this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
67 points (97.2% liked)

Buy European

10232 readers
5 users here now

Overview:

The community to discuss buying European goods and services.

Matrix Chat of this community

Rules:

  • Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. No direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments.

  • Do not use this community to promote Nationalism/Euronationalism. This community is for discussing European products/services and news related to that. For other topics the following might be of interest:

  • Include a disclaimer at the bottom of the post if you're affiliated with the recommendation.

  • No russian suggestions.

Feddit.uk's instance rules apply:

  • No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
  • No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
  • No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
  • Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
  • Do not spam or abuse network features.
  • Alt accounts are permitted, but all accounts must list each other in their bios.
  • No generative AI content.

Useful Websites

Benefits of Buying Local:

local investment, job creation, innovation, increased competition, more redundancy.

European Instances

Lemmy:

Friendica:

Matrix:

Related Communities:

Buy Local:

Continents:

European:

Buying and Selling:

Boycott:

Countries:

Companies:

Stop Publisher Kill Switch in Games Practice:

Banner credits: BYTEAlliance

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
maam@feddit.uk
alex@jlai.lu
circledot@feddit.org
Argyle13@lemmy.world
meldrik@lemmy.wtf
Sunshine@piefed.ca
Kjell@lemmy.world
67
Should the ESA have higher funding than NASA? (feddit.uk)
submitted 1 week ago by maam@feddit.uk to c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The current funding of 7.81b euros is 35% that of NASAโ€™s.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] philpo@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Absolutely. That's why I said: If we have a scientific reason for it? Go for it.

But not just for the sake of it.

[โ€“] timestatic@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean it'd be sad/annoying if we did the same thing like in the Apollo missions but I think an expanded scope makes sense. Even if it might look like it to outsiders I think for nearly none of these scientific mission like ever is the purpose the act of executing the mission itself. In most cases its what we learn and build from it to advance technology. I would say Artemis in that regard probably qualifies

[โ€“] philpo@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The thing is: For the same money that has been spent on putting a crewed mission around the moon we could easily have done multiple non-crewed missions to/around it OR done multiple missions that focus on long distance crewed missions.

We will see. Atm everyone I know who is remotely knowledgable in that field has a somewhat stern opinion on the mission.

[โ€“] timestatic@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

Just think about it like this. This isn't money taken away from actual science. Its just that this administration values prestige projects more than proper science. I believe looking at other budgets that there would be enough money to satisfy a lot more fields. The return in human missions isn't as immediate or apparent but I think there is still benefit behind it.