3 ms·

Or... you can cut costs by a factor of ten and increase demand accordingly and then build more rockets, but yes, if you don't need more, you don't build more, h

Or... you can cut costs by a factor of ten and increase demand accordingly and then build more rockets, but yes, if you don't need more, you don't build more, hello.

kristianp 6y ago
Yes it's like he doesn't know any economics. I expect he is rationalizing past decisions to use non-reusable rockets.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  His risk/reward structure is different from Musk's. As a state contractor, if you undertake something risky and it fails, you will be in a world of hurt. Possibly even land in prison. Certainly the press will hound you and pelt you with accusations of nefarious manipulations and hidden corruption. It is safer to just kick the can down the road, and risk-loving individuals won't even try to work in a risk-averse structure, much less lead it.
londons_explore 6y ago
But unless you end up lower cost than SpaceX, you probably won't get a single extra launch. So far, they basically only get EU political projects, and those tend to not care about price.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  So, basically, the ESA response goes like this: 2011 - no one is doing rocket reuse, so it is obvious that it would be too hard and probably uneconomical; let us go on with expendable launches as usual. 2021 - oh no, SpaceX has mastered first stage reuse, they took the entire market, now it would be too hard and probably uneconomical to try to compete with them. So let us go on with expendable launches as usual! They can sorta-kinda affort that, for the French government would never give its business to some dirty Amis, even if it meant to pay 10x or 100x as much for the same payload to LEO. Paris wants to retain its strategic independence and I can understand that. But for ESA it means that they will be a designated and expensive horse-and-buggy company in the age of a Ford T.
  - cryptonector 6y ago
    Yes, exactly, government funded enterprises don't innovate like private funded enterprises. They simply can't overcome the political obstacles in the way.
  - rurban 6y ago
    Too shortsighted. Both parties are right. ESA improved their rocket design for the 2nd stage. Almost a Raptor. But of course not a real Raptor, more like a VW compared to a Mercedes. Rocket reuse is also a revolutionary new idea, which didn't work out when NASA and the Russians pushed for it, but it now it works. Who would have thought. But by far not as complicated as a Raptor, which does not need multiple stages. So now they are pushing for reuse, which is not that hard to introduce medium term.

Or... you can cut costs by a factor of ten and increase demand accordingly and then build more rockets, but yes, if you don't need more, you don't build more, hello.

kristianp 6y ago

Yes it's like he doesn't know any economics. I expect he is rationalizing past decisions to use non-reusable rockets.

inglor_cz 6y ago
His risk/reward structure is different from Musk's. As a state contractor, if you undertake something risky and it fails, you will be in a world of hurt. Possibly even land in prison. Certainly the press will hound you and pelt you with accusations of nefarious manipulations and hidden corruption. It is safer to just kick the can down the road, and risk-loving individuals won't even try to work in a risk-averse structure, much less lead it.

londons_explore 6y ago

But unless you end up lower cost than SpaceX, you probably won't get a single extra launch. So far, they basically only get EU political projects, and those tend to not care about price.

inglor_cz 6y ago
So, basically, the ESA response goes like this: 2011 - no one is doing rocket reuse, so it is obvious that it would be too hard and probably uneconomical; let us go on with expendable launches as usual. 2021 - oh no, SpaceX has mastered first stage reuse, they took the entire market, now it would be too hard and probably uneconomical to try to compete with them. So let us go on with expendable launches as usual! They can sorta-kinda affort that, for the French government would never give its business to some dirty Amis, even if it meant to pay 10x or 100x as much for the same payload to LEO. Paris wants to retain its strategic independence and I can understand that. But for ESA it means that they will be a designated and expensive horse-and-buggy company in the age of a Ford T.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  Yes, exactly, government funded enterprises don't innovate like private funded enterprises. They simply can't overcome the political obstacles in the way.
- rurban 6y ago
  Too shortsighted. Both parties are right. ESA improved their rocket design for the 2nd stage. Almost a Raptor. But of course not a real Raptor, more like a VW compared to a Mercedes. Rocket reuse is also a revolutionary new idea, which didn't work out when NASA and the Russians pushed for it, but it now it works. Who would have thought. But by far not as complicated as a Raptor, which does not need multiple stages. So now they are pushing for reuse, which is not that hard to introduce medium term.