ESA and Ariane Group are two very different things. Ariane Group's main investor is the French state (61%). The French state wants a high-powered solid rocket booster for its ICBMs, and a sovereign and reliable means of launching large intelligence satellites.
It couldn't care less about reusability.
ESA is the equivalent of NASA and has no commercial activity, but subsidizes part of the Ariane program.
Ariane group would rather be like a state own Lockheed Martin Space. Private investors interested in profitability and civil activities are in the minority at Ariane Group
There is no race between ESA, NASA and Roscomos.
The Russians and the French are not going to abandon their rockets and entrust their nuclear deterrent and early warning system to SpaceX.
> “The Russians and the French are not going to abandon their rockets and entrust their nuclear deterrent and early warning system to SpaceX.”
The United States is certainly happy to (launch military payloads with SpaceX). Having access to far more launch capacity, far more cheaply, is surely a significant strategic advantage.
It's a huge fucking problem if you're not American. If you don't want to be subject to American law. If you don't want your technology inspected or tampered with by Americans. If you don't want the transaction to be in dollars (extra-territoriality of US law on all dollar transactions). If you don't want to deal with the problem of American citizens and companies subject to FISA, who could face severe repercussions in the US if they don't spy or facilitate spying on their non-American clients.
> The US isn't really interested in the secrets of some Malaysian or Brazilian TV satellite.
Once again, compliance with US regulations, including export control, dual-use goods and tax regulations, can be weaponized, and has been in the past.
Maybe the TV satellite manufacturer has also supplied a weather satellite to Brazil that contains technologies covered by export control, bingo. Your satellite and your assets in the USA are frozen until the manufacturer provide all the information needed to decide whether or not it was a spy satellite.
It's a minefield and it was designed to be one. I know of several non-defense companies whose first question on the phone is "are you a US person as defined by FATCA and FISA ?".
This goes both ways. While the US is certainly open to having scientific payloads launched by non-US launch providers (e.g, JWT) it’s strictly not launching military payloads from non-US spaceport or from non-US vehicles.
Given this stance, why should other NATO partners fold their own programs? The situation would entirely different if SpaceX was 20% German owned and the US would allow Ariane to compete for military payloads.
As an aside, both ESA and the German Armed Forces habe used SpaceX in the past and ESA, EUMETSAT, and the UK Armed Forces have planned launches with SpaceX. There is far from a dogmatic perspective in Europe to only use Ariane for launches.
Because the USA needs NATO and other shit to have soft power and keep its hegemony.
Shit like what you said truly makes me wonder about the state of education in the USA when you don't understand a basic geopolitical principle your country has enacted for 80+ years, with massive benefits.
Unhappy marriages are unstable, even if they make economic sense.
Drag too much resentment into a relationship and people may do the irrational thing.
I was witness to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Economically, it didn't make sense to do that. But the Slovaks really resented Czech paternalism and wanted to go their own way.
> Europe needs the US more than the US needs Europe as far as NATO is concerned, the defence spending disparities speak for themselves.
As far as the USA hegemony is concerned, NATO is an instrumental piece of soft and hard power.
You are parroting Trump's arguments about defence spending as if the US spending is only concerning NATO, the US spend a lot in defence because it's been your bread and butter to maintain a global reach as a superpower, the moment you lose this you'll see America's influence diminish, if that's what you wish please go ahead and pull out but so far it's been very beneficial to you in the USA to be the de facto global enforcer during Pax Americana.
> I sincerely question the logic behind our servicemen putting their lives on the line for someone resenting America this bad.
Geopolitics are not based on feelings, it's based on advantages and trade-offs, your feelings don't matter for this.
Coming from a person that once said in a comment "love is a mental illness" you seem to be quite the non-rational actor, with knee-jerk reactions when your feelings are hurt. Try to comprehend that the life as you know as an American is dependent on keeping your dollar as the most powerful currency, which demands being backed by the most powerful military, with the most trading routes possible, and with trade as stable as possible around the globe.
NATO is just a piece of the puzzle, it's not about what the others allies feel about you.
You are also forgetting 4 years of Trump with a possible re-election of this piece of shit, there are reasons for allies to be resenting America, it's becoming unstable and less trustworthy.
>You are parroting Trump's arguments about defence spending as if the US spending is only concerning NATO, the US spend a lot in defence because it's been your bread and butter to maintain a global reach as a superpower, the moment you lose this you'll see America's influence diminish, if that's what you wish please go ahead and pull out but so far it's been very beneficial to you in the USA to be the de facto global enforcer during Pax Americana.
American influence and Pax Americana is on its way out this century one way or another, including the fact it's not even just Trump who is pushing for it. Remember Obama declared America is no longer the world police.
Our insane defence budget is a common point of criticism by other countries including so-called "allies", and yet y'all bitch very loudly if we so much as suggest acting on them (eg: leave NATO). Get your act together and at least pretend you want us around, otherwise I repeat my sentiment that I doubt the logic of things like NATO.
>Geopolitics are not based on feelings, it's based on advantages and trade-offs, your feelings don't matter for this.
America is a democracy, so ultimately our everything is based on the feelings of the people who vote. I for one do not want to see servicemen get stationed at and fight for countries who resent us, end of.
> Given the choices presented, I am in fact voting for Trump. Problem?
I question your judgment but given other comments I read on HN coming from your username it's actually not that surprising you are taking such an immensely stupid decision.
Good luck, you are just a sad unloved human being with strongly emotional opinions, nothing really I can discuss with to land on some common ground.
>I question your judgment but given other comments I read on HN coming from your username it's actually not that surprising you are taking such an immensely stupid decision.
Look: I can pick between a senile elder who can't speak straight under pressure, or someone who ostensibly acts for improving the country (MAGA) even though I don't agree with everything about him.
The Democrats can pick someone else for their candidate and if he's a good one I might vote for him. Doesn't look like that will be the case though.
This is also putting aside the long standing trend of the Left moving further and further left that I, as a center-conservative, am left with choosing the Right all the time every time as the closer of two options. Not entirely my problem the political landscape is this way.
>Good luck, you are just a sad unloved human being
I doubt you know enough about me to make such a bold statement.
>with strongly emotional opinions
Yup. I'm a tired, jaded geezer in his mid 30s now with no more damns left to give, I'm about fed up with dealing with the ramblings of both youngster know-nothings and know-it-all pundits/"experts"/intellectuals. Screw all of you, I'll just go and quietly(loudly?) enjoy life while y'all whine yourselves to death for no good reason.
> Look: I can pick between a senile elder who can't speak straight under pressure, or someone who ostensibly acts for improving the country (MAGA) even though I don't agree with everything about him.
> The Democrats can pick someone else for their candidate and if he's a good one I might vote for him. Doesn't look like that will be the case though.
How is trying to overthrow a democracy an improvement for your country? This alone should have completely barred Trump from public life, if not legally at least morally. Instead we from the outside see people like you, defending and voting for a person who is ostensibly and almost transparently against what are your supposed core values. You had 4 years of clear facts on how Trump does not care a single bit about your country if he is not gaining something out of it. You got 4 years of a botched response to a pandemic, packing your Supreme Court with the likes of Clarence Thomas, openly corrupt people (Jared Kusher) in higher echelons of government. To top it off you are voting for someone who stole secret documents on their way out of the highest position in your government.
It's frankly absurd that your judgment is so flawed. Not that Biden is good with his senile mind but at least he is not working against your democracy.
On top of that you have access to "Project 2025" clearly on the internet, you can read exactly what's the plan for a next Trump government and you are still siding on that.
> This is also putting aside the long standing trend of the Left moving further and further left that I, as a center-conservative, am left with choosing the Right all the time every time as the closer of two options. Not entirely my problem the political landscape is this way.
There's no "Left" in the USA, the Democrats are not leftists, they might try to appease more with some social policies but they are very clearly not "Left", if you are a center-conservative but will vote for Trump you are not center anything, you are supporting a brazen antagoniser of democracy, I don't believe that's a centrist position at all, you've been consumed into the Overton window and has a very clear misguided belief. You are falling to magical thinking that Trump will somehow not act worse than on his 1st presidency.
> I doubt you know enough about me to make such a bold statement.
I took note of a past comment from you this week about love being a mental illness, I didn't have to check your history for that because the sadness of that comment got stuck in my mind.
> Yup. I'm a tired, jaded geezer in his mid 30s now with no more damns left to give, I'm about fed up with dealing with the ramblings of both youngster know-nothings and know-it-all pundits/"experts"/intellectuals. Screw all of you, I'll just go and quietly(loudly?) enjoy life while y'all whine yourselves to death for no good reason.
Mid-30s is definitely not a "geezer", I'm well into my mid-30s and as jaded as I got by many aspect of life I'm glad to have accumulated enough wisdom to avoid the worst pitfalls of being an petulant cynical man-child, while also knowing that I'm not wise enough in many other aspects, it's probably part of it.
Your rejection of experts, or intellectualism is another very sad aspect, someone who was born and grew up in one of the wealthiest countries on Earth didn't seem to have got a good enough education to understand their own limits on knowledge, and be able to defer opinions to those who might have acquired it while having a good enough grasp to apply critical thinking. You are stuck in an infantile black-and-white worldview, and instead of trying to improve you've decided it's better to be tired and reject everything.
I understand the pull of ignorance, it does make one happier, it's the lazy way of living. It also makes one stupider.
> I'll just go and quietly(loudly?) enjoy life while y'all whine yourselves to death for no good reason.
You are part of a society, built upon people who cared about improving it over many generations, if taking part on that is no good reason for you, please just don't vote.
It's more odious to me someone choosing to be ignorant after being given all opportunities to not be than someone being ignorant by the lack of them. You are the former case which is absolutely sad.
> On top of that you have access to "Project 2025" clearly on the internet, you can read exactly what's the plan for a next Trump government and you are still siding on that.
That's just a wishlist by a coalition of conservative thinktanks. Trump didn't personally write it, and when he claims he hasn't even read it, I believe him–why would he want to read 922 pages of thinktank verbiage? [0] Obama probably would (as a former constitutional law professor I'm sure he can demolish a thousand pages of blather for breakfast), I doubt Trump's attention span is long enough
If Trump wins in November, they'll spoon feed him this document in bite-sized chunks. And he might actually agree to implement some of it. But I'm sure other bits he'll either reject, or only agree to in some watered-down form. Because he doesn't personally agree with it. Or because he worries about negative political blowback (e.g. the 2026 mid-terms). Or because competing lobbyists/advisors/etc are urging him to do something else instead.
And I reckon if you went looking, you'd find instances of progressive groups publishing "wishlists" or "advice" for potential future Democratic administrations too. No doubt Biden/Obama/Clinton did some of their asks, and failed or refused to do others – just like what's going to happen here, assuming Trump wins (which right now looks more likely than not, but it isn't impossible the Democrats might recover, especially if they swap Biden for someone else)
> If Trump wins in November, they'll spoon feed him this document in bite-sized chunks. And he might actually agree to implement some of it. But I'm sure other bits he'll either reject, or only agree to in some watered-down form.
And isn't this already scary enough to reject a Trump presidency? That's what I mean about the Overton window shifting, when some parts of that tome are acceptable as public policy given the foundation of the whole document... It shouldn't be acceptable that any of it would be considered as policy, even less by a stupid ignorant like Trump who won't even read it, much less have any semblance of knowledge for the consequences of applying those policies.
The guy openly states his ignorance and stupidity, and his voters accept that ignorance as a good trait, it's absolutely unfathomable.
> And isn't this already scary enough to reject a Trump presidency?
I'm an outside observer sitting on the other side of the planet looking in. So I'm not personally accepting or rejecting anything.
But I note Trump said a lot of rather frightening stuff in his 2016 campaign–a fair chunk of which he rather quickly walked back on once he walked into the White House. And I'm pretty sure the same thing is going to happen this time around. He sold voters this massive wall on the southern border, he only ever built bits of it – and the random border fencing improvements he did do aren't fundamentally different from what his predecessor or successor have done. He promised a "Muslim ban" – which if he'd actually done it would have been a rather horrific policy – but it morphed into restrictions on citizens from certain countries, and major Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia were off the list, while North Korea (where people debate to what extent Islam even exists, outside of embassy staff and expats) was on it. He was never going to ban his Saudi pals, and I've even heard they knew that all along.
In fact, he's already walking back on some stuff and he hasn't even won yet – e.g. earlier this year he talked very loudly about ending aid to Ukraine, and then suddenly he switched gears and stayed quiet while Congressional Republicans passed a Ukraine aid bill. [0]
Nobody knows what Trump is going to do – including Trump himself – but he's unlikely to actually meet the demands of the most rabid members of the GOP base. He just wants them to think he will. And when he eventually betrays them, they just have to shut up and take it - they might whine a bit, but will anyone be listening? What other choice do they have? [1]
And I expect some Americans who are going to vote for Trump, are viewing it as a gamble – he sounded scary in 2016, yet (at least for them personally) he wasn't actually that bad, so vote for him with the hope the same thing happens this time around. And you'll be warning "this time around is different". And maybe you are right and they'll lose big. Then again, maybe they are right, and they won't. Nobody really knows what the future holds.
If you vote for a normal politician, they have a platform, and that platform is a declaration of intent. (At least to some degree - I know, politicians lie for votes.)
With Trump, he lies so much and so casually and so blatantly, you have no idea what his policies will be. None. There is zero correlation with what he says.
That's not something I'm willing to sign up for. I want at least some idea of what his policies will actually be.
> With Trump, he lies so much and so casually and so blatantly, you have no idea what his policies will be. None. There is zero correlation with what he says.
I think we can have some idea. For example, it is clear that Trump regrets somewhat the overturning of Roe v Wade. He never really cared about the abortion issue – he was just pandering to GOP religious conservatives with his Supreme Court nominations. And then when he saw how many ordinary American women were angry over Dobbs, he began to feel he'd gone too far to the right on the abortion issue. So, a second Trump administration is likely going to be harsher on abortion than the Biden administration is, but still going to resist implementing most of the more extreme demands anti-abortion conservatives will present.
For many other issues: if you study what he did in his first term, the political dynamics involved, leaks of his private conversations (he's more honest in private than in front of a stadium) – you can get a sense of what he's likely to do or not do. Of course, nobody knows for sure. But I feel like, on many issues, you can work out what is more likely than not to happen; if you placed enough bets you'd probably come out ahead overall.
And to be honest, does anyone really know what Biden is going to do? In the unlikely event he stays on the ticket and somehow wins against the odds in November, is he actually going to last 4 years? Or is he going to resign or die in office? And if you get President Harris instead, does anyone really know what she is going to do? She just seems like "generic Democrat" at the moment. She'll do whatever generic Democrat will do; she'll mostly do what Biden has done, but she'll almost certainly do some things a bit different, and nobody knows what or how.
> That's not something I'm willing to sign up for. I want at least some idea of what his policies will actually be.
If you aren't in Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, it likely really doesn't matter what you are or aren't willing to sign up for.
Oh boy, where shall I even begin. From the top, I guess.
>How is trying to overthrow a democracy an improvement for your country?
Largely a farce narrative, both from the outset and slowly but surely as the courts work their way through all the quagmire.
>Instead we from the outside see people like you, defending and voting for a person who is ostensibly and almost transparently against what are your supposed core values.
>You had 4 years of clear facts on how Trump does not care a single bit about your country if he is not gaining something out of it.
I saw 4 years of North Korea not launching a single missile and even some diplomacy with them, our country not starting any new wars (a god damn miracle), our southern border actually getting secured (relatively speaking), a surging economy pre-covid, FAA getting told to pound sand with their Boeing relationship, Boeing told to GTFO with Air Force One 2 unless they slashed the price (which they did), a lean State Department, and more.
Do I want more? Hell yeah. Wasn't perfect, but what administration ever was?
>You got 4 years of a botched response to a pandemic,
Pretty much every country botched it to varying degrees.
I personally think America was relatively better off because our courts had the guts to rule that long-term abuse of executive emergency powers and other transgressions on Constitutional rights and liberties are not warranted by a pandemic.
>packing your Supreme Court with the likes of Clarence Thomas,
...Do you even know when Justice Thomas was appointed and who nominated him? Appointed in 1991, nominated by George Bush Sr..
That aside, I appreciate having Supreme Court justices who judge based upon the word of the law rather than emotional diatribe like seen from Justice Sotomayor.
>openly corrupt people (Jared Kusher) in higher echelons of government.
Name me one President who didn't have corruption in his cabinet.
>To top it off you are voting for someone who stole secret documents on their way out of the highest position in your government.
So did Biden.
>On top of that you have access to "Project 2025" clearly on the internet, you can read exactly what's the plan for a next Trump government and you are still siding on that.
Heard about it, couldn't care less since it's all just political marketing like similar stuff I've seen in previous elections numerous times.
>There's no "Left" in the USA, the Democrats are not leftists, they might try to appease more with some social policies but they are very clearly not "Left",
Your European political compass is worthless in America, I would suggest re-calibrating that if you want to discuss American politics usefully. Just like my American political compass would be useless when discussing European politics and need re-calibrating.
>if you are a center-conservative but will vote for Trump you are not center anything,
Like I said, I have a choice between the Left (who might also be senile if things don't change) or the Right; and with the Left moving further left every year I am, for better or worse, left to relate more closely to the Right so they get my vote.
>you are supporting a brazen antagoniser of democracy, I don't believe that's a centrist position at all, you've been consumed into the Overton window and has a very clear misguided belief.
The Overton Window left me on account of moving lefter and lefter, as I keep repeating at least twice now.
>I took note of a past comment from you this week about love being a mental illness, I didn't have to check your history for that because the sadness of that comment got stuck in my mind.
So you honestly think you can make a statement about someone off of just one comment? Stunning.
I call romantic love a mental illness because it compels you to do things that defy logic and common sense, especially when seen in hindsight. That's the brain not working right, that's an illness of the mind, a mental illness.
If you think that's sad, more power to you. I'm a happy man.
>Mid-30s is definitely not a "geezer",
YMMV, but I'm feeling the rapid onset of physical aging already to say nothing of mental exhaustion. I'm nowhere as energetic as I was in my 20s.
>Your rejection of experts, or intellectualism is another very sad aspect,
If there's anything the past 8 years have taught me, it's that most "experts" spew bullshit and most examples of intellectualism aren't all that intelligent. I'm very aware of the limits of my own knowledge and understanding, and it is precisely because of that I reject peddlers of false knowledge and information who will only waste my precious time.
In case I'm not clear: There are experts and intellectuals worth listening to, I am saying most claimed examples actually are not.
>You are part of a society, built upon people who cared about improving it over many generations, if taking part on that is no good reason for you, please just don't vote.
I take part in society plentifully, though probably not in ways you want me to. That's fine, you mind your business and I will mine.
If you guys keep on resenting America (the context for this whole sub-thread), sooner or later we really will get tired of the whining and just go have beer somewhere else.
It wouldn't be the first time America wanted nothing to do with Europe either, so be aware it's more likely than you think even without all the prodding. We will always bend over backwards to help out the United Kingdom (our mom!), but the rest of Europe? Stop pressing your luck.
> >How is trying to overthrow a democracy an improvement for your country?
> Largely a farce narrative, both from the outset and slowly but surely as the courts work their way through all the quagmire.
I simply cannot continue a conversation when you can't adhere to a basic reality where a sitting president attempted to overthrow your democracy, playing it down as a "farce narrative" while a mob inflamed by the person you want to vote in invaded the Capitol. It's too absurd you are trying to push this under the rug.
> Your European political compass is worthless in America, I would suggest re-calibrating that if you want to discuss American politics usefully. Just like my American political compass would be useless when discussing European politics and need re-calibrating.
I'm originally Brazilian...
> ...Do you even know when Justice Thomas was appointed and who nominated him? Appointed in 1991, nominated by George Bush Sr..
> That aside, I appreciate having Supreme Court justices who judge based upon the word of the law rather than emotional diatribe like seen from Justice Sotomayor.
You prefer a corrupt judge in the Supreme Court? Taking lavish bribes from friends? That's absolutely absurd, I really can't comprehend this level of acceptance, just tells me clearly how degenerate has politics become in the USA if people participating in this forum who are very well versed in getting information from any source they might want to accept this.
> Name me one President who didn't have corruption in his cabinet.
> So did Biden.
Your whole argument over egregious acts committed under the Trump administration, like a blatant bribe of US$ 2bi for Kushner is based on "who cares? Everyone else also does it" without even considering there are varying levels of corruption, again you are in an infantile black-and-white worldview and I don't think we can meet anywhere when your reality simply doesn't match mine.
I will repeat: you are being an infantile reactionary, the Overton window has not shifted to the Left, when white supremacist discourse is not publicly shocking anymore that is not a leftist shift, you simply do not want or cannot comprehend that. When calling people "vermins", even if illegally immigrating to a country, is normalised you are not on a Left-shift of the Overton window.
> It wouldn't be the first time America wanted nothing to do with Europe either, so be aware it's more likely than you think even without all the prodding. We will always bend over backwards to help out the United Kingdom (our mom!), but the rest of Europe? Stop pressing your luck.
Once again, an infantile opinion "love me, or else..." without acknowledging the complexities of relationships between nations where friction is expected, disagreement is expected, and the mutual benefits of said relationships should prevail over infantile "I feel hurt" responses.
Your stupidly ignorant and reactionary point of view will cause harm, you are choosing to be ignorant about it. Not too unexpected from an American which centers the whole world in their own ego and feelings but still disappointing.
Good luck with the mess you are about to create, unfortunately your ignorance by choice will hurt others but it's not like you seem to care about others anyway.
> You prefer a corrupt judge in the Supreme Court? Taking lavish bribes from friends?
He accepted expensive non-monetary gifts from friends, and failed to disclose them. I agree it isn't a good look, but I don't think it is as bad as you are painting it.
Can anyone point to a case in which (1) Thomas voted in an unexpected way (given his track record) and (2) in a way which directly benefited any of these friends?
I don't think anyone can. I think, if it was as blatant as "I know your ultra-conservative ideology tells you to vote one way on this case, but here's a suitcase containing a million dollars for you to side with the liberals instead" – he'd be gone very quickly, even the GOP would be voting for articles of impeachment. But it wasn't anything like that.
Rich friends were gifting him expensive vacations, but he'd vote the way they wanted even without that. And he wasn't hearing any cases to which those friends were parties. At most, he was reading amicus briefs signed by conservative lobby groups for whom one of these generous rich friends was a board member. But, given how conservative he is, it is very likely he would have ruled the way they wanted even if his benefactor was not on their board. The real purpose of those briefs is not to convince Thomas which way to vote (everybody already knows), it is to give him ideas for justifications, and to try to convince some of the more moderate conservatives (especially Roberts) which way to vote.
And I can understand how federal bureaucrats, who would lose their job (or even go to prison) for a lot less, must feel upset at the double standard. But there have always been different standards for judges, and especially for those at the top of the judicial ladder. And I don't think the US is unique in that regard, many other countries it is the same thing.
> When calling people "vermins", even if illegally immigrating to a country, is normalised you are not on a Left-shift of the Overton window.
Australia has, in many ways, a harsher immigration policy than the US had, even under Trump. Yes, our politicians are much more careful and measured in their language. But Australia has bipartisan support for harsh immigration enforcement measurements which Republicans could only dream of implementing in the US. If we focus on style, Trump may sound like someone from the far far far right; if we focus on substance, in practice his administration was (in some ways at least) to the left of Australia's current (on paper socialist) government.
>I simply cannot continue a conversation when you can't adhere to a basic reality where a sitting president attempted to overthrow your democracy, playing it down as a "farce narrative" while a mob inflamed by the person you want to vote in invaded the Capitol. It's too absurd you are trying to push this under the rug.
"Invading" Congress is artistic exaggeration, to say the least. The people who did go in by and large were peaceful. An actual invasion would be more akin to what we saw in Brazil's Congress in 2023 where significant damage was caused.
The after-the-fact repainting of history is among many reasons why I don't bother with "experts" and the like anymore.
>I'm originally Brazilian...
Doesn't change my point that discussing American politics requires an appropriate compass. The Democrats are the Left in the Left/Center/Right spectrum in America.
>You prefer a corrupt judge in the Supreme Court? Taking lavish bribes from friends? That's absolutely absurd, I really can't comprehend this level of acceptance,
You're going to have to cite some sources, but regardless I by far prefer Justices and judges who rule objectively rather than emotionally. Any judge who rules by emotion isn't doing their job properly; the ink in which laws are written do actually mean something.
>Your whole argument over egregious acts committed under the Trump administration ... is based on "who cares? Everyone else also does it"
Not so much "who cares?" as "Why are we singling out the Trump Administration?". I find it hard to believe corruption is wrong because it's Trump. Call every POTUS with corruption to account, otherwise I don't have time for such political bullshitting.
>I will repeat: you are being an infantile reactionary, the Overton window has not shifted to the Left, when white supremacist discourse is not publicly shocking anymore that is not a leftist shift,
I'm a 2nd generation Japanese-American, aka an Asian, aka a minority. If white supremacy was a real thing I would definitely know about it, but guess what? I see no such thing. If anything, white folks are by far among the most honorable and generous people I've come across in life.
Regardless, the narrative is that white people are evil and must be brought down to end white supremacy. Sincerely screw that racist notion, the Overton Window keeps on moving further left and I am left to vote for who I relate closer to which is the Right.
Also, don't you dare call me a person of color, or worse POC or BIPOC, like the Left often does. I'm an American and I have a heritage, not some stupid identification label.
>When calling people "vermins", even if illegally immigrating to a country, is normalised you are not on a Left-shift of the Overton window.
Illegal aliens are trying to get (and getting) the things that legal immigrants work their asses off over a span of years to get. What the hell is up with that? Anyone is welcome to come to this country, but they should do so legally through our front door like everyone else.
Incidentally, the people most hostile to illegal aliens are 1st generation legal immigrants. If you need to ask why that is the case, you really don't understand the situation.
>Once again, an infantile opinion "love me, or else..." without acknowledging the complexities of relationships between nations where friction is expected, disagreement is expected, and the mutual benefits of said relationships should prevail over infantile "I feel hurt" responses.
Relationships require a certain level of mutual respect and compromise. If we keep hearing the kind of sheer resentment as the kind I originally replied to, sooner or later we will go have our beer somewhere else.
You cannot seriously expect America to stick around forever despite incessant arguments that our defence budget is insane, that the US Dollar sucks, that our space launch vehicles are hostile, and so on. Every person, or in this case country, has their camel-back-breaking point.
>Good luck with the mess you are about to create
Likewise.
>it's not like you seem to care about others anyway.
We do care, but it's damn hard to care and keep caring about someone who does nothing but complain about us.
EU countries, not having a reusable rocket at their disposal, will have to pay through the nose for every launch, discarding the entire expensive rocket in the process.
Of course, that will limit their ability to launch satellites into space: the cost of discarding a rocket is high (let's not even start about fairing dimensions and subsequent limits on payload size). Wrecking a sophisticated machine after each use is uneconomical.
Meanwhile, the US is galloping towards much cheaper launchers. This means that by 2030 or so, they will be able to put orders of magnitude more tonnage onto orbit.
China noticed - and it is trying their darndest to close the gap.
Yes: one of the US national security launch vehicles, Atlas V, uses imported Russian main engines. US defense access to space was dependent on Russia for much of the 21st century (after the retirement of the Titan rockets).
The US is sending military payloads with private, low-cost commercial launch provider SpaceX.
The success of this model hasn’t gone unnoticed by China, who are funding several private rocket companies (such as Space Pioneer) to develop reusable launch platforms in competition with the state-owned contractor CASC. They are making rapid progress!
The US is sending their military payloads with a US company they have invested in, and most likely have special, undisclosed deals with.
It is not just "a commercial launch provider". I don't expect the US to launch their military payloads with Chinese rockets, private or not, in the same way I don't expect China to use SpaceX for their own military payloads. Same thing for the EU, they prefer to send their military payloads with their own rockets, that is Ariane.
Ariane is private too, it is also a commercial launch provider. It is heavily subsidized by the EU member states and not as competitive as SpaceX, but from a national security perspective, the situation is similar.
The USA has been sending military payloads with private vendors since 1970s. In some cases blocking contractually those vendors from providing civilian launch capability, even.
SpaceX is absolutely nothing new in the process, other than having been funded by explicit military program to prop up new space launch vendors.
There is no race between ESA, NASA and Roscomos. The Russians and the French are not going to abandon their rockets and entrust their nuclear deterrent and early warning system to SpaceX.