Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

isaraerospace.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 221 posts

Re: Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

#201

Post by smackeyacky »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #109
ahartmetz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If any nation in Europe that can start a new space frontier, that would be the Germans If that is true, then only because the company doesn't immediately have to fight Arianespace. It is France that has the strongest existing know-how and longest history in rockets, going further back than Arianespace. The gap between WW2 rocket development and now is so long that German history with rockets may as well not exist.

There’s a huge difference between know how and the execution. What has France been doing since WWII? If they have the know how, shouldn’t they be at the same level as US now? Meanwhile Germany had to deal with partition, reunification and now the biggest economy in Europe and also build an economic empire without firing a single shot. That’s why I said Germans would be the only nation that can actually execute the kn…

There are ignorant takes and then there is this. A country that can build the Rafale independently is not to be trifled with.

Re: Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

#202

Post by ben_w »

msdz wrote: post #112
sajithdilshan wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bavaria is one of the most richest (if not the most) state in Germany. By GDP alone it's the 7th largest economy in Europe ( https://www.vbw.com/int/About-us/Facts-about-Bavaria/index.j... ). Of course they have money to support Isar and they should do it to diversify their economy and break the heavy dependency on auto manufacturers.

(As a Bavarian,) I’m acutely aware of the state’s economy – but my point is that SpaceX has an even bigger economy behind it, if the two were to actually be compared or compete. Good point re/ depending on auto makers, though. That also applies to all of Germany…

Bigger economy, yes by about 10x. But despite the spectacle, SpaceX's actual expenses have been around 0.3-0.4% of German GDP in recent years.

It's priorities rather than absolute costs that matter here. Germany could absolutely do all of SpaceX as almost a rounding error, but probably has better things for that money to get spent on.

Re: Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

#203

Post by mpweiher »

teiferer wrote: post #200
mpweiher wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does French Guyana have a usable space rocket? Yes: the Ariane rockets. "French Guyana" is part of France, which is part of the EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_(rocket_family)

Ok, then why don't they launch from Norway and why is the article considered news even though the whole European package already exists?

1. Who is "they"? Isar Aerospace and Arianespace are distinct entities.

2. Isar Aerospace is the first fully private European company (a startup) to do this. Arianespace and the Ariane rockets have heavy state/ESA involvement.

3. It is the first launch to orbit from geographically European soil. French Guiana is politically part of France, but geographically obviously part of South America.

4. Why would everyone have to launch from the same place, in your esteemed opinion? Why are some US payloads launched from California, some from Florida, and soon some from Texas and Louisiana?

5. Are all launch locations equally suitable for all orbits? Are all orbits equally suitable for all missions?

6. Norway is a lot closer to the rest of Europe than French Guiana is.

7. Why was SpaceX newsworthy, particularly on a startup-centric site, when NASA already exists?

Re: Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

#204

Post by nolok »

mpweiher wrote: post #203
teiferer wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, then why don't they launch from Norway and why is the article considered news even though the whole European package already exists?

1. Who is "they"? Isar Aerospace and Arianespace are distinct entities. 2. Isar Aerospace is the first fully private European company (a startup) to do this. Arianespace and the Ariane rockets have heavy state/ESA involvement. 3. It is the first launch to orbit from geographically European soil. French Guiana is politically part of France, but geographically obviously part of South America. 4. Why would everyone have…

> 2. Isar Aerospace is the first fully private European company (a startup) to do this. Arianespace and the Ariane rockets have heavy state/ESA involvement.

To go even further: ~60% of Ariane Group revenue is from the french state, for their nuclear launch system. The whole ariane space rocket is their side show, a way to reduce cost for France by getting the market to pay some of the R&D.

Re: Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

#205

Post by dinfinity »

spwa4 wrote: post #199
dinfinity wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the point. The example asked for was this: "I'm not aware of any sale of a US weapons system containing European parts being blocked by any European government ." That would be something like "Belgium says the USA can't sell F-35s to Israel because the wings are Belgian-made" similar to how the USA prevents ASML from selling their machines to China.

Oh that's what you want. In the clusterfuck with the Turkey involuntary withdrawal from the F35 program half the treaties were renegotiated (you see, can't have any Turk produce weapons unless he's a "genius", that would not be fair. In other news: the Turkish definition of genius is mostly being the son in law of Erdogan [1]) I believe this agreement is part of the restructuring after that cluster... Note that the a…

How is it an example of European governments preventing American weapons from being sold? Are you saying the Finns unilaterally decided that Turkey can't have F-35s, even if the USA wants to sell F-35s to them?

Re: Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

#206

Post by usrusr »

kelipso wrote: post #184
usrusr wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claimed reason. If Russia is so afraid, perhaps they would be open to a peace deal guaranteed by NATO troops stationed on their ground?

That's literally what they don't want... so how does what you said make sense?

Yes, they don't want that. Yet they still keep claiming fear as their excuse for aggression. Pathetic.

Re: Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

#207

Post by inemesitaffia »

eblume wrote: post #146
inemesitaffia wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>massive subsidies Misinformation

I was curious, so I checked. I don't know if this is a reputable source: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/space-explor... If that's correct, then yeah, I struggle to find much to be upset about with this list. $106M federal loan against what they've built feels, I don't know, about correct for a telecom. Light even. The tax abatement stuff sounds gross but not surprising. (There are other forms of subs…

The ~$106 million was an EXIM loan for an Israeli satellite launch. (Export financing)

https://www.exim.gov/news/ex-im-bank-approves-1054-million-l...

Unless the solar was also supplied by SpaceX (possible;unlikely) that amount doesn't reflect what SpaceX got

i.e SpaceX gets it's cash immediately and the debtor is the Israeli launch company.

(Does that constitute a subsidy to SpaceX or the foreign company?)

The launch failed and SpaceX was on the hook for the money or a replacement launch as covered here

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/10/26/israels-spacecom-books...

There was also financing for other launches like this https://spacenews.com/ex-im-bank-finances-spacex-launch-deal... and I wonder why it wasn't included. I also wonder if Spacecom, the Israeli provider didn't get other EXIM loans for its launches.

SpaceX has been trying to get actual federal subsidies for ages but has been failing. (RDOF, BEAD)

As for the tax abatement, it's the exact tax abatement other companies have got in the past, not something custom created for SpaceX.

SpaceX spent ~$7 million a day before swallowing xAi (monumental error IMO) I don't know what amount is supposed to be massive compared to its size.

Re: Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

#208

Post by spwa4 »

dinfinity wrote: post #205
spwa4 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh that's what you want. In the clusterfuck with the Turkey involuntary withdrawal from the F35 program half the treaties were renegotiated (you see, can't have any Turk produce weapons unless he's a "genius", that would not be fair. In other news: the Turkish definition of genius is mostly being the son in law of Erdogan [1]) I believe this agreement is part of the restructuring after that cluster... Note that the a…

How is it an example of European governments preventing American weapons from being sold? Are you saying the Finns unilaterally decided that Turkey can't have F-35s, even if the USA wants to sell F-35s to them?

You misunderstand. Everything is prevented by law, with the purpose to make any change in production involve negotiations with the government, who then negotiates weapons/jobs/local production/... Without those negotiations, and the resulting exceptions to the law nothing can be sold, even dual use items are restricted.

And, of course, the other side of that coin: weapons export regulation is Europe is not something that is meant to actually prevent weapons export. Rather it is used like a company policy: it makes sure everyone regularly has to give the government something they want.

Which is, to put it mildly, not how politicians present those laws.

Re: Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

#209

Post by _djo_ »

numpad0 wrote: post #130
_djo_ wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name any examples? European countries and the EU as a whole don't have an equivalent of the US's ITAR 'See-Through' rule, which lets the US control the usage of a system that has any US components. I'm not aware of any sale of a US weapons system containing European parts being blocked by any European government. It has been done within Europe, but only for major components, such as Germany's blocking at one…

Things like Wassenaar Arrangement and MTCR(that applies to a lot of hobby stuffs I'm interested in) are multinational and global. The US implementation is the most painful, but they're like non-Linux unices, sameish in concept and not like first-worlders get free passes. (And these regs aren't complete nonsense; the technologies regulated by these are useful for guided munitions. It just so happens missile technologi…

These, again, are export control restrictions at the point of sale and transfer, and the US follows them too. It's not the same thing as what we're discussing regarding the US's changing requirements regarding systems that embed its components.

Note that dual-use items (which Wassenaar regulates) and MTCR are not the same as the US's ITAR 'see through' rule which it uses to block third party sales of systems that contain even small numbers of US components.

For dual-use items, the EU's Directive 2021/821 governs things and broadly authorises exports to the United States through EU General Export Authorisations (EUGEAs) that don't require individual approval.[0]

[0] https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/help-exporters-and-importe...

Re: Isar Aerospace reaches orbit and deploys payloads on second flight

#210

Post by dinfinity »

spwa4 wrote: post #208
dinfinity wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it an example of European governments preventing American weapons from being sold? Are you saying the Finns unilaterally decided that Turkey can't have F-35s, even if the USA wants to sell F-35s to them?

You misunderstand. Everything is prevented by law, with the purpose to make any change in production involve negotiations with the government, who then negotiates weapons/jobs/local production/... Without those negotiations, and the resulting exceptions to the law nothing can be sold, even dual use items are restricted. And, of course, the other side of that coin: weapons export regulation is Europe is not something…

No, you misunderstand. You keep talking about things irrelevant to the key point.

Look at the political pressure the USA puts on ASML in the Netherlands to prevent them from selling certain products to China because those machines contain some American parts.

The question is explicitly when the reverse has happened, not some general info about European weapon exports or legislation.

Post reply on HN