5 ms·
This BBC article from 7 years back is a great read [0]: For its part, Airbus Safran does not envisage making Ariane 6 recoverable, not in the short term. Mr C
by themgt 4y ago
This BBC article from 7 years back is a great read [0]:
For its part, Airbus Safran does not envisage making Ariane 6 recoverable, not in the short term.
Mr Charmeau believes that different market conditions apply in Europe and the US, which means there will not be a single, winner-takes-all approach.
He cites, for example, the restricted procurement that exists in all major political blocs, which essentially bars foreign rockets from launching home institutional and government satellites. Nowhere is this more true than in the US, but in Europe too there is an "unwritten rule" that European states should use European rockets.
Mr Charmeau added: "And we have other specificities in Europe, such as the technology of propulsion, which is much better than the US one, both in solid and cryogenic propulsion. This allows us to launch [two satellites at once], which is another factor for competitiveness, maybe much better than re-usability - we will see in the future. And one characteristic, for example, is that we have only one (main) engine on the Ariane 64, whereas our competitor is going for re-usability because he is using much more engines. (The Falcon 9 has nine engines on its first stage.)
...
"I could talk for two hours about the advantages or disadvantages of re-usability. Is it appropriate for the European situation? I don't say 'no'; I don't say 'yes'. I just say 'we're discussing it'; we're looking into it in detail.
"But just look to your daily life: you are buying returnable bottles or one-way bottles, and obviously for both there is a market."
Two satellites at once - just imagine! Always worth keeping in mind the ability of intelligent, powerful people in positions of leadership to confidently state absolute laughable nonsense which is treated seriously up until the moment it's proved invalid by cold hard reality.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35435108 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35435108
- politician 4y agoAn epic defense of pollution. "Just leave it up there!"
- rtsil 4y agoI don't see stating that it "may be much better than re-usability, we will see in the in the future" as absolute laughable nonsense, I see it formulating an assumption that one approach might potentially better than another, but leaving room to be disproven later. The very basis of the scientific method.
- Veedrac 4y agoI think what they were alluding to is their long fairing option being, well, fairly long. F9's is maybe a bit undersized in part due to starting out a lot weaker than it is today, albeit it is a good size for Starlink.
- panick21_ 4y ago> such as the technology of propulsion, which is much better than the US one, both in solid and cryogenic propulsion Both of these are totally wrong but ok. > This allows us to launch [two satellites at once] Something that is very restrictive, requires the perfect set of costumers. And they are able to do that, not because of their amazing technology, but rather because they just build a really big rocket. > one (main) engine on the Ariane 64, whereas our competitor is going for re-usability because he is using much more engines Yeah one incredibly fucking expensive main engine that isn't all that good. And also a bunch of very expensive solids. In total Ariane 64 engines cost more then those of SpaceX and are not reusable.