO weapons are defensive. You aim a NATO weapon at a (small) target, it finds that target and either kills it or it disables itself and falls to the ground, essentially intact. Russian weapons are the total opposite: they're meant to kill and if they can't kill their target, they'll just kill whatever and whoever's nearby. Sometimes up to the point they kill the weapon's operators. They will fire "cheap ammo" and literally come with instructions on how to make it. They are meant to kill on a very large scale, without precision and they are most definitely not safe to use. This philosophical difference applies to everything from machine guns to nuclear weapons.
Given his age, I think any record would be in slowness, not quickness.
If Russia is so afraid, perhaps they would be open to a peace deal guaranteed by NATO troops stationed on their ground?
Everyone knows France says a lot of things.
So like this: exporting guns and ammo is certainly not something any country allows their companies to do, but most/all countries make specific exceptions in treaties.
This just happens to have the advantage that it makes it extremely easy for politicians to deceive voters about weapons. "Belgian law says it's illegal to export weapons". 100% technically true, and totally misdirects people into believing Belgium doesn't export weapons, which is absolutely false.
Meanwhile, Belgium exports ~50 million euros worth of weapons. But Belgium is just an example, it's not like the Netherlands or France or (definitely) UK, or the EU as a whole are different.
"I'm not aware of any sale of a US weapons system containing European parts being blocked by any European government."
That would be something like "Belgium says the USA can't sell F-35s to Israel because the wings are Belgian-made" similar to how the USA prevents ASML from selling their machines to China.
I believe this agreement is part of the restructuring after that cluster... Note that the agreement is both about production and buying. [2]
"Finland has required extensive domestic participation, with industrial cooperation valued at a minimum of 30 percent of the contract price of procuring 64 F-35A fighters. Under the agreement, Finnish firms will produce the F-35’s forward fuselage structures, including components intended for export aircraft. The agreement also includes ..."
As to how the EU is involved: https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-indus... (ie. that's where you go to ask for loans to start a factory for making F35 components, they have a page listing the deals ... somewhere). Note that this is one of the EU institutions that isn't in the budget (well, the loans aren't). They're not spending tax money to make those loans, they're printing money to make those loans.
So the Finnish government is making this deal, including details on export (and this is obviously weapons exports).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sel%C3%A7uk_Bayraktar
[2] https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/finland-leading-ma...
Regardless, his sucessor may be more relaxed. Especially considering how badly it went even without Ukraine having NATO membership.
You're bad at noticing the tits for each tat.
And, of course, the other side of that coin: weapons export regulation is Europe is not something that is meant to actually prevent weapons export. Rather it is used like a company policy: it makes sure everyone regularly has to give the government something they want.
Which is, to put it mildly, not how politicians present those laws.