Congratulations! An immensely important achievement, I’d say.<p>IMO, this success has a great implication for accessibility and sovereignty of the EU. Although ESA can launch from French Guiana, the spaceport is an ocean-away from Europe! That fact alone affects the cost and the launch cadence for Europe greatly.<p>Now they prove they can launch directly from Norway with their own production from Munich and elsewhere and that has immense potential for the future: much higher launch cadence, significant lower cost and always-on accessibility.<p>The only way Europe can have a Starlink similar network is to launch it from their own soil and reuse the first stage. Also from the perspective of security, launching spy and other military satellites from EU soil is the only practical possibility in this political climate.
This is a huge success, but it I think also tells us that the EU is further decoupling itself from the US. Slowly but steadily.<p>Which is obviously the right thing to do, but it's interesting that it's not just a hypothetical anymore.
Does it mean that?<p>Europe has had a space agency for a while now. So this story isn't "Europeans finally started to launch for space" but a <i>private</i> European company chose to launch from a continental location.<p>It's funny how we can't be celebrate a European achievement without trying to interpret it into relationship to the US.
Yes, they've had a space agency, but the only launchers are expensive legacy vehicles.<p>This launch is a move towards lower cost and more frequent launches, that in the US are provided by SpaceX.
It's not even the US in general, it's SpaceX specifically. Only the US and China have demonstrated reusable rockets, and only SpaceX demonstrated the actual reuse, the cadence and the economy of scale that it brings.
It means the laws of physics allow it, and anyone willing to invest the time and fiat to accomplish it can. This means the world will no longer need to rely on SpaceX for inexpensive lift to orbit through reusable first stages, which is objectively good. No different then China working towards obviating the need for ASML for EUV semiconductor manufacturing.
There are a lot more barriers to things in the real world. China has been dedicating immense effort and brainpower to cloning SpaceX, and they're still not especially close. I think a lot of us (certainly including myself) have no intuition for why this is, because we live in the software world where if you see something that is done then cloning it is generally just a matter of time and effort. But there's certainly some 'secret sauce' at SpaceX that does not seem easy to replicate.<p>That said I think this is awesome and hope the EU is able to make further advances. I have a very positive view of Musk, but the more competitors there are in space, the more likely we able to accelerate advances and efficiency in that domain. And I think everybody wins in that scenario.
Just because you invest in it doesn't mean you end up with hugely cheap and scalable launch.<p>Europe has already invested far more in rocket then SpaceX did and isn't close.<p>If your capital efficiency is far lower, it might not be inexpensive. If you can get the scale because you don't have payloads, its going to be more expensive.<p>There is a incredibly long road between 'rocket can land' and 'cheap and scalable launch'. A long road most people don't see because its not as flashy as landing.
> It's funny how we can't be celebrate a European achievement without trying to interpret it into relationship to the US.<p>It really isn’t funny. The US shat the bed and for now the repercussions are mainly being felt outside the US. When the US realises what it’s lost it’s going to be too late.
Oh we (the non idiots here) know full well what we lost. If Europe has a larger and more substantial science / technology community, that will just mean more trips/job offers in EU for me, so go Europe !
As an American, I welcome a multi-polar world where Europe pulls its weight when it comes to science, technology and engineering! More so in geopolitical matters. It’s always been very draining for one empire or nation to maintain world peace. The 19th century was Pax Britannica, the 20th, after WW2, was Pax Americana, we can now hope that Pax AmEuropana can offer a counter to the crazy rapid growth of Asia and also find common ground with those nations.
What rewards do you think the US is going to gain from this path it has begun to travel? Do you think it was all some noble charity case?<p>The UK is likely to be an illustrative example, so it's apt you mentioned it
>As an American, ... maintain world peace<p>I can't believe people are saying that with straight face. How on Earth can you see all the wars that the US has started or had a hand in igniting and still think that?
That's nonsense. It's imparted us with incredible prosperity and peace. The US is a much poorer and worse nation due to you and your kind destroying what we built.
Yeah the world piece like all the wars in the middle east, Vietnam, proxy conflicts all over the world and so on and so on. I'm not blaming the US for all of these wars but they also didn't prevent them. And the US did overthrow many democracies and often made things much worse, Iran being a great example, but there are many others. I could go on.<p>Peace in Europe was maintained mostly by people in democracies generally wanting to work together. Yes the US had something to do with that as they supported that after WW2 but over the last 50 years, people in democracies generally don't fight each other. And more so by the threat of the Soviet Union that was so clearly the more dangerous option. Its easy to make allies if Stalin is on the other side.<p>And outside of Europe the US hardly maintained peace.<p>Nuclear weapons maintained 'peace' between Soviets and the US more then anything else.<p>And Europe has always pulled its weight in science, technology and engineering.
> Vietnam<p>The US was actually on the right side in that one (just like in Korea). The Communists were not exactly the good guys and their "agricultural and personnel reforms" lead to drastically reduced food production and starvation and death.<p>Blame the US for real things instead, such as supporting the wrong side in Afghanistan in the '80s or ensuring the survival of the Soviet Union in the '40s.
Tell it to cca 2 millions civilians that died in Vietnam as a direct result of failed US invasion (I really mean just civilians mostly bombed into oblivion, entire human lives list is around 3 million). As in, vast majority of them would be alive is US didn't try their failed adventure. Tonkin gulf is a classic US made up war for power mongering reasons.<p>Telling 'we're the good guys' while regularly bombing entire villages into oblivion with napalm on some vague suspicions ('we heard some gunshot when flying around so we blasted them' scenarios). My Lai and many others.<p>If this is how US population views their past fuckups then no wonder we are where we are, objectivity ain't easy if one is on the wrong side, isn't it.<p>Supporting wrong side in Afghanistan? Against Soviet invasion? Sometimes, often even there are no good sides.<p>If you guys didn't support Soviet union in 40s (which they vehemently denied since then but its their inferiority complex, <i>the</i> issue with russian mentality since forever), there would be no massive eastern front with most german losses and wehrmacht spread out too thinly, and D day would be crushed like nothing. History would be <i>very</i> different in Europe and globally.
Have there been other rocket launches from continental Europe?
From a sovereignty perspective, does a launch from continental Europe actually matter when Arianespace/CNES/ESA has been launching from France for decades?
Doesn't it matter if this part of France is an ocean away?
I do not think so, but anyway, it is definitely not a proof that we are further decoupling ourselves from the US, which is the claim made in the root comment. France has launched rockets from France for decades. Being an ocean away does not make Kourou reliant on the US.
I think the opposite because in this specific case we have the US which has the world's strongest navy, and the strongest navy by far in the Atlantic.<p>My opinion is that there is an implied reliance on the US "allowing" Europe to ship the rockets to Kourou and launch them there.<p>If our relations ever completely sour, the US might, for example, take over the shipping vessels going to Kourou, kinda like Europe takes over Russian shadow fleet vessels.<p>Now all of a sudden Europe has no means of launching rockets, except now it can launch to polar orbits. It might seem a stretch, but there is a non-zero chance that could happen, therefore it is better to have an alternative.
But French Guiana is a geographically distant ex-colony, so there will always be a higher probability of future inaccessibility. Same applies to New Caledonia, Martinique, etc.
There is no sovereignty perspective because Europe isn't even sovereign to begin with. For starters it doesn't even have a common army
The sovereignty perspective here is the perspective of the sovereignty of the states that make up Europe not the sovereignty of the entity of the EU/Europe.<p>Though not every sovereign state has an army, see Iceland, Costa Rica, theoretically Japan, etc.
Yes, but most of them in the early 1940s.
Orbital? Maybe not. Sub-orbital and ballistic? Absolutely.
Oh yes, I think everyone remembers Germany's ballistic rockets<p>"Don't say that he's hypocritical,<p>Say rather that he's apolitical.<p>'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?<p>That's not my department,' says Wernher von Braun."<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio</a>
<i>> Does it mean that?</i><p>When the US government funded SpaceX, it was motivated in no small degree by a desire to not be permanently reliant on a geopolitical wildcard (Russia) for getting astronauts into orbit. Now that the US itself has become a geopolitical wildcard, savvy countries know that they need to seek out alternatives to SpaceX under more stable regimes.
> It's funny how we can't be celebrate a European achievement without trying to interpret it into relationship to the US.<p>It's because Europe is absolutely obsessed with the United States and obsessed with Americans.
Yeah, in the same way that as a home owner I’d be “obsessed” with my neighbour if he was showing a predilection towards arson.<p>I’d love to be able to go a day without having to see whatever the latest stupidity we’ll have to deal with the fallout from is, I really would.
>It's because Europe is absolutely obsessed with the United States and obsessed with Americans.<p>Is this the new cope?<p>The USA is a Goliath on the world stage. The deranged tweets of your president move global markets and the next time Israel manipulates him into starting another war it might not be Iran, it might be Denmark, or Canada.<p>People pay close attention to the US not because they want to buy because they basically have to.
Hackernews is slowly turning into the same primitive social networking shit as X, Threads, insta, Linkedin. Time to get off of it I suppose
They started developing this rocket in the late 2010s, way before the current US craziness (or the current level of craziness anyway). Independent access to space is always desirable for countries that can muster the resources, but this is just one of many companies that appeared back then as a response to SpaceX's initial success.
Yeah this is just the effect of SpaceX showcasing "space launch is no longer the realm of government efforts only".<p>They kicked off the wave of commercial space launch - and now, it reached the EU too.
One would think that ze germans would be among the first to be conquering space with all that german engineering.
They are - but in cooperation with others. Parts of the Orion capsule of the current Artemis mission program are based on the German ATV, which is a capsule which was developed to supply ISS. On ISS there are German modules like Galileo. German Spacelab was a major component of many Space Shuttle missions. German companies like Zeiss provided optics and laser components for Apollo. To name a few, besides lots of satellites and other things. However after WW2 there were different political decisions, so that Germany won't build its own rockets, but German technology was key to Saturn V and Ariane rockets.<p>Aside from technology, Germany also got major control centers and mission planning capability in Cologne and Oberpfaffenhofen.<p>Most components are there, but not the political will to go on a national mission.
Is this sarcasm or do you still live in the 1980s?
Eh, you can split us Europeans up into two camps; those who do not want to see the problem and those who couldn't look away.<p>The second camp saw the craziness when the later Bush was elected a second time.
one of those bush votes was to ensure he could clean up his own mess.
I'd split it into 2 camps. Elites who realize Europe isn't a unified group or has a military strong enough for defense..<p>And people who get wet when France says they are going to send soldiers to Ukraine and it never materializes.<p>The general population has 0 understanding of international relations. It's the United States and China right now. Any other belief comes from someone who has read 0 international relations Realism books.
Its not that Europeans havent read Mearsheimer. its that for the best part of three hundred years the whole of Europe has been trying that same realist script until there was nothing left but total ruin across the entire continent. Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit. While clumsy positioning between the US and China is a headache in the present moment for Europe, compared to a tedious Union Europeans prefer reawakenings of 1914 in their backyard. Well at least so far.
I would bet any amount that if you go to a random European city and stop 100 random people on the street you'd be lucky if one person has even heard of Mearsheimer. I think you're also overthinking how the EU got created. I don't think pre-EU Europe was on the brink of violence either. It was more IMO simplistic (but possibly correct, who knows) thinking that it's stronger (economically) as a block. A lot of present day Europe issues that might lead to bigger problems are potentially worse because of the EU.
You're just showing your ignorance and lack of knowledge about the history of the EU.<p>Whilst the EU in it's current form did not exist until 1993, it's predecessor the European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1950 with the Schuman Declaration: <a href="https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59/schuman-declaration-may-1950_en" rel="nofollow">https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...</a><p>The primary goal of this was to prevent another war by joining european economies together economically. It's not 'overthinking it'. It quite literally is the main reason and you can go and read the speeches from the politicians at the time to confirm this.<p>Heres a direct quote from the declaration itself<p>> The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.<p>The fact that the european powers (with the exception of russia) are largely at peace with each other and haven't had a major war with each other since the second world war is very unusual given european history.
Definitely far from my expertise but I think you're contradicting yourself.<p>I am talking about the formalization that is specifically the modern European Union. You are talking as if it's some inevitable consequence of earlier efforts.<p>> Europeans who created the EU knew about balance of power geopolitics so well, they created this slow bureaucratic mess specifically to stop Germany and France sliding back into the same old lethal habit.<p>I don't think anything you're saying is strengthening this statement that I had an issue with.<p>The Maastricht Treaty which is what created modern day EU was driven by other concerns, asking Gemini yields: "To answer your second question: No, everyday Europeans in 1992 were not primarily thinking about WWII.<p>By the time the Maastricht Treaty was being drafted, the public was reacting to a completely different era of history. They were focused on the collapse of the Soviet Union, the opening of Eastern Europe, and the need to compete economically with the United States and Japan in a rapidly globalizing world. The defining event on the public's mind was the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, not the end of WWII."<p>So you are right that the processes that eventually led to the formation of the EU started after WW-II due to concerns related to that war. But specifically the EU as it stands today with its current structure and agreements was not formed due to those considerations. Europe could have continued with the previous arrangements. At least that's my take and I don't think anything you're saying contradicts it. I'll admit to a certain lack of knowledge so happy to learn more about Europe pre-EU or why what I'm saying is still wrong.<p>EDIT: I guess one can see how the reunification of Germany was a factor that could have made people consider the world wars. That said the creation of the EU was a major change compared to previous arrangements.<p>EDIT2: When I read the EU site you linked to I get a strong sense of "backsplaining" as if it was written after the fact to appear like the EU was just part of a process that goes back to WW-II. The title says "History of the EU – 1945-59" but in 1945-1959 there was <i>no</i> EU. Didn't the term European Union only show up circa 1992? So this is perhaps the "history of Europe" but <i>not</i> the history of the European Union? I could be totally wrong. I am not European but I did live through these events and follow the news (well, not WW-II but the fall of the USSR, Germany's unification, and the establishment of the modern day EU). What's of interest to me in the context of this specific question/debate is what were the concerns of the Europeans and their leaders entering into the agreements that formed the modern day EU.
Isn’t Mearsheimer a crank these days anyway?
Realpolitik sorely lacking
Coupled or uncoupled, an equal relationship between the US and the EU is much healthier. Europe should have an economy, military and industrial capacity similar to the US.
While in the current case I agree it is the path that should be taken, ideally I would prefer efficient relations, where people cooperate rather than having to duplicate everything because they don't trust their neighbor (should I make my bread because the baker might decide to poison me?!).<p>But having educated people everywhere is hard, so some people, because they don't get how some stuff works, they try to abuse friends and allies and make things worse (inefficient) for everybody in the process.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick”. A Europe that is internally powerful can conduct trade in the fair and liberal way that matches its ideals.
Ideally, yes. But when the baker is running around with a red hat renaming lakes, you have to start kneading if you have any sense.
I've always assumed that the reason there aren't many launch sites in Europe because the booster stage falls back to Earth, and generally you want that to be over the sea. People get cross if rockets fall on their houses. If you're using the Earth's axial rotation as a helper that means launching heading east, and in Europe east is pretty much always over land. That's why most spaceports are either by an ocean (USA, Japan) or over a huge area of land no one lives in (Russia).
The EU already had quite a bit of non-EU spaceflight capability, both in terms of rockets and launch sites.
I think having more distribution in launch locations and more provider options will ultimately be a net positive in the long run.
This took about eight years of work by a private company (funded by US VC and an ex-SpaceX leader). This wasn't an intentional decision to decouple from the US, if that's what you're implying, but a business decision.
Are we forgetting about Ariane?
I think we are stronger together. European technology has been critical to many important American space missions, and that should continue to be the case.<p>An ecosystem where we develop things independently is one where everyone loses.
Yes, definitely, but being together by choice instead of by necessity is vastly preferable.<p>Especially given that recent history has shown us that we're back to "power" being the only language spoken.<p>__<p>Rel: The ecosystem thing.<p>I would challenge that, because if there's one thing where the US has had absurd leverage over the EU (and world, for that matter), then it's tech ecosystems.<p>A healthy ecosystem would not be owned by SV/US alone.<p>So right now, we're not really "strong together" but rather weakly dependent. That should be remediated, and decoupling like this is exactly the tool for that.
<i>>Especially given that recent history has shown us that we're back to "power" being the only language spoken.</i><p>"Power being the only language spoken", never left in the first place in order to get back to it, it's how the world always worked and will always work.<p>Granted, power wasn't actually the "language spoken", but more accurately it was the stick ensuring the enforcement of the terms agreed within the "language spoken", a lesson as old as time that many in EU forgot after post-USSR collapse and now have to re-learn it, but at a heavy cost and with added interest.<p>"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it", couldn't be more true.
> <i>I think we are stronger together</i><p>That's pretty damn obvious to everyone with a half of brain, yet here we are being pulled apart.
Except its not actually obvious. The US achieved most when they worked mostly by themselves. And the recent explosion in US activity, specially SpaceX is also highly separated from Europe.<p>There is a very credible argument to be made that excessive cooperation leads to incredibly heavy overly political programs that are completely static and can't adjust because of international agreements.<p>That doesn't mean working together isn't good but they way they have been has been pretty questionably in many ways (along with a lot of space policy).
I dont think the EU is stronger when they get bullied and undermined by trump, or whichever american president decides to dust off trump's playbook in the future
The opinion of american billionaires is driving this.
If they haven’t gotten the message yet, they never will congratulations, plan on doing more because you’re gonna have to.
It is indeed a huge success but it also underlines how far ahead the rest of the world is.
I'd honestly rather like to use this opportunity to talk about that this is a success than returning to our regularly scheduled doomer loop.<p>A rocket launched into orbit from Norway. That's insane progress and worth celebrating.
> That's insane progress and worth celebrating.<p>A non-reusable launcher that can put small payloads into a Polar orbits only, due to launch site latitude and lack of an orbital bus. It's fairly 1960s stuff.
I'd prefer to use this opportunity to talk about this as a success as well without this America decoupling nonsense doomer loop too.<p>Does anyone know if folks in Germany are posting about the huge ego and phallus shaped memes for this company doing something that SpaceX and Blue Origin were also doing? I'm guessing not, because the lens is "decoupling" and not "America bad" like so many felt inclined to report when our private companies were successfully launching rockets.<p>Anyway, congrats to the team at Isar. I like to celebrate these successes around the world as further space exploration, colonization, science, and economic development benefit us as a species and there is a lot of room for a lot of competitors.
So what should they do nothing? They have to get started somehow if Japan and China can do it so can Europe, and I think long-term once again, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand won’t be far behind…
I think New Zealand is ahead. RocketLab was the second company in the world after SpaceX to get a privately developed launch vehicle to orbit, back in 2017. They've now had 86 successful launches from their NZ launch site.
That's essentially what they have done for military/defense.<p>The United States saves the day. France pretends they are in charge with grand speeches.<p>I was close to a European immigrant and 2 things she was shocked about:<p>How rich the United States was. Even our poor had more than her upper middle class family had.<p>How people in the United States do not take 2 hour coffee and cigarette breaks.
only four countries in the world have private/commercial space launch capacity, and SpaceX towers over everyone else so I'd say this is doing pretty alright compared to the rest of the world
Multiple European nations gaining their own independent launch capabilities will merely result in the sinking of ESA and ArianeSpace. Look forward to lots of infighting in the near future.
I think being a competitor in a market doesn't mean you're 'decoupling' from it, rather you're on equal footing.
The french always had Ariane??
o/
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
> Just look at how today the USA tried to hand over land of Ukraine to Putin<p>Was it the land that Russia currently controls and Ukraine is very unlikely to retake? There's a spectrum between ideological behavior and pragmatic behavior. If Ukraine gives up this land and achieves peace, maybe it's worth it. I'm not suggesting it definitely is but at least the US is trying to negotiate or find some sort of solution, even if it's not going well.<p>In retrospect the US should have prepared for war and been willing to fight to uphold what was agreed to with Russia but that would have been a hard sell.<p>> So, no more support to that crazy country.<p>Nah Europe will still support it. Nothing will change there. But if you want things to change, we can completely withdraw from NATO, move bases back from Europe where we see fit, and un-sanction Russia while no longer providing support to Ukraine in any fashion and no longer sell weapons to Europe. That would be a disaster for Europe, which is why I tend to think comments like this are either ignorant, or pro-Russia/Iran/China with the intent to further inflame whatever tensions exist.
> Was it the land that Russia currently controls and Ukraine is very unlikely to retake? There's a spectrum between ideological behavior and pragmatic behavior. If Ukraine gives up this land and achieves peace, maybe it's worth it. I'm not suggesting it definitely is but at least the US is trying to negotiate or find some sort of solution, even if it's not going well.<p>It wasn't the US's decision to make, certainly not without having talked to Ukraine.<p>And right now, well, this war will continue until one of them runs out of money. The EU currently appears to consider Ukrainian sovereignty in this war to be in their own national interests, so they will keep funding it. Who will support the Russian economy in the same way?<p>> Nah Europe will still support it. Nothing will change there. But if you want things to change, we can completely withdraw from NATO, move bases back from Europe where we see fit, and un-sanction Russia while no longer providing support to Ukraine in any fashion and no longer sell weapons to Europe. That would be a disaster for Europe, which is why I tend to think comments like this are either ignorant, or pro-Russia/Iran/China with the intent to further inflame whatever tensions exist.<p>You, and many like you, really need to stop thinking Trump's behaviour is something that can be easily undone. You write to suggest dissenting voices are pro-China: Trump's actions have already forced many in the EU to consider the USA to be a bigger threat than China.<p>This isn't us liking China, we think poorly of their human rights record etc., it's just that the USA has fallen <i>that far</i> in our eyes.<p>Just to make it specific: Which city do you live in? I want you to imagine it getting actually, literally, nuked by French or British missiles in response to the USA doing what Trump keeps saying he'll do to Canada or Greenland.<p>Actual nukes.<p>I hope that will stay imagination.<p>Trump has a lot of levers he could pull that would be de facto acts of war besides annexing allies like he says he wants to. Ordering all the tech companies to stop providing services overnight, even that might do it given current dependencies.
The Ukraine is not gonna give up because that taco in the White House says so. And if he has any levers, he certainly doing a terrible job one distraction after another.
> It wasn't the US's decision to make, certainly not without having talked to Ukraine.<p>Didn’t suggest it was, but at the end of the day it’s the US who is the partner at the table who can make the biggest difference and bringing Ukraine in to the room with Russia will just result in conflict and no hope of figuring things out diplomatically. Of course any deal that the US attempted to broker would have to be agreed to by Ukraine as well. Everyone understands this.<p>> , and many like you, really need to stop thinking Trump's behaviour is something that can be easily undone. His actions have already forced many in the EU to consider the USA to be a bigger threat than China.<p>Ok then we should do what I mentioned. It’s over. Is the EU ready to abandon Taiwan? Because if not, and let’s not ignore the G20 statement nor Germany hemorrhaging jobs and pretend the EU is cozying up to China. The US can just do the same and partner with China if it decided to.<p>> I hope that will stay imagination.<p>It won’t because it’s hyperbole that can be casually discarded.<p>> Trump has a lot of levers he could pull that would be de facto acts of war besides annexing allies like he says he wants to. Ordering all the tech companies to stop providing services overnight, even that might do it given current dependencies.<p>Nah he can’t do that. Tone down the imagination and sensationalizing
> Didn’t suggest it was, but at the end of the day it’s the US who is the partner at the table who can make the biggest difference and bringing Ukraine in to the room with Russia will just result in conflict and no hope of figuring things out diplomatically.<p>How? The US no longer supplies military aid to Ukraine. They're not a partner <i>at all</i>, let alone the one "who can make the biggest difference".<p>> Ok then we should do what I mentioned. It’s over. Is the EU ready to abandon Taiwan? Because if not, and let’s not ignore the G20 statement nor Germany hemorrhaging jobs and pretend the EU is cozying up to China. The US can just do the same and partner with China if it decided to.<p>That's not even a coherent argument.<p>> It won’t because it’s hyperbole that can be casually discarded.<p>If you don't take it seriously enough to prevent it, your city gets nuked.<p>> Nah he can’t do that.<p>Legally, or de-facto? Because legally he shouldn't be currently exchanging missiles with Iran. Legally the White House should be intact. Legally the Epstein files should've been release. Legally he's got 34 felony convictions for things he wasn't allowed to do. Legally he couldn't do the big tariffs he announced. Legally they had no right to go after Anthropic when the company refused to let their software get used for military stuff. Legally, his "I declassified them with my mind" claim was nonsense and he should've had a ten year sentence for that alone.<p>Not only do we not trust him, we don't trust <i>you</i>, and I mean personally you but also collectively you, to hold him back.<p>You, personally, are an avatar of the problem us Europeans see with America, because you don't seem to understand how seriously we take this.<p>Please, for the love of wherever you call home, take this seriously. You write as if this will all blow over and things will return to normal, but this can only happen if you recognise fault.
> How? The US no longer supplies military aid to Ukraine. They're not a partner at all, let alone the one "who can make the biggest difference".<p>At a minimum the US still provides intelligence to Ukraine and maintains (and has increased) sanctions on Russia. Actions against both Venezuela and Iran negatively affected Russian shadow fleet operations which were funneling money to Russia to continue its war. Iran provides military support by selling drones, at a minimum. The US also maintains a significant military in presence to defer Russia from opening new fronts. In the last couple of weeks the director of the CIA met with Russian counterparts in an attempt, at least as alleged, to provide information to Russia to get them to come to the negotiating table. Your suggestion that the US isn’t a partner is your <i>opinion</i> but is not reflect in reality.<p>> That's not even a coherent argument.<p>Sure it is<p>> Legally, or de-facto?<p>Either. Don’t mistake my comments for supporting Donald Trump. I didn’t vote for him and think he belongs in jail over Jan 6 at a minimum. But I’m also not going to tolerate these asinine “what if France nuked my hometown” comments nor other similar sensationalized rhetoric.
Russia's word has been ironclad each time it's been given to Ukraine previously. It surely would be the same this time.
Why is this a sign of decoupling? Is any EU technological development decoupling?
I'd rather see something owned by the people, not private.
A good historical nugget is that the Americans got a huge leg up in the space race by importing the Germans who worked on the V-2 program.<p>Germans killed Soviets by the millions. If you were a German of value (like a rocket scientist) you were eager to surrender to the Americans before the Soviets could get their hands on you.<p>If you were the Americans, you distrusted the Soviets already, so it was a win-win.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip</a>
This went both ways
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim</a>
Yes a good thing to point out, however the American initiative was more successful, was it not?<p>Largely because raw numbers aside, most of the top talent wanted to avoid the Soviets and thus the US was the only logical option. That is, part of what made the American job on this easier is top German talent anticipated some "Operation Osoaviakhim" (or worse) scenario and thus sought out the US as the only way to get out ahead of it.<p>von Braun made major contributions to NASA. My understanding is relatively speaking, the Soviets got the scraps. Not that it made no impact, but just to say the impact of the Germans on the American space program should not be understated, and I don't think it would be accurate to assess the fruits of these two competing operations as equivalent.<p>von Braun and others had a major hand in the Saturn V. Who did the Soviets manage to seize of equal caliber?<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun</a>
USA got the cream of the crop of the managers of the German missile program, while the USSR got the workers, who actually did the work with their hands and built the parts for the rockets. (One exception was Helmut Gröttrup, the head of the V-2’s guidance and telemetry systems.)<p>In fact, after the war the USSR has briefly reconstituted the manufacturing of V-2 in Germany, employing thousands of people, before transplanting this entire industry to the USSR. This dramatically lifted the level of Soviet manufacturing and relevant metallurgy.<p>von Braun's dissertation was on engine design and testing. But when he built the Redstone missile in the USA, he ordered the engine from a US company -- the engine which was already a generation ahead, compared to the imported German engines which the US engineers studied after the war.<p>Meanwhile, the Soviets have developed even better engines, completely on their own, though with the important parts built using the materials and the equipment brought from Germany.<p>So it is debatable whether having the German higher-ups and having a greater continuity with German design philosophy was a good thing or a liability.<p>It is less well known, but France have also imported a significant number of ex-Peenemunde engineers for their program. And their engines developed in a way different from both the American ones and the Soviet ones -- which definitively shows that although internalizing the German know-how was the starting point for everyone, it did not define the path of subsequent development.<p>Of course, the engines were not the whole story. The Germans took to the USA the advanced prototypes of the inertial guidance systems which were developed for the missiles that were supposed to come after the V-2. And the Soviets got Helmut Gröttrup. This did have its effects in both cases.
great comment, just wanted to add a little: all three countries were pioneering rocketry in the 20-30s, more or less in equal measure.<p>I don't know why this WW2 rocket discussion happened to begin with, but people here don't seem to understand that there is no magical inherent technical skill which is unique and irreplaceable. Experience helps to speed things up, sure, but it can be acquired by any program given time and resources, with no talent blockers.
[flagged]
They got a leg up and still the Russians with Sputnik got into space first, on top of splitting Korea and winning in Vietnam and having the nuclear bomb fall into their lap and to top it off they appear to have the Manchurian candidate in the White House.
Take a deep breath.
Sorry you had to import nazis to get into orbit :shrug:
If you can't see those points, you need to take several deep breaths.
The Russians conscripted more German rocket scientists than the Americans got through Operation Paperclip, both programs were bootstrapped with German expertise. Americans got ~1,600, Russians more like 6,000.
With fairness to the Soviets, the USSR's reputation for rocket artillery was nearly as impressive as Germany's in WWII. The Allies had less experience scaling and deploying the technology, so they had more to gain by taking in the Peenemünde researchers.
For any unfamiliar with the history, Russia was a mass murdering machine in this era, vaporizing tens of millions of people, including Russians, in very short spans of time without even a second thought.<p>We all know Germans was. And some people would fling fecal allegations that “so was the US!”. No. German and Russian actions were categorically different than wartime casualties (even brutal, possibly criminal, wartime casualties like fire bombing heavily civilian enemy areas like Dresden)
For anyone actually unfamiliar with history, this is a gross exaggregation made with a sole purpose of equalizing nazi crimes with what happened in the soviet union.<p>History does not work this way, in the early modernity masses were cohesive and industrialized, and so were the crimes and atrocities.<p>Every developed country got to it, but what makes nazis different is that the regime was built with the sole purpose of commiting atrocities, hence the outstanding scale and character of the matter.
[flagged]
> If you were a German of value (like a rocket scientist) you were eager to surrender to the Americans before the Soviets could...<p>Misleading. Pretty much <i>all</i> Germans were eager to surrender to the Western Allies - US/UK/France. That became the German government's official top priority in the closing days of the war, and Eisenhower threatened to seal the Western Front (to German soldiers and civilians fleeing the Soviets) when the Germans dragged their heels on his terms of surrender.<p>A relatively brief treatment can be found here - <a href="https://history.army.mil/portals/143/Images/Publications/catalog/7-9.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://history.army.mil/portals/143/Images/Publications/cat...</a>
True, I just meant that if you had something of value (like rocket expertise) you would be more likely to get favorable terms. And you knew the Soviets would be extra interested in you. Thus the added "eagerness".<p>But yes the point is on the whole, Germans did not want to surrender to the Soviets. Germans didn't kill millions of American civilians. They didn't level American cities.<p>So, it was perfectly logical as Germany collapsed for <i>any</i> German to fear the retribution of the Soviet armed forces, who they had every reason to see as filled with a rage and a sense of purpose no American would have been able to contemplate.
[flagged]
[flagged]
It seems you are misreading my comment and the cold realism in which it is articulated (and which the relevant historical actors in this moment operated under) as some sort of endorsement of the act or an ignorance of the accompanying atrocities.<p>Rest assured I only sought to comment in that manner because I find generally on a forum such as this, leading with a sense of outrage (regardless of how justified) is typically unhelpful. I share your sentiments, though I sort of take it as a given on this forum that these aspects of WWII are known. I would guess far less people know about Operation Paperclip, thus the "nugget".<p>If upon learning about this someone needs me to connect the dots to your sentiments, well frankly I would suggest such a person is likely beyond my reach given the nature of the venue we find ourselves in (pseudonymous forum).<p>I would encourage you to not so readily cast aspersions upon your fellow interlocutors here based on turn of phrase alone. Have a nice day.
Just for context, when Boeing completed the 747 Airbus wasn't even a thing. 5 decades later they have caught up in most categories and even surpassed in some. Who knows, maybe something similar will happen again?
Congrats! How come European companies still haven't managed to match SpaceX's capabilities? Europe has an incredible talent pool, especially in aerospace, and some of the world’s best expertise in precision engineering, instrumentation, sensors, avionics, and other hard-tech subsystems. A huge amount of the expertise and supply chain for these components is concentrated in Europe.<p>So what are we missing? Is it mainly systems integration, manufacturing scale, risk tolerance, organizational structure, or the willingness to iterate as aggressively as SpaceX? It feels like Europe has many of the pieces needed to build world-class launch systems, but hasn't yet put them together at the same scale and speed.
Most of the US space launch startups have failed. And in Europe it is harder to even try.<p>There was a confluence of several factors which helped SpaceX to succeed, and not the least of these was the employee number one. For many years, Tom Mueller has been working in his free time on rather large liquid fuel amateur rockets, which he was building in his garage and which he was launching from some amateur rocketry facilities in the desert. In terms of regulation it was a relatively accessible hobby in the US. At the time Musk found him, he was working on the original "BFR" -- a very large liquid fuel amateur rocket. So the deal was to invest serious money into the project and scale the same no nonsense approach to a small orbital launch vehicle. They were in LA, the center of US aerospace manufacturing, so through Tom's professional connections and knowledge of who was who in the industry, they were able to source the necessary materials, components, and to find the key personnel for their company. Significantly, NASA has already spent probably a decade or more trying to get somebody to produce a cheap small launch vehicle. This did not directly affect SpaceX, but it did fund the R&D for example at Barber-Nichols, which enabled them to offer a turbopump for SpaceX engine at a much lower cost than it would have been possible otherwise.<p>At first, Musk and Co thought that they would be able to develop the rocket for a few million dollars. But even in the US regulatory environment it turned out that doing everything in compliance with regulations raised the costs to well over a hundred million dollars.<p>So, Tom's hobby + Musk's activism + industrial ecosystem in the area + NASA's prior support of component vendors + being at the right time to snag the International Space Station delivery contract were all important for SpaceX thriving where so many others have failed.
> So what are we missing?<p>There are some (many?) European companies which are considered as least as much as a jobs program as anything else.<p>In 2018, Alain Charmeau (in)famously expressed frustration with SpaceX in an interview with Der Spiegel and rejected reusability with these words:<p>“Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a rocket which we can use ten times—we would build exactly one rocket per year,” he said. “That makes no sense. I cannot tell my teams: ‘Goodbye, see you next year!’”<p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/ariane-chief-seems-frustrated-with-spacex-for-driving-down-launch-costs/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/ariane-chief-seems-f...</a><p>from the original<p><a href="https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-die-amerikaner-wollen-europa-aus-dem-weltraum-kicken-a-1207322.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-d...</a><p>A more recent example would be the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project which was officially cancelled in June 2026, due to (?) industrial rivalry and leadership disputes, with a side order of politics.
Probably the biggest thing is that capital in the EU is far more conservative.
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.
Very interesting, thanks.<p>It looks like he was an angel investor in Isar, and then co-founded a VC firm that continued to invest in Isar: <a href="https://alpinespace.vc/" rel="nofollow">https://alpinespace.vc/</a>
Plesetsk is also european soil.
Europe is a vibe based concept, a place can be European or not depending on the vibes. Even the east west central etc. are completely vibe based. Portugal for example is Eastern European country, meanwhile Romania is central according to some textbooks.
Yeah, Romania being central Europe - impossible nonsense. Because Czech Republic is in central Europe!
Portugal is not Eastern European and it would be incredibly rare for Europeans to identify it as such. Have you been to Europe in your life?
They're using "Europe" as political shorthand for Western Europe
Yeah, just like Toronto is American soil
Kourou as well, although maybe a different definition of European.
Really sad to see that Europe is so far behind.<p>Consider India, once single country vs all of Europe: 88 orbital launches successfully reached orbit using Indian built rockets starting in 1980.<p>This is out of 104 individual liftoffs.<p>Over 46 years of successful launches.
I don't understand the one country vs all of Europe - given a fixed population, being united in a single country surely makes everything a bit more efficient than being split in many small countries? India is much bigger than "all of Europe".
The fact not many launches happen from continental Europe has nothing to do with capabilities of the space industry or lack of expertise, but rather location.<p>Europe is far from the equator and densely populated so rocket launches from there are more costly, and failures can have a higher risk to life.<p>Arianne space has had 350+ successful missions after 45 years of operations, with most of those launching from overseas territories.
It’s the national equivalent of:<p>How long it takes you to ship this project? Two weeks.<p>And if you get help from Alice, Bob, and Charlie? Then it’s a year.
Advancement of a culture is not only measured by rocket launches.
As a European, I'm glad functioning sewage systems took priority over an orbital launch capability.
> "The findings identified an unintended opening of the vent valve<p>How do they figure things like this out, after a rocket goes "boom"?
FYI Norway is not in the EU. Whether they are European is a matter of perspective and I'm not touching that subject any further! Deutschland is in the EU.
Interesting that it uses Propane fuel and "weaves" the rockets with carbon composite.
I wonder whether the Sámi people have been consulted or compensated for the use of their traditional lands as a rocket launch site. Given Norway’s long history of suppressing Sámi people and their land rights, I'd be interested to know how that was handled.
In this house we believe the first Neanderthal did not consent
Did the Sami compensate the Indo-Europeans they displaced?
Interesting:<p><pre><code> Just south of the launchpad lies Bukkekjerka, a protected Sami cultural monument. Prior to Christianity, sacrifices were made within a cave facing the sea. In most recent times, for the past half-century, there has been an annual open-air church service, which attracts many from across Andøya – perhaps even some who remember or even resided in the disappeared town of Haugnes.
</code></pre>
<a href="https://www.cryopolitics.com/2022/10/06/on-norways-auroral-edge-a-spaceport-takes-shape/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cryopolitics.com/2022/10/06/on-norways-auroral-e...</a>
Isar Aerospace launch into orbit [video] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss1DUqLjecc" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss1DUqLjecc</a> (<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49580325">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49580325</a>)
Thanks for that video. Super cool that they got pro streamers NSF involved.<p>Really interesting that they will be launching from Canada as well.
Really beautiful with the rocket shining brightly upon the mountains as it lifts off
This is such a breath of fresh air
Congrats! didn't know german has this ability before.
Yeah in general it’s good advice to not existentially challenge the Germans.
Why are they on X? As a European company, should they not be posting instead from W Social?
Made with imipolex g?
What Europe needs to do to spur its tech sector is lower taxes.<p>A 2018 study shows tax increases significantly reduce innovation. A 1% increase in the top marginal income tax rate leads to a 2% reduction in patents and inventors, while a similar increase in corporate taxes causes even larger declines.<p>The study is quite rigorous too:<p><a href="https://open.substack.com/pub/maximumprogress/p/tax-cuts-and-innovation" rel="nofollow">https://open.substack.com/pub/maximumprogress/p/tax-cuts-and...</a>
Fantastic job!
The Germans also launched the first rocket to make it to space on June 20th 1944, though it wasn't privately made.
Space, yes. Orbit, no. From what I understand, orbit is much harder to achieve. Pedantic, but still.
i was under the impression that the closer you launch from the equator, the less sustained force you need. wrong?
o/
[flagged]
The sooner Europe cuts itself off from the US crazy billionaires, the better - on all levels (software and manufacture processes are the two biggest issues). Today we already could see the US surrender team crawling up to dictator Putin. Enough is enough - agent Krasnov needs to be isolated.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
o/
How can it be the first European rocket? There’s the ESA! Are you telling me we have all these organisations and none of them have ever launched from their own continent?
Europe isn't on or remotely near the equator, which is somewhat favorable for launches.
> The German company Isar Aerospace launched its Spectrum rocket from Andøya Space Center in northern Norway today<p>To speculate, they could be targeting a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit</a>
ESA launches French Guiana. Since it is cheaper to launch closer to the equator with the extra speed provided by the earth's rotation.
For satellites that should be in Sun-synchronous orbit Andøy is a great place to launch from
Really comes in handy to still have a couple of colonies near the equator.<p>It's also better to have the massive amounts of emissions far away from your own population.
French Guiana is not a colony, it is a region of France. People who live there have the same constitutional rights as anyone living in mainland France.<p>It has the same status in France as Alaska does in the US.
That's legally true, but I think it misses the distinction between formal political status and the legacy of colonialism.
French Guiana is an overseas department of France, and its residents have French citizenship and constitutional rights. But that doesn't mean the historical relationship was equivalent to mainland France, or that the effects of that history disappeared when the legal status changed.<p>The same point applies elsewhere: Guinea became independent from French colonial rule in 1958, but independence didn't magically erase the economic structures, institutions, and inequalities inherited from colonialism. Today, a large share of Guinea's population still lives in poverty despite the country's enormous natural-resource wealth.<p>So "it's not a colony" is correct as a matter of constitutional law. But using that fact to imply that colonial history is irrelevant to present-day economic and social conditions is a much stronger claim, and one that's harder to defend.
While I agree with your analysis, would you think is the best to use the same generic term "colonialism" for both the situations in French Guyana and let's say Venezuela in the last year? I would prefer more words to differentiate a bit, but maybe that's just me.
How does it compare to Alaska? Wasn't it purchased as a colony from russians to exploit Alaskan gold with complete disreagrd for opinion of the native population?
[flagged]
It's a colony even if it's legally part of France.<p>(Had to check: free movement does apply to Guianans, but in the other direction it's not part of Schengen)
Ireland is not part of Schengen as well for example, it is because that is much harder to practically achieve for folks living on islands.
Guianans tend to get pissed off if outsiders suggest in any way that they are any different as a French region from l'Hexagone (the French mainland). Your banging on about colonies would not be well received there.
For what it's worth, Metropolitan France used to claim Algeria wasn't a colony either.
A fully loaded Falcon 9 carries less kerosene than 1 (one single) A380. What level of concerntrolling is this?
>Really comes in handy to still have a couple of colonies near the equator.<p>>It's also better to have the massive amounts of emissions far away from your own population.<p>That's the dumbest comment i read since a long time, thanks.
> How can it be the first European rocket?<p>Not at all. You've missed the "Private" in the headline. And that it apparently is.
Article says Western Europe, but Norway is in Northern Europe.<p>“First rocket to launch from Europe outside Russia” would have been perfectly correct.
They launch from Guiana afaik
The French used to launch their rockets from Algeria. Their first satellite was launched from there. Since then they moved to (French) Guiana.<p>The UK launched from Australia.
It isn't. Plesetsk is in European Russia and was built to prevent overreliance on Baikonur
One can hope they can repurpose this to a shield for Ukraine
> from European soil<p>When someone emphasizes nationalism a bit too much that's usually only because they don't have enough technical merit to talk about.
Europe is a continent, not a nation.
No. It’s simply about accessibility and sovereignty. Even though the ESA can launch from French Guiana, the space port is an ocean-away from Europe! How much do you think that fact will affect the cost and the launch cadence for Europe?<p>Now they prove they can launch directly from Norway with their own production from Munich and elsewhere and that has immense potential for the future: much higher cadence, significant lower cost and always-on accessibility.<p>The only way, Europe can have a Starlink similar network is to launch from their own soil and reuse the first stage. Also from the perspective of security, launching spy and other military satellites from European soil is the only practical possibility in this political climate.
Launching far off the equator makes it more difficult and is therefore a bigger technological achievement.
The selection of launch site takes the orbital inclination into account.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit</a><p>The "Onward and Upward" cube sats were deployed to Sun-synchronous orbits, with a roughly polar inclination.<p>Similarly, launches from USSF Base Vandenberg take a southerly trajectory, so it can be used for orbits like that.<p>Rocket launches from continental Europe have been challenging because of the population centers, and the unpopularity of things exploding over their heads, and falling on their houses and businesses. USA and Russia have some quite ideal sites that avoid flying over populated areas.