[gexla]

The article doesn't go into much detail. In this case, Russia is "bad" because of the uncertainty of the relationship relying on something so important to be considered national interests. The decision to develop rockets at home was made around the time when someone in Russia made a comment to the effect of "maybe they should use trampolines to get into space."

[drzaiusapelord]

This. If this article was about China or Russia doing something to get off a US product or service, HN would be cheering. When the US protects its own interests, especially its world class space programs, suddenly the tone turns towards, "EVIL US NOT PLAYING NICE!" Sadly, that narrative is upvote heaven here on HN.

[mikeash]

As far as I can tell, what's upvote heaven is complaining about how nonexistent bad comments get lots of upvotes. I don't see any comments in this thread that meet your description, while the top is mostly comments explaining why this move makes sense. There are quite a few kneejerk "the US is evil" comments, but it's not about playing nice, it's about thinking the US government is the devil and SpaceX is sullied by the association. I don't see any comments saying the US should just keep buying Russian engines.

[nraynaud]

It's not like they couldn't buy lifts onboard other NATO countries rockets, but I guess the US people don't know there are more than Russia and the US who can send rockets.

Also, this paranoid stance is mildly worrying, because the US is the most weaponized country in the world, and one of the least shy country to use its arsenal, so if it also get a paranoid stance "all the world hate us", then we're all doomed.

[drzaiusapelord]

>It's not like they couldn't buy lifts onboard other NATO countries rockets

There is no NATO country, other than the US, with a manned space program. We don't live in a universe where the ESA's Hermes spacecraft worked out.

I believe the Ariane 5 was supposed to be man-rated when Hermes was on the table, but going from that to a usable launch vehicle is a lot of time, money, and engineering work we could spend on our own system(s). I have no idea if its possible to retro-fit man-rated safety onto the existing Ariane design.

So 5 years out to Orion/SLS and Dragon/SpaceX or 5 years out to some beat up and already badly aging ESA manned system the American tax payer would be on the hook for, and a system that could never leave LEO. The SLS is designed for non-LEO manned missions like the moon, nearby asteroids, and in its highest configuration - Mars.

Lastly, the ESA was welcome to bid in NASA's COTS program, but decided not to. Maybe take up your beef with them. I imagine they aren't remotely cost competitive.

[mikeash]

This certification is about launching unmanned US military payloads, not about manned spaceflight. As far as I know there's no technical reason Ariane 5 couldn't be used for them right now. I don't know why they're not being used, but if the decision to look for a new launch provider happened in the past couple of years then I don't see why you'd go for Arianespace over SpaceX.

[mikeash]

Did Arianespace submit a bid to launch these payloads or attempt to gain certification to carry them?