7 ms·

Only in the sense that everyone isn’t competitive against SpaceX. They absolutely could have done better, but the role isn’t to produce the most price competiti

Only in the sense that everyone isn’t competitive against SpaceX. They absolutely could have done better, but the role isn’t to produce the most price competitive launch, the role was securing Europe’s launch capability. If both could be done at the same time then that’s a win but it’s not the primary goal.

pfdietz 3y ago
You're just explaining the process by which they screwed up.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  But it's a screw up most space launch providers are sharing, and it's one most of them will survive in the medium term for the same reason: their respective governments see more value in them than revenue and will prop them up. The more interesting question is what will happen after Ariane 6. SpaceX's lead continues to grow, and catching up would require changes to the development process not everyone seems comfortable with.
  - robin_reala 3y ago
    Ariane Next’s design goals seem to be mostly “be Falcon 9”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next No-one’s trying to build a Starship at this point apart from SpaceX (leaving aside a couple of less credible Chinese attempts).
    - martin8412 3y ago
      No, the others gave up on that can of worms in the 60s.
      - wongarsu 3y ago
        Which would be quite foolish. Controlling a large number of engines was made a lot easier by about 60 years of improvements in microcontroller and sensor technology.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        I remember a NASA-connected SF author explaining at a Worldcon in Chicago that Falcon 9 wasn't going to be reliable because it had too many first stage engines. Oops.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      The Chinese Long March 9 plans, which are close to Starship, seem quite credible to me.
      - nordsieck 3y ago
        > The Chinese Long March 9 plans, which are close to Starship, seem quite credible to me. The plans for the Long March 9 change every year or so. The last time they published a design, it was a Saturn V semi-clone (with many more 1st stage engines). I'll take the Long March 9 seriously when they start showing off actual hardware.
        sidewndr46 3y ago
        And of all the designs, it is the one with the least price transparency.
    - DylanSp 3y ago
      New Glenn has a potential path to compete with Starship eventually, with BO's work on making a reusable version of its second stage. It's years away at best, but it's arguably more than anyone else is doing.
      - wongarsu 3y ago
        On paper New Glenn looks interesting. But Blue Origin is one year older than SpaceX but with slightly fewer success stories to talk about. So far they managed 30 suborbital launches (counting all test flights); in the same time SpaceX did 240 orbital launches. New Glenn has lots of potential, but it's also really hard to get excited about.
        DylanSp 3y ago
        Entirely fair. The main reason I bring up them as even having realistic potential is that they've built a few BE-4 engines that're ready to go on Vulcan, and I think they've been spotted building hardware for New Glenn's first stage. They've definitely got a lot of work to do, though.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      Ariane Next is not a real thing yet. Its just some concepts that some of the European space agencies are playing around with. To actually build a next generation Ariane rocket they will need a huge amount of political buy-in from the ESA memeber states. And they will not get that anytime soon. The barley got the Ariane 6 over the finish line. It will be many, many years before they even seriously start an actual design process for Ariane Next.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  Dumping boatloads of money on the MIC isn't a screwup if it's the primary intended outcome with a functioning rocket merely as a nice bonus.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    "Waiter, this soup tastes like shit." "Sir, it's the intended outcome that it tastes like shit." "Oh, I guess that must be ok then."
    - Mordisquitos 3y ago
      More like: "Waiter, this soup tastes like shit." "Sir, that is not your soup. It is a nutrient broth to satisfy another customer who has different priorities than you do." "Oh, I guess that must be ok then."
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        The point I was making that a bureaucracy choosing a goal doesn't mean that goal is a good one, or that achieving it is a positive thing.
        Mordisquitos 3y ago
        Fair enough: "Waiter, this soup tastes like shit." "Sir, that is not your soup. It is a nutrient broth to satisfy another customer who has different priorities than you do." "Then their priorities are wrong, they should want a good tasting soup!" "Sir, I must ask you to leave."
- martin8412 3y ago
  The goal is not launches at the same price SpaceX charges. The goal is reliable independent launch capabilities. SpaceX is the furthest from what can be described as reliable.
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > The goal is not launches at the same price SpaceX charges. That's a rationalization. When the Ariane 5 was ruling the roost, ArianeSpace absolutely wanted to maintain their market position. It's only after they've given up on that goal that the talking points have changed to "independent access to space". > SpaceX is the furthest from what can be described as reliable. Lol. The Falcon 9 has the longest streak of successful launches of any rocket in history.
    - martin8412 3y ago
      They may have the longest streak of successful launches, but among their cavalier attitude to safety, as seen with the latest starship launch and the chief twat playing it fast and loose with his security clearance, they can't be described in any way as reliable. The FAA can halt launches for any reason. His allegiance to China and Russia certainly won't help.
      - nordsieck 3y ago
        > among their cavalier attitude to safety, as seen with the latest starship launch and the chief twat playing it fast and loose with his security clearance You do understand that Starship is still in development, right? SpaceX is well known for their "hardware rich" development process. That doesn't seem to affect their operational reliability. Not sure what you mean by "fast and loose with his security clearance". He says wacky stuff on Twitter. I'm not defending what Musk writes there, but it doesn't really have an effect on SpaceX's reliability. > The FAA can halt launches for any reason. Not sure how this is relevant. > His allegiance to China and Russia certainly won't help. I don't think I've seen anyone establish any links between him and Russia. He had that one Ukraine peace plan, which was never going to work, but that isn't really a tie to Russia. Tesla does have a plant in China. But Boeing sells tons of planes in China; I don't ever hear people asking about ULA's ties to China. Same thing with Airbus and ArianeGroup.
- tivert 3y ago
  >>> And Ariane 6 isn't competitive against SpaceX either. They've really screwed up. >> Only in the sense that everyone isn’t competitive against SpaceX. They absolutely could have done better, but the role isn’t to produce the most price competitive launch, the role was securing Europe’s launch capability. If both could be done at the same time then that’s a win but it’s not the primary goal. > You're just explaining the process by which they screwed up. No, the problem is that you're acting like you define their success criteria, when you don't. You're a rando on the internet, quarterbacking from your armchair.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    LOL. I think competing in markets is an objective criterion for success. Governments defining for themselves what success is? That's what's called a "self-licking ice cream cone". Of course one can be a success if one gets to define what success is, but stating it as baldly as that shows how ludicrous that is. Europe has totally dropped the ball here. I think they'd be well advised to just give up. They don't look like they have the attitude or desire to actually deliver a world class competitive result.
    - Angostura 3y ago
      You sound like the kind of person who believes there is no downside to (say) the US outsourcing all manufacturing and design of everything to China because it's cheaper.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        How did you get that howling non sequitur?
    - tivert 3y ago
      > LOL. I think competing in markets is an objective criterion for success. "LOL." That kind of thinking is myopic and dated. Pretty much every year from 2020 onwards had yielded high-profile new lessons about its flaws. The market doesn't optimize for some pretty important things.
hef19898 3y ago
Last time, arguably that was years ago and hard numbers are really hard to come by, for the heavy lifting, as in no re-use of rockets and higher orbits, Ariane Space and SpaceX were not that far apart. Back of the envelope calculations so, so a lot of assumptions. That being said, the advertized prices are not what customers pay for specific missions. Agree on the launch capability, that is something strategic. I just hope those European initiatives continue. And Ariane still got paying customers, so their prices cannot be that outrageous, can they?
- pfdietz 3y ago
  You may be able to find specific missions for which Ariane 5 could compete, but for the usual, bread and butter missions, like launching satellites to geostationary orbit (Ariane 5 typically launched these in pairs), SpaceX just grabbed that market. Ariane 5 could not compete there. And without volume, Ariane 5 could not be kept operating, the fixed costs would be too high.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Agree, hence Ariane 6. That being said, until SpaceX's Falcon 9(?) showed up, Ariane 5 was the go to standard. Not to bad for a rocket initially designed to launch a European space shuttle, and not conventional payload. Competion is a good thing, it drives innovation.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      Ariane 5 was to go to standard for expensive geo missions that required high reliability. Arianespace always launched more Soyuz then Ariane 5s. In the early 2000s the Proton rocket was far cheaper, but increasingly became unreliable meaning that many costumers got away from it. The Proton insurance cost was getting way to big. The Proton program was just all around mismanaged. Since with the launch monopoly in the US, the US was basically not in the market at all. There simply wasn't another option. If Soyuz was to small, then the Ariane 5 was the only game in town. Basically the Russian and the US committed suicide by stupidity and the Europeans were the only game in town. China isn't really an option geopolitically. And India and Japan large vehicle have way to low production rates, only being used for domestic stuff. Falcon 9 was already cheap but it took a while for Falcon 9 to get cadence up. And Falcon 9 was hopelessly overbooked with launches for many years ahead in most of the 2010s. So some costumers picked Ariane 5 as those were actually available.
panick21_ 3y ago
> but the role isn’t to produce the most price competitive launch Except that is of course what they promised when the Ariane 6 was authorized. The 'we need to be competitive with the Falcon 9 so we can use the international launch market to subsidize our space program' was very much a huge part why the Ariane 6 was picked over the Ariane 5 ME. So in effect Ariane Group is getting 5 billion $ to slighly evolve the Ariane 5 (with mostly things that we planned for the Ariane 5 ME). In effect, not having to relay on Sozus as much is actually closer to what Ariane 6 achieves. Having both the 62 and 64 variant will make it more flexible then Ariane 5.

pfdietz 3y ago

You're just explaining the process by which they screwed up.

wongarsu 3y ago
But it's a screw up most space launch providers are sharing, and it's one most of them will survive in the medium term for the same reason: their respective governments see more value in them than revenue and will prop them up. The more interesting question is what will happen after Ariane 6. SpaceX's lead continues to grow, and catching up would require changes to the development process not everyone seems comfortable with.
- robin_reala 3y ago
  Ariane Next’s design goals seem to be mostly “be Falcon 9”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next No-one’s trying to build a Starship at this point apart from SpaceX (leaving aside a couple of less credible Chinese attempts).
  - martin8412 3y ago
    No, the others gave up on that can of worms in the 60s.
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      Which would be quite foolish. Controlling a large number of engines was made a lot easier by about 60 years of improvements in microcontroller and sensor technology.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      I remember a NASA-connected SF author explaining at a Worldcon in Chicago that Falcon 9 wasn't going to be reliable because it had too many first stage engines. Oops.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    The Chinese Long March 9 plans, which are close to Starship, seem quite credible to me.
    - nordsieck 3y ago
      > The Chinese Long March 9 plans, which are close to Starship, seem quite credible to me. The plans for the Long March 9 change every year or so. The last time they published a design, it was a Saturn V semi-clone (with many more 1st stage engines). I'll take the Long March 9 seriously when they start showing off actual hardware.
      - sidewndr46 3y ago
        And of all the designs, it is the one with the least price transparency.
  - DylanSp 3y ago
    New Glenn has a potential path to compete with Starship eventually, with BO's work on making a reusable version of its second stage. It's years away at best, but it's arguably more than anyone else is doing.
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      On paper New Glenn looks interesting. But Blue Origin is one year older than SpaceX but with slightly fewer success stories to talk about. So far they managed 30 suborbital launches (counting all test flights); in the same time SpaceX did 240 orbital launches. New Glenn has lots of potential, but it's also really hard to get excited about.
      - DylanSp 3y ago
        Entirely fair. The main reason I bring up them as even having realistic potential is that they've built a few BE-4 engines that're ready to go on Vulcan, and I think they've been spotted building hardware for New Glenn's first stage. They've definitely got a lot of work to do, though.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Ariane Next is not a real thing yet. Its just some concepts that some of the European space agencies are playing around with. To actually build a next generation Ariane rocket they will need a huge amount of political buy-in from the ESA memeber states. And they will not get that anytime soon. The barley got the Ariane 6 over the finish line. It will be many, many years before they even seriously start an actual design process for Ariane Next.
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
Dumping boatloads of money on the MIC isn't a screwup if it's the primary intended outcome with a functioning rocket merely as a nice bonus.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  "Waiter, this soup tastes like shit." "Sir, it's the intended outcome that it tastes like shit." "Oh, I guess that must be ok then."
  - Mordisquitos 3y ago
    More like: "Waiter, this soup tastes like shit." "Sir, that is not your soup. It is a nutrient broth to satisfy another customer who has different priorities than you do." "Oh, I guess that must be ok then."
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      The point I was making that a bureaucracy choosing a goal doesn't mean that goal is a good one, or that achieving it is a positive thing.
      - Mordisquitos 3y ago
        Fair enough: "Waiter, this soup tastes like shit." "Sir, that is not your soup. It is a nutrient broth to satisfy another customer who has different priorities than you do." "Then their priorities are wrong, they should want a good tasting soup!" "Sir, I must ask you to leave."
martin8412 3y ago
The goal is not launches at the same price SpaceX charges. The goal is reliable independent launch capabilities. SpaceX is the furthest from what can be described as reliable.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > The goal is not launches at the same price SpaceX charges. That's a rationalization. When the Ariane 5 was ruling the roost, ArianeSpace absolutely wanted to maintain their market position. It's only after they've given up on that goal that the talking points have changed to "independent access to space". > SpaceX is the furthest from what can be described as reliable. Lol. The Falcon 9 has the longest streak of successful launches of any rocket in history.
  - martin8412 3y ago
    They may have the longest streak of successful launches, but among their cavalier attitude to safety, as seen with the latest starship launch and the chief twat playing it fast and loose with his security clearance, they can't be described in any way as reliable. The FAA can halt launches for any reason. His allegiance to China and Russia certainly won't help.
    - nordsieck 3y ago
      > among their cavalier attitude to safety, as seen with the latest starship launch and the chief twat playing it fast and loose with his security clearance You do understand that Starship is still in development, right? SpaceX is well known for their "hardware rich" development process. That doesn't seem to affect their operational reliability. Not sure what you mean by "fast and loose with his security clearance". He says wacky stuff on Twitter. I'm not defending what Musk writes there, but it doesn't really have an effect on SpaceX's reliability. > The FAA can halt launches for any reason. Not sure how this is relevant. > His allegiance to China and Russia certainly won't help. I don't think I've seen anyone establish any links between him and Russia. He had that one Ukraine peace plan, which was never going to work, but that isn't really a tie to Russia. Tesla does have a plant in China. But Boeing sells tons of planes in China; I don't ever hear people asking about ULA's ties to China. Same thing with Airbus and ArianeGroup.
tivert 3y ago
>>> And Ariane 6 isn't competitive against SpaceX either. They've really screwed up. >> Only in the sense that everyone isn’t competitive against SpaceX. They absolutely could have done better, but the role isn’t to produce the most price competitive launch, the role was securing Europe’s launch capability. If both could be done at the same time then that’s a win but it’s not the primary goal. > You're just explaining the process by which they screwed up. No, the problem is that you're acting like you define their success criteria, when you don't. You're a rando on the internet, quarterbacking from your armchair.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  LOL. I think competing in markets is an objective criterion for success. Governments defining for themselves what success is? That's what's called a "self-licking ice cream cone". Of course one can be a success if one gets to define what success is, but stating it as baldly as that shows how ludicrous that is. Europe has totally dropped the ball here. I think they'd be well advised to just give up. They don't look like they have the attitude or desire to actually deliver a world class competitive result.
  - Angostura 3y ago
    You sound like the kind of person who believes there is no downside to (say) the US outsourcing all manufacturing and design of everything to China because it's cheaper.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      How did you get that howling non sequitur?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > LOL. I think competing in markets is an objective criterion for success. "LOL." That kind of thinking is myopic and dated. Pretty much every year from 2020 onwards had yielded high-profile new lessons about its flaws. The market doesn't optimize for some pretty important things.

hef19898 3y ago

Last time, arguably that was years ago and hard numbers are really hard to come by, for the heavy lifting, as in no re-use of rockets and higher orbits, Ariane Space and SpaceX were not that far apart. Back of the envelope calculations so, so a lot of assumptions. That being said, the advertized prices are not what customers pay for specific missions. Agree on the launch capability, that is something strategic. I just hope those European initiatives continue. And Ariane still got paying customers, so their prices cannot be that outrageous, can they?

pfdietz 3y ago
You may be able to find specific missions for which Ariane 5 could compete, but for the usual, bread and butter missions, like launching satellites to geostationary orbit (Ariane 5 typically launched these in pairs), SpaceX just grabbed that market. Ariane 5 could not compete there. And without volume, Ariane 5 could not be kept operating, the fixed costs would be too high.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Agree, hence Ariane 6. That being said, until SpaceX's Falcon 9(?) showed up, Ariane 5 was the go to standard. Not to bad for a rocket initially designed to launch a European space shuttle, and not conventional payload. Competion is a good thing, it drives innovation.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Ariane 5 was to go to standard for expensive geo missions that required high reliability. Arianespace always launched more Soyuz then Ariane 5s. In the early 2000s the Proton rocket was far cheaper, but increasingly became unreliable meaning that many costumers got away from it. The Proton insurance cost was getting way to big. The Proton program was just all around mismanaged. Since with the launch monopoly in the US, the US was basically not in the market at all. There simply wasn't another option. If Soyuz was to small, then the Ariane 5 was the only game in town. Basically the Russian and the US committed suicide by stupidity and the Europeans were the only game in town. China isn't really an option geopolitically. And India and Japan large vehicle have way to low production rates, only being used for domestic stuff. Falcon 9 was already cheap but it took a while for Falcon 9 to get cadence up. And Falcon 9 was hopelessly overbooked with launches for many years ahead in most of the 2010s. So some costumers picked Ariane 5 as those were actually available.

panick21_ 3y ago

> but the role isn’t to produce the most price competitive launch Except that is of course what they promised when the Ariane 6 was authorized. The 'we need to be competitive with the Falcon 9 so we can use the international launch market to subsidize our space program' was very much a huge part why the Ariane 6 was picked over the Ariane 5 ME. So in effect Ariane Group is getting 5 billion $ to slighly evolve the Ariane 5 (with mostly things that we planned for the Ariane 5 ME). In effect, not having to relay on Sozus as much is actually closer to what Ariane 6 achieves. Having both the 62 and 64 variant will make it more flexible then Ariane 5.