One of the underdogs of the space industry is Italy. The amount of small-to-medium aerospace companies and startups in the territory is really of note, and they’re constantly contracted by the likes of NASA, JAXA, and private enterprises for highly-specialized machinery; most notably of which being optics and imaging and navigational components
In germany too, but as always, people go where the money is. We need just way more funding to stay relevant. Hopefully it's not too late, since SpaceX is 10 years ahead in operatability. (Of reusable rockets, what brings the vast share of the market)
@@juliane__ The sad thing is that as much as I hope for Germany and Italy to push for massive space investment I don't see how it would happen within the next 4 years. It just won't be a focus of the German government and I'd expect it to be a very hard sell to the italian people as well.
@@thecashier930 Can't find the article now, but there is an additional 900 Mio funding for startups from the government lately. For Germany alone, it is a lot compared to the past years.
@@juliane__ Yes. I think the new government willdoa lot for Startups and a lot of important industries. Especially the Greens and the FDP have demanded investment in certain newer upcoming technologies for decades now. That will probably throw off some money to space start ups. But Space itself is just not going to be a focus. There are just too many "Oh but we first need to focus on earth / But rockets are polluting" types in those parties actually get something major going. The small launch providers with their small rockets are important too and they'll get money. But Europe needs their own reusable, human capable, rockets if we ever want to be competitive with the US. And I don't think that can happen with this government.
I'd like to point out that, unlike the way NASA asks SpaceX to supply a jack-of-all-trades launch vehicle, ESA asks multiple startups to develop different types of launchers. In germany alone there are 7 promsing companies developing launchers, and iirc, the first take-offs will be taking place in early 2022 The media coverage of these companies is lower, which i think is part of the feedback loop that also includes "lack of initial investment from within europe" and "them being acquired overseas". Considering that, in 2018, a good 10% of the EU's total GDP was dependent on space infrastructure, and that Europe is the main player on the block when it comes to Earth Observation infrastructure and technology, it is clear that space and specifically the current and future role of the EU in space, desperately needs to be brought more to the front in public discourse... Which ofc starts with more media coverage. If i may, you might have a little hole in the content market by properly and comprehensively mapping out current EU space infra and what that means for us and the world at large
There are many startups in the US that are catching up tp spacex. You have Rocket Lab, upcoming Firefly , Astra space and Blue origin (someday). Once all these rockets have proven safety records im sure NASA will reach out to these companies with launch contracts.
Yeah but how many of these startups can get to orbit? SpaceX is the only private space company to get to orbit routinely. And they have done it with people on board multiple times. I think SpaceX is likely to dominate the launch market, period. Regardless of country.
@@LuKiSCraft possibly. But the race doesnt stop there and SpaceX has to stay on top while newer companies press into market. Elon will get problems with his poor working conditions is his companies and his tendency to manipulate the stock and finance market. Hope he doesnt windle up in that kind of stuff and forgets to lead SpaceX
I really enjoy your videos as I started living in Europe and the information starts to become more and more relevant. Also the chill logo over the video is very calming!
The underappreciated fact of space launch is that launches per year dictate launch price. The gross majority of launch cost is non recurring development cost. Therefore each extra launch spreads these non recurring costs over more missions, decreasing unit cost. Ariane is bloated and expensive, but a large part of its cost comes from the fact that Europe launches less stuff, because our military sector is weaker than the american's, and because the American's have captured the commercial market You want better euro rockets, you need more investment in satellites, not just rockets. Otherwise you'll end up with a super rocket that just does not pay for itself
@@DOGMA1138 that's plain wrong. Ariane can build more rockets if it needs to, but it needs to first expand manufacturing capacity, which logically is sized for current demand. Ariane 5 was a workhorse of the global launch market until displaced by Falcon. Its a product from another era. But to say it just serves as a welfare program is downright ridiculous
Ariane 5 is expensive now that SpaceX and ULA have eclipsed them, but it was THE launch vehicle of the Nineties. The price per kg put the U.S. Space Shuttle to shame. ESA was on top for a while, but rested on their laurels for too many years and let things crystallize, which gives them institutional inertia that confounds their ability to innovate.
@@linerider195 Ariane 5 was no one's workhorse they have had only 110 launches over a period of 25 years... Heck there were more space shuttle launches per year than Ariane 5... Delta has had over twice the number of launches that Ariane 5 had, and then there is Atlas and a bunch of other launch vehicles.
You only briefly touched upon stage reusability. This is exactly the problem as SpaceX took the capital risk to develop first stage reusability and do it successfully. This is something that Europe and the other US companies cannot achieve. Stage reusability testing will cost billions and involve public failures.
@@eewls If the landing saves 40% of the rocket booster cost then that equates to 40% lower launch cost for the next launch. Also, launch landings give the public perception that the company can solve the landing problem and reduce risk of launch loss. SpaceX already has almost 100 booster landings, which is a superb record. Can Europe ever beat that?? That's enough to put Europe out of the space business.
We must all remember that the only reason SpaceX exists is because of government funding and that's the only way they can keep going dispite all RnD and making huge net losses in SpaceX and Starlink
Not entirely true, since ariane launches ESA payloads it makes an investment into ESA an investment into French industry, and the overall economy. If Ariane can't compete sustainably then it may become harder for the French, as well as other ESA partners who have an interest in the French economy, to justify the same spending into ESA. The same goes for other countries supplying equipment to Ariane or are partnered with Ariane. ESA, its members, its suppliers, and the EU don't exist separate from each other but are all connected to each other, what affects one of them also impacts the others.
I think this warrants a comparison of Europe vs. SpaceX: *Europe* - components sourced from almost all 26 EU nations (the opposite of "vertically integrated") - Operates traditonally; : bureaucracy makes getting enough funding a challenge : Traditional (NASA-like) values impede rapid development : Lack of interest due to stifling innovation *SpaceX* - Everything is made in-house (You cannot get more vertically integrated than that) - Operates as a(n actually good) company; : backed by the world's most valuable man (Elon) : focus on efficiency, unlike Boeing and alike : Is literally the Stanford of rocket ventures (huge interest, innovation) attracts worldwide attention ~and I want to immigrate to the U.S. just to work for them~ Do you see the problem here? - Sincerely, a Portuguese person
Aktually 🤓 payloads are Vertically integrated into Ariane 5 compared to SpaceX who horizontally integrated their payloads. So there… Jokes aside this is one of the limits SpaceX has as well as limited payload volume.
Me: I wonder if they managed to pinpoint the source of Europe's space problem ... video begins: *counting in French language* Me: Yep, they got it Full disclosure: I have worked on Ariane 6 project.
@@DaDa-ui3sw I lived in France for quite some time and I like the French a lot. But that doesn't mean that I also have to like the particular way they are handling complex aerospace projects, the way their government operates in the international organisations (such as EU or ESA) and so on. You can be critical of some parts of a culture without really having any phobia or hatred towards it, you know. Take a look at the SpaceX's Falcon 9 budget, capabilities and development/production schedule. Then take a look at ArianeSpace's Ariane 6 with its 10x cost, half the abilities and very long (still not finished) schedule ... and find me an explanation that doesn't involve french way of doing things, somehow.
@@miroslavhoudek7085 Sorry for the provocative message, I saw you didn't respond to the other response and I was genuinely curious to find out what your insight would be! What are these issues regarding the French way of doing things if I may ask?
@@DaDa-ui3sw I probably can't say definitely from my limited experience. I think there are things that are not necessarily bad. Like having a reasonably good and long lunch, coffee and croissants and smokes. Having long weekends here and there and long vacations. These are things that I consider to be good. But if Americans (or someone) crunches whole year, 10 hours a day, including weekends. Then the French 8 hours a day (with frequent breaks), with weekends and long weekends and state holidays AND THEN CLOSING THE WHOLE THING FOR SUMMER FOR TWO MONTHS MINIMUM is just gonna have an effect. Not only engineers work less but their work is getting interrupted, things get forgoten and need to be restarted. I'd say that this is not a bad French thing. But it doesn't help in getting things done on time. There's always waiting on someone's critical job - but it doesn't get done and others are left waiting too. But then, oh boy, are some French engineers very happy with themselves, getting to grande école long decade(s) ago and then underperforming the rest of their life. Protected by all kinds of worker protections against their incompetence and lack of enthusiasm. I think people should not work so hard that they kill themselves. But maybe if an engineer is not good at their place and doesn't enjoy doing a stellar job and giving it all, then maybe someone else should get a chance there. I should also emphasize that I'm not some kind of genius who was too good for working in France or whatever. I'm actually pretty average myself. But even so, I was quite dissapointed by the overall "mood".
I still see the issue with Europe as they continue with the Soviet Design Bureau model where a central group of people decide the 'future' and then use tax payers money to build the kit for the future. Unfortunately such command economies usually fail to take into account new tech or innovations as the people involved are vested in the status quo. See the UK Car, Aircraft and pretty much any other of the old nationalised industries that got destroyed when faced with innovative foreign competition as an example. NASA as a similar problem with the SLS and it's massive group of people & lobbyists keeping the $$$ flowing. Personally I feel ESA and EU needs to get out of the direct investment/control of the launcher and instead focus on growing a market of 'stuff' to put into space and use European launchers on a bid basis.
@@veergauba Care to clarify as most UK people believe it was into (mostly) a single entity for each with effective government control.
2 ปีที่แล้ว +2
You have to remember a good portion of the european space industry is linked with the French Nuclear Deterrence. Ariane 5's solid rocker boosters are the cousins of the propulsion of the M51 sub-launched ballistic missile. Thinking the EU and european countries will just get out of the direct investment and control of the launcher is just a liberal fever dream
This doesn't really make much sense, given that the USSR was the leading power in spaceflight during the entire space age, despite its lower level of development. The USSR's space industry was extremely innovative, and already developed functional full-flow staged-combustion engines (which now draw applause for SpaceX) in the 1960s. US scientists after the fall of the USSR believed that soviet technical documents had to be mistranslated, due to the incredibly high efficiency of soviet engines. The USSR were the pioneers of spaceflight, with the first satellite, first man and woman in space, first space station, first probe to orbit and land on another celestial body, etc. Similarly, nationalised industries were not destroyed solely by foreign competition, but by economic austerity and privatisation.
I can't say that I find Elon Musk's words very credible or convincing. That guy always wildly exaggerates about everything. So give me some actual numbers.
The Falcon 9 costs $~2000/kg to Low-Earth-Orbit, while the Ariane 5 costs $10,000/kg to Low-Earth-Orbit. You don't need to be convinced of anything, the drastic cost reduction speaks for itself.
If the goal here is to effectively compete with the USA, federal fundings and organizations won't do. Europe needs to provide more business friendly environment to attract investors and help them grow. Because public initiatives will always be inefficient and wasteful. Moreover, the USA and China has already beaten you in that sector. EU needs their own Elon Musk but I don't think that'll happen anytime soon. Not with the current political climate in Europe.
Space X could get so cheap and good largely thanks to US government contracts. As soon as they were cheaper than NASA (which isn't that hard, as NASA didn't even have an operational launch platform after the Space Shuttle and they were sending their astronauts to the ISS on Soyuz rockets) there was a clear case for USAF and NASA launches to happen through space X rockets. US govt and military launches are always going to go through a US company, and the US is leagues ahead in the number of launches NASA, the USAF, and the secret services (NSA/CIA mostly) organise. While this isn't a direct subsidy, the fact remains that this is a government-funded leg up for US space ventures that simply does not exist at the same scale anywhere else. Space X could never have developed this quickly if it had been based in Europe because it simply would have had way fewer launches to even compete for. The development cost of the rocket gets spread out over the number of launches, and each launch means more data to help improve the rocket and develop the next one. The only way to rivalise with US-based space ventures is to have way more launches that have to, or that can, happen in Europe, be it through protectionism or by ramping up the amount of European govt.-funded launches for scientific, intelligence, and military purposes. Or we have to wait for Space X to make it so cheap that the private market for satellite launches starts to really dwarf the government-based launches. But by then, Arianespace will be decades behind, and short of developing a revolutionary new technology they will not be able to catch up without government funding anyway, because all the private launches will go to the lowest bidder. Unless space-x somehow cannot keep up with demand and urgent private launches might be willing to pay the premium to get their satellites in orbit sooner. Even then it's likely the Chinese will just subsidise the hell out of their space sector and even with similar technology levels, their rockets will be cheaper due to currency manipulation and lower labour costs.
They are cheaper because the workers of Space x are underpaid, overworked and are pushed into a dangerous environments. Elon has regularly violated safety rules. That’s the sole reason the guy is pumping shit again And again.
@ Boosters are pretty much straight SLBMs. The main core seams resist forever being upgraded from intertial onto GPS navigation. There is also almost zero capability to command the rocket post launch (compared with Falcon9). And many other design choices that only make sense on ICMB vs commercial orbital launcher.
ICBMs don't have the throw weight to orbit capacity of most commercial and space agency boosters. They have a common technological "ancestry", but they are a whole different animal. ICBM's don't need to launch 6 tons to LEO. The weapons buss weighs a lot less that that, and it is suborbital. Most SLBMs require even less delta-v than ICBMs, because submarines can launch on most land locations with a weapon that has about a 3000 mile range, by approaching the target stealthily underwater.
Cheaper depends on DISTANCE. Europe has more population density, so at least for interconnecting Europe (at least European cities), fiber is cheaper. Also, Starlink cannot replace ground connections for node-dense places like cities. Starlink is the cheapest way to bring broadband to rural areas and, eventually, to vehicles. Starlink will only have a few premium customers in each city who need the lower latency. (Lower because the high index of refraction in glass means that light travels slower in fiber.)
European Space programs were state funded and started, like NASA. For large projects as such, state sector companies are more efficient than private companies IMO. I know It does not fit with current economic dogma. I may add that Space X and other private ventures are quite recent.
@TrueGemuese "his "reusable" rockets have a tendency to explode when trying to reuse them." Falcon recently achieved a string of 200 launches without a mission failure. That is a world record. A tendency to explode compared to what?
Something you don't talk about is the fact that Europe has rockets better suited for long range launches and this was recently proven by the fact that the rocket for the JWST was mainly built by Arianespace. This is very different than commercial applications such as Starlink that does low-orbit launches
taxes are ok if used correctly, i'm not mad of paying more taxes, i'm mad of paying more taxes that just get wasted. as a small example, the road where i live has been paved 4 times this year, because they do a shitty job every time, and after a few weeks the asphalt has more holes that a teen's face during puberty. instead of doing anything once right, they do it roughly at best, and multiple times since their work won't last. we'd pay less taxes if they weren't wasted in inefficiencies
The real money is in orbit. Thankfully there are some startups like Rocket Factory Augsburg or Isar Aerospace, which I really hope will be successful and grab at least part of the smallsat launch market.
Ariane heeft de JW toch mooi van de grond geschoten. De UK heeft zijn eigen plannen als het over satelliet lanceringen gaat. Met 3 nieuwe lanceer ports in de plannen. een zien hoe hun begroting het lukt. Want op een dag is de ruimte voor satellieten op en borsten ze. Meer dan nu al elke 2 maanden.
I agree with your facts, but I am very skeptical if your interpretation. We live in a time where there is way too much available capital. We have a large middle aged population that invests their money. Next, most startups don't require that much capital. This should mean there is tons of available capital. Even in places like Germany the interest rate was negative. Meaning people were loosing money because there was a lack of good investments. I THINK, Europe's problem is that you have to go through the government to get these things funded. Compared with America there are many private non governmental groups who will fund you. Make no doubt, rocket companies require a lot of capital. But, on paper, they should have enough capital. Additionally, I'm not sure a largely government funded organization can help Europe catch up at even a reasonable rate, let alone pass SpaceX. The previous rocket companies in America before SpaceX were very expensive, and was largely a contractor with subcontractors with their own subcontractors and so forth. And each contractor had to make a profit. So, each had high prices. Additionally, the CEO under this system could not make big long term plans or big changes that could make the system more innovative or efficient. Next, the shareholders had a lot of say in that company so short term quarterly profit was more important than long term planning. So Europe can try this strategy, but it won't be pleasant.
Inserting the Elon Musk interview to me didnt add much there, because OF COURSE he would say his company makes the best stuff and its the way forward yadda yadda.
its not that he is making the best stuff. its that he is selling at much lower prices, prices arianne isnt close to being able to match. that he is able to provide launches at these extremely competitive prices and still be profitable points to a radically more cost effective vehicle.
@@ravener96 You are correct, best stuff has nothing to do with it. Elon is making it cost effective the way good industries always have, mass production, effective worker training and repetition; and oh yes and he gets on the tele a lot .
The market share bars tell the story. He's not trying to convince you. The interviewer asked him to EXPLAIN the ground truth, and that's what he's doing.
I am not sure if someone say it already but most of the thinks SpaceX is launching is starlink which if it finish it will increase the satellite by 10 times, and I don't think SpaceX will use anything else them self to launch. And I don't think starlink will be the big money maker as they say it.
I don't think satellite based broadband is the future, rather I think it's stupid. The ammount of satellites you need is enormous and the download speeds are insignificant. Most european countries have or are bulding extensive fibre optic connections reaching every single home with speeds of 10Gb/s or more.
SpaceX isn't meant to replace wired connections much of the developed world already has. Real Engineering's video "Why SpaceX is Making Starlink" goes into detail on the niche market it's intended for
@@chiptune_ Yes, the rural market is underserved with broadband, even in many developed countries like the US. Europe has a higher population density in most European countries than the US, so fiber to the home may make more sense there. Wiring the world would cost a great deal more than Starlink.
One of the often overlooked issues of Starlink is that it will seriously and very negatively impact Earth-based observations of space. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites sometimes pass through the field of view of telescopes, you can even spot them with non-professional ones. Imagine how obvious they get when observed with equipment the cost of which is in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. LEO satellites have been a growing concern as their number grew very fast in the last half a decade. If the proposed 1600 Starlink satellites are added to the ~3800 existing LEO ones we are looking at a 50% increase over a small time period and that's ignoring any other new satellites launched. So while I would welcome better network coverage and speeds, the potential for this single project to damage astronomical data collection is too large. It doesn't help that if the network performs as advertised -judging by the track record of Elon's owned companies, unlikely- none of the existing telecommunication companies would be able to compete, so there's potential for a monopoly to be created.
Fortunately SpaceX has changed the design of the star link satellites in order to produce a dimmer reflection as to not interfere with earth-based observation centers
@@tjmartin8516 The more expensive the equipment the more light it will absorb and the higher the resolution it will have, meaning that those satellites will likely still be visible to some of the telescopes that can look for phenomena nothing else can. Whether Starlink's better is good enough to not be bad, I guess we'll see, but I wouldn't say it's beyond them to make marginal changes and try to market it as "problem solved".
You have to realize that as we develop in space, the earth's orbit is bound to get crowded. They are taking measures to make it less visible but maybe we just have to accept that telescope are going to be obstructed.
Looking further into the Starlink project, I'm no longer worried about it becoming a monopoly, it will fail leaving behind a lot of space garbage in orbit. The final number of satellites Musk wants to have in orbit is 42000. With deliveries of 60 per launch of the Falncon 9, it would take 700 launches. Add to that the satellites have a lifetime of 5 years, they need to be replaced before even half are deployed. Add to this that most of our internet data transfer is facilitated through transoceanic cables and that Starlink's subscription fee per mbps offered and the satellite dish initial cost make them the most expensive out of the already existing satellite internet providers in N.America, and it leaves the project with a large cost to manufacture and get the things in orbit without the userbase to cover the bills. For reference said providers are using 20 and 3 satellites respectively in a much higher orbit obviously. As for Earth's orbit getting crowded, it might eventually. But at least 2 thousand satellites popping in a time-span of a few years and needing to be replaced every 5 years is just unmanageable. Were it to happen over the course of decades there would be time for regulations and middle ground to be found, along with solutions. Musk has promised to make it easy to decommission them but that is another promise added to a long list of unfulfilled ones. Besides when we are talking about Earth-based observations it's not just publication level research but also early warning search for asteroids or solar outbursts. The cherry on top of all of this is that if we are facing issues with space debris with not even 10k satellites launched since the first rocket reached space, how are a few thousands per 5 years going to affect that?
@@BL1zZ4Rth They don’t plan on using the Falcon 9 to launch the Starlink satellites for very long They plan on eventually using the Starship to launch them which has a capacity to deploy 400 satellites at any given time and I don’t see the project going bankrupt anytime soon because there is a large market for it at least in the U.S. and Canada because of remote workers people are starting to leave cities for rural or remote areas because they don’t have to work in cities anymore and these areas will now be able to get high speed Internet without having to install expensive fiber optic lines it’s not really intended for people who live in urban areas
That’s the only clip of Elon where he isn’t stuttering… could you imagine if he talked that nicely and fluently all the time?! He’d be on another level!
It's an iconic signature tho lol. I believe he has Aspergers syndrome with a brain that works differently (thinking of too much stuff to say at the same time which makes it harder for speech to catch up) some say it's a curse, some say it's a gift.
The American attitude towards most ground-based energy science is as one US senator said "let the Europeans deal with it", in response to funding for the texas SSC project. But it almost seems to be the opposite with space science!
DutchBakery, By "ground based", do you mean fundamental? As for the USA, many senators only care about pork for their state (and donors), the space program has some of that but not as much as the military, so they favour military space programs, like missiles and spying satellites , weather prediction, and telecommunications. More recently there was the GPS. They had designed some of the capacities to civilian uses, but even if officially declared open to civilians in 1983 by Reagan, it was somewhat immature at the time. The EU has Galileo, whose development, building and control was very favourable to the UK, in spite of that the British government was rather opposed to Galileo, and Brexit has ended the UK participation.
We need to open source the rocket and satellite technologies, and bring down the cost of rocket materials. Only if we make space affordable will we be able to succeed. We can't wait for European billionaires to take action!
even if it was open source, all the beurocratic stuff wouldn't go away, you need licenses, permits, etc etc. Just that can severely hinder progress. in italy the beurocracy is just madness, you need permits and documents even to clean your ass, trying to work with rockets would make everything so complex and slow that only very big and rich companies could afford it. plus let's not forget that rockets can't really be launched in europe, every orbital rocket needs to get transported to africa or south america, and this makes everything even slower and more expensive. imagine if spacex had to move every rocket accross the globe for every launch or test, not just moving a few miles in the same site, or in different states of the same country. logistically, we are screwed
@@Ubya_ "in italy the beurocracy is just madness, you need permits and documents even to clean your ass" Sigh... "plus let's not forget that rockets can't really be launched in europe" very good point. And talking about Italy, for this exact reason they're going to convert the old aircraft carrier Garibaldi into a floating orbital launch platform. It's not much, but it's something...
Space has always fallen on the "Guns" side of the "Guns and Butter" dilemma. The reason NASA lost so much funding after Apollo was because of the Great Society welfare programs, Medicare, and Medicaid. Europeans are consistently more enthusiastic about funding social programs; not cool engineering projects like rockets and space stations.
I dont think thats the cause(s). Apollo deliverd..."Man on the Moon"......but than?,what next? no concept, no plan further. You tell your society "we have to win this race".......you can not expect there Support after wining the race and than keep on circling on the racetrack....... And the european Space program....well, never existed...never promised anything, never realy deliverd. Exitment, public Support by citizens or politicians....for what.....ask anyone in Europa what the ESA funding is for? 999 out of 1000 will not be able to point to one thing. A Europa Space Programm has no Support because ther is none. Apart form Galileo, Copernicus etc. But who knows about them and what do they deliver? Its not quite like Guns and Butter...because there is no visible Butter for the public.
@@SG-xi5dx But that's what I was saying. The space program is "guns, not butter." Every dollar (or Euro) you spend on it is a dollar (or Euro) you _can't_ spend on butter. In economics terms, it's an "opportunity cost:" You are committing a resource to one thing at the cost of another, potential thing. President Kennedy even quantified the cost in his Rice speech: *"To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year - a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year.* But in 1961, everyone could see that the space race was an important battle in the Cold War. It was worth the money. It was harder to convince people in 1969 because the space program doesn't cost _nothing:_ it costs a lot of money that could go into tax relief, or welfare, or education, or energy, or whatever. The editorial page of the _New York Times_ was overwhelmingly negative on the day of the Apollo 11 landing, because the late Sixties were a very pessimistic, dismal time when space exploration seemed like a luxurious waste of a declining nation's scarce resources. "The billions of dollars being spent on this moon exploration program means that it will be even longer before America begins to keep her promises to the poor. America needs to look at the earth, not at space. Before one more dollar is spent on outer space, we must make sure that not one child here on earth goes to a dinner table with no food on it." -Charles Evers "this tremendous technological achievement represents a defective sense of human values, and of a sense of priorities of our technical culture .... We are betraying our moral weakness in our very triumphs in technology and economics." -Reinhold Niebuhr "How can this nation swell and stagger [sic] with technological pride when it has a spiritual will so crippled, when it is so weak, so wicked, so blinded and misdirected in its priorities? While we can send men to the moon or deadly missiles to Moscow or toward Mao, we can't get foodstuffs across town to starving folks in the teeming Ghettos." -Jesse Jackson "Are things more important than people? I simply do not believe that a program comparable to the moon landing cannot be projected around poverty, the war, crime, and so on. So, when the first man walks on the moon, my joy will be tempered by sadness." -Walter Burghardt The space program was sidelined because it looked like a luxury item to people who thought it was getting in the way of the shiny new welfare state that didn't exist in 1961, but did exist in 1968. I have a hunch that Europe doesn't have a decent space program because they are even more committed to a cradle-to-grave welfare state than America was under Lyndon Johnson. We'd have colonized the Moon by now if it wasn't for that millstone around our necks.
@@CountArtha I’ll do you one better. We probably would have already colonized Mars by the 1980s. If Robert Zubrin’s “The Case For Mars” is anything to go by (and I think it’s all up-to-date apart from perchlorate in Martian regolith), we’ve been able to take humans to Mars with 1970s NASA tech this whole time, Hell, we could have been building bases on Mars with Ancient Roman construction techniques, and considering this book was published in the early 90s, we’d probably have much more efficient means of doing this by now. This is to say nothing nuclear-pulse projects like Project Orion which was so efficient the design included 100-lb barber chairs in case the astronauts needed a shave - but it was rejected by the Air Force in the 60s because they couldn’t think of a use for it (also, Kennedy was terrified when later on someone did think of a use for it, the Orion Battleship). The problem is that we as a species have made the financially-sound decision instead of the very risky but potentially deeply rewarding decision. Which is why I’m so happy more and more of Big Space is out of government hands, less and less beholden to what people in Sandusky, Ohio think about Medicare this election cycle, and more and more in the hands of crazy jerks like Musk who can spend their own money on whatever insane projects they want. I’d argue that Musk is making the sort of progress we ought to have been making in the 1970s.
I think the money that could have gone to NASA was more going towards the Military industrial complex. The amount of money pushed up the US militaries ass is enourmous.
I wouldn't sell the skin of Ariane that fast. As we saw it is still more than relevant in the world stage with the launch of the James Webb satellite with an Ariane 5. Though it is a reality that the company has a lot to catch up it is in the process, and the new French program Maïa Space to create reusable small rockets will finally help ArianeGroup filling the blank.
I wouldn’t call Ariane 5 relevant because of the Webb launch, considering that decision was made in 2005 when it was the only rocket with a large enough fairing for Webb. Arianespace has a lot of catching up to do, considering their partially reusable rockets are still many many years away. By the time they create a falcon 9 competitor, SpaceX will have already made falcon 9 obsolete with starship.
@@user-yd4rn4ez6m Well all this is fictional buddy, we don't know what lays ahead in the future. Moreover, economic history shows us the monopolies are only temporary, SpaceX won't be alone for long, we don't know what will come, from Ariane, but also from China and other emerging powers.
SpaceX is currently close to being bankrupt soooo ... (source : Leaked internal Email) Elan Is not a genius, he is just a really good lair and sales person.
It's not "close to being bankrupt", even he admitted that later after being flooded with questions on twitter. That email was just a scare tactic to put pressure on his employees in order to solve the Raptor production issues. He's being an asshole for doing that but SpaceX ain't going to go bankrupt anytime soon.
You honestly believe the US government wouldn't bail them out? Do you know how many orders the US military plans for SpaceX? Europeans are number in coping without performing.
@@someguycalledcerberus9805 WW 1 was devastating primarily of HUMAN capitol, not of industrial and economic infrastructure as WW2 was. WW 1 plowed up farmland. WW2 leveled factories and cities.
SpaceX took almost all commercial mission from Russia and forced it to take private space companies back to the state owned ones, so no. Currently SpaceX lifts more in tonnage than Russia and China (+Europe) combined.
@@susangoaway Did you watch the video? Arianespace is French company but it's build like Airbus, and is part of Airbus SE. You know European multinational aerospace company. Arianespace was leader in commercial launches before SpaceX take that tittle (and with giant margin).
@@susangoaway Airbus/Arianespace works bit more than three countries, example turbopumps are build in Sweden by British company and so on. Ariane is run by ESA which pays the R/D, and is the main customer. ESA = EUROPEAN Space Agency.
Just because others investing a lot in space,Europa has to do it to?What if all this money is weasted?Will Starlink realy be profitable!There are much more importend things we have to invest !
Space is the next frontier for humans, just like the America's once was for the Europeans. There are a lot of valuable resources in space. If humanity expanded into space its population isn't limited to a few billion, more like a few trillions with almost no way for human civilization to be ended, unlike on earth were there are many possible scenario's for human extinction. And ofcourse space expansion is much more than just more living space and resources, it is also better technology, bettery medical appliances, ...
Ariane definitely IS in trouble. Spacex realized their rate of raptor engine production wasn’t sustainable for the starship program, and are fixing the issue. At worst they abandon starship ( which is unlikely), but falcon 9 isn’t going anywhere. Not to mention the other companies, like rocket lab, who are already routinely putting satellites in orbit.
@@ethanhoward8506 They cant just abandon starship. They relied on it to make Star Link profitable. Without starships, that won't happen, and Space X will be hemorrhaging money until its game over
@@UninstallingWindows I think Elon was trying to convey a sense of urgency about the raptors , and the chance of them going under isn’t actually that great. Either way, reusable rockets are the future, and have made Ariane obsolete.
@@ethanhoward8506 It looks like its very likely that they will go under. But I guess time will tell. A related video: th-cam.com/video/EojxThnDPng/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=Thunderf00t Reusability has its problems and elon doesn't have the kind of reusable boosters atm, that would make much of a difference. The turnaround time for the booster refurbishment is still measured in months...and it costs alot as well. True reusability would be something that can go to space...return, and be refueled the same day and launch again.
@@UninstallingWindows even if spacex were to go bankrupt, falcon 9 would still be utilized. Flying re used boosters is WAY cheaper than flying a disposable rocket, and spacex does it routinely. Spacex just recently flew 2 falcon 9 missions in the same day. Just look at how much of the market spacex has gobbled up in the last few years. That tells you everything you need to know.
I blame nationalists for continually blocking further EU integration and reform. Imagine how much progress could be made if the entire EU was united with common policies, common goals all working together.
> entire EU was united with common policies, common goals all working together. Or, as one well-known... er... politician said, "One people, one country, one leader". Right?
@@denysvlasenko9175 If only.....we could unite Eu under one banner :P oh wait Scheiße we tried that..... hahahaha Let's try it again....what could go wrong.
@@hoogyoutube OK, I'll let you off (not that that has any weight...) I get a strong feeling that a lot of TH-cam material is published without good playback review. There are many channels that would benefit, once the edit is done(mostly), waiting a cool off period and watching the video on a phone or tablet (no headphones) before uploading. Good luck, I'll watch for more.
I don't think so. There are a lot of countries with censored Internet or simply no Internet at all. I'm pretty sure they come up with some sort of backdoors to give the rest of the world free unrestricted Internet just like with the very easy hackable region code system of dvds. The Internet connection with Mars is going to be interesting though. I can imagine giant mirrors to be placed in an orbit between Earth and Mars to get a reliable Internet connection all year round. The speed isn't going to be great unless SpaceX is able to create a wormhole. So I think AI and new codecs/compression algorithms have to be written to make files as compact as possible to at least not have any form of buffering or data loss, because a ping of 9 to 42 minutes isn't going to be suitable for an interplanetary online CoD multi-player session.
Obviously not. Aschbacher, Breton, Israel, and Roussel would not be complaining this much for a company that’s failing. The same people who claimed reusable rockets are a dream and would lead to bankruptcy only to announce the Maia rocket a few days ago.
SpaceX developed reusable rocket for $2.1 billion, not to mention this price included ressuply missions to the ISS which they did. So they used only the profits (maybe a quarter of that), and you're telling me $14 billion isn't enough for EU to make a reusable rocket? Hahah. The truth is simple. Musk is a genious, and business will always operate when it has access to venture capital and free market. Right now it's America. Nothing can change that, EU is too bureaucratic.
14 billion is for the entire space program, not just launch rockets. ESA is involved in a lot more than just that. Btw, there is research being done at this moment for reusable rockets for Ariane 7, which most likely will be a fully reusable rocket imo, not a partial reusable like Falcon 9. It also isn't necessarily that the EU is too bureaucratic, rather there are a lot more spacelaunches done by the US government that can only be flown on US rockets compared to European launches needing to be done on just European launchers. This already is a crucial edge SpaceX (and US companies n general) has on European competitors.
![เปิดบ้าน นาราเครปกระเทย 1 ไร่ ขายขาดทุนหลัก10ล้าน เอามาใช้หนี้!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jz84VFWVP4/mqdefault.jpg)
![โอ้เธอช่าง... - บี้เดอะสกา ft. ต๋อง เทวัญ (Prod. by ป๋าเพชร) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zbWhiLFmVL0/mqdefault.jpg)
Amazing to see a new(ish) European focused channel
What are some other European focused channels?
@@eduard6242 TLDR EU for example, for EU politics
Who are others?
@@edwardcardozo8325 Into Europe is another
Same!
One of the underdogs of the space industry is Italy. The amount of small-to-medium aerospace companies and startups in the territory is really of note, and they’re constantly contracted by the likes of NASA, JAXA, and private enterprises for highly-specialized machinery; most notably of which being optics and imaging and navigational components
In germany too, but as always, people go where the money is. We need just way more funding to stay relevant. Hopefully it's not too late, since SpaceX is 10 years ahead in operatability. (Of reusable rockets, what brings the vast share of the market)
Britain as well. But thats not EU anymore,.. *sad Pikachu face*
@@juliane__ The sad thing is that as much as I hope for Germany and Italy to push for massive space investment I don't see how it would happen within the next 4 years. It just won't be a focus of the German government and I'd expect it to be a very hard sell to the italian people as well.
@@thecashier930 Can't find the article now, but there is an additional 900 Mio funding for startups from the government lately. For Germany alone, it is a lot compared to the past years.
@@juliane__ Yes. I think the new government willdoa lot for Startups and a lot of important industries. Especially the Greens and the FDP have demanded investment in certain newer upcoming technologies for decades now. That will probably throw off some money to space start ups. But Space itself is just not going to be a focus. There are just too many "Oh but we first need to focus on earth / But rockets are polluting" types in those parties actually get something major going.
The small launch providers with their small rockets are important too and they'll get money. But Europe needs their own reusable, human capable, rockets if we ever want to be competitive with the US. And I don't think that can happen with this government.
I'd like to point out that, unlike the way NASA asks SpaceX to supply a jack-of-all-trades launch vehicle, ESA asks multiple startups to develop different types of launchers. In germany alone there are 7 promsing companies developing launchers, and iirc, the first take-offs will be taking place in early 2022
The media coverage of these companies is lower, which i think is part of the feedback loop that also includes "lack of initial investment from within europe" and "them being acquired overseas". Considering that, in 2018, a good 10% of the EU's total GDP was dependent on space infrastructure, and that Europe is the main player on the block when it comes to Earth Observation infrastructure and technology, it is clear that space and specifically the current and future role of the EU in space, desperately needs to be brought more to the front in public discourse... Which ofc starts with more media coverage.
If i may, you might have a little hole in the content market by properly and comprehensively mapping out current EU space infra and what that means for us and the world at large
There are many startups in the US that are catching up tp spacex. You have Rocket Lab, upcoming Firefly , Astra space and Blue origin (someday). Once all these rockets have proven safety records im sure NASA will reach out to these companies with launch contracts.
Yeah but how many of these startups can get to orbit? SpaceX is the only private space company to get to orbit routinely. And they have done it with people on board multiple times. I think SpaceX is likely to dominate the launch market, period. Regardless of country.
@@LuKiSCraft possibly. But the race doesnt stop there and SpaceX has to stay on top while newer companies press into market. Elon will get problems with his poor working conditions is his companies and his tendency to manipulate the stock and finance market. Hope he doesnt windle up in that kind of stuff and forgets to lead SpaceX
@@LuKiSCraft rocket lab is routinely sending satellites to orbit on electron.
@@ethanhoward8506 Oh yeah, you're right. Maybe the Americans are doing something right after all lol
I really enjoy your videos as I started living in Europe and the information starts to become more and more relevant. Also the chill logo over the video is very calming!
The underappreciated fact of space launch is that launches per year dictate launch price. The gross majority of launch cost is non recurring development cost. Therefore each extra launch spreads these non recurring costs over more missions, decreasing unit cost.
Ariane is bloated and expensive, but a large part of its cost comes from the fact that Europe launches less stuff, because our military sector is weaker than the american's, and because the American's have captured the commercial market
You want better euro rockets, you need more investment in satellites, not just rockets. Otherwise you'll end up with a super rocket that just does not pay for itself
Ariane can't build enough rockets, the european space program is nothing more than paying salaries and pensions for french aerospace at this point.
@@DOGMA1138 that's plain wrong. Ariane can build more rockets if it needs to, but it needs to first expand manufacturing capacity, which logically is sized for current demand.
Ariane 5 was a workhorse of the global launch market until displaced by Falcon. Its a product from another era. But to say it just serves as a welfare program is downright ridiculous
Ariane 5 is expensive now that SpaceX and ULA have eclipsed them, but it was THE launch vehicle of the Nineties. The price per kg put the U.S. Space Shuttle to shame. ESA was on top for a while, but rested on their laurels for too many years and let things crystallize, which gives them institutional inertia that confounds their ability to innovate.
@@CountArtha did ULA also beat ESA in your opinion?
@@linerider195 Ariane 5 was no one's workhorse they have had only 110 launches over a period of 25 years... Heck there were more space shuttle launches per year than Ariane 5... Delta has had over twice the number of launches that Ariane 5 had, and then there is Atlas and a bunch of other launch vehicles.
I will enjoy watching this channel grow and being able to say
they have 5000 now
You only briefly touched upon stage reusability. This is exactly the problem as SpaceX took the capital risk to develop first stage reusability and do it successfully. This is something that Europe and the other US companies cannot achieve. Stage reusability testing will cost billions and involve public failures.
how reusable is it really?
@@eewls If the landing saves 40% of the rocket booster cost then that equates to 40% lower launch cost for the next launch. Also, launch landings give the public perception that the company can solve the landing problem and reduce risk of launch loss. SpaceX already has almost 100 booster landings, which is a superb record. Can Europe ever beat that?? That's enough to put Europe out of the space business.
@@Andrewlohbihler ESA could just switch to spacex ships since they have the most actual development
@@eewls there are some boosters that have been used more than 10 times each
We must all remember that the only reason SpaceX exists is because of government funding and that's the only way they can keep going dispite all RnD and making huge net losses in SpaceX and Starlink
2:52 OMG cutting him off after that “yes” is friggin hilarious 😂 🤣 😂 🤣
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
SpaceX may be a problem for Arianespace (a French company) but not for ESA which is more like a client of the space launch industry than a competitor.
Not entirely true, since ariane launches ESA payloads it makes an investment into ESA an investment into French industry, and the overall economy. If Ariane can't compete sustainably then it may become harder for the French, as well as other ESA partners who have an interest in the French economy, to justify the same spending into ESA. The same goes for other countries supplying equipment to Ariane or are partnered with Ariane.
ESA, its members, its suppliers, and the EU don't exist separate from each other but are all connected to each other, what affects one of them also impacts the others.
@wilmersandstrom2826 Yet ESA used a lot of Russian launches, which I never liked. They may use SpaceX instead.
I think this warrants a comparison of Europe vs. SpaceX:
*Europe*
- components sourced from almost all 26 EU nations (the opposite of "vertically integrated")
- Operates traditonally;
: bureaucracy makes getting enough funding a challenge
: Traditional (NASA-like) values impede rapid development
: Lack of interest due to stifling innovation
*SpaceX*
- Everything is made in-house (You cannot get more vertically integrated than that)
- Operates as a(n actually good) company;
: backed by the world's most valuable man (Elon)
: focus on efficiency, unlike Boeing and alike
: Is literally the Stanford of rocket ventures (huge interest, innovation) attracts worldwide attention ~and I want to immigrate to the U.S. just to work for them~
Do you see the problem here?
- Sincerely, a Portuguese person
I guess space x not allowed to hire non Americans
@@mrduckl Due to ITAR laws, no, which sucks.
@@henrijayy apply for a green card or something join the air force for a contract to get money and us citizenship and then easy application.
@@henrijayy try to marry a American person and get citizenship
Aktually 🤓 payloads are Vertically integrated into Ariane 5 compared to SpaceX who horizontally integrated their payloads. So there…
Jokes aside this is one of the limits SpaceX has as well as limited payload volume.
Such a underrated channel
i just found you cause of that dutch video, surprised you aren't bigger. your production is really good, hopefully your channel gets bigger dude
Not to mention the most optimal spaceport for Europe is miles away from its continent.
Europe for centuries rule the oceans, guess it is time to, onece again, embrace that legacy...
But it's one of the best locations for sattelite launches because it's close to the aequator
If needed they could use the Canary Islands, which are around the same latitude as Florida.
@@spliceosome French Guiana is even closer
@@dave_sic1365 It's not closer to Europe.
I’m British but I would like to see us collaborate more with continental Europe in Space
Glad to see it, but we're gonna have to have you come back. It's safe to assume that the ESA will continuously get more and more linked with the EU.
@@hoogyoutube Yeah unfortunately that's probably not going to happen, my country's become even more anti-EU since the referendum.
I do hope that one day we'll rejoin the Eu
Bo'o o' wa'ah
Sorry mate, i had to do it xd
@@birb_1607 You would probably not get accepted back
Just discovered this channel right now and i love it!!
@@Adamcram bot
@@Maester-i9m your mom is a bot
found your most recent vid and this is the final one before I watch all of them
Awesome to hear that :)
Me: I wonder if they managed to pinpoint the source of Europe's space problem ...
video begins: *counting in French language*
Me: Yep, they got it
Full disclosure: I have worked on Ariane 6 project.
What do you mean by French language ? That France is the problem ?
typical francophobia
@@DaDa-ui3sw I lived in France for quite some time and I like the French a lot.
But that doesn't mean that I also have to like the particular way they are handling complex aerospace projects, the way their government operates in the international organisations (such as EU or ESA) and so on.
You can be critical of some parts of a culture without really having any phobia or hatred towards it, you know.
Take a look at the SpaceX's Falcon 9 budget, capabilities and development/production schedule. Then take a look at ArianeSpace's Ariane 6 with its 10x cost, half the abilities and very long (still not finished) schedule ... and find me an explanation that doesn't involve french way of doing things, somehow.
@@miroslavhoudek7085 Sorry for the provocative message, I saw you didn't respond to the other response and I was genuinely curious to find out what your insight would be! What are these issues regarding the French way of doing things if I may ask?
@@DaDa-ui3sw I probably can't say definitely from my limited experience.
I think there are things that are not necessarily bad. Like having a reasonably good and long lunch, coffee and croissants and smokes. Having long weekends here and there and long vacations. These are things that I consider to be good. But if Americans (or someone) crunches whole year, 10 hours a day, including weekends. Then the French 8 hours a day (with frequent breaks), with weekends and long weekends and state holidays AND THEN CLOSING THE WHOLE THING FOR SUMMER FOR TWO MONTHS MINIMUM is just gonna have an effect. Not only engineers work less but their work is getting interrupted, things get forgoten and need to be restarted. I'd say that this is not a bad French thing. But it doesn't help in getting things done on time. There's always waiting on someone's critical job - but it doesn't get done and others are left waiting too.
But then, oh boy, are some French engineers very happy with themselves, getting to grande école long decade(s) ago and then underperforming the rest of their life. Protected by all kinds of worker protections against their incompetence and lack of enthusiasm.
I think people should not work so hard that they kill themselves. But maybe if an engineer is not good at their place and doesn't enjoy doing a stellar job and giving it all, then maybe someone else should get a chance there.
I should also emphasize that I'm not some kind of genius who was too good for working in France or whatever. I'm actually pretty average myself. But even so, I was quite dissapointed by the overall "mood".
Here before this channel explodes. Keep it up!
I still see the issue with Europe as they continue with the Soviet Design Bureau model where a central group of people decide the 'future' and then use tax payers money to build the kit for the future. Unfortunately such command economies usually fail to take into account new tech or innovations as the people involved are vested in the status quo. See the UK Car, Aircraft and pretty much any other of the old nationalised industries that got destroyed when faced with innovative foreign competition as an example.
NASA as a similar problem with the SLS and it's massive group of people & lobbyists keeping the $$$ flowing.
Personally I feel ESA and EU needs to get out of the direct investment/control of the launcher and instead focus on growing a market of 'stuff' to put into space and use European launchers on a bid basis.
The UK car and air industry was never nationalized.
@@veergauba Care to clarify as most UK people believe it was into (mostly) a single entity for each with effective government control.
You have to remember a good portion of the european space industry is linked with the French Nuclear Deterrence. Ariane 5's solid rocker boosters are the cousins of the propulsion of the M51 sub-launched ballistic missile. Thinking the EU and european countries will just get out of the direct investment and control of the launcher is just a liberal fever dream
@ Not so much liberal as 'USA centric libertarian fever dream'.
This doesn't really make much sense, given that the USSR was the leading power in spaceflight during the entire space age, despite its lower level of development. The USSR's space industry was extremely innovative, and already developed functional full-flow staged-combustion engines (which now draw applause for SpaceX) in the 1960s. US scientists after the fall of the USSR believed that soviet technical documents had to be mistranslated, due to the incredibly high efficiency of soviet engines. The USSR were the pioneers of spaceflight, with the first satellite, first man and woman in space, first space station, first probe to orbit and land on another celestial body, etc.
Similarly, nationalised industries were not destroyed solely by foreign competition, but by economic austerity and privatisation.
April 14th 2024 update. Spacex has destroyed every other launch company and they have won.
I can't say that I find Elon Musk's words very credible or convincing. That guy always wildly exaggerates about everything. So give me some actual numbers.
The Falcon 9 costs $~2000/kg to Low-Earth-Orbit, while the Ariane 5 costs $10,000/kg to Low-Earth-Orbit. You don't need to be convinced of anything, the drastic cost reduction speaks for itself.
He is not swallowing the launch market with slick rhetoric. He is UNDERSELLING the competition.
Tnahks youtube recommendations! And thanks Romulus for the great european-focused content.
If the goal here is to effectively compete with the USA, federal fundings and organizations won't do. Europe needs to provide more business friendly environment to attract investors and help them grow. Because public initiatives will always be inefficient and wasteful. Moreover, the USA and China has already beaten you in that sector.
EU needs their own Elon Musk but I don't think that'll happen anytime soon. Not with the current political climate in Europe.
Space X could get so cheap and good largely thanks to US government contracts. As soon as they were cheaper than NASA (which isn't that hard, as NASA didn't even have an operational launch platform after the Space Shuttle and they were sending their astronauts to the ISS on Soyuz rockets) there was a clear case for USAF and NASA launches to happen through space X rockets. US govt and military launches are always going to go through a US company, and the US is leagues ahead in the number of launches NASA, the USAF, and the secret services (NSA/CIA mostly) organise. While this isn't a direct subsidy, the fact remains that this is a government-funded leg up for US space ventures that simply does not exist at the same scale anywhere else. Space X could never have developed this quickly if it had been based in Europe because it simply would have had way fewer launches to even compete for. The development cost of the rocket gets spread out over the number of launches, and each launch means more data to help improve the rocket and develop the next one.
The only way to rivalise with US-based space ventures is to have way more launches that have to, or that can, happen in Europe, be it through protectionism or by ramping up the amount of European govt.-funded launches for scientific, intelligence, and military purposes. Or we have to wait for Space X to make it so cheap that the private market for satellite launches starts to really dwarf the government-based launches. But by then, Arianespace will be decades behind, and short of developing a revolutionary new technology they will not be able to catch up without government funding anyway, because all the private launches will go to the lowest bidder. Unless space-x somehow cannot keep up with demand and urgent private launches might be willing to pay the premium to get their satellites in orbit sooner. Even then it's likely the Chinese will just subsidise the hell out of their space sector and even with similar technology levels, their rockets will be cheaper due to currency manipulation and lower labour costs.
They are cheaper because the workers of Space x are underpaid, overworked and are pushed into a dangerous environments. Elon has regularly violated safety rules. That’s the sole reason the guy is pumping shit again And again.
China has a state program for that and it works. The problem is not about that
Very nice video. The content was interesting. Just having the background music through all the video is a bit annoying.
Glad i found this channel
Rocker Factory Ausburg (RFA) and ISAR are the future for europe
Ariane 5 is an ICBM that happens to launch commercial payloads while we maintain it's capabilities in readiness
Probably the most stupid thing i've read in a while
Ariane 5 isn't an ICBM
Ariane 5's boosters have many technologies in common with the M51 submarine launched ballistic missile however
@ Boosters are pretty much straight SLBMs. The main core seams resist forever being upgraded from intertial onto GPS navigation. There is also almost zero capability to command the rocket post launch (compared with Falcon9). And many other design choices that only make sense on ICMB vs commercial orbital launcher.
That’s so false it hurts
ICBMs don't have the throw weight to orbit capacity of most commercial and space agency boosters. They have a common technological "ancestry", but they are a whole different animal. ICBM's don't need to launch 6 tons to LEO. The weapons buss weighs a lot less that that, and it is suborbital. Most SLBMs require even less delta-v than ICBMs, because submarines can launch on most land locations with a weapon that has about a 3000 mile range, by approaching the target stealthily underwater.
Great video! Can i know the background music used though? I think it's really chill and i like it. :)
On the broadband part, don't worry, we have glass fiber which is, ehh better, cheaper and less vulnerable.
Cheaper depends on DISTANCE. Europe has more population density, so at least for interconnecting Europe (at least European cities), fiber is cheaper. Also, Starlink cannot replace ground connections for node-dense places like cities. Starlink is the cheapest way to bring broadband to rural areas and, eventually, to vehicles. Starlink will only have a few premium customers in each city who need the lower latency. (Lower because the high index of refraction in glass means that light travels slower in fiber.)
European Space programs were state funded and started, like NASA. For large projects as such, state sector companies are more efficient than private companies IMO. I know It does not fit with current economic dogma. I may add that Space X and other private ventures are quite recent.
@Cats are Comrades [dogs based, too] I'm not a client of Space X or the Boring company so I can't give any feedback ;-)
@Cats are Comrades [dogs based, too] ouch
@TrueGemuese "his "reusable" rockets have a tendency to explode when trying to reuse them."
Falcon recently achieved a string of 200 launches without a mission failure. That is a world record. A tendency to explode compared to what?
Vega rocket is mainly producted by Avio, not Arianspace (just to be more accurate)!
Wow, we've come to a time where private companies are competing in space..
Something you don't talk about is the fact that Europe has rockets better suited for long range launches and this was recently proven by the fact that the rocket for the JWST was mainly built by Arianespace. This is very different than commercial applications such as Starlink that does low-orbit launches
The only reason falcon heavy was not picked is because esa provided the launch for free falcon heavy is the leader in cost to any orbit
I would love to see a lot more investments in Space from Europe. We need more countries involved and less red tape, less taxes.
taxes are ok if used correctly, i'm not mad of paying more taxes, i'm mad of paying more taxes that just get wasted.
as a small example, the road where i live has been paved 4 times this year, because they do a shitty job every time, and after a few weeks the asphalt has more holes that a teen's face during puberty. instead of doing anything once right, they do it roughly at best, and multiple times since their work won't last.
we'd pay less taxes if they weren't wasted in inefficiencies
@@Ubya_sure thats true
There are quite a few innovative Space Startups in Europe. Copenhagen Suborbital is one of them. I hope they get some of these EU funds.
I like Copsub but it's non-profit program, like a hobby project...
The real money is in orbit. Thankfully there are some startups like Rocket Factory Augsburg or Isar Aerospace, which I really hope will be successful and grab at least part of the smallsat launch market.
Copenhagen Suborbital sounds badass
Ariane heeft de JW toch mooi van de grond geschoten.
De UK heeft zijn eigen plannen als het over satelliet lanceringen gaat. Met 3 nieuwe lanceer ports in de plannen. een zien hoe hun begroting het lukt.
Want op een dag is de ruimte voor satellieten op en borsten ze. Meer dan nu al elke 2 maanden.
Space for satellites will not run out. That’s ridiculous
I agree with your facts, but I am very skeptical if your interpretation.
We live in a time where there is way too much available capital.
We have a large middle aged population that invests their money.
Next, most startups don't require that much capital.
This should mean there is tons of available capital.
Even in places like Germany the interest rate was negative.
Meaning people were loosing money because there was a lack of good investments.
I THINK, Europe's problem is that you have to go through the government to get these things funded.
Compared with America there are many private non governmental groups who will fund you.
Make no doubt, rocket companies require a lot of capital.
But, on paper, they should have enough capital.
Additionally, I'm not sure a largely government funded organization can help Europe catch up at even a reasonable rate, let alone pass SpaceX.
The previous rocket companies in America before SpaceX were very expensive, and was largely a contractor with subcontractors with their own subcontractors and so forth.
And each contractor had to make a profit.
So, each had high prices.
Additionally, the CEO under this system could not make big long term plans or big changes that could make the system more innovative or efficient.
Next, the shareholders had a lot of say in that company so short term quarterly profit was more important than long term planning.
So Europe can try this strategy, but it won't be pleasant.
Inserting the Elon Musk interview to me didnt add much there, because OF COURSE he would say his company makes the best stuff and its the way forward yadda yadda.
its not that he is making the best stuff. its that he is selling at much lower prices, prices arianne isnt close to being able to match. that he is able to provide launches at these extremely competitive prices and still be profitable points to a radically more cost effective vehicle.
@@ravener96 You are correct, best stuff has nothing to do with it. Elon is making it cost effective the way good industries always have, mass production, effective worker training and repetition; and oh yes and he gets on the tele a lot .
@@stephenchapel2058 and extensive vertical integration.
To be fair he claimed his rocket were cheaper. And facts proved him right.
The market share bars tell the story. He's not trying to convince you. The interviewer asked him to EXPLAIN the ground truth, and that's what he's doing.
1:22 ''Svako svoga konja hvali'' Everyone praises their own horse
will you cover the recent developments in the ESA's plans?
Very informative, thanks!
I am not sure if someone say it already but most of the thinks SpaceX is launching is starlink which if it finish it will increase the satellite by 10 times, and I don't think SpaceX will use anything else them self to launch. And I don't think starlink will be the big money maker as they say it.
I don't think satellite based broadband is the future, rather I think it's stupid. The ammount of satellites you need is enormous and the download speeds are insignificant. Most european countries have or are bulding extensive fibre optic connections reaching every single home with speeds of 10Gb/s or more.
SpaceX isn't meant to replace wired connections much of the developed world already has. Real Engineering's video "Why SpaceX is Making Starlink" goes into detail on the niche market it's intended for
@@chiptune_ Yes, the rural market is underserved with broadband, even in many developed countries like the US. Europe has a higher population density in most European countries than the US, so fiber to the home may make more sense there. Wiring the world would cost a great deal more than Starlink.
amazing video except your music is about 10 percent too loud.
When I read the title I was thinking what kind of (living) space problem?
comment for alghoritm
Sir you're gonna explode soon, i can't believe you have only 4k subscribers
Like your videos, but , man, you should really reconsider having background music. Distracting.
One of the often overlooked issues of Starlink is that it will seriously and very negatively impact Earth-based observations of space. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites sometimes pass through the field of view of telescopes, you can even spot them with non-professional ones. Imagine how obvious they get when observed with equipment the cost of which is in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. LEO satellites have been a growing concern as their number grew very fast in the last half a decade.
If the proposed 1600 Starlink satellites are added to the ~3800 existing LEO ones we are looking at a 50% increase over a small time period and that's ignoring any other new satellites launched.
So while I would welcome better network coverage and speeds, the potential for this single project to damage astronomical data collection is too large. It doesn't help that if the network performs as advertised -judging by the track record of Elon's owned companies, unlikely- none of the existing telecommunication companies would be able to compete, so there's potential for a monopoly to be created.
Fortunately SpaceX has changed the design of the star link satellites in order to produce a dimmer reflection as to not interfere with earth-based observation centers
@@tjmartin8516 The more expensive the equipment the more light it will absorb and the higher the resolution it will have, meaning that those satellites will likely still be visible to some of the telescopes that can look for phenomena nothing else can.
Whether Starlink's better is good enough to not be bad, I guess we'll see, but I wouldn't say it's beyond them to make marginal changes and try to market it as "problem solved".
You have to realize that as we develop in space, the earth's orbit is bound to get crowded. They are taking measures to make it less visible but maybe we just have to accept that telescope are going to be obstructed.
Looking further into the Starlink project, I'm no longer worried about it becoming a monopoly, it will fail leaving behind a lot of space garbage in orbit. The final number of satellites Musk wants to have in orbit is 42000. With deliveries of 60 per launch of the Falncon 9, it would take 700 launches.
Add to that the satellites have a lifetime of 5 years, they need to be replaced before even half are deployed.
Add to this that most of our internet data transfer is facilitated through transoceanic cables and that Starlink's subscription fee per mbps offered and the satellite dish initial cost make them the most expensive out of the already existing satellite internet providers in N.America, and it leaves the project with a large cost to manufacture and get the things in orbit without the userbase to cover the bills. For reference said providers are using 20 and 3 satellites respectively in a much higher orbit obviously.
As for Earth's orbit getting crowded, it might eventually. But at least 2 thousand satellites popping in a time-span of a few years and needing to be replaced every 5 years is just unmanageable. Were it to happen over the course of decades there would be time for regulations and middle ground to be found, along with solutions.
Musk has promised to make it easy to decommission them but that is another promise added to a long list of unfulfilled ones.
Besides when we are talking about Earth-based observations it's not just publication level research but also early warning search for asteroids or solar outbursts.
The cherry on top of all of this is that if we are facing issues with space debris with not even 10k satellites launched since the first rocket reached space, how are a few thousands per 5 years going to affect that?
@@BL1zZ4Rth They don’t plan on using the Falcon 9 to launch the Starlink satellites for very long They plan on eventually using the Starship to launch them which has a capacity to deploy 400 satellites at any given time and I don’t see the project going bankrupt anytime soon because there is a large market for it at least in the U.S. and Canada because of remote workers people are starting to leave cities for rural or remote areas because they don’t have to work in cities anymore and these areas will now be able to get high speed Internet without having to install expensive fiber optic lines it’s not really intended for people who live in urban areas
That’s the only clip of Elon where he isn’t stuttering… could you imagine if he talked that nicely and fluently all the time?! He’d be on another level!
It's an iconic signature tho lol. I believe he has Aspergers syndrome with a brain that works differently (thinking of too much stuff to say at the same time which makes it harder for speech to catch up) some say it's a curse, some say it's a gift.
The stutter might be the only thing keeping him from spewing nonsense 24/7. 🤔
The American attitude towards most ground-based energy science is as one US senator said "let the Europeans deal with it", in response to funding for the texas SSC project. But it almost seems to be the opposite with space science!
DutchBakery, By "ground based", do you mean fundamental? As for the USA, many senators only care about pork for their state (and donors), the space program has some of that but not as much as the military, so they favour military space programs, like missiles and spying satellites , weather prediction, and telecommunications. More recently there was the GPS. They had designed some of the capacities to civilian uses, but even if officially declared open to civilians in 1983 by Reagan, it was somewhat immature at the time.
The EU has Galileo, whose development, building and control was very favourable to the UK, in spite of that the British government was rather opposed to Galileo, and Brexit has ended the UK participation.
We need to open source the rocket and satellite technologies, and bring down the cost of rocket materials. Only if we make space affordable will we be able to succeed. We can't wait for European billionaires to take action!
Open source rocket technology? That is just asking China and the US to copy any advancements made by Europe
even if it was open source, all the beurocratic stuff wouldn't go away, you need licenses, permits, etc etc. Just that can severely hinder progress.
in italy the beurocracy is just madness, you need permits and documents even to clean your ass, trying to work with rockets would make everything so complex and slow that only very big and rich companies could afford it.
plus let's not forget that rockets can't really be launched in europe, every orbital rocket needs to get transported to africa or south america, and this makes everything even slower and more expensive.
imagine if spacex had to move every rocket accross the globe for every launch or test, not just moving a few miles in the same site, or in different states of the same country.
logistically, we are screwed
@@Ubya_ "in italy the beurocracy is just madness, you need permits and documents even to clean your ass" Sigh...
"plus let's not forget that rockets can't really be launched in europe" very good point. And talking about Italy, for this exact reason they're going to convert the old aircraft carrier Garibaldi into a floating orbital launch platform. It's not much, but it's something...
Open sourcing such technologies is extremely risky given that you’re essentially making ICBMs
rocket technology isnt actually that amazing, it is costly because you need so many failsafes and the fact fuel for a rocket costs a shitload.
obligatory comment to boost this channel
I think the US is just fine in space
I feel like this channel might blow up some day. Glad I found it before^^
2:51 this cut lmfao
Hope this channel does well
Please drop the background music.
I will.
@@hoogyoutube Thanks!
The music is way too loud, it drowns out all other speech in the video.
Agreed, but this was like my first video, so I’m going to keep learning as I go
@@hoogyoutube Glad to hear that, because the content itself was top quality!
... Europe has other problems ... like not falling apart for example
Would be quite difficult for a geographic landmass to fall apart.
Space has always fallen on the "Guns" side of the "Guns and Butter" dilemma. The reason NASA lost so much funding after Apollo was because of the Great Society welfare programs, Medicare, and Medicaid. Europeans are consistently more enthusiastic about funding social programs; not cool engineering projects like rockets and space stations.
I dont think thats the cause(s). Apollo deliverd..."Man on the Moon"......but than?,what next? no concept, no plan further. You tell your society "we have to win this race".......you can not expect there Support after wining the race and than keep on circling on the racetrack.......
And the european Space program....well, never existed...never promised anything, never realy deliverd. Exitment, public Support by citizens or politicians....for what.....ask anyone in Europa what the ESA funding is for? 999 out of 1000 will not be able to point to one thing. A Europa Space Programm has no Support because ther is none. Apart form Galileo, Copernicus etc. But who knows about them and what do they deliver? Its not quite like Guns and Butter...because there is no visible Butter for the public.
@@SG-xi5dx But that's what I was saying. The space program is "guns, not butter." Every dollar (or Euro) you spend on it is a dollar (or Euro) you _can't_ spend on butter. In economics terms, it's an "opportunity cost:" You are committing a resource to one thing at the cost of another, potential thing. President Kennedy even quantified the cost in his Rice speech:
*"To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year - a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year.*
But in 1961, everyone could see that the space race was an important battle in the Cold War. It was worth the money. It was harder to convince people in 1969 because the space program doesn't cost _nothing:_ it costs a lot of money that could go into tax relief, or welfare, or education, or energy, or whatever. The editorial page of the _New York Times_ was overwhelmingly negative on the day of the Apollo 11 landing, because the late Sixties were a very pessimistic, dismal time when space exploration seemed like a luxurious waste of a declining nation's scarce resources.
"The billions of dollars being spent on this moon exploration program means that it will be even longer before America begins to keep her promises to the poor. America needs to look at the earth, not at space. Before one more dollar is spent on outer space, we must make sure that not one child here on earth goes to a dinner table with no food on it." -Charles Evers
"this tremendous technological achievement represents a defective sense of human values, and of a sense of priorities of our technical culture .... We are betraying our moral weakness in our very triumphs in technology and economics." -Reinhold Niebuhr
"How can this nation swell and stagger [sic] with technological pride when it has a spiritual will so crippled, when it is so weak, so wicked, so blinded and misdirected in its priorities? While we can send men to the moon or deadly missiles to Moscow or toward Mao, we can't get foodstuffs across town to starving folks in the teeming Ghettos." -Jesse Jackson
"Are things more important than people? I simply do not believe that a program comparable to the moon landing cannot be projected around poverty, the war, crime, and so on. So, when the first man walks on the moon, my joy will be tempered by sadness." -Walter Burghardt
The space program was sidelined because it looked like a luxury item to people who thought it was getting in the way of the shiny new welfare state that didn't exist in 1961, but did exist in 1968. I have a hunch that Europe doesn't have a decent space program because they are even more committed to a cradle-to-grave welfare state than America was under Lyndon Johnson. We'd have colonized the Moon by now if it wasn't for that millstone around our necks.
@@CountArtha
I’ll do you one better. We probably would have already colonized Mars by the 1980s. If Robert Zubrin’s “The Case For Mars” is anything to go by (and I think it’s all up-to-date apart from perchlorate in Martian regolith), we’ve been able to take humans to Mars with 1970s NASA tech this whole time, Hell, we could have been building bases on Mars with Ancient Roman construction techniques, and considering this book was published in the early 90s, we’d probably have much more efficient means of doing this by now. This is to say nothing nuclear-pulse projects like Project Orion which was so efficient the design included 100-lb barber chairs in case the astronauts needed a shave - but it was rejected by the Air Force in the 60s because they couldn’t think of a use for it (also, Kennedy was terrified when later on someone did think of a use for it, the Orion Battleship).
The problem is that we as a species have made the financially-sound decision instead of the very risky but potentially deeply rewarding decision. Which is why I’m so happy more and more of Big Space is out of government hands, less and less beholden to what people in Sandusky, Ohio think about Medicare this election cycle, and more and more in the hands of crazy jerks like Musk who can spend their own money on whatever insane projects they want. I’d argue that Musk is making the sort of progress we ought to have been making in the 1970s.
I think the money that could have gone to NASA was more going towards the Military industrial complex. The amount of money pushed up the US militaries ass is enourmous.
Is it possible for Europe to buy a Falcon 9 from spacex? or like the F-22 aircraft cannot be exported?
anybody can buy a Falcon 9
I wouldn't sell the skin of Ariane that fast.
As we saw it is still more than relevant in the world stage with the launch of the James Webb satellite with an Ariane 5.
Though it is a reality that the company has a lot to catch up it is in the process, and the new French program Maïa Space to create reusable small rockets will finally help ArianeGroup filling the blank.
I wouldn’t call Ariane 5 relevant because of the Webb launch, considering that decision was made in 2005 when it was the only rocket with a large enough fairing for Webb.
Arianespace has a lot of catching up to do, considering their partially reusable rockets are still many many years away. By the time they create a falcon 9 competitor, SpaceX will have already made falcon 9 obsolete with starship.
@@user-yd4rn4ez6m Well all this is fictional buddy, we don't know what lays ahead in the future. Moreover, economic history shows us the monopolies are only temporary, SpaceX won't be alone for long, we don't know what will come, from Ariane, but also from China and other emerging powers.
I have one word. Finland
SpaceX is currently close to being bankrupt soooo ... (source : Leaked internal Email)
Elan Is not a genius, he is just a really good lair and sales person.
So?
@@yurlim so we neen more people who going to gamble like him, here in EU.
BS.
It's not "close to being bankrupt", even he admitted that later after being flooded with questions on twitter. That email was just a scare tactic to put pressure on his employees in order to solve the Raptor production issues. He's being an asshole for doing that but SpaceX ain't going to go bankrupt anytime soon.
You honestly believe the US government wouldn't bail them out? Do you know how many orders the US military plans for SpaceX? Europeans are number in coping without performing.
That’s some rly good background music! Does anyone know that tune?
The music in this video is distracting.
Agreed
Not to be rude, I love your content, but how do you sound so american accent wise? Thank you!
I’m Dutch American
Great vid
so much money is wasted on sports and commericials and reality shows !
I'm afraid to say that Europe's golden age is about to end or it has ended!
Sadly 😢
It ended more than a century ago.
That's what happens when you have two civil wars in 20 years and both of them happen to be the most devastating conflicts in human history.
@@someguycalledcerberus9805 WW 1 was devastating primarily of HUMAN capitol, not of industrial and economic infrastructure as WW2 was. WW 1 plowed up farmland. WW2 leveled factories and cities.
ArianeSpace? Am I the only one noticing the name...
What about the Rocket Factory Augsburg (RFA)?
As soon as you started praising starlink, I lost all respect for this channel
if u can lower the background music volume a bit, i feel it would be better to understand the content of the video. too high for my liking
Totally agree
Wow the us is at for everything in Europe it seems like
Dunno, Russia is pretty much up there in the top.
SpaceX took almost all commercial mission from Russia and forced it to take private space companies back to the state owned ones, so no. Currently SpaceX lifts more in tonnage than Russia and China (+Europe) combined.
@@HVM_fi What is (+Europe) supposed to mean?
Europe is a continent.
@@susangoaway Did you watch the video? Arianespace is French company but it's build like Airbus, and is part of Airbus SE. You know European multinational aerospace company. Arianespace was leader in commercial launches before SpaceX take that tittle (and with giant margin).
@@HVM_fi That still doesn't make it European. It's just a company spread across three countries.
@@susangoaway Airbus/Arianespace works bit more than three countries, example turbopumps are build in Sweden by British company and so on. Ariane is run by ESA which pays the R/D, and is the main customer.
ESA = EUROPEAN Space Agency.
The problem of Europe Space program is Europe
And now india become the first country to land on the south side of the moon.
Race? What race? SpaceX has already won and now working on even better product, meanwhile competition is barely warming up.
that background music is cringeworthy
Agreed, let me know if the music in the next video is better, should be uploaded tomorrow
Just because others investing a lot in space,Europa has to do it to?What if all this money is weasted?Will Starlink realy be profitable!There are much more importend things we have to invest !
They are already in the space launching industry and are falling behind in competitiveness. What do you expect them to do just give up?
Space is the next frontier for humans, just like the America's once was for the Europeans. There are a lot of valuable resources in space. If humanity expanded into space its population isn't limited to a few billion, more like a few trillions with almost no way for human civilization to be ended, unlike on earth were there are many possible scenario's for human extinction.
And ofcourse space expansion is much more than just more living space and resources, it is also better technology, bettery medical appliances, ...
Space X is on the verge of going bankrupt - so id say Ariane is not in trouble...for now.
Ariane definitely IS in trouble. Spacex realized their rate of raptor engine production wasn’t sustainable for the starship program, and are fixing the issue. At worst they abandon starship ( which is unlikely), but falcon 9 isn’t going anywhere. Not to mention the other companies, like rocket lab, who are already routinely putting satellites in orbit.
@@ethanhoward8506 They cant just abandon starship. They relied on it to make Star Link profitable. Without starships, that won't happen, and Space X will be hemorrhaging money until its game over
@@UninstallingWindows I think Elon was trying to convey a sense of urgency about the raptors , and the chance of them going under isn’t actually that great. Either way, reusable rockets are the future, and have made Ariane obsolete.
@@ethanhoward8506 It looks like its very likely that they will go under. But I guess time will tell.
A related video: th-cam.com/video/EojxThnDPng/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=Thunderf00t
Reusability has its problems and elon doesn't have the kind of reusable boosters atm, that would make much of a difference. The turnaround time for the booster refurbishment is still measured in months...and it costs alot as well.
True reusability would be something that can go to space...return, and be refueled the same day and launch again.
@@UninstallingWindows even if spacex were to go bankrupt, falcon 9 would still be utilized. Flying re used boosters is WAY cheaper than flying a disposable rocket, and spacex does it routinely. Spacex just recently flew 2 falcon 9 missions in the same day. Just look at how much of the market spacex has gobbled up in the last few years. That tells you everything you need to know.
I blame nationalists for continually blocking further EU integration and reform. Imagine how much progress could be made if the entire EU was united with common policies, common goals all working together.
Nationalists and conservatives
> entire EU was united with common policies, common goals all working together.
Or, as one well-known... er... politician said, "One people, one country, one leader". Right?
@@denysvlasenko9175 If only.....we could unite Eu under one banner :P oh wait Scheiße we tried that..... hahahaha
Let's try it again....what could go wrong.
@@HladniSjeverniVjetar *cough* US intervention *cough*
>I blame nationalists
no fuck off .. the brownines coming to eu countrys have nothing to do with rockets lmao .
1:06 is from parody video and not real Starlink trains...
None shall commercialize space.
It's a bit too obvious.
Space X’s Starship will kill Europe’s dreams.
To do that, they need to avoid bankruptcy first.
@@talideon they will lol. Tesla plus US gov.
If Europe have good design shipping at space then china interested before they get own design. 😄😄
Dump the music.
Completely agree. But this was my first video :/
@@hoogyoutube OK, I'll let you off (not that that has any weight...)
I get a strong feeling that a lot of TH-cam material is published without good playback review. There are many channels that would benefit, once the edit is done(mostly), waiting a cool off period and watching the video on a phone or tablet (no headphones) before uploading.
Good luck, I'll watch for more.
Why Competing lets Make EARTH SPACE AGENCY !!!!
Don’t forget space X is a vaporware dream…it will go down soon.
"vaporwave" lol
There is no better duo than Europeans and coping.
damn that's crazy, you're about a decade late though.
Comment for the algorithm
Elon musk is lying in that interview, he always does a tripple head tilt to the left when he plurts out unfounded "facts" about something he ll do
What are you talking about? This is a really old interview and what he said has already played out...
Bro, go look for the numbers yourself. He was right.
Period 💅🇺🇸
no need to worry, spacex is shooting themselves in the foot with starlink and starship (and this entire bullshit around colonising mars)
what? my second comment is gone? i hate youtube sometimes...
I don't think so. There are a lot of countries with censored Internet or simply no Internet at all. I'm pretty sure they come up with some sort of backdoors to give the rest of the world free unrestricted Internet just like with the very easy hackable region code system of dvds. The Internet connection with Mars is going to be interesting though. I can imagine giant mirrors to be placed in an orbit between Earth and Mars to get a reliable Internet connection all year round. The speed isn't going to be great unless SpaceX is able to create a wormhole. So I think AI and new codecs/compression algorithms have to be written to make files as compact as possible to at least not have any form of buffering or data loss, because a ping of 9 to 42 minutes isn't going to be suitable for an interplanetary online CoD multi-player session.
@@hendrikdependrik1891 sorry, there are so many people mindlessly crazy about spacex, i cant tell whether you are serious or not...
Obviously not. Aschbacher, Breton, Israel, and Roussel would not be complaining this much for a company that’s failing. The same people who claimed reusable rockets are a dream and would lead to bankruptcy only to announce the Maia rocket a few days ago.
You must be a one angry and jealous European. Europe is behind and will always be trash when compared to America. And that is a fact.
SpaceX developed reusable rocket for $2.1 billion, not to mention this price included ressuply missions to the ISS which they did. So they used only the profits (maybe a quarter of that), and you're telling me $14 billion isn't enough for EU to make a reusable rocket? Hahah. The truth is simple. Musk is a genious, and business will always operate when it has access to venture capital and free market. Right now it's America. Nothing can change that, EU is too bureaucratic.
14 billion is for the entire space program, not just launch rockets. ESA is involved in a lot more than just that.
Btw, there is research being done at this moment for reusable rockets for Ariane 7, which most likely will be a fully reusable rocket imo, not a partial reusable like Falcon 9.
It also isn't necessarily that the EU is too bureaucratic, rather there are a lot more spacelaunches done by the US government that can only be flown on US rockets compared to European launches needing to be done on just European launchers. This already is a crucial edge SpaceX (and US companies n general) has on European competitors.
Elon Musk is a joke.
spacex isn't.
Did you also support SolarCity?
Make better research before uploading videos.
I have the feeling that this video will age like milk.
I'm not kidding the TH-cam subtitles called it Aryan space
Edit: timestamp 0:22