Why didn't West Germany start a space program in the 70s or 80s?

[Nibb31]

if the truth is considered trolling, there's something seriously wrong with the world... ESA is French, not German (90% of its funding goes to Arianespace, a French company, and the rest is allocated along national lines with the majority of the people hired being French), and is mostly funded not by France but by the nations I mentioned.

Telling the truth isn't trolling. Making sweeping generalizations about a country or a continent is, especially when you've never even been there yourself.

Arianespace is a launch operator that is distinct from ESA, but it's mostly a commercial storefront. It's the equivalent of ULA for NASA. ULA sells launches to governments (including NASA and ESA) and corporations, and procures hardware from Boeing and LM. Arianespace sells launches to governments (including NASA and ESA) and corporations, and procures hardware from Airbus and Thales-Alenia. Same thing really.

ESA is a multinational organisation, formed by national space agencies. The French space agency is CNES, which participates in ESA. It has its own 2 billion euro budget, 750 million of which goes the ESA. The rest is spent domestically. The UKSA, German DLR, Italian ASI, and other national agencies also participate in ESA and it's set up so that the money floats back mostly proportionally. Countries that contribute more get allocated more. Countries that contribute less get allocated less. It's quite simple and quite fair. You seem to be the only person complaining about it.

a carrier that contains American and British technology, which is why it couldn't be sold to the Soviets. French defense industry is the joke of the world, only exporting to former colonies pretty much.

There really isn't much American technology on the Charles de Gaulle (the catapult technology I guess) and the British had nothing to do with it. But what's exactly your complaint here? Isn't the point of NATO to make military hardware interoperable, which it is. It means that F-18s and Rafales can all operate on either the CdG and US carriers. Isn't that a good thing?

And who rates a country based on their military exportations anyway? I'd rather rate a country on its quality of life, access to education, healthcare and social security. We might have only one aircraft carrier, but nobody here has to sell their house if they get cancer and you won't find 90 year-olds being forced to work part-time jobs either.

Airbus: German engineering, British engines, Spanish materials.

And your complaint is what exactly? The idea of European cooperation arised in the post-WWII world as way to promote peace by creating cultural and economical ties between countries. It's a great idea and has been quite successful.

FYI, most of the high-level design work is shared by Toulouse and Hamburg. Components are designed where they are made by joint studies between local Airbus offices and subcontractors. The materials come from wherever each component is made, so that's just another silly remark. This is SOP throughout the industry, and you'd be hard pressed to find a large US company that doesn't work the same way.

But really, who cares about the nationality of each component? Airbus is a european company with suppliers and facilities in many countries, just like every multinational company in the world. When you look at a 787, is it a problem that some of it comes from Texas and other bits are imported from Louisiana or Ohio? Some parts even come from Italy or China, so what's the big deal?

Ariane: based on a British rocket their government could no longer afford to fund

Ignorant rubbish. Educate yourself already.

Concorde: British engineering and engines.

French airframe and british engines mostly, but it's way more complex than that. Again, what's the problem with sharing work in a cooperation project?

Nice French marketing campaigns though, with lots of wine and cheese paid for out of EU subsidies.

You really do seem to have a problem with France. You seem to be using France or French as if it was some sort derogatory word.

Seriously, when was the last time you came over to taste the wine and cheese yourself instead of ranting about what you saw on Fox News? I'll be the first to admit that there are things that suck about my country or about Europe, but sweeping stereotypes like yours ARE trolling and only show your ignorance.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Nibb31

[KASASpace]

Neither the Soviets. Baikonur is nowhere near the Equator. The Germans could have built a space center in Travemünde, because it's next to the sea, not in a heavily populated area, it could serve as a homage to the then East German-occupied Peenemünde, the original launch complex, and the proximity of the East German border would ensure a good place in the propaganda war, with GDR border guards regularily seeing West German rockets lift off.

Yes, I know of Baikonur's high latitude, and how it wasn't really called Baikonur until later after Gagarin's flight.

However, the Soviets wouldn't have liked it at all, and plus the safety might not be so good....

After all, they would launch Eastward, and it would most definitely go over Russia.

[Idobox]

if the truth is considered trolling, there's something seriously wrong with the world... ESA is French, not German (90% of its funding goes to Arianespace, a French company, and the rest is allocated along national lines with the majority of the people hired being French), and is mostly funded not by France but by the nations I mentioned.

And oh, I'm the one most qualified to know, being European, unlike the American kids who seem to think anyone who doesn't like the EU must be an American and not know what they're talking about as a result of being an American.

Now how's THAT for an attitude.

ESA spending in each country is proportional to the contribution of that country. You have no idea what you're talking about, you are aggressive and make generalizations, that's trolling.

a carrier that contains American and British technology, which is why it couldn't be sold to the Soviets. French defense industry is the joke of the world, only exporting to former colonies pretty much.

They're called the Russian Federation, the USSR doesn't exist anymore.

And I would love to hear what US or British technology can be found on the Mistral class. They are built by Thales and DCN with no participation I know of by US or UK defense contractors.

France has ranked 3rd to 5th largest arms exporter in the world every year for the past 10 years, we're one of the 6 countries to have nuclear submarines, the only country with the US to have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the fourth country to develop nuclear weapons. We sell our ships, missiles, planes, tanks and submarines to Saudi, Singapore, Pakistan, India, Brazil, Taiwan, Russia and even the USA.

Morocco, the largest buyer out of the ex-colonies bought about 1/6 of what Brazil did since 2008. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Airbus: German engineering, British engines, Spanish materials.

Ariane: based on a British rocket their government could no longer afford to fund

Concorde: British engineering and engines.

Nice French marketing campaigns though, with lots of wine and cheese paid for out of EU subsidies.

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Airbus is mostly the result of the fusion of French and German constructors, each having roughly 50%, and at the time, Germany didn't have anything close to the French Caravelle. The same thing happened with Eurocopter. We collaborate, but the French contribution is comparable or bigger than the German one.

Ariane was funded at 60% by France. France had Veronique and Diamant rockets before Ariane, was the third country in the world to put a satellite in orbit. There's a reason UK asked the French for help to make something useful out of Blue Streak.

You are a massive troll, and I love how you bash France and the US without telling us where you're from. Ashamed of your own country? afraid we might point what you did worse than us?