PJYoung said:

---

On the broadcast they mentioned SpaceX didnt static fire later last week because they couldn't get road closures from the county due to spring break.

So they were very ready early this morning.

---

Advance human space exploration, or spring break traffic on some nearly deserted sand bar? Hmm, sounds like a job for a brilliant civil servant to carefully weigh the costs and benefits.

Continued growth of the recovery fleet around the Cape seems like it is a requirement for them to hit the F9 cadence they have targeted.

Slightly off topic - where did Space-X get their funding? Boats and rockets and engines and oodles of payroll cost a lot of money. Is Elon funding this from his fortune or do they have other investors? I could look it up but thought it might be interesting to have on this thread.

They do rounds of fundraising like any other private company. Their most recent fundraising round was February 2021 where they raised $850mm.

Plus they're getting government funding and contracts, and Starlink does have payments coming in.

They also have lots of paying customers. They launch more rockets than anybody.

Right now they are looking to fly SN11 on Wednesday of this week.

Road closures for tomorrow have been cancelled.

I don't know why they are bothering with a separate flight termination system. The concrete pad seems to be holding up well.

Europe is starting to freak out about the launch dominance of SpaceX

Quote:

---

However, there now appears to be increasing concern in Europe that the Ariane 6 and Vega-C rockets will not be competitive in the launch market of the near future. This is important, because while member states of the European Space Agency pay for development of the rockets, after reaching operational status, these launch programs are expected to become self-sufficient by attracting commercial satellite launches to help pay the bills.

Economic ministers in France and Italy have now concluded that the launch market has changed dramatically since 2014, when the Ariane 6 and Vega-C rockets were first designed. According to a report in Le Figaro newspaper, the ministers believe the ability of these new European rockets to compete for commercial launch contracts has significantly deteriorated since then.

The primary cause? SpaceX. Thanks to its reusable, low-cost Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX has been able to slash prices for large commercial satellites that could be lofted by the Ariane 6. Whereas Europe's Ariane vehicles once played a dominant role in launching geostationary satellites, they've lost considerable market share since 2014. Moreover, through its rideshare program for the Falcon 9, SpaceX also threatens to take missions away from Vega-C, which has a lift capacity of about 1.5 tons to polar orbit.

As the newspaper reports, Europe now lags behind SpaceX in other key ways. Because of its partnership with NASA, SpaceX can now launch astronauts. French astronaut Thomas Pesquet, in fact, is a mission specialist on the Crew-2 mission due to launch next month. He will likely be the first of many European astronauts to reach space on a SpaceX vehicle. Europe also presently has no answer to the Starlink megaconstellation that SpaceX is in the midst of launchingeither in the capacity to build hundreds of satellites a year or affordably get them into orbit.

Because of this, the French and Italian ministers are calling for Europe to offer a significant "technological and industrial" response to the rise of SpaceX. It is not clear what form this would take, nor how quickly the European nations could move in response.

---

At least they admit they've been beaten by better tech.....Russia threw a tantrum and vaguely suggested the US govt needed to "do something" about it...

nortex97 said:

---

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the size of the SH with a starship, and pondering an 18M Starship is not something I'm able to handle right now with a few sips of coffee. Follow up that thought with 'micro gravity' transfers from some huge tanker in space in a langrangian point/orbit and I might just have to switch to beer early.

---

This is just getting nuts

Or just accept that commercial rocketry has surpassed the abilities of government funded rocketry, because they are not properly incentivized through cost constraints, which means they don't have to be as nimble or aware of the market. Don't get me wrong, government has a place in space exploration as a consumer, I just don't ever see them being competitive in the launch business.

By December 21st, 2015 it was pretty freaking obvious that any single use rocket booster was not going to be competitive in the not too distant future, and if there was any doubt that it was a fluke or of limited use, it became extremely clear by April 8, 2016. That was 5 years ago and they're just now saying "Oh, **** maybe this isn't going to be competitive."

On both of those dates you could hear lots of observers tear up and say "The son of a ***** did it!" While simultaneously you could hear the sphincter pucker of every non-SpaceX engineer and the words "I'm gonna be out of a job if we don't dramatically change what we're doing."


Also, about an earlier post, Bernie can eat a dick. Don't think I can say it any more eloquently than that.

Bernie is an idiot.

And absolutely, it has been abundantly clear that any launch vehicle that was not re-usable or VERY inexpensive was a doomed proposition for years in everything except manned flight. The manned game was obvious by 2019 though, no question.

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the size of the SH with a starship, and pondering an 18M Starship is not something I'm able to handle right now with a few sips of coffee. Follow up that thought with 'micro gravity' transfers from some huge tanker in space in a langrangian point/orbit and I might just have to switch to beer early.

---

This is just getting nuts

---

Why launch silos when we can launch skyscrapers? This is fever dream territory

It really is. A few thoughts;

1. It would have to be launched at sea due to risk of damage even during fueling if something went wrong/it blew up.
2. It would likely be unsafe for manned flight, and only practical for launching massive supplies into orbit/interplanetary.
3. The process of fueling something this enormous would be incredibly complex; that's a tremendous volume of methane/lox.
4. They wouldn't be able to fuel/defuel it quickly, so likely no 'test fires' once stacked.
5. It would literally need a fleet (of at least three) tankers just to fill it up safely on some sort of semi-submerged off-shore rig platform.
6. Re-entry of starship 2.0 would necessarily be vastly more complex; that's a ton of heat tiles, and they really couldn't belly flop that mass very easily.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Europe is starting to freak out about the launch dominance of SpaceX

Quote:

---

However, there now appears to be increasing concern in Europe that the Ariane 6 and Vega-C rockets will not be competitive in the launch market of the near future. This is important, because while member states of the European Space Agency pay for development of the rockets, after reaching operational status, these launch programs are expected to become self-sufficient by attracting commercial satellite launches to help pay the bills.

Economic ministers in France and Italy have now concluded that the launch market has changed dramatically since 2014, when the Ariane 6 and Vega-C rockets were first designed. According to a report in Le Figaro newspaper, the ministers believe the ability of these new European rockets to compete for commercial launch contracts has significantly deteriorated since then.

The primary cause? SpaceX. Thanks to its reusable, low-cost Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX has been able to slash prices for large commercial satellites that could be lofted by the Ariane 6. Whereas Europe's Ariane vehicles once played a dominant role in launching geostationary satellites, they've lost considerable market share since 2014. Moreover, through its rideshare program for the Falcon 9, SpaceX also threatens to take missions away from Vega-C, which has a lift capacity of about 1.5 tons to polar orbit.

As the newspaper reports, Europe now lags behind SpaceX in other key ways. Because of its partnership with NASA, SpaceX can now launch astronauts. French astronaut Thomas Pesquet, in fact, is a mission specialist on the Crew-2 mission due to launch next month. He will likely be the first of many European astronauts to reach space on a SpaceX vehicle. Europe also presently has no answer to the Starlink megaconstellation that SpaceX is in the midst of launchingeither in the capacity to build hundreds of satellites a year or affordably get them into orbit.

Because of this, the French and Italian ministers are calling for Europe to offer a significant "technological and industrial" response to the rise of SpaceX. It is not clear what form this would take, nor how quickly the European nations could move in response.

---

---

They actually have been griping for a few years now. I remember reading an article at least 2 years ago where the president of ArianeGroup was complaining how SpaceX "wasn't fair". If I can find the article I'll post it.

Wonder if an 18m starship is even capable of re-entry? I don't know how the math scales exactly... Lots of surface area means lots of drag, maybe means more heat.

Can't wait to see these things man. So many possibilities.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

They actually have been griping for a few years now. I remember reading an article at least 2 years ago where the president of ArianeGroup was complaining how SpaceX "wasn't fair". If I can find the article I'll post it.

---

---

Their test area just rattled the windows and shook the ranch house. It's about 8 miles away

That was pretty much the response I had. If you don't like it, come up with something that changes the game in your favor, you lazy ***hole.

Centerpole90 said:

---

---

I mean we know he means RS-25

Bro, does he even rocket?

He's probably a legacy SOCOM US Navy SEALS gamer from back in the day.

SR25 was best weapon for sniper only games.

It's not even known if SpaceX is profitable yet or if they are running at a loss. I imagine their Mars rocket development is just a huge money pit, and I personally fail to see it ever having much economic return. I think reusing the falcon 9 rockets has got to be less costly than dumping them, though I've heard some people are skeptical of re-use actually being much cheaper.

They raised 850 million apparently so they must have something investors see as turning a profit (but this also shows a need for cash), but I look at Musk's other company, Tesla, which is also an investor fueled money pit, and I don't doubt SpaceX is even less profitable since there is no pressure because it is private.

Another data point is the fact that SpaceX has had huge work force layoffs on multiple occasions and the reputation for low pay and excessive work load for most employees. Those aren't trends that scream profit to me.

I do think the star link has huge potential to be a profit stream but it is impossible to know since it is a private company.

So while European launch companies might see it as "not fair" it may be that SpaceX is operating at a loss and only running on investor dollars, which these European companies do not have. Not that they couldn't get some, but they would need to develop some new product line to pitch to investors first.

Many chuckles at Elon's response to the Euro's worries;

Last, some possible good news; the FAA's updated commercial regulations take full effect yesterday.

Quote:

---

The rule streamlines and modernizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commercial space launch and reentry licensing regulations by eliminating obsolete requirements, replacing most prescriptive requirements with performance-based criteria and reducing duplicative regulations.

It also establishes a single set of licensing and safety regulations for several types of commercial space operations and vehicles. For example, one license could support multiple launches and reentries at multiple locationsa game-changing innovation that will make this process more efficient.

The new rule will better fit today's constantly evolving aerospace industry whose technological advancements are lowering the cost of launch operations and opening new markets for satellites, space tourism and potentially suborbital point-to-point regional and intercontinental travel.

---

I haven't read thru this but am cautiously optimistic that this will help with some of the regulatory challenges SpaceX (and others of course) have faced to get approvals for launches. I'm sure this change is a result of a 12-24 month process like all big government things.

It's not fair that SpaceX can raise private finds by willing investors? Taxpayers, aka forced investment, funds government space agencies...

Decay said:

---

It's not fair that SpaceX can raise private finds by willing investors? Taxpayers, aka forced investment, funds government space agencies...

---

I didn't say it wasn't fair. I said the other companies can do it too if they come up with a product to pitch. It's not known if SpaceX is much more economically viable than other launch vehicles is my main point, but SpaceX may simply have more money from investors and lenders to burn.

If anyone want's "FAIR" wait till the carnival comes to town, then go ride the ferris wheel and buy some cotton candy.

Friend of mine at redacted is testing coupons for an already obsoleted redacted component that has been removed from the current vehicle and will never fly. But her internal client has her rebuilding the load frame for them and they'll be tested to failure. Can't test service life since the "client" has never defined that qualification, so the tests will all run till the coupon fails.

Oh and the originally supplied load frame was improperly machined so the coupons that were tested using it (before the load frame itself failed) produced crap data since the improperly machined mounts were inducing stresses outside of the orientations being monitored and weren't properly passing loads to the test coupons.

But that's big corporate government space tech for ya. When they go over budget their investor (Congress) will cut them another check.

Second test this morning. Seeing one at night is amazing, the entire horizon glows.

I can't imagine living with a mile of that place.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Europe is starting to freak out about the launch dominance of SpaceX

Quote:

---

However, there now appears to be increasing concern in Europe that the Ariane 6 and Vega-C rockets will not be competitive in the launch market of the near future. This is important, because while member states of the European Space Agency pay for development of the rockets, after reaching operational status, these launch programs are expected to become self-sufficient by attracting commercial satellite launches to help pay the bills.

Economic ministers in France and Italy have now concluded that the launch market has changed dramatically since 2014, when the Ariane 6 and Vega-C rockets were first designed. According to a report in Le Figaro newspaper, the ministers believe the ability of these new European rockets to compete for commercial launch contracts has significantly deteriorated since then.

The primary cause? SpaceX. Thanks to its reusable, low-cost Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX has been able to slash prices for large commercial satellites that could be lofted by the Ariane 6. Whereas Europe's Ariane vehicles once played a dominant role in launching geostationary satellites, they've lost considerable market share since 2014. Moreover, through its rideshare program for the Falcon 9, SpaceX also threatens to take missions away from Vega-C, which has a lift capacity of about 1.5 tons to polar orbit.

As the newspaper reports, Europe now lags behind SpaceX in other key ways. Because of its partnership with NASA, SpaceX can now launch astronauts. French astronaut Thomas Pesquet, in fact, is a mission specialist on the Crew-2 mission due to launch next month. He will likely be the first of many European astronauts to reach space on a SpaceX vehicle. Europe also presently has no answer to the Starlink megaconstellation that SpaceX is in the midst of launchingeither in the capacity to build hundreds of satellites a year or affordably get them into orbit.

Because of this, the French and Italian ministers are calling for Europe to offer a significant "technological and industrial" response to the rise of SpaceX. It is not clear what form this would take, nor how quickly the European nations could move in response.

---

---

They actually have been griping for a few years now. I remember reading an article at least 2 years ago where the president of ArianeGroup was complaining how SpaceX "wasn't fair". If I can find the article I'll post it.

---

I read a handful of articles about Space X and the Europe's rockets dating from recently published to years ago at lunch. Fun reads. I think this one covers what you were referring to as far as the 2018 article.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/02/europe-complains-spacex-rocket-prices-are-too-chea.aspx

Quote:

---

Europe Complains: SpaceX Rocket Prices Are Too Cheap to Beat

But is SpaceX playing fair, or profiting from subsidies?
. . .
Alain Charmeau runs ArianeGroup, the owner of rocket launcher ArianeSpace, a 50%-owned subsidiary of European aerospace giant Airbus . . .

That sounds like a fun job, but as Charmeau revealed in a recent interview with Germany's Der Spiegel, it's also a tough job -- it requires Charmeau to compete with two of the biggest companies in spaceflight, America's United Launch Alliance (ULA) and SpaceX.

Of the two, SpaceX is Ariane's bigger headache. While ULA boasts bigger rockets and greater payloads than Ariane can offer, it also charges an arm and a leg for its launches, giving Ariane a big advantage on price when competing for launch contracts. SpaceX, on the other hand, charges a lot less for its launches than either ULA or Ariane charge.

In fact, SpaceX is so cheap that Ariane's CEO worries SpaceX could eventually "kick Europe out of space" if Ariane cannot figure out a way to launch its rockets more cheaply. In an attempt to respond to the threat from SpaceX, Airbus and Ariane began designing a new family of rockets -- dubbed "Ariane 6" -- in 2012 to replace its venerable Ariane 5 line.
. . .
Ariane is targeting a launch cost of 70 million euros ($82 million) for the smaller Ariane 62 version of the new launch system, which is expected to be capable of hoisting five metric tons of payload into geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) once it begins launching in 2020. This will represent a significant cut to launch rates for a similar-sized Ariane 5, which former Ariane head Jean-Yves Le Gall says average $137 million before subsidies. Ariane 62's larger cousin, Ariane 64, will carry twice as much cargo at a targeted cost of 115 million euros, or $134 million.

Close, but no cigar
But here's the problem: SpaceX's Falcon 9, which is already in operation, lifts more cargo (8.3 metric tons) than Ariane 62 will be able to carry, and for 24% less money -- $62 million. Priced per ton, the disparity looks even more obvious: SpaceX's Falcon 9 moves cargo for $7.5 million per ton, while Ariane 62 costs $16.4 million -- more than twice as much.

Similarly, SpaceX advertises a $90 million launch cost for its new Falcon Heavy rocket, which conducted its first launch in February. Falcon Heavy has a GTO payload of 26.7 million tons, which is more than twice the anticipated 10-ton payload of the Ariane 64. And once again, the SpaceX rocket costs less -- nearly 33% less per launch, and more than 75% less per ton ($3.4 million for the Falcon Heavy versus $13.4 million per ton for Ariane 64).

So any way you slice it, even after the Ariane 6 enters service SpaceX is still going to be able to undercut its prices. What's more, Airbus's Ariane won't even have its new rockets ready to fly before mid-2020. And who knows how much lower SpaceX will have driven its prices by then.
. . .
A double standard at SpaceX?
When Der Spiegel pointed out this continuing price disparity last week, however, Charmeau said that "this is not correct." SpaceX is actually not cheaper than Ariane -- at least not according to Ariane.
"SpaceX is charging the US government $100 million per launch," argues Charmeau, "but launches for European customers are much cheaper." Because of this, Charmeau doesn't think SpaceX is playing fair.

In Charmeau's opinion, SpaceX is intentionally undercharging for commercial Falcon 9 launches for one reason only: "To kick Europe out of space" by undercutting Ariane's pricing. As the CEO argues, SpaceX "charges their government too much money." Put another way, the U.S. government is subsidizing SpaceX. SpaceX then uses the excess profits it earns from these expensive government launches to cover its (presumed) losses on the ultra-low prices charged to commercial customers.

But is that correct?

Explaining the disparity
Not necessarily. The disparity between the prices the U.S. government pays for rocket launches and the prices that commercial customers pay is pretty glaring. For example, on its Capabilities & Services webpage, SpaceX lists a $62 million "standard" price for a commercial rocket launch. A recent contract with the Air Force, however, saw SpaceX charge the government an average of $96.9 million apiece for three GPS satellite launches -- about 56% more.

A key distinction between commercial launches and government launches, however, is this: Red tape. A few years ago, I reached out to ULA head Salvatore Bruno to ask why ULA, which mainly launches satellites for the government, charges so much more (as much as $350 million per launch) than SpaceX charges for its mostly civilian launches. Among other factors affecting cost, Bruno pointed out that ULA is required to adhere to "FAR 15" federal acquisition regulations, which add multiple requirements for launch safety surety, along with increasing costs.

Sure, it's debatable whether FAR 15 adds $300 million to the cost of a launch, but government regulations certainly add some cost -- and that's part of the reason SpaceX charges "$100 million" for a government launch, versus only $62 million for a civilian launch. In fact, when viewed in the context of Bruno's comments, the higher cost of SpaceX government missions, relative to commercial missions, actually makes a lot of sense.

That's probably cold comfort to Ariane, Airbus, and their investors, of course. But it does explain the disparity -- and strongly suggests SpaceX will continue to win business from Airbus and ULA until they figure out a way to fix their pricing problem.

---

Other fun reads:

2015
https://spacenews.com/arianespace-assures-french-parliament-it-can-outcompete-spacex/

Quote:

---

. . .
Arianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel also said a fresh canvassing of large commercial satellite fleet operators has found that SpaceX's planned reuse of its Falcon 9 rocket's first stage designed to cut Falcon launch costs at this point presents no real threat to Arianespace.

The Ariane 6 rocket agreed to by European governments last December, he said, has sufficient commercial attributes of its own to maintain its commercial market position against a partially reusable Falcon 9, Israel told the Economic Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly, or parliament.

Israel also said that in the two years or so since Arianespace and SpaceX have been regularly competing for business since early 2014 the companies have formed a de facto duopoly on the commercial market Arianespace has won the majority of the contracts. Only an in-depth review of each bid sponsor's conditions would be able to verify this.
. . .
Israel said Arianespace fully expects SpaceX to succeed in its attempt to recover its Falcon 9 first stage.

But that's just the start of the challenge, he said. It remains unknown what the refurbishment costs will be compared to the cost of churning out a fresh stage from an existing production line. He said it is also unclear whether commercial fleet operators will immediately accept placing $200 million telecommunications satellites on a rocket with a refurbished stage.
. . .

---

SpaceX's retort to Europe's gripe about NASA subsidizing SpaceX (2019):

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/spacex-to-european-competitors-were-not-subsidized-you-are/

Quote:

---

On Dec. 10, SpaceX director of commercial sales Stephanie Bednarek wrote to Edward Gresser, chair of the Trade Policy Staff Committee in the Office of the US Trade Representative.
. . .
"The largest constraint to the expansion of SpaceX launch services to European governments and companies is the continued government subsidization of the European launch vehicle programs," Bednarek wrote. "It is essential that American commercial launch providers are able to compete fairly in European government and commercial space launch tenders."

The letter cites European Space Agency and French support for Arianespace nearly 19 percent of ESA's total 5.75 billion budget in 2017 went to the launch company, according to Bednarek. Arianespace markets the Ariane 5 rocket for geostationary satellite launches, a European version of the Soyuz rocket, and Vega rocket for smaller payloads. European governments are heavily subsidizing the development of the Ariane 6 and Vega-C rockets, which could fly as early as next year.
. . .

---

November 2020
https://www.ft.com/content/24cca993-b249-45a5-8c42-b39c0ec30c5b

Quote:

---

Europe's Arianespace struggles for relevance in SpaceX era

For decades the Ariane rocket has been a symbol of European technological prowess proof that the EU plays a vital role in the space race even if it may lack the glamour of the US and Russia's manned missions.

Arianespace, jointly owned by Airbus and Safran, was the world's first commercial launch company and until recently dominated the business of sending big communications satellites into geostationary orbit, 35,000km above the earth.

But the latest delay to its 4bn next-generation Ariane 6, announced last week, has underlined the group's vulnerability as it struggles to keep pace with disruptive forces unleashed by Elon Musk's SpaceX in a drastically changed market.
. . .
Ever since SpaceX's Falcon 9 took off a decade ago, life has been getting tougher for Arianespace. According to a report for Nasa in 2018, the average launch cost of $18,500 per kg between 1970 and 2000 was cut by a factor of seven with the Falcon 9.

Arianespace lost its crown as the world's leading commercial launch provider to SpaceX's lower-priced launches in 2017, when the US company sent more commercial satellites into orbit, according to France's national auditor, the Cour des Comptes. This year, SpaceX is also expected to beat Arianespace in terms of the value of contracts won for future launches.
. . .

---

Last 2

January 2021
(begging for more subsidies and bemoaning the 2014 decision not to go the reusable rocket route)
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-arianespace-rocket-space-race/

Quote:

---

Europe's lack of rocket 'audacity' leaves it scrambling in the space race

European policymakers want to stop SpaceX from dominating the launch market.

Europe knows it needs a booster to keep up with the space race.

The European Commission wants to rally governments behind France-based Arianespace in the face of competition from upstarts such as Elon Musk's SpaceX, which has upended the space industry by slashing the cost of launching satellites thanks to its breakthrough in developing reusable rockets.

Europe is in a tough spot because seven years ago it passed on the chance to develop those kinds of launchers itself, instead opting for conventional technology with its new Ariane 6 rocket. Now the EU is scrambling to regain its footing by pressing European governments to stick with Arianespace for their launches as part of a new alliance between industry and governments.

"Considering the global market and the offensive positioning of our competitors, it is not the time for complacency," Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton told space industry executives this week. "The standards for launchers are currently being redefined outside of Europe."
. . .
The Ariane 6 could cost as little as $77 million per launch (depending on the configuration), much cheaper than the $177 million it costs for the Ariane 5. But it won't be reusable and that puts it at an immediate cost disadvantage to the $62 million per launch for SpaceX's Falcon 9.

That 2014 decision haunts French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire, who keeps a warning of that moment on his desk.

"The European space adventure is magnificent, but in 2014 there was a fork in the road, and we didn't take the right path," Le Maire told a conference last September. "We should have made the choice of the reusable launcher. We should have had this audacity."
. . .
Shortly after that, SpaceX made the breakthrough, helping it gobble up market share, although Arianespace insists it's still in the game.
. . .
That's where Breton's effort to tie European governments into using Ariane comes into play. Part of the plan involves getting the European governments that first paid to develop Ariane to use it more. He also wants work to move quickly on a new European broadband satellite network that would cut out internet blackspots and offer more juicy launch contracts. A blueprint for how that project could work should be finished by the end of the year.

"We must ask ourselves: Will our current approach successfully get us to 2050, considering the disruptions in the sector that we all observe?" Breton told a space conference this week. "I strongly doubt it, and I believe we need a more offensive and aggressive strategy."

The launcher alliance is similar to EU initiatives around cloud computing. It aims to get industry, national governments and the European Space Agency (ESA) to use Ariane to put government satellites into orbit while working quickly on future generations of the rocket.

But there is some wariness over too much political rallying around Ariane. "We should not look to a buy European act," said Jan Wrner, the current director general of ESA, arguing on Thursday that such a policy could prompt others to do the same, closing off the market. "We would be the losers, as we want to export our launches."
. . .
"What's important is the political willingness to make a bulk procurement to give us the maximum visibility," Isral said on the need for a pipeline of launches. "This move is very important as it's exactly what the U.S. is doing."

Last year, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded United Launch Alliance and SpaceX contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out launches for the country's Space Force. The U.S. model means the government expressly backs its space companies, underpinning their commercial success with big institutional deals, Isral said.

"What we have to do is exactly the same," he said. "This is a first priority."

The goal in Europe is to ensure it's not left behind in developing rocket technology.
. . .
But some skeptics feel that Europe needs to look past its decision to develop the Ariane 6.
"The real question is about finding the appropriate answer to foreign competition, meaning that Europe needs to decide to schedule Ariane 6's retirement before its maiden flight," said Maxime Puteaux from space advisory firm Euroconsult.

---

Chinese perspective (2018)
https://qz.com/1209330/spacexs-falcon-heavy-rocket-is-the-envy-of-china-and-europe-why-isnt-nasa-on-board/

Quote:

---

. . .
When SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket debuted this month, China's aerospace community was mostly envious, noting that their equivalent rocket, the Long March 9, would not be ready for another decade. One story in state media observed that "to put it more bluntly, this time the Americans showed us Chinese with pure power why they are still the strongest country in the world."

The head of Europe's space program watched the US company launch its enormous, largely reusable new rocket, and was also inspired.

"Totally new ideas are needed and Europe must now prove it still possesses that traditional strength to surpass itself and break out beyond existing borders," wrote Jan Wrner, director general of the European Space Agency, on his official blog. He expressed dismay that rockets now being built by Europe's space company, Arianespace, won't be reusable, which puts them at a deep cost disadvantage to SpaceX. He called for a re-thinking of Europe's rocket program.

This attitude didn't last long. A few days later, Wrner wrote an apologetic sequel to his post, emphasizing that Arianespace's current rocket plan was correct and would be completed as intended. He was merely exercising his prerogative as head of the continent's space agency for "turning our minds to systems still far off in the future," he said.

Reading between the lines, the abrupt about-face can be attributed to the stakeholders of contractors and government policymakers, who weren't pleased with Wrner's public fretting. This speaks to space exploration's tendency to become industrial policy, more about jobs than science, which is a key reason why 1970s space visions of lunar bases and enormous space stations aren't a reality.
. . .
When the rocket launched a Tesla roadster into a solar orbit earlier this month, the "marketing wheeze," in Wrner's words, was the biggest event in the space world for years. While the stunt attracted both criticism and applause, it was a shot across the bows of the space establishment: If a private company can put a car up there, what else can they do? One Chinese state newspaper put the argument in terms that might be echoed at NASA's Marshall Space Center: "what our country has to desperately catch up with is actually a private U.S. enterprise."
. . .

---

SpaceX has begun work on the Integration Tower which will include a crane to lift and mate Starship with the booster while on the mount.

Musk made mention that because the hook height was so high, they'd have to get it built before they did integration testing.

They also will not have to do the janky "through the roof" stack on a superheavy again, the gantry crane for the high bay is on site!

He really should let RSC rentals, and the company that helped them build starhopper put stickers on the first orbital one! Make the look like race car sponsorship stickers.


Lord if yall never have, catch a video of a booster coming back in to Port with the tug crews chattering..... They're all a bunch of Cajun and Acadiana rednecks, and hearing them talk about a booster or capsule is hilarious.