4 ms·

You're missing the point of Ariane. Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price, and as insurance against

You're missing the point of Ariane. Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price, and as insurance against a launch monopoly (it upper-bounds what others can charge ESA). Ariane 5 is also extremely reliable, which is very important for some launches (NASA's James Webb telescope is going to launch on Ariane 5, for example). Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price. This is also the reason reusability doesn't make sense for Ariane. With less than ten launches per year, fixed costs make up a large portion of the cost. If they only needed one rocket per year, it wouldn't really get all that much cheaper because they still need the factory.

AgusBena 8y ago
One of the main goals of the Ariane rocket system is also provide jobs,not efficient Lunch system. If they create a reusable lunch system what the workforce will do then?
- thekingofh 8y ago
  Build space stations and moon bases?
- growlist 8y ago
  Given Ariane's French roots I think we can count on the lunch and all other meals being not just efficient, but superbe!
- nickik 8y ago
  That is false. Historically this was not the reason, this is now the new claim they make but it was never the specific intent.
stcredzero 8y ago
Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price What if the "reasonable price" changes?
growlist 8y ago
And yet: 'SpaceX is so cheap that Ariane's CEO worries SpaceX could eventually "kick Europe out of space" if Ariane cannot figure out a way to launch its rockets more cheaply' https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/02/europe-complains-spacex-rocket-prices-are-too-chea.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/02/europe-complains-s...
oh_sigh 8y ago
What happens with the JWT if the rocket blows up on launch? How long(and how much $$$) would it take to build another one, having already built one? Is this an instance where the government should follow the maxim from Contact: "Why build one, when you can build two for twice the cost?"
- avmich 8y ago
  > Is this an instance where the government should follow the maxim from Contact: "Why build one, when you can build two for twice the cost?" The maxim in Contact was different - "Why build one, when you can build two, but keep the second one secret", right? I do hope JWT could be recreated cheaper than costs to create it in the first place. No matter though, we'll still need other space telescopes anyway, so both reliability and price to orbit are important.
kanox 8y ago
> Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price > Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price Winning commercial contracts is how the price is kept reasonable. As you pointed out fixed costs are very large and launching GTO satellites helps spread them around. If SpaceX kicks Ariane out of the commercial market then ESA governments will have to pay more for their own launches.
jlmorton 8y ago
> Ariane 5 is also extremely reliable It certainly is reliable, but it's not extremely reliable. It's had 2 total failures and 3 partial failures out of 99 launch attempts, including a partial failure this year on SES-14 that left the satellite in-orbit, but inclined 20 degrees to the equator, which will significantly shorten the satellite's lifespan.
InclinedPlane 8y ago
It's purpose has always been to be a globally competitive commercial launch provider. A purpose they excelled at for decades. While it's purpose is now shrinking to being Europe's government launcher it should be noted that this is an event that is happening, not merely a continuation of the status quo.
nickik 8y ago
Insurance against a launch monopoly would be more effected by competition in general, no need to build your own rocket. I have also never heard anybody from ESA make that claim. Ariane 5 is reliable but the primary reason it is launching rather then ULA is not reliability but politics. > Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price. That is false. That was exactly what their goal was all the way up to a 1-2 years ago when they finally realized how badly they fucked up. They spent the last 10 years laughing at SpaceX and telling everybody how stupid SpaceX is and how nothing is gone work and how much better they are. > This is also the reason reusability doesn't make sense for Ariane. With less than ten launches per year, fixed costs make up a large portion of the cost. If they only needed one rocket per year, it wouldn't really get all that much cheaper because they still need the factory. You are repeating what is essentially propaganda that ignores important facts. The reason Ariane can only launch 10 times a year is because they totally failed in innovating and rested their success for a long time and now that they got 3 billion to develop a new rocket, that they claimed would be competitive. However the totally fucked that up and are not even close to being competitive. The very reason they go all this money for Ariane 6 was to build something competitive so they could continue to capture commercial launch so that government flights were cheap. So it is not that re-usability is not worth it, its that they failed to make a commercially viable product and without that they are just monopolistic launch with a low launch rate.

AgusBena 8y ago

One of the main goals of the Ariane rocket system is also provide jobs,not efficient Lunch system. If they create a reusable lunch system what the workforce will do then?

thekingofh 8y ago
Build space stations and moon bases?
growlist 8y ago
Given Ariane's French roots I think we can count on the lunch and all other meals being not just efficient, but superbe!
nickik 8y ago
That is false. Historically this was not the reason, this is now the new claim they make but it was never the specific intent.

stcredzero 8y ago

Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price What if the "reasonable price" changes?

growlist 8y ago

And yet: 'SpaceX is so cheap that Ariane's CEO worries SpaceX could eventually "kick Europe out of space" if Ariane cannot figure out a way to launch its rockets more cheaply' https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/02/europe-complains-spacex-rocket-prices-are-too-chea.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/02/europe-complains-s...

oh_sigh 8y ago

What happens with the JWT if the rocket blows up on launch? How long(and how much $$$) would it take to build another one, having already built one? Is this an instance where the government should follow the maxim from Contact: "Why build one, when you can build two for twice the cost?"

avmich 8y ago
> Is this an instance where the government should follow the maxim from Contact: "Why build one, when you can build two for twice the cost?" The maxim in Contact was different - "Why build one, when you can build two, but keep the second one secret", right? I do hope JWT could be recreated cheaper than costs to create it in the first place. No matter though, we'll still need other space telescopes anyway, so both reliability and price to orbit are important.

kanox 8y ago

> Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price > Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price Winning commercial contracts is how the price is kept reasonable. As you pointed out fixed costs are very large and launching GTO satellites helps spread them around. If SpaceX kicks Ariane out of the commercial market then ESA governments will have to pay more for their own launches.

jlmorton 8y ago

> Ariane 5 is also extremely reliable It certainly is reliable, but it's not extremely reliable. It's had 2 total failures and 3 partial failures out of 99 launch attempts, including a partial failure this year on SES-14 that left the satellite in-orbit, but inclined 20 degrees to the equator, which will significantly shorten the satellite's lifespan.

InclinedPlane 8y ago

It's purpose has always been to be a globally competitive commercial launch provider. A purpose they excelled at for decades. While it's purpose is now shrinking to being Europe's government launcher it should be noted that this is an event that is happening, not merely a continuation of the status quo.

nickik 8y ago

Insurance against a launch monopoly would be more effected by competition in general, no need to build your own rocket. I have also never heard anybody from ESA make that claim. Ariane 5 is reliable but the primary reason it is launching rather then ULA is not reliability but politics. > Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price. That is false. That was exactly what their goal was all the way up to a 1-2 years ago when they finally realized how badly they fucked up. They spent the last 10 years laughing at SpaceX and telling everybody how stupid SpaceX is and how nothing is gone work and how much better they are. > This is also the reason reusability doesn't make sense for Ariane. With less than ten launches per year, fixed costs make up a large portion of the cost. If they only needed one rocket per year, it wouldn't really get all that much cheaper because they still need the factory. You are repeating what is essentially propaganda that ignores important facts. The reason Ariane can only launch 10 times a year is because they totally failed in innovating and rested their success for a long time and now that they got 3 billion to develop a new rocket, that they claimed would be competitive. However the totally fucked that up and are not even close to being competitive. The very reason they go all this money for Ariane 6 was to build something competitive so they could continue to capture commercial launch so that government flights were cheap. So it is not that re-usability is not worth it, its that they failed to make a commercially viable product and without that they are just monopolistic launch with a low launch rate.