[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

>primarily, Arianespace is there to provide independent European capability to space.

If that is the case then why even develop Ariane6 as an expressed rival to the Falcon9 of 2017 instead of just subsidising Ariane5 indefinitely?

Also why create a singe provider with basically no incentive for low prices instead of investing in the launch market as a whole to ensure "independent European capabilities to space"? With those €4B for Ariane6 Europ could have created TWO SpaceX!

Europe could have a much bigger space economy if it didn't hurdle itself with high, self inflicted, launch costs.

Adding to the other commenter, the second stage and the dragon trunk are the only major hardware pieces of falcon 9 that spacex doesn't reuse. The trunk blocks the heat shield on dragon 2 so they have to discard it. It burns up in the atmosphere.

On launches without dragon they instead use fairings that cover the payload. Those fairings are jettisoned and descend under parachute until splashing down in the ocean. They fish them out of the water and reuse them numerous times as well.

SpaceX is also building the starship/superheavy rocket which will have a fully reusable second stage. So ideally it'll launch, land the booster back at the launch site, the 2nd stage goes to orbit, deploys payload (cargo doors attached to the second stage), then the 2nd stage will deorbit and land back at the launch site as well. It's also been chosen by nasa to land humans back on the moon in the coming years. First test launch (no landings yet. Just flight tests) is coming up very soon. Possibly attempt this month but could easily turn into next month.

More or less, but primarily, Arianespace is there to provide independent European capability to space. That it dominated the launch market for a bit was a happy additional benefit, but not the primary mission.

I've read more than a few comments saying he bought SpaceX. Haters are crazy.

And my certificate still says Doctor of Philosophy 🧐

"Research and development money. Let the industry handle the rest, supported by sensible laws."

The local steel mill especially needs help to complete its energy transition (and thus greatly improve the quality of life of the surrounding population) and this help in the form of money comes from the state, because yes supporting local industries that employ hundreds of people is generally a good idea rather than letting it wither away until it is no longer competitive enough against Asian industries. Like agriculture.

"Let the industry handle it by creating necessary laws."

The energy sector is a nationalized and public sector managed by the state, so the creation of new nuclear reactors is based on public money.

"Cut tax brakes for the industry you don't want and use that money one to on in sectors you want to support. Sensible laws are required."

Like what? What country in 2023 can say "I'm literally going to kill this industry in my country even though it employs thousands of people and generate tax money !". That's just super dumb.

"Sensible laws don't have "bad impact"."

They can have "zero impact" if there's no money behind it to apply these laws. If you create a law like "every house need to have a heat pump" to reduce the pollution and the energy waste but that you don't create governmental aids for the population then you can be sure that a LOT of house will not have heat pump, even 10 years later.

"Good laws fixing all those problems you just listed would definitely hurt the profit margins of some big companies. But they wouldn't hurt 90+% of the population."

Meh, if the steel mill die in a few year because of a lack of investment it will hurt people, if no new nuclear reactors are created then in 20/30 years the whole country will be in a really complicated situation (energy prices that will hurt the population), if you don't invest in trains then a lot of people will still be car dependant and so will still lose a lot of money on a car while the environment continue to suffer from all the road traffic, if you don't invest in housing there will be a lack of it and the population will have to suffer from even higher housing prices.

The state is a central part of how a country work, even in fully capitalistic countries like the USA, the gouvernment still inject money quite everywhere because it's useful and needed in most of the cases.

In fact, I guess countries should stop to invest in space companies and just let the industry generate it's own money thanks to sensible laws (well multiple companies would have probably died like SpaceX that used the NASA money but that's not a problem in a country with sensible laws).

>My country will help the local steel mill in my town to switch from coal ovens to hydrogen ones to reduce the pollution they create.

Research and development money. Let the industry handle the rest, supported by sensible laws.

>Energy infrastructures too with the investments in new nuclear reactors.

Let the industry handle it by creating necessary laws.

>France declared that it will put 100 billions on the table for the train sector to reduce the car dependency.

Cut tax brakes for the industry you don't want and use that money one to on in sectors you want to support. Sensible laws are required.

>Investing in social housing, public services,... Is also a really great way to reduce poverty and the problems it create.

Germany is the best example here. Would they have implemented sensible tax rates incorporating the total m² of houses/apartments they wouldn't have this problem now. They could still implemented such laws, But no, that would hurt big companies.

.

>And no, sometimes you need to put money on the table rather than to write some laws that will just have bad impacts because of a lack of money.

Sensible laws don't have "bad impact". There already is so much tax money thrown at problems and this has a bad impact on the overall situation.

Good laws fixing all those problems you just listed would definitely hurt the profit margins of some big companies. But they wouldn't hurt 90+% of the population.

No, I'm saying once the benevolent portion of the plan is finished a terrorist could turn it into a weapon. I don't care how benevolent a plan you suggest any new technology will be weaponized.

It's like you're trying to suggest terrorists invented bombs with their own R&D to come to the conclusion you did.

I was just passing by but Im gonna take that link with me. Thank you for an excellent resource.

In unrelated news, Atlantis' space program is experiencing unexpected delays

Of course they need more money!

My country will help the local steel mill in my town to switch from coal ovens to hydrogen ones to reduce the pollution they create.

Energy infrastructures too with the investments in new nuclear reactors.

France declared that it will put 100 billions on the table for the train sector to reduce the car dependency.

Investing in social housing, public services,... Is also a really great way to reduce poverty and the problems it create.

All this is funded by the state with tax payer money which is perfectly fine and normal.

And no, sometimes you need to put money on the table rather than to write some laws that will just have bad impacts because of a lack of money.

If you write a law like "now each 5000 inhabitants town need to have a train station and trains everyday" but give zero money for it, nothing will be done because you can't do this with the current budget you need to increase it.

You can't just fix stuff with some laws. You often need to invest money to make it work.

>Reducing pollution.

>Creating and renovating energy infrastructures.

>Creating and renovating transport infrastructures to reduce car dependency.

>Reducing poverty.

NON of those topics require more money, let alone more tax payer money!

Sensible laws are enough, combined with current budgets.

But as long as people say it needs more money, which we have to take away from science and research, we will never see the political majority to vote for such laws.

And guess who benefits from this inability to make such laws?

"that needs more money thrown at it rather than a resolute, comprehensive political decision."

You need money to establish a resolute, comprehensive political decision.

If you don't put money on the table then it's globally just an empty political decision.

A lot of subjects need more money :

>Reducing pollution.

>Creating and renovating energy infrastructures.

>Creating and renovating transport infrastructures to reduce car dependency.

>Reducing poverty.

>...

"why we haven't fixed thise problems years ago!"

How so? How the money given to space research would have solved these problems? That's like saying "the money that we give to the nuclear sector will solve the problems in the education system!"

Tell me a single major problem here on earth (besides buying weapons for Ukraine) that needs more money thrown at it rather than a resolute, comprehensive political decision.

You can't.

The idea that we have to divert money from (space) technology research in order to fix other problems is one of the reasons why we haven't fixed thise problems years ago!

So when you claim you want to see money taken from space to fix other problems you are part of the problem and speak after the playbook of the people who benefit from our current situation, but would lose their profits when strong political solutions would be applied.

It’s pretty awesome to see in our life time. Next two decades should be exciting times

Still doesn't change the fact that countries have other biggest problematics nowadays to put money on than the space sector.

Sadly, space will not really be a solution against most problems we got on earth and since we are blocked on this planet I prefer that we put money on the problems on earth rather than in space.

PhD means philosophy doctor.

>Ariane 6 started its development in 2014, a totally different world from what we know nowadays.

The design phase wasn't finished until after 2017. And ArianeSpace actually changed the design quite a lot during this time.

So even the sunken cost fallacy doesn't apply here.

In the end is was a bet that SpaceX wouldn't get reusability as well working as they were aiming for.

Not sure if you've been asked this but I'll bite, what's the weirdest thing you've witnessed while training? Another one is what myths about training that is fake? I know both can be something that can hint at stuff you can't say due to NDA's but I hope you can answer both or just one

The money is not available yes.

Ariane 6 started its development in 2014, a totally different world from what we know nowadays.

Most countries don't want to waste money in space stuff while there's far more important sectors to fund like public services, energy production,...

Plus we got the war in ukraine now which also mobilizes money and equipments...

In these current times, I prefer that a country inject 1 billion in healthcare, education, police,... Than in space stuff.

[deleted]

>What SpaceX has accomplished says nothing about Musk, except that he'll profit off of it. That's what he's there for.

And yet, if SpaceX had faceplanted posts like yours would be saying that SpaceX says everything about Musk. Same with Tesla.