By supporting other Danish industries you ensure future goodwill
You do as well with South Korea. And when it comes to "goodwill" you have to ask what is going to come of that goodwill. Maersk will probably get screwed in Europe over the next few decades no matter which shipyard it uses. At least South Korea has reason to remember who threw them some business and humble enough to do something in kind.
I don't think it's just about money. I think it's also about actual capability to do the job on a fast schedule and goodwill.
The opposite of money is tribalism and there is nothing in between?
You're the only one proposing this claim. And since you don't take it seriously either, then maybe you shouldn't bother.
*sigh* This is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation about solid rockets floating about out there, spread and repeated by shuttle detractors in a cargo cult like fashion until it's now regarded as a law of nature. What most people (including engineers who should know better) don't realize is that you don't need to shut them down in the first place- you just need them to produce net zero thrust.
For "misinformation" it is quite correct, the booster is still burning even if it is producing net zero thrust. For example, if there is premature ignition of a solid rocket booster on the launch pad, then that SRBs will burn out no matter what you do with it, even if it is producing net zero thrust. And a launch pad isn't designed to hold a burning booster for several minutes even if it isn't producing net thrust.
I'm sure that NASA has thought this risk through entirely, but it is still there. The problem doesn't go away just because there is a means to make the booster produce no net thrust.
Price should not be the only metric to be used for measuring competitiveness. Supporting the society and industries that in turn support you should always be prioritized.
South Korea and its industries support Maersk too.
Unfortunately, stockholders only care about short-term savings and profits. No one dares to think in the long term, because that would mean slightly lessened profits in the short term.
What "long term" benefit is there with going with a Danish shipyard? What does that shipyard or Denmark itself offer than South Korea doesn't offer?
Some things just don't break down into little pieces in an economical fashion.
Then I guess we better focus in the near term on things that can be launched in small pieces. I'm not going to support, say, a 200 ton to orbit launch vehicle just because someone can think of peculiar payloads that a 20 ton vehicle can't launch. Capability != utility. We still have yet to have a reason for putting that 1000 ton NPR in orbit.
And I'll note that one can get decent performance out of a variety of competitive propulsion/powerplant combinations which can be broken down into small pieces.
Finally, if we are going to launch large unwieldy structures into space from Solar System bodies, then the Moon is a better place to do so, both because delta v is much smaller, but also because there is no atmosphere and hence, a much weaker restriction on fairing size (it just needs to be able to withstanding the acceleration of launch without damage). A near Earth asteroid might even be a better choice, especially if it can be moved to Earth orbit first.
Dr. Ramsey's condition has been fulfilled hundreds of times over the last quarter century and there has been absolutely no acknowledgement by the APS of its crime.
The first condition hasn't happened once much less hundreds of times, hence there is no "crime" for which the American Physical Society need acknowledge.
One could probably factory-produce a hundred Curiosity rovers and mass launch/land them in every corner of Mars for the cost of one manned mission
I'd say more like ten or so Curiosity rovers. Those things aren't that cheap and manned missions aren't that expensive.
but 22 TW could be captured using very little acreage
For an hour around noon. You would need more plus storage to make a viable system that provides energy even when the Sun isn't shining.