4 ms·

Say what you want about SpaceX's plans for re-usability, nobody can deny they are making progress at an incredible pace. I've just checked on Wikipedia and app

Say what you want about SpaceX's plans for re-usability, nobody can deny they are making progress at an incredible pace. I've just checked on Wikipedia and apparently the first flight of the Falcon was in 2010. That's six years ago. Compared to that, Arianeespace's target of 2025 (in nine years!) for Adeline is almost ridiculous. Just checked: Stephane Israël just raised concerned after SpaceX's latest success: http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2016/05/05/face-a-spacex-le-pdg-d-arianespace-se-fait-lanceur-d-alerte_4914148_3234.html http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2016/05/05/face-a-spa...

jessriedel 10y ago
Could you copy-paste his comments? Google translate worked OK, but the site has a paywall.
- grondilu 10y ago
  I did not go through the paywall either, I only just read what you probably did.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Pre paywall ""Europe must take stock of what is happening in the United States , because if nothing is done , in ten years, our launcher sector will be in big trouble. " Faced with the offensive for two and a half years in the space by Elon Musk , who breaks the prices of commercial satellite launches, Arianespace boss Stephane Israel sounds alarm . The distortion of competition will intensify as the founder of SpaceX was awarded on April 28 , its first contract with"
  - nickik 10y ago
    Why should we care. I see no benfit in government funded rockets. I much rather see ESA buy launches on a competitive market. The should invest in innovative new missions instead of an ill fated attempted to beat comercial producers at rocket development. Other then subsadising your own industry and for military reasons, their is no argument for making your own rockets. Both those are terrible arguments.
    - grondilu 10y ago
      I'm not sure Stephane Israël's warning is directed at governments. It's more of a warning call for all European industrials who should increase their efforts to prepare for the present and upcoming US competition. I mean it's not as if Ariane 6 is being built entirely by government money. It's more complicated than that. As a matter of fact, a new company Airbus Safran Launches[1] has recently been created out of the two big aerospace companies and is working mostly on Ariane 6. As I understand it, the CEO of Arianespace is calling for more initiatives like these. It's a bit like with aerospace, when Boeing started building big airlines, European companies gathered and formed Airbus. They were not government owned but I supposed the government did intervene some way or an other considering it was a strategically crucial economic sector. Also, whether the government funds an aerospace company is a bit blurry. SpaceX is privately owned but its major client is the government and, as Stephane Israël often complains about, they get extremely advantageous and arguably unfair contracts notably with the US military. It's kind of a government funding in disguise. That being said, money is not the only issue here. The big thing SpaceX has is passion : since those guys think they're basically saving the world or something, they work much harder than anyone in Europe. I mean it's surely much easier for an engineer to keep working late at night when he thinks that his work will allow man to walk on mars and save the human race from extinction. That's the only way I can explain the extreme speed at which they're making progress when compared to what is done in Europe. 1. http://www.airbusafran-launchers.com/ http://www.airbusafran-launchers.com/
      - nickik 10y ago
        As far as I can tell Arian 6 will get tons of government money, almost 3 billion, while private share is only about 0.5 billion. Even with this massive investment the estimated costs are per launch are still quite high. SpaceX actually has to do a lot of work for those government contracts, and they will lose that money if they can not diliver the capability in the required amount of time. They had to carry most devlopment cost themself and they were also always flighing comercial launches. Governemnts are 70% of the launch market, so I don't think any space company can or will live totally without government contracts. If they can make the Ariane 6 compete within a decent price, I am not against some government contracts going to them. It makes sense not to give all contracts to one company, but Arianspace (or whoever) has to first devlop a rocket without massiv governemnt investment and show that they are in the 20% range of price. If they can not do that, their are other companies who you can go to. Sure its not fair if the rockets from china or russia are subsidised (not saying the are or ar not) but thats good for Europe because we get cheaper launches that are payed for by other governments.

jessriedel 10y ago

Could you copy-paste his comments? Google translate worked OK, but the site has a paywall.

grondilu 10y ago
I did not go through the paywall either, I only just read what you probably did.
lostlogin 10y ago
Pre paywall ""Europe must take stock of what is happening in the United States , because if nothing is done , in ten years, our launcher sector will be in big trouble. " Faced with the offensive for two and a half years in the space by Elon Musk , who breaks the prices of commercial satellite launches, Arianespace boss Stephane Israel sounds alarm . The distortion of competition will intensify as the founder of SpaceX was awarded on April 28 , its first contract with"
- nickik 10y ago
  Why should we care. I see no benfit in government funded rockets. I much rather see ESA buy launches on a competitive market. The should invest in innovative new missions instead of an ill fated attempted to beat comercial producers at rocket development. Other then subsadising your own industry and for military reasons, their is no argument for making your own rockets. Both those are terrible arguments.
  - grondilu 10y ago
    I'm not sure Stephane Israël's warning is directed at governments. It's more of a warning call for all European industrials who should increase their efforts to prepare for the present and upcoming US competition. I mean it's not as if Ariane 6 is being built entirely by government money. It's more complicated than that. As a matter of fact, a new company Airbus Safran Launches[1] has recently been created out of the two big aerospace companies and is working mostly on Ariane 6. As I understand it, the CEO of Arianespace is calling for more initiatives like these. It's a bit like with aerospace, when Boeing started building big airlines, European companies gathered and formed Airbus. They were not government owned but I supposed the government did intervene some way or an other considering it was a strategically crucial economic sector. Also, whether the government funds an aerospace company is a bit blurry. SpaceX is privately owned but its major client is the government and, as Stephane Israël often complains about, they get extremely advantageous and arguably unfair contracts notably with the US military. It's kind of a government funding in disguise. That being said, money is not the only issue here. The big thing SpaceX has is passion : since those guys think they're basically saving the world or something, they work much harder than anyone in Europe. I mean it's surely much easier for an engineer to keep working late at night when he thinks that his work will allow man to walk on mars and save the human race from extinction. That's the only way I can explain the extreme speed at which they're making progress when compared to what is done in Europe. 1. http://www.airbusafran-launchers.com/ http://www.airbusafran-launchers.com/
    - nickik 10y ago
      As far as I can tell Arian 6 will get tons of government money, almost 3 billion, while private share is only about 0.5 billion. Even with this massive investment the estimated costs are per launch are still quite high. SpaceX actually has to do a lot of work for those government contracts, and they will lose that money if they can not diliver the capability in the required amount of time. They had to carry most devlopment cost themself and they were also always flighing comercial launches. Governemnts are 70% of the launch market, so I don't think any space company can or will live totally without government contracts. If they can make the Ariane 6 compete within a decent price, I am not against some government contracts going to them. It makes sense not to give all contracts to one company, but Arianspace (or whoever) has to first devlop a rocket without massiv governemnt investment and show that they are in the 20% range of price. If they can not do that, their are other companies who you can go to. Sure its not fair if the rockets from china or russia are subsidised (not saying the are or ar not) but thats good for Europe because we get cheaper launches that are payed for by other governments.