ferrel_hadley t1_ixeb8me wrote
Reply to comment by LaunchTransient in Bruno Le Maire: Europe needs ‘unwavering unity’ against China, US in space by Soupjoe5
>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.
[deleted] t1_ixfztvk wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
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?
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.
[deleted] t1_ixg0nuo wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
HolyGig t1_ixeo9g8 wrote
Yes that is called democracy. Europe is pretty familiar with it last I checked
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?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments