"The European Union and French government subsidies artificially reduce the price of Arianespace launch services on the international market and allow their rockets to be unfairly competitive", warns SpaceX's commercial management in a letter sent in September. December to Edward Gresser, a senior official in the Department of Commerce, whose "Echoes" obtained a copy.... In its letter, the Californian company figures at 13.2 billion euros between 1998 and 2012. It also questions the public funding for the spaceport of Kourou in French Guiana, saying that this allows Arianespace not to include in its commercial offers the weight of infrastructures.The company, which is causing the fall in prices in the space, therefore asks the US legislator to correct this unfair competition in the context of trade negotiations between the European Union and the United States. "An agreement is needed to ensure that Arianespace does not receive preferential treatment and that EU members do not discriminate against non-European suppliers , " asks SpaceX.
They must be talking about these.
2. Competition Policy: The European Union’s space launch market should ensure U.S. companies have fair market access to launch contracts for European governments and companies.
I'm sorry I don't have any comment specific to add to this thread either, but may I take a moment to echo gongora to say I am not impressed by this fascination with "first post syndrome", especially here. There is so much fantastic content generated just by the other users around here, eventually someone is going to come up with an insight into the content others simply race to link. That is why I keep coming back and hanging around here for the insights, not just as some clearing house for tweets and articles, I can do well enough finding those on my own, and the first thing I do after finding one, reading it (novel concept sometimes!) and thinking for a moment is head here to see what others think about the points about which I thought while reading it myself.Sorry to rant, please delete if this is out of line.
If you want to start a thread then you should actually type some content in the first post, not just post a link to some random news article (that doesn't even show up when I try to look at it.)
...But these "views" (complaints IMO) offered by SpaceX are pathetic for their completely incorrect representation of facts.
Quote from: RDMM2081 on 02/21/2019 10:41 pmI'm sorry I don't have any comment specific to add to this thread either, but may I take a moment to echo gongora to say I am not impressed by this fascination with "first post syndrome", especially here. There is so much fantastic content generated just by the other users around here, eventually someone is going to come up with an insight into the content others simply race to link. That is why I keep coming back and hanging around here for the insights, not just as some clearing house for tweets and articles, I can do well enough finding those on my own, and the first thing I do after finding one, reading it (novel concept sometimes!) and thinking for a moment is head here to see what others think about the points about which I thought while reading it myself.Sorry to rant, please delete if this is out of line.Well if I wanted to rant I could complain about people who engage in what I regard as vigilante modding by telling others what they should or shouldn’t post. Especially when they assume that everyone’s interactions with this forum are the same as their own, or that everyone has the same proficiency in English.Quote from: gongora on 02/21/2019 08:37 pmIf you want to start a thread then you should actually type some content in the first post, not just post a link to some random news article (that doesn't even show up when I try to look at it.)Link works fine for me in Safari and translates ok in chrome.
Quote from: gongora on 02/22/2019 03:36 amThey must be talking about these.Yes. And the second document holds two very substantial flaws in SpaceX's line of reasoning:Flaw nr. 1:SpaceX is providing its comments in the light of a future USA - EU (European Union) free trade agreement. SpaceX's problem with Arianespace however concerns that Arianespace is being subsidized by ESA (European Space Agency). What SpaceX fails to identify here is that ESA is NOT the EU space agency. ESA is a completely independent inter-governmental agency over which neither the USA, nor the EU, has any say. ESA is NO part of the upcoming USA - EU free trade agreement. So, SpaceX completely missed the ball here by complaining to the wrong inter-governmental agency (EU in stead of ESA).Flaw nr. 2:I'll provide this quote from the second document:Quote2. Competition Policy: The European Union’s space launch market should ensure U.S. companies have fair market access to launch contracts for European governments and companies.The emphasis is mine. What SpaceX fails to identify is that under current US regulations and laws European launch service providers have NO access to launch contracts for US government launches. So, why exactly should US launch providers (such as SpaceX) have access to launch contracts from European governments? Because that would, in fact, CREATE an unlevel playing field.Another missed ball by SpaceX here by demanding to have a specific right while the opposing party is not allowed to have a similar right.The first document holds a third major flaw in SpaceX's line of reasoning: Flaw nr.3:SpaceX assumes that all investments made, by ESA and France (CNES), in launcher development, launch infrastructure development, test facilities, etc. can be seen as subsidies for Arianespace. That is flat out incorrect. Arianespace has to pay rent to ESA, and CNES, to use the above mentioned facilities. ESA and CNES own them, but Arianespace has to pay a significant fee to be able to use those facilities. Same for the launchers: they are developed by ESA, with ESA money. But every time Arianespace launches one of them, they have to reimburse ESA for it. And here you have exactly why Arianespace was never able to make any significant profits, despite having a (sometimes well over) 50% market share.Don't get me wrong: I love SpaceX for what is it doing to revolutionize access to space. But these "views" (complaints IMO) offered by SpaceX are pathetic for their completely incorrect representation of facts.
Quote from: woods170 on 02/22/2019 07:33 am...But these "views" (complaints IMO) offered by SpaceX are pathetic for their completely incorrect representation of facts.In other words, SpaceX is stooping to Ariane's level.
Same for the launchers: they are developed by ESA, with ESA money. But every time Arianespace launches one of them, they have to reimburse ESA for it.
Quote from: envy887 on 02/22/2019 12:33 pmQuote from: woods170 on 02/22/2019 07:33 am...But these "views" (complaints IMO) offered by SpaceX are pathetic for their completely incorrect representation of facts.In other words, SpaceX is stooping to Ariane's level.Yes, and that is why it is pathetic IMO. I had expected better from SpaceX.