Slashdot Mirror
Rescue Mission For European Space Industry
metz2000 writes "The New Scientist reports that the European Space Agency (ESA) has pledged hundreds of millions of Euros to guarantee its independent access to space. Europe also looks set to co-operate with the Russian Space Agency. Looks like the space industry is hotting up again. How will NASA react to this news after being the dominant space agency over the past three decades? A lot of money is going into rocket technology also; with this and the 'European version' of GPS are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?"
Most european countries just purchase American or Russian military vehicles and weapons anyway.
I think it would be great for nasa to work together. If the US wants to be seen as a world player they may need to increase funding to NASA and have it work with the European space agency. The russians have been great help working with Nasa and I expect the same.
http://saveie6.com/
btw, I find it so very amusing that whenever western sources refer to the chinese space program, they just HAVE to add phrase like "secret, military linked," as if NASA is completely independent of the military, or something...
anyhoo. maybe there is still a chance for me to visit mars before I die eh? or some serious possibility of WWIII - as China and EU becomes increasingly suspicious of US... (not unwarrented or anything)
My life in the land of the rising sun.
With the current problems in the US space program, it may be that the newly fixed Arianne launch system can claim a significant share of the market.
It is important to remember that Arianne is also somewhat cheaper than the Shuttle for any given weight of payload - the shuttles main advantage is that its live crew (which is the reason for the higher cost) can perform and regulate scientific tests.
I await the next Arianne launch with baited breath.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
It seems like 30 years ago we did pretty well with expendable rockets. Since each shuttle mission costs hundreds of millions, is it really worth it? Why not invest in the development of a 'cheap' single-use lifting technology, like a successor for Soyuz? Even if each rocket cost $100 million wouldn't it still save lots of money, and wouldn't it mean much larger payloads could be delivered?
A-Bomb
... then surely it would be an advantage for the stricken space-program to have the other party to fall back on?
I'm thinking particularly of in-space rescues where the other program may have the resources ready to launch a rescue-mission, but there are probably other scenarios from which both NASA and ESA would benefit.
Plus, competition will mean that the science thrives, particularly in the current political climate (don't kid yourself - the US and Europe are *not* friends right now).
Mod early, mod often.
The New Scientist report is both inaccurate and out of date.
A more timely report was published last week at the BBC.
All the same, this is a very interesting move for the ESA, and for Europe. A challenging move here could well help our efforts towards a more united Europe.
This is a rare 'carrot' for UK residents, more used the threat of monetory union and other unpleasent symptoms of a united Europe.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
I say more power to 'em. Something has to get the US off it's fat ass, and if it won't, someone else needs to carry the torch of science and progress into space.
I say this as a US citizen BTW.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
After reading recent stories here on /. about Chinese interests in building a moon base and extracting resources, I wonder what are Europe's space program's primary goals? Are they interested mostly in hard science stuff? Or are they creating and building up an entirely new kind of space industry?
Perhaps what I really want to know is, when do the orbiting space hotels go up? :)
The ESA and NASA already have a history of working together. The Saturn-bound Cassini, for instance, has the ESA-designed Huygens aboard. A little competition is healthy (see the current Mars missions), but international cooperation is the only way we'll see big projects like Cassini in the future.
This may just be a good thing for the space industry in general...
:-(
Didn't the really great advances in space travel come about because of the intellectual battle between the US and the Soviet Union?
If the ESA starts making inroads into space research and NASA wants to keep its top position, it will be forced to become really competitive, and this might mean that we will see missions which *succeed*!!!
Or we may just see more missions, with more cut corners...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
I don't think we are heading for a new cold war europeans have been in space for years.
The problems are the funding (and this is what is being discussed in the article) To the best of my knowledge all the worlds space agencies are losing money. Currently the only way they make money (apart from ever reducing government grants) is by launching comercial cargo. This is why there is so much crap up their in orbit.
We need to limit the amount of commerical launches or we risk ruining space for the next few generations. If this extra money means less satilites are launched for companies that will go bust before they are ever used then it is good money. But if the money is going to be used to subsidise the launches of this type of cargo then it good money after bad.
The reason for a euro GPS system is also commercial. You need to be a partner of the US government to get full access to GPS data at the highest resolution. The euro GPS will sell to those companies that want to make use of accurate GPS data but can't (or are unwilling to attempt) to get the US government to play ball. This is both a good and bad thing. If access to accurate GPS helps governments and companies develop and help local peoples then it is a good idea but I personally think the data will be used by robber oil barons and weapons manufacturers making the current situations even worse for the average man on the streets.
blog and junk
.. ? Its not very effective to compete in a field like shooting stuff to mars .. if they could work together, theyll have more advantages, than disadvantages .. look @ the ISS -
..
of course I know its mainly driven by the U.S. - but I think it works out fine if they combine their knowhow and money.
And at leat it would be a bad idea if just the U.S. would settle at the mars
Um, so what you're saying is that when America does space stuff, it's good for the world, but when Europe does space stuff, that's "conflict across the Atlantic?" How's that work then?
Not intending to troll but that "conflict" thing does seem like an odd conclusion. Are Europeans now terrorists? How about a bit more reasoning, rather than just saying "Europe? Space? WAR!!!!!"
As in any market competition encourages the other competitors to step up the pace to beat out the latest and greatest from their foes. This is really the birth of the space race, as privatized sectors will probably get more funding than NASA these days. Lots of rich people are ignorant and very interested towards space (NSYNC Member Lance Bass) and they have the money to power their dreams. These companies will open more gateways into space and will further technology on planet Earth, Luna (The moon) and Mars (To get to Mars).
:)
It's hard to find a negative side other than NASA will have to be more of a space agency than a satellite monitoring system.
I look forward to new technology that will allow me to drink Tang all day, and that chalky hard ice cream! But seriously, I look forward to new innovations in space ship design as well as thrusters that will get us out of the atmosphere with some kind of renewable fuel source and enough power to move around outside of orbit.
(Maybe in 22nd century)
Dont flame me I have bad karma as it is
[cx]
<mood type="foul">
ESA and the russians aren't much competition right now... On the other hand neither is NASA, what with the Columbia debacle which will probably lead to a permanent moth-balling of the remaing orbiters.
The russians will just keep cranking out 1960's era craft until the factories break down. Nothing wrong with 60's rockets, but we need to have modern designs and materials if we're going to lower the cost of space access.
ESA is at least trying to develop new technology. Witness the Ariadne 5 a.k.a. "worlds most expensive fire cracker". Last thing I heard ESA needed 500.000.000 to redesign it from scratch. That kind of expense will cripple ESA for decades. *Sigh*. I guess I'll have to hold my thumbs for the Chinese.
</mood>
OT: Actual shell experience (UnixWare)
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
And "eruo-gps" is supposed to be hundred percent commercial. If the military want to use it, they'll have to pay like everybody else.
How's that for free market, US?
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
I was always under the impression that even with three satellites, you would be able to use the GPS signal to correct your local clock.
Few reasons for this, IIRC:
1) all three satellites are keeping perfect time, so if your clock is off, it is very easy to compensate for.
2) satellites transmit positional information - this can be compared with your local positional table to correct your local time
Besides the point - since details are sketchy, they might even be using dual-band per satellite to compensate for atmospheric delay errors.
Of course, i might be talking out of my ass - so if you have evidence backing up what you say, prove me wrong.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
well, its really funny that some ppl might think that a space mission to mars will trigger a new cold war + even a real war. hmmm ... as far as im informed the ESA and NASA have been working together in numerous missions before with everyone depending on each other. the problem was that sometimes the europeans were only allowed to play the passengers and didnt get the science information first hand. some also mentioned the european gps system. it was started because the normal gps could be turned off at any place by the US military. so the european one is more like consumer-orientated (and not wobbling :). and the russians and chinese also have their gps system.
but on the whole i think that a little competition is never bad. but why does this sort of thing upset some ppl? afraid of a multipolar world (that some governor doesnt want). oh man!
>
> "...are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?"
>
What kind of conflict do you mean, and what might cause it because Europe develops some tehcnological abilities of it's own?
Does the US feel somehow threatened when it doesn't have a monopoly on many kinds of stuff anymore? Does it have a reason to be afraid in that case?
"Hey, i'm growing potatoes, you must not research the hoe technology (because then i would lose the monopoly on producing and selling these artificially degraded and overpriced potatoes to whom i wish, whenever it might suit my needs).."
Their paranoia?
You haven't been following politics lately, have you? The EU (in general) aren't going to trust the US again in the near future. Most Europeans are fed up with their arrogance, and scared by their military superiority. Also, the US "democracy" is converging to a plutocracy, or in the best case a corporate police state. Not something you would like to be dependant on.
The EU doesn't trust the US, and have good reasons not to. Would you like to tell me how it's a waste for the EU to have a military too? The US already got that part covered, don't they?
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
First of all, I see no future 'conflict'. There are many players here besider the US, and the International Space Station shows us that we have no problems besides technical to cooperate when it comes to space exploration (except maybe Russian funding). Both the Chinese and the Japanese have programs with great momentum.
The system redundancy argument is a good one. I am sure that there's a lot of obscure politics involved, but technically speaking I am looking forward to being able to utilize a GPS receiver that can correlate the results from two independent systems. There were receivers that did that with GLONASS, I don't know if that system is still operable.
Competition is of course good, however I think that the potential for commercial competition is fairly slim for the time being due to the high cost of anything space related and that you can't 'claim' resources in space like you do on earth (AFAIK).
All in all - the more people/equipment/systems we can bring out into space, the easier it will be to colaborate and go 'where no man has gone before'. Manned mission to Mars, anyone?
-Kris
If I remember correcty, the ESA are the only ones actually making money from space with their Ariane program. If you ask me, the dominant agency has been ESA for a long time. And before that it was Russia.
I'd like to remind you of the fact that even though NASA is very glad to have won the race to the moon, there was no such thing. Instead of going there and back, the Russians put Mir in orbit, which is a more useful and lasting feat than putting a flag on the moon.
They said they would put "over 1 billion euros" on that. What about some prospective? ESA's budget for 2002 was around 2,8 bn euros. With this sort of money for last four years they were able to put together a mission to Mars - and that's about it. NASA's budget is around 15 bn Euros and it is barely enough to keep the Shuttle fleet flying and make around two scientific missions a year (look for example at the state US Mars exploration is in). And that is not all the money US spends on space - there is also DoD budget.
A single Ariane 5 launch costs around $150 M which is roughly $140 MEuros, so this is good for around ten launches. Proton and Soyuz are cheaper - $80M and $40M respectively. (a table of launch vehicles costs). But of course this money won't be spent directly on launches, you have to have something to launch first.
Europe's space program has been so far driven mostly by France and to some extent Britain. Others were just interested, but with no real substance. All projects of manned missions were dropped along the way (and there were a few - a small shuttle designed by French that was supposed to be Ariane's payload - I forgot the name, German SSTO Sanger plane and similar British project). As a result Europe has no experience in building manned spacecraft - unless they would get it from Russians. I'm afraid that 1 bn Euros won't be enough to put together a manned mission unless it would be just flying Russian spacecrafts with Europe's yellow stars logo painted on them.
If Europe would spend this money on building a GPS-like system, then 1 bn Euros is a significant amount, however again not enough to build the system - and keep it running (Russians build one to guide their warheads but couldn't afford to keep it up).
What is most likely however is that this money won't be spent on a single mission or project. As the article says this money would be "pumped into the sector to overhaul its manufacturing and marketing programmes". It means that it would be divided into many small donations to various projects just to keep the industry afloat. So it is nice, but is far from enough if Europe really wants to be a player in the Space Race.
And - BTW - Deutsche Telekom's loss for 2002 was "over" 24 billion euros.
For quite a few years, the military / aerospace sector has basically been building on electronic and computer technology developed for the private consumer sector.
Perhaps it's time for another driver for new technology to show up on the market. Especially given the increasingly successful attempt to suppress new consumer technology by the *AA (RIAA/MPAA) organizations.
Tech Public Policy stuff
If I remember correctly ESA is already both marketleader launching commercial sattelites AND making money while doing it. The biggest threat to ESA's position right now is not NASA but country's like China and India.
That's what happens when you keep launching something that was designed over 30 years ago and never reached it's design goals, like for example being a reusable vehicle(!). The current space "shuttle" is more like a pod sitting on top a big rocket that can land by itself. Almost everything else needs to be build again.
"I don't think so, Europeans are quite pacifists (If we remove the uk, of course) they are not oriented to conflict aspects and try to avoid violence as much as possible."
Yeah right. The Germans asked, "How can we avoid violence at all costs? I know," they said, "Let's invade Poland."
Cynicism is the natural defence of the romantic.
Europe should simply wait a generation or two until creationist christians have complete control of the US government and education system. When the entire US public believes the sky to be an inverted bowl suspended over a flat earth, it will be safe to resume space travel.
See if I can contribute some bits to this topic:
First of all both the EU and Russia are highly succesful in the launching business. The Ariane 4 was at one point responsible for over 40% of all commercial launches and still is very successful. The Ariana 5 has seen some significant setbacks with all those errors but still is (will be) a very competitive launcher. The russian launchers, while based on sixties technology have been refined and re-engineered to an enormous ammount for decades and were and still are very competitive. For most commercial apps the shuttle program is outrageously expensive and even the US itself relies on convential rockets (which they also make of course) for many launches. Another problem in general for the US, and more limited for the EU, is that the international space station is costing a lot more than expected (nuttin'new, right?) and this is affecting other projects. This problem is even larger due to the fact that -for now- we need the shuttle as a servicing vehicle for the ISS
Now for those GPS systems: first of all to clear that bit up: you need a few dozen to make sure always at least three (but better four or five) are visible everywhere on earth (except usually the poles due to orbit mechanics) for triangulation methods. Second of all Europe is not happy with the position the military takes in the GPS system of the US: we saw this many times with both Gulf wars that the US decided to downgrade the system accuracy for everyone but themselves (the military that is). In general people are a bit tired of the US policy to foreign countries with the change from Clinton to Bush (I don't want to take sides on the last war in this comment but in general popularity and support of the US bombed in the EU recently (as in from 60% to 25%), even in the normally pro-US United Kingdom). The military funding of many system in the US is what makes the EU sometimes a bit scared and makes it want to develop its own system, and the anti-US feelings in the population make these kind of projects a lot easier to get funded. Now, wether or not we need another system if another question but it takes time to launch so many sattelites for a new GPS system, so China is still busy get everything up there, as it will also take Europe time to fully deploy. Even more, if the US and the EU can/want work together these GPS system can also complement eachother.
Tragically we know how the US would like to react:
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030522S0050
The nation's largest intelligence agency by budget and in control of all U.S. spy satellites, NRO is talking openly with the U.S. Air Force Space Command about actively denying the use of space for intelligence purposes to any other nation at any time--not just adversaries, but even longtime allies, according to NRO director Peter Teets.
At the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs in early April, Teets proposed that U.S. resources from military, civilian and commercial satellites be combined to provide "persistence in total situational awareness, for the benefit of this nation's war fighters." If allies don't like the new paradigm of space dominance, said Air Force secretary James Roche, they'll just have to learn to accept it. The allies, he told the symposium, will have "no veto power."
This would not go down to well at all. I know the US economy/military is the biggest in the world - but I still think that a trade war/shooting war with every other country in the world isn't the best way of improving the lives of American citizens.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
Frace's highway tolls will.
It frightens me deeply even thing about it.
Aren't odd things usually considered more frightening?
You owe us Europe.. you owe us big.
Not as much as we owe the Soviets.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
For many years the military and other agencies have been looking to . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... my apologies ...
put payload in space with a rail gun as a launchor assisted launch
A variation on that theme would be a high altitude platform using
something like www.21stcenturyairships.com to lift the cargo to
near 100,000 ft , then use the rail gun to kick start it and if a
heavy payload fire a booster as well . The first 20 miles of flight would be eliminated
A series of MANY of these balloons could be used to hold the launch
platform up and the tremendous cargo
If you run it all with remote control robots, you do not need
to worry about life support systems on the launching pad
Also you use remote control robots to build your space station,
and do your repairs up in space
Solar power in space is not filtered by the earth's atmosphere,
there is ALOT more watts per sq. meter up there
Imagine the work that could be done with no need for food and
water, no need for atmosphere , and protected enclosure for the
repair robots
If the chinese are smart when they go to build their base on the
moon they will start it out unmanned and built by robots
the logistics are just SOOOO much cheaper than trying to keep
humans alive and sane in deep space
Once they have a large Teraformed cavern underground on the moon
then test it for problems over a period of time , with redundant
systems and escape pod like rescue vehicles . Test it with robots
The majority of the moon base being underground would be shielded
against meteors , and cosmic radiation
The dark side of the moon could be used to acquire cooling for
machinery and computers, etc etc
The light side could be used for a permanent solar farm
Robots coming back and plugging into the grid when they get
low or redundant battery packs get switched out by battery
serving bots that change one pack at a time and every robot
has two or three, lol
Once we get a moon base, we have a MUCH cheaper launching
platform than the earth . Less Gravity, no atmosphere
burning you up , and no wind shear
Then wash, rinse and repeat for mars, pretty simple plan and
we have already sent a tiny robot there
Just send a larger one and start rail gunning cargo from the
moon base , the cargo goes into orbit around mars and is picked
up by the space station there and then sent down to the surface
by the bouncing ball airbag method used by path finder
The airbag material can be saved and reused for other needs
once humans arrive once the base is built and safely tested
Once again an underground base using the heat from the core of
mars would keep the underground base somewhat liveable
Solar power on mars would not be that good, would need an
alternative like geo-thermal
For safety reasons the drilling should be a great distance from
the mars base in case a geological problem is let loose similar
to a kick experienced when drilling here in north america
Run the geo thermal power plant with robots, and have it
beyond a ridge or mountain to protect the colony from
any possible disasters
A large low light garden would be needed to turn CO2 into O@
to breathe , and provide food , enriched soil with bacteria
would have to be sent to the moon and mars
How mars bacteria and earth bacteria interact could be dangerous,
another reason to test it with robots for some time
The big dig in boston has made underground earth works much
cheaper, this tech would be perfect for mars, just implementing
it all the distance aways would be VERY hard
Due to delay a LARGE space ship/station would need to be built
in orbit best from the moon base, then travel to mars
and ppl could remote control the mars robots from orbit
Ok I am really rambling here
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Its amazing that the leadership of space has finally returned to Europe. Seeing the Germans started in all. As we all know the Americans and Russians all had German scientists at the beginning of their programs. Maybe the Germans should get heavily involved, then we would get to Mars and where ever else we want. They do generally have the best technology. Get BMW/Mercedes to build the rockets.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
1: I think you mean perspective not prospective
2: The "Space Race" was little more than a cold war pissing contest, and It ended decades ago.
3: The ESA is already very much "a player" in space: for one thing it's the market leader in commercial satelite launches, and for another it's one of the few agencies with an active launch vehicle development programme (unlike NASA for example).
I'm getting quite tired of hearing the term '[US] military superiority'.
The United Kingdom, for example, has enough nuclear missiles and sufficient delivery systems to level the US at the touch of a button. So does Russia. So does China. So does France. Give it a few years, and so will India and North Korea.
In a situation like this, 'superiority' is not really applicable.
Score:-1, Funny
Those of us who live in the pacific region remember the French terrorist bombing of the Rainbow Warrior (a Greenpeace protest vessel) in a New Zealand harbour.
The terrorists were French Secret Service agents, and were caught, convicted, and sentenced to prison terms in NZ. The French government made a deal with the NZ government where they would serve their terms in French prisons, and once they were back in France they broke this agreement and set them free.
So, Weapons of Mass Destruction (which actually exist) and proven terrorist links, but no oil. Sadly the conditions for war are not met.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
Not intending to troll but that "conflict" thing does seem like an odd conclusion. Are Europeans now terrorists?
I think the problem is that Americans like to think of themselves as the most powerful nation on earth and have gotten used to being first in everything. But, objectively, the US is a mid-size nation with an economy that is in deep trouble ($3 trillion in foreign debt and growing rapidly), that depends on skilled immigration for its competitiveness, and that faces enormous inequalities and social problems. The preeminent role of the US was an artifact of the aftermath of WWII. Now that Europe is pretty close to a federation and that China and India have caught up technologically, America becomes merely one among several large players, and not the biggest or most important one.
The only area where the US is clearly first is in military spending. But that really worries foreign nations. What is the US going to do when (and it's "when", not "if") foreign investments slow down, the dollar crumbles, skilled workers stay away, and the economy falters? Is it going to dismantle its military and quietly accept being a second-rate player on the world stage? Or is the US going to try to get by force what it won't be able to get by other means? Using the US military for economic reasons has happened before.
It is completely natural for European and Asian space programs, which represent larger populations and economies, to surpass the US programs. This is only the beginning of many changes. The question is whether Americans can get used to it.
And later the art of exterminating "Indians" was very much advanced by the US ingeniously using econmic warfare by sponsoring the killing of buffalos (Paragraph E).
I wonder if US paranoia can in part be attributed to the fact that the US never came to grips with its violent past.
Quite contrary to Germany. Could you imagine a US president kneeling in front of North Vietnamese monument to honor the Vietcong who died in the war with the US? Well, a German chancellor fell to his knees when visiting Poland in 1960s honoring the Polish soldiers that died in WWII.
WWII is the reason why Europeans loath war so much. Fortunately at this point in time the meaning of war seems to be clearly embedded in the European collective memory.
That's because you can spend it on hospitals. While 15% of the US GDP goes to the military, only three percent of the EU GDP goes to the military. The result is that, right or wrong, defense is something that trumps social programs. Europe has social programs as a higher *spending* priority than defense. Spending is the key word because European governments know that US bases are all over the place to protect them. While you may be delighted if the US leaves Europe (and I would be delighted also), it would cause massive budget priority changes across the continent. You might have to ask the private sector for that hospital or that upgraded public transit system. Basically, saying that Europe is better because they build hospitals instead of tanks is a demonstration of ignorance and a troll at best.
Laws are for people with no friends.
War is not going to break out between the US and Europe - both sides have enough nuclear missiles to completely wipe the other off the face of the Earth. It's not going to happen. Even if we could resist falling back on nukes, neither side has a sufficiently powerful military to overtake the other - it's just not feasible.
The recent tiff over Iraq is nothing to worry about, and will largely blow over. There's far too much trade in both directions, and there's a lot of Europeans in America and a lot of Americans in Europe. We're just too close to go to war.
As for The UK splitting off from Europe to join with America - I really can't see that happening. The loss of sovereignty in joining Europe is small fry compared to becoming a state of the US.
.. aren't only manufactured in Russia and Usa. The beautiful land of Sweden, with companies like Bofors, Space Universities and more, is a big manufacturer and exporter of both military and space technology. Go Fugelsand!
The relations were shown to be not as convivial as as some had hoped in the Iraq war. But to think it started there is naive. The idea of a European military initiative has been a thorn in the side of US military for some years now, and the US was opposed to the Gallileo system as well. While the US might try to increase other countries dependance on the US, a lot of countries have seen that this is not necessarily in their own best interests.
The EU is not alone in this kind of thinking, India also tries to minimise it's dependance on the US, as does China.
wired: U.S. Could Deny GPS To Taliban
The international fear and uncertainty has become so large that the Pentagon even feld compelled to say they wouldn't enact a global GPS blackout during war time. This is obviously a completely unbearable situation for anyone besides the US government. Here is a link:
Reuters: Pentagon pledges 'no global GPS blackout'
I don't know what happened to the Russian space positioning system that was once discussed as alternative, but the European Union is completely right in that they think they have to create an alternative to GPS. Even more puzzling is the fierceness with which the USA have tried to stop Galileo (why would they do that if not to leverage their monopoly pressure?). Here is a satnews.com story about it:
EU Postpones Decision on Galileo System Until 2002
The argument of the US government against Galileo was that it "could be abused by future enemies". So you can see how the US government is using GPS to pressure others. It is very important to create an alternative to GPS, even if it's just to stop the US from bullying other nations.
So much about Galileo, but what about other reasons for a non-US space program? I think one of the most dramatic display of bullying ever to be seen by any government is what the US government semi-openly discussed according to a Reuters story this February: to deny other nations access to space:
U.S. Pentagon Sees Space as Military 'High Ground'
If any sovereign nation sees something like this, it is obvious that a big space program besides the US one is absolutely necessary. The USA have proven time and again that they are a very volatile friend who on a whim decides to deny their resources to their friends.
There was one well documented case in the Bosnian war that is quite telling. The US vehemently denied ground troops and any real war involvement of theirs in Bosnia, on the grounds that Clinton thought his political career would be over of pictures of dead soldiers arrived home. So the role of the USA was mostly reconnaissance and intelligence and they did help keeping the air space empty. However, it later turned out that they gave weapons to the rebels, in violation of NATO orders. Here is one link about it:
Washington finances ethnic warfare
This is a very serious issue, please don't take my word for it, look for yourself. There was a good joint European documentary about it a while ago, where they interviewed the NATO official in Bosnia, a Norwegian military official, and he said that the USA basically denied their allies the contractually guaranteed intelligence to cover up their covert operations.
In my eyes this kind of behaviour leaves Europe no other choice but to go for independence in space and military. Most nations have given in to US surveillance and intelligence superiority, some like Australia and Britain even joined the Echelon system. There are stories that even those very close allies do not have full access to the jointly generated intelligence. In effect, the USA is exploiting and abusing everyone else around them, and now Mr Bush has stepped over the line with his excessive bullying and the other nations are banding together.
I have been waiting for this for many years, and I am happy that it finally happened. While I despise Bush on all levels, he did something very valuable for the world. He gave them enough motivati
Yeah, because the UK being killed 100x over by the US would be so much more degrading than for the US, who would just be killed once by the UK...?
...
Does *nobody* remember the 1980s?? Jeez, you'd think *someone* would have learned something
Mod early, mod often.
Sadly, the Russian Space Agency has encouraged private enterprise more in the last decade than has it's cold-war capitalist rival, NASA.
0 9.html
To effectively stimulate the commercial launch industry NASA must stop competing with private start-ups. The most important first step it could take would be to competitively bid resupply for the Internation Space Station. In this transport sector, the space shuttle is hogging potential commercial business that NASA could otherwise outsource.
"The government should seek to cultivate a commercial launch industry in the same way that postal airmail did with civil aviation in the early 20th century."
Letter to Senators from NY on NASA's future
http://stellarlink.com/blog/archives/0000
NASA won't react. The sad truth is that right now American society is leaning far more towards guns than butter. The reality for NASA is that American pride no longer sores on NASA wings. (Note: I'm not endorsing this view, just expressing popular culture). The reality is that the drive in congress is just not there for supporting NASA, as it's far easier to woo voters with bribes and fears on TV, than with pictures of engineers behind control stations.
There will be speeches at NASA HQ, but no money from congress.
Help me become a Porn Star Guru
The US is also suffering from "a combination of stangant economic growth, high unemployment, and the threat of deflation", and it could be argued that the EUSA is more cost efficient than NASA, who insist on using the rather cost inefficient shuttle system. The Ariane system has been quite successful commercially, and, as one poster pointed out, the Ariane 4 made up 40% of all launches at one point.
Furthermore, Galileo obviously won't be using 20 year old technology. It'll be more up to date, and it's meant to be far more accurate than the GPS system.
Since this is seems to be the only comment of your account, I'm assuming you're a troll here, but I'll continue on with my reply anyway.
Some EU countries do have vastly inflated tax rates that could come down a bit, but mostly it's a system that works well. The majority of the taxes go to health care and schooling, rather than to the unemploymed (which is hardly a desirable situation by any means). It costs an awful lot to run a national health service, but you can hardly claim it's wrong to help the injured, or to provide cheaper education to people.
And a lower birth rate isn't necessarily bad. The EU has many more people packed into a smaller area than the US, and the world's population is increasing at an undesirable rate. Less people might be better. Besides which, the current rate things are going, the EU is still going to have more people per square mile than the US for quite some time, so there's hardly a danger of depopulation.
The economic problems (which there are many of, as in the U.S.) aside, Arianespace and ESA are two rather successful operations.
:)
A single ariane is a) cheaper in total than a shuttle launch and b) able of lifting more cargo into space than any other space craft. About 40% of all satellite launches are done by Arianespace. That's hardly unsuccessful.
About Galileo. Did you ever hear the word 'competition'. GPS is the only vendor in the global positioning market. Monopolies are, however, from an economical point of view highly unwanted for they tend to provide inferior products for higher prices. And, while the concept is the same, Galileo is hardly anymore a rip-off GPS than a Mercedes is off a Ford
A couple for you:
The constant banging on about how America is the home of democracy, freedom, blah, blah, blah.
The constant re-writing of world history by Hollywood to show how America saved the day, was the best, is the best - usually at the expense of Britain, e.g. U575 (British ship captures German sub, rewritten as Yank sub capturing German sub) and The Patriot.
The constant harping on by the Americans on talk boards about how they can kick anyone's arse.
IMHO the US ended up not buying the plane because of the NIH syndrome and the fact that the US really does not buy weapons technology from abroad: period.
Regarding the Canadian government pulling the plug, at that time several governments considered that bombers were obsolete, hence fighters were unnecessary. Missiles were all the rage.
The UK RAF also suffered terribly from this misguided perception.