> "Airbus has hired Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for advice on an effort to forge a new European space and satellite company that can better compete with Elon Musk’s dominant SpaceX."
Yup, definitely the worst imaginable idea, but it's Airbus, their supply chain and "value base" is as European as the American Dream.
IMO, let the Bavarians' youngsters in Aerospace and Robotics setup a few cross-over conferences and university competitions, connecting all of Europe and the relevant fields to create a "war strategy" (like in a simulation game) "against" SpaceX and see what comes out. Sponsored by whoever has money and is looking for epic greatness and maybe some nobility and of course, lots and lots of more money.
Does this actually say anything substantiative? I read it twice and can't see the point, the only point of contention is that they have hired Goldman Sachs and Bank of America for advice for the initiative?
The largest European aerospace and engineering firm, is talking to the largest banks of international currency and connections, who already have experience in managing the financing and connections of the broader engineering economy in this space is a bad thing?
Then calling ULA effectively a failure? Was this written by anyone with actual integrity or knowledge of the industry? ULA has the highest success rate of any launch provider with 600+ 100% successful launches (including the maiden launches of a brand new rocket - Vulcan Centaur!), and are likely the only developer who can compete in the native US market against SpaceX. They have been the maintainers and innovators behind all recent Altas V, Delta II, Delta IV (Md/Hvy) and now Vulcan Centaur rockets, for the past twenty years.
ULA wasn't supposed to be a massive innovator through breaking things, they are what the space industry requires - successful, reliable, and low-stress launches. Then, you can apply your knowledge to the future. SpaceX is great (only due to Shotwell, hampered only by the notorious newly-unelected US Prime Minister (and now-known nazi) Musk).
Is Ars Technica now just a US imperialism advocate? I just don't see the point of complaining when more funding, more initiative, more progress is being made in European space is always a good thing for the entire industry, and our future as a technologically advanced species.
At this point, with the amount of decades-in-the-making real infrastructure and brain-gain of the EU cluster, I remain confident that the EU space industry is going to leapfrog the US within the next fifteen years (Order: China, <->, EU + NZ, US, Aus). Really looking forward to EU taking up more attention in the space, and then South America coming seemingly out of nowhere eventually.
2 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 8.6 ms ] threadYup, definitely the worst imaginable idea, but it's Airbus, their supply chain and "value base" is as European as the American Dream.
IMO, let the Bavarians' youngsters in Aerospace and Robotics setup a few cross-over conferences and university competitions, connecting all of Europe and the relevant fields to create a "war strategy" (like in a simulation game) "against" SpaceX and see what comes out. Sponsored by whoever has money and is looking for epic greatness and maybe some nobility and of course, lots and lots of more money.
The largest European aerospace and engineering firm, is talking to the largest banks of international currency and connections, who already have experience in managing the financing and connections of the broader engineering economy in this space is a bad thing?
Then calling ULA effectively a failure? Was this written by anyone with actual integrity or knowledge of the industry? ULA has the highest success rate of any launch provider with 600+ 100% successful launches (including the maiden launches of a brand new rocket - Vulcan Centaur!), and are likely the only developer who can compete in the native US market against SpaceX. They have been the maintainers and innovators behind all recent Altas V, Delta II, Delta IV (Md/Hvy) and now Vulcan Centaur rockets, for the past twenty years.
ULA wasn't supposed to be a massive innovator through breaking things, they are what the space industry requires - successful, reliable, and low-stress launches. Then, you can apply your knowledge to the future. SpaceX is great (only due to Shotwell, hampered only by the notorious newly-unelected US Prime Minister (and now-known nazi) Musk).
Is Ars Technica now just a US imperialism advocate? I just don't see the point of complaining when more funding, more initiative, more progress is being made in European space is always a good thing for the entire industry, and our future as a technologically advanced species.
At this point, with the amount of decades-in-the-making real infrastructure and brain-gain of the EU cluster, I remain confident that the EU space industry is going to leapfrog the US within the next fifteen years (Order: China, <->, EU + NZ, US, Aus). Really looking forward to EU taking up more attention in the space, and then South America coming seemingly out of nowhere eventually.