4 ms·

>The planned Ariane 6 is cost uncompetitive with the Falcon 9 This isn't really true. Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 mill

>The planned Ariane 6 is cost uncompetitive with the Falcon 9 This isn't really true. Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable). Because Ariane uses a "dual-berth" conops, it (generally) flies two payloads per launch, whereas Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused. The two rockets are thus of comparable cost to a satellite customer, with pros and cons for each — Ariane is more reliable, but you have to work around the other customer's schedule. The worry is that Ariane 6 won't be competitive with future rockets, like New Glenn or BFR.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable) Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9? Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, your numbers don't paint the Arianes favorably. > Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them. [1] http://spaceflight.com http://spaceflight.com
- makomk 8y ago
  Historically speaking, generally because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent they could save. (Remember, there's a whole bunch of cost in building the satellite too.)
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent they could save This is a valid pitch. Memorably, Skybox almost went bankrupt waiting for their Ukranian launch partner to put their birds in orbit. That said, this isn't a good business plan. Pitching availability for a non-just-in-time manufactured product is a bearish bet on competitors' production schedules. Not a bad bet in the rocket business. But re-usability both decreases costs and increases launch frequency. Ariane 6 is, on multiple levels, the EU calling Elon Musk on a bluff. Not unreasonable a decade ago, when the project was planned. But wrong today. It's also awkward to advertise a project by the low demand for it.
- rory096 8y ago
  >Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9? Because their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million while another customer pays the rest in the lower berth. Capability isn't useful if your payload doesn't use it. >Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, I think you made your counterargument. These prices are within 20%, which I'd call competitive given non-price factors. The claim was not that Ariane was cheaper. >Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them. Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate. Spaceflight's SHERPA mission was supposed to fly secondary to the (tiny) Formosat-5 payload, but was pulled due to delays.[0] SFI now plans to stick with "dedicated rideshare" on rockets booked by them entirely for their customers. Their first flight will be SSO-A on a dedicated Falcon 9 later this year. Historically, Falcon has flown few secondary payloads. An OG-2 prototype flew as a secondary on CRS-1, but was lost due to the engine-out on ascent. Iridium-6 shared with NASA's Grace-FO, after both missions dropped off Dnepr due to the Ukraine crisis.[1] Hispasat-30W carried a small hosted (then released) secondary as part of an experimental deployment system.[2] I can't think of any other notable secondary payloads. [0] https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-find-alternative-launches/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-fin... [1] https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch-shares-with-earth-science-mission/ https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch-sh... [2] https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent-launch-carried-a-secret-military-funded-experiment/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent-la...
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million €45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10 million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity. > Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform. Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency. Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't unreasonable ten years ago. I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, et cetera--that niche will narrow.
- mnl 8y ago
  When it comes to the cost of the mission those differences are peanuts. I guess that at some point SpaceX will find out that the the price of the launch wasn't the bottleneck after all.
  - HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
    Except it actually is. When a fully functioning satellite costs e.g. 200m$ and the launch is another 200m$ it makes sense to overbuild your satellite to 600m$ with crazy redundancies etc to make sure it won't fail early on it's mission life. At the same time the big dumb booster concept like Ariane 5 and 6 makes tradeoffs like no upper stage engine restart capabilities which are ok for GTO missions but mean that multi-sat LEO or MEO constellations are impossible( you can't change the orbit and drifting is expensive).
HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
Your numbers paint a very positive picture of Ariane 6 which I don't think is justified: >Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO There are a lot of GEO sats which are right at the 5 ton range so that leaves no room for a dual launch. >Because Ariane uses a "dual-berth" conops, it (generally) flies two payloads per launch, whereas Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused. Dual launches come with a lot of issues of coordination which crop up all the time and result in delayed launches for Ariane. Also Falcon 9's excess capacity is left unused because no one has ever asked for it. Per Musk's words they could develop a bigger fairing if a customer payed for it but no one has asked for it. >The two rockets are thus of comparable cost to a satellite customer, with pros and cons for each No they are not. There is literally no pro for Ariane. It's more expensive and the most important thing is that the engine is not restartable so it literally can't do a direct GEO no matter the payload penalty. That results in satellites requiring more powerful and complicated thrusters and having to sacrifice part of the capacity for extra fuel instead of just altitude correcting thrusters. All of this translates into extra cost. >Ariane is more reliable This is a complete myth for the media. Ariane 5's reliability means nothing for Ariane 6. One of the early Ariane 5 launch failures was due to the use of Ariane 4's software but not modified. On the other hand falcon 9 is now frozen and at this rate will have about the same launches Ariane 5 had in it's entire lifetime but only in a couple of years. >The worry is that Ariane 6 won't be competitive with future rockets, like New Glenn or BFR. Ariane 6 was competitive with the non-reusable falcon 9 at 90m$. The bet the European industry made was that SpaceX wouldn't be able to make an economically meaningful reusable rocket but every design choice on the falcon 9 has benefited reusability( number of engines, cost structure etc).

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable) Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9? Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, your numbers don't paint the Arianes favorably. > Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them. [1] http://spaceflight.com http://spaceflight.com

makomk 8y ago
Historically speaking, generally because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent they could save. (Remember, there's a whole bunch of cost in building the satellite too.)
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent they could save This is a valid pitch. Memorably, Skybox almost went bankrupt waiting for their Ukranian launch partner to put their birds in orbit. That said, this isn't a good business plan. Pitching availability for a non-just-in-time manufactured product is a bearish bet on competitors' production schedules. Not a bad bet in the rocket business. But re-usability both decreases costs and increases launch frequency. Ariane 6 is, on multiple levels, the EU calling Elon Musk on a bluff. Not unreasonable a decade ago, when the project was planned. But wrong today. It's also awkward to advertise a project by the low demand for it.
rory096 8y ago
>Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9? Because their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million while another customer pays the rest in the lower berth. Capability isn't useful if your payload doesn't use it. >Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, I think you made your counterargument. These prices are within 20%, which I'd call competitive given non-price factors. The claim was not that Ariane was cheaper. >Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them. Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate. Spaceflight's SHERPA mission was supposed to fly secondary to the (tiny) Formosat-5 payload, but was pulled due to delays.[0] SFI now plans to stick with "dedicated rideshare" on rockets booked by them entirely for their customers. Their first flight will be SSO-A on a dedicated Falcon 9 later this year. Historically, Falcon has flown few secondary payloads. An OG-2 prototype flew as a secondary on CRS-1, but was lost due to the engine-out on ascent. Iridium-6 shared with NASA's Grace-FO, after both missions dropped off Dnepr due to the Ukraine crisis.[1] Hispasat-30W carried a small hosted (then released) secondary as part of an experimental deployment system.[2] I can't think of any other notable secondary payloads. [0] https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-find-alternative-launches/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-fin... [1] https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch-shares-with-earth-science-mission/ https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch-sh... [2] https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent-launch-carried-a-secret-military-funded-experiment/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent-la...
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million €45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10 million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity. > Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform. Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency. Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't unreasonable ten years ago. I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, et cetera--that niche will narrow.
mnl 8y ago
When it comes to the cost of the mission those differences are peanuts. I guess that at some point SpaceX will find out that the the price of the launch wasn't the bottleneck after all.
- HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
  Except it actually is. When a fully functioning satellite costs e.g. 200m$ and the launch is another 200m$ it makes sense to overbuild your satellite to 600m$ with crazy redundancies etc to make sure it won't fail early on it's mission life. At the same time the big dumb booster concept like Ariane 5 and 6 makes tradeoffs like no upper stage engine restart capabilities which are ok for GTO missions but mean that multi-sat LEO or MEO constellations are impossible( you can't change the orbit and drifting is expensive).

HeadsUpHigh 8y ago

Your numbers paint a very positive picture of Ariane 6 which I don't think is justified: >Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO There are a lot of GEO sats which are right at the 5 ton range so that leaves no room for a dual launch. >Because Ariane uses a "dual-berth" conops, it (generally) flies two payloads per launch, whereas Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused. Dual launches come with a lot of issues of coordination which crop up all the time and result in delayed launches for Ariane. Also Falcon 9's excess capacity is left unused because no one has ever asked for it. Per Musk's words they could develop a bigger fairing if a customer payed for it but no one has asked for it. >The two rockets are thus of comparable cost to a satellite customer, with pros and cons for each No they are not. There is literally no pro for Ariane. It's more expensive and the most important thing is that the engine is not restartable so it literally can't do a direct GEO no matter the payload penalty. That results in satellites requiring more powerful and complicated thrusters and having to sacrifice part of the capacity for extra fuel instead of just altitude correcting thrusters. All of this translates into extra cost. >Ariane is more reliable This is a complete myth for the media. Ariane 5's reliability means nothing for Ariane 6. One of the early Ariane 5 launch failures was due to the use of Ariane 4's software but not modified. On the other hand falcon 9 is now frozen and at this rate will have about the same launches Ariane 5 had in it's entire lifetime but only in a couple of years. >The worry is that Ariane 6 won't be competitive with future rockets, like New Glenn or BFR. Ariane 6 was competitive with the non-reusable falcon 9 at 90m$. The bet the European industry made was that SpaceX wouldn't be able to make an economically meaningful reusable rocket but every design choice on the falcon 9 has benefited reusability( number of engines, cost structure etc).