politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tim Montgomerie’s right: Current government policy decision

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Adeline - weird design that looks like a fail aerodynamically. The comment from most experts was Advertising-Engineering. It was rushed out as a band aid to the fact that SpaceX hadn't failed yet.

Official ESA policy seems to re-usability cuts into payload too much (except that SpaceX advertised and sold payload capabilities already include 30% margin for resuablity) and will require lots of costly refurbishment.

The simple truth is that if F9R works out, nothing ESA has planned can compete.

To bring this back to EU/UK politics - look for the French in the very near future to demand that all satellites which are funded by EU governments or use government backing in some way(*) will have to use ESA rockets. This would be legal - would use the military/strategic opt out for the various free trade treaties.

*Many private satellites have government assistance with loan financing etc.

Thanks. I thought Adeline, whilst a reaction to SpaceX, wasn't quite such a mess. At least they are looking at ways of reducing cost, even if it is ten years too late (or twenty, given when the DCX Clipper was around)

SpaceX might well become a poster-boy for private enterprise: doing things cheaper than governments and their lackeys can.

I'm not sure I like France's suggestion.

I don't think the French have actually suggested that; Malmesbury merely thinks they might.

Truth is, SpaceX (and other private companies) are going to make a whole bunch of government space initiatives look very stupid, very slow, and very expensive. They backed a bunch of companies peddling very expensive solutions.

The ESA, NASA, Roscosmos: do any of them have any role in the future?