upvote
> It's funny how we can't be celebrate a European achievement without trying to interpret it into relationship to the US.

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.

reply
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 !
reply
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.
reply
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?

The UK is likely to be an illustrative example, so it's apt you mentioned it

reply
>As an American, ... maintain world peace

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?

reply
What it tends to mean is “prevent the US homeland from being threatened” and “keep US trade flowing”
reply
[flagged]
reply
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.

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.

And outside of Europe the US hardly maintained peace.

Nuclear weapons maintained 'peace' between Soviets and the US more then anything else.

And Europe has always pulled its weight in science, technology and engineering.

reply
> Vietnam

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.

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.

reply
It's not so simple, the rampant corruption under Ngô Đình Diệm, misappropriation of aid, etc. shouldn't just be swept under the rug. Hindsight says remaining capitalist probably would have been better for the average person, but it wasn't so obvious at the time.

Johnson was a warmonger, exaggerating (or possibly faking) the Gulf of Tonkin engagements to justify full escalation was a crime that led to the death of 60,000 Americans, hundreds of thousands more with PTSD, and 2 million+ murdered Vietnamese civilians. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of birth defects caused by agent orange and the still ongoing effort to clean up dioxins from the environment.

reply
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.

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.

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.

Supporting wrong side in Afghanistan? Against Soviet invasion? Sometimes, often even there are no good sides.

If you guys didn't support Soviet union in 40s (which they vehemently denied since then but its their inferiority complex, the 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 very different in Europe and globally.

reply
If you guys didn't support Soviet union in 40s...

You can go even farther back in time. If the US hadn't massively relieved the famine in Russia in 1920/21 there might have been a chance, Lenin and the Bolshevik regime wouldn't have survived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921%E2%80%9...

reply
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.
reply
Yes, they've had a space agency, but the only launchers are expensive legacy vehicles.

This launch is a move towards lower cost and more frequent launches, that in the US are provided by SpaceX.

reply
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.
reply
Reuse might turn out not to be the future - and its SpaceX has embraced this internally. At least not full reuse, or not the way most people think of a reusable spacecraft as a reusable aircraft. A reusable rocket engine might only have 2-3 flights in it, if that, with some routine inspection and maintenance between them.

3D printing has been a game changer that basically allows you to crank out rocket engines from raw materials, which means that building new ones is cheap and easy. If you look at the Raptor 3 (3D printed), it looks super clean, thanks to the fact that they integrated most of the piping into the 3d printed body, but that means you can't really fix or inspect it.

Which is fine tbh. SpaceX (and Tesla) has been shown to be pragmatic not dogmatic when it comes to new technology. 'Elon time' might be a meme, but Musk both pushes his employees very hard, but probably not harder than possible - and he's willing to take flak for delaying projects, changing scope or outright cancellation.

reply
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.
reply
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.

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.

reply
> 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

In software, thanks mostly to the open-source movement, we all have access to the same materials and manufacturing processes.

In manufacturing, there are huge differences in materials and processes that we need to account for. On the flip side, this can allow one to leapfrog the other rather than replicating them - it’s likely the next reusable Falcon 9-class vehicle will use a methalox engine that’ll be easier to maintain compared to Flacon 9’s kerolox ones. China has demonstrated a novel approach to vehicle recovery as well (in addition to landing legs). Future competitors will have access to materials current incumbents didn’t have and can’t easily adopt with their current supply chain.

People also forget SpaceX subverted a lot of the expectations for reusable rockets - they didn’t use parachutes, but opted to carry extra propellant for landing; they didn’t eject the engines, opting instead to reuse the whole stage; and they built landing barges because their rockets would launch towards the ocean, saving fuel for a boost back to the launch site. They also tested capsule landing using the launch abort rockets, but opted for parachutes and splashdowns instead. Still they keep all the RCS motors in the capsule, making their expendable service module very inexpensive in comparison to Boeing’s.

All these decisions point to proven mission architectures so that followers don’t need to explore architectures that were explored and dropped.

reply
Just because you invest in it doesn't mean you end up with hugely cheap and scalable launch.

Europe has already invested far more in rocket then SpaceX did and isn't close.

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.

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.

reply
SpaceX was founded on making launches cheap. Arianespace only recently decided to develop reusable launch systems. Up to SpaceX demonstrating it was possible, the dominant approach to cheap launches was in making the expendable rocket cheap to manufacture. Nobody needs to be reminded the shuttle promised cheap access to space and failed at that.
reply
Ariane 5 was the cheapest option available for a long time, now they're a bit behind. But the ESA is now working on reusable rockets too, it seems, with their Themis program.
reply
Have there been other rocket launches from continental Europe?
reply
> Have there been other rocket launches from continental Europe?

Continental Europe? yes. The Russian's Plesetsk Cosmodrome is well within the boundaries of the European continent.

Continental Europe outside of Russian influence? no.

reply
Britain’s Black Arrow could, but it launched from a RAF base in Australia. Definitely not continental Europe, but part of Europe if you consider it from the Eurovision point of view.

A real shame Britain abandoned their own research.

reply
From a sovereignty perspective, does a launch from continental Europe actually matter when Arianespace/CNES/ESA has been launching from France for decades?
reply
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.
reply
Its not an ex-colony, its part of France and the EU.
reply
It was a French colonial subject as recently as the 20th century.

Regardless, a launch facility within Europe seems much less riskier long term from a geopolitical standpoint.

reply
Although you're right about the history of French Guiana, using that term to put on the same level as New Caledonia is nonsense. (Same goes for Martinique.)
reply
Doesn't it matter if this part of France is an ocean away?
reply
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.
reply
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.

My opinion is that there is an implied reliance on the US "allowing" Europe to ship the rockets to Kourou and launch them there.

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.

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.

reply
> Being an ocean away does not make Kourou reliant on the US.

No, but it makes it vulnerable to the US.

reply
“Vulnerable to the US” can mean so many things that it practically loses all meaning. Even with a launchpad in continental Europe, they have many ways to interfere with this project, from disrupting the supply chain to carpet bombing the launch site.
reply
A ship crossing the ocean is much more vulnerable than a launch site with sophisticated air defences.

The US can also decide to “free” and “bring democracy” to the French Guiana because the rich oil deposits of its continental shelf won’t free themselves.

The point is that a slow ship crossing the ocean with hard to replace is very vulnerable in transit.

reply
There is no sovereignty perspective because Europe isn't even sovereign to begin with. For starters it doesn't even have a common army
reply
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.

Though not every sovereign state has an army, see Iceland, Costa Rica, theoretically Japan, etc.

reply
deleted
reply
Yes, but most of them in the early 1940s.
reply
Orbital? Maybe not. Sub-orbital and ballistic? Absolutely.
reply
Oh yes, I think everyone remembers Germany's ballistic rockets

"Don't say that he's hypocritical,

Say rather that he's apolitical.

'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?

That's not my department,' says Wernher von Braun."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio

reply
hehe, yes but if it wasnt for german rocket scientists the americans and russians would not have had space agencies (at least not that early)
reply
Well, there was Goddard, Korolev & quite a few others. But it could indeed have taken longer if the military implications were not clearly demonstrated by Von Braun.

Still, an interesting possibility of a fully civilian space program from the start & how it would look like & how it would be different.

Kinda like in Wings of Honneamise.

reply
Not only the military aspect. His staff literally were absorbed into the Russian sand US space programs. Von Braun himself famously designed the Saturn V.
reply
>His staff literally were absorbed into the Russian sand US space programs.

Not really in case of the USSR. German group in Russia was isolated and Korolev didn't like competition. Soviet space program started by replicating German rocket, but once all production chains were created, it was off on its own course.

I highly recommend English translation of memoirs of Boris Chertok[0] to anyone interested in the history of Soviet space program.

[0] https://www.nasa.gov/history/history-publications-and-resour...

reply
That was just because the Russian's didn't trust "their" Germans as much as the Americans trusted "theirs". Operation Osoaviakhim was mostly about knowledge extraction, not about cooperation. The other difference was that the "Russian Germans" didn't go to Russia on their own will (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim).

Once the knowledge was "extracted" the Germans were allowed to return though (good thing Stalin was already dead at that time).

Former Junkers engineer Brunolf Baade then went on to build the first and only German jet airliner for East Germany - which then of course was cancelled as soon as it was ready to enter production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baade_152).

reply
>as the Americans trusted "theirs"

Americans didn't trust either. But then Sputnik happened and Americans only had oopsnik[0], so they turned to neglected Redstone made by von Braun[1][2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_TV-3#Reaction

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_1

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#U.S._Army_ca...

reply
> Does it mean that?

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.

reply
>geopolitical wildcard

How is Russia a wildcard? What unexpected thing do you think Russia has done?

reply
Authoritarian dictatorships will always behave in seemingly irrational ways (from the perspective of sane politicians). Dictators will always put their personal ambition and "career" first before their country's interests.

If Russia behaved rationally they would have made a deal with Ukraine (decades ago) that protected the rights of the Russian minorities in Ukraine and continued massively profiting from gas and oil exports into Europe.

reply
> they would have made a deal with Ukraine (decades ago) that protected the rights of the Russian minorities in Ukraine and continued massively profiting from gas and oil exports into Europe.

Russia did, many times, last time in 2010.[0]

But the US and the EU didn't like it, so the coup in 2014 happened with American help[1] which overthrew democratically elected president of Ukraine who introduced the law protecting Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens.[2]

The law was repelled right after the coup and Crimeans supported the reunion with Russia.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#201...

reply
There was no coup:

  Parliament votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych on Feb. 22; sets May 25 for new election
reply
deleted
reply
[dead]
reply
Belgian here.

I think Trump definitely pushes allies away much faster than ever anticipated, that's probably the only achievement from the current administration.

The alliance still stands, but it's hard to trust the US when the current president is constantly praising violent dictators and doesn't seem to grasp the concept of laws/rules + tries to blame everyone else + threatens to invade EU countries + the requirement to bribe him with funds/crypto to have "alliance".

You can know a guy by the friends he keeps :)

Fyi. I used to always use US tech, the last year I've done my best to adhere to the "European Souvereign Cloud". My current stack on US providers is down from 300 € / month to 35€ / m. And many are following suite ( it's slowly becoming a requirement for tenders for the governement + cities)

reply
[flagged]
reply
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.

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.

reply
This obsession started decades ago. Long before any recent politics. It's only gotten deeper and more intense recently.
reply
Again, it's an "obsession" in the same way people can't look away from a three-legged dog.

Because you elected actors for president before. Because you had school shootings before. Because everything in the sky was always UFO to you, and everything on the ground either bigfoot or communists. Because you spread "democracy" that is shaped like bombs. Because you fund your own terrorists and drug cartels. Because you strong-arm world economies for non-reasons. Because you have nukes and eternal paranoia.

But yes, it did get much worse recently. Congratulations on noticing?

reply
In what ways are you saying "Europe is absolutely obsessed with the US": politics, tech, capital markets, defense, economics, culture, cultural trends, unpredictability, something else? And how is that "obsessed" rather than "paying attention to"? Without you giving any specifics, can't tell if that is good-faith comment or trolling. For example US audiences are obsessed with Downton Abbey, or the Titanic, or the 15-minute city proposal, and Tarantino was obsessed with French names of McDonald's hamburgers, but noone built a broader claim on top of those.

What specific event and year were IYO the onset of what you're claiming?

reply
You folks over the pond really do think we think about you that much don’t you, prior to Trump I didn’t give much of a shit what the US did (except when you were destabilising the Middle East but I guess everyone needs a hobby), was literally none of my business and I didn’t have to live there (fortunately).

Now we have to pay attention because what you always where in part is in full control and it’s essentially impossible to ignore.

I long for the days when we can go back to the happy place of ignoring your government day to day until it’s time for another Middle East intervention.

Til then and for the avoidance of any doubt, I loathe Trump, I don’t like the people in his government, I don’t like the people who voted for him and the ones who didn’t vote and could have, the only people in America I have any sympathy for is the ones who voted for anyone but him/this shit show, the rest of you got what you deserved and will continue to do so.

So with that as your president if you still believe in American Exceptionalism you can shove it.

Hope that was clear enough.

reply
> You folks over the pond really do think we think about you that much don’t you

Yes? You talk about us waaaaay more than we talk about you. And not just since Trump.

reply
You talk about it as if it's little cliques of students talking about each other in a cafeteria. It's not. It's a giant economy with a giant military that affects everyone's wellbeing.
reply
deleted
reply
In fact, until Trump 2 they rarely thought about you at all.
reply
What nonsense, most Europeans who are not politically super active might watch some US movies and consume things from the US like IPhones, but that doesn't mean obsessed. Most people are just mildly amused by US politics. You have serious selection bias if you think something else.
reply
Perhaps, but most people don’t think about those things as US things. As for iPhones they were “designed in Cupertino” but made in China like almost everything else these days.
reply
>It's because Europe is absolutely obsessed with the United States and obsessed with Americans.

Is this the new cope?

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.

People pay close attention to the US not because they want to buy because they basically have to.

reply
Hackernews is slowly turning into the same primitive social networking shit as X, Threads, insta, Linkedin. Time to get off of it I suppose
reply
It is still the opinion of a very selected group. Even the rants are worth listening to.

In particular, I’m loving the obviously British comments (I deeply admire their ability to give the classiest insults).

reply