4 ms·

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 descri

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.
    - martin8412 3y ago
      Boeing defense is not the same as Boeing selling airliners. The dude smokes weed on a podcast with Joe Rogan. However silly, that is grounds for revocation of his security clearance. So is his friendly attitude towards enemies of the US. His peace plan for Ukraine came straight from the propaganda department of the Kremlin. Most likely, they'll settle for him being forced to divest his part of SpaceX.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    This is just nonsense. SpaceX has a far better saftey culture then Arianespace who regularly hid failures and deny journalist access who ask to many questions. > his security clearance One time a Boeing sponsored senator launched a fake investigation because Elon took a single (fake) hit from a joint in California. He has not played 'fast and loose' with security clearance. > they can't be described in any way as reliable Seems that the all the launch costumers, the military, NASA and the insurance industry disagree. > The FAA can halt launches for any reason. SpaceX has a really good relationship with the FAA. Thanks to SpaceX FAA is getting lots of money to expand and is reforming its internal organization. > His allegiance to China and Russia certainly won't help. Ah the fake allegiance you made up, sure. So you moved from 'having some valid points' to 'I hate Musk so I have to shit on everything related' mode.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > Lol. The Falcon 9 has the longest streak of successful launches of any rocket in history. Launch reliability is one aspect. For Europe, the possibility of SpaceX or the US itself cutting them off from access to space is one to consider in the calculus. Same reason the US is likely to still fund non-SpaceX launches/ventures, even if more expensive.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  You're missing the fact that if the NRO or similar US government needs launch capacity, the president will bump foreign commercial and government launches. Europe can't be entirely reliant on the US for launch capability. The same justification was used in the US after the Spanish American war to justify a massive expansion of US shipyard capabilities that was subsidized by contracts for US warships. It worked out well enough, by the end of WWII the US had the most capable navy in the world.
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > You're missing the fact that if the NRO or similar US government needs launch capacity, the president will bump foreign commercial and government launches. Given the reality of SpaceX's launch schedule, probably not. Unless someone in Europe wanted 40 extra launches a year or something. SpaceX has shown a willingness to sacrifice Starlink launches for paying customers. But from a more philosophical standpoint, I do think that Europe is correct to maintain an independent launch capability.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      SpaceX has redefined what it means to "have a launch capability." They will redefine it even more if Starship succeeds. If the US ends up putting tens of thousands of tonnes into space yearly, build large structures there, will Europe consider the ability to launch a few satellites enough?
  - signatoremo 3y ago
    SpaceX launches every 3 to 4 days. There has been no shortage of F9 for a long time. Also, the majority of SpaceX’s launches are for Starlink, not US’s government. SpaceX would gladly bump those launches for paying customers. The Euclid mission that occurred last week was only booked in December 2022, extremely short lead time for a commercial launch. Independent space launch capability isn’t an issue. Clinging to obsolete technologies is. Ariane 6 was still on the drawing board when F9 landed for the 1st time. Since then F9 has landed consecutively - yes landing - more times than consecutive launches of any other rockets. Almost twice the number for Ariane 5. All occurred in the last 7 years, compare to 30 years for Ariane 5. Yet Europe refuse to revise the design. Now they are looking at a design that wouldn’t be competitive with F9, a decade later.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Indeed. If maintaining independent access to space were the goal, they could have just kept building Ariane 5. So obviously that wasn't the goal driving the decision to build Ariane 6.

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.
  - martin8412 3y ago
    Boeing defense is not the same as Boeing selling airliners. The dude smokes weed on a podcast with Joe Rogan. However silly, that is grounds for revocation of his security clearance. So is his friendly attitude towards enemies of the US. His peace plan for Ukraine came straight from the propaganda department of the Kremlin. Most likely, they'll settle for him being forced to divest his part of SpaceX.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  This is just nonsense. SpaceX has a far better saftey culture then Arianespace who regularly hid failures and deny journalist access who ask to many questions. > his security clearance One time a Boeing sponsored senator launched a fake investigation because Elon took a single (fake) hit from a joint in California. He has not played 'fast and loose' with security clearance. > they can't be described in any way as reliable Seems that the all the launch costumers, the military, NASA and the insurance industry disagree. > The FAA can halt launches for any reason. SpaceX has a really good relationship with the FAA. Thanks to SpaceX FAA is getting lots of money to expand and is reforming its internal organization. > His allegiance to China and Russia certainly won't help. Ah the fake allegiance you made up, sure. So you moved from 'having some valid points' to 'I hate Musk so I have to shit on everything related' mode.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> Lol. The Falcon 9 has the longest streak of successful launches of any rocket in history. Launch reliability is one aspect. For Europe, the possibility of SpaceX or the US itself cutting them off from access to space is one to consider in the calculus. Same reason the US is likely to still fund non-SpaceX launches/ventures, even if more expensive.
sidewndr46 3y ago
You're missing the fact that if the NRO or similar US government needs launch capacity, the president will bump foreign commercial and government launches. Europe can't be entirely reliant on the US for launch capability. The same justification was used in the US after the Spanish American war to justify a massive expansion of US shipyard capabilities that was subsidized by contracts for US warships. It worked out well enough, by the end of WWII the US had the most capable navy in the world.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > You're missing the fact that if the NRO or similar US government needs launch capacity, the president will bump foreign commercial and government launches. Given the reality of SpaceX's launch schedule, probably not. Unless someone in Europe wanted 40 extra launches a year or something. SpaceX has shown a willingness to sacrifice Starlink launches for paying customers. But from a more philosophical standpoint, I do think that Europe is correct to maintain an independent launch capability.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    SpaceX has redefined what it means to "have a launch capability." They will redefine it even more if Starship succeeds. If the US ends up putting tens of thousands of tonnes into space yearly, build large structures there, will Europe consider the ability to launch a few satellites enough?
- signatoremo 3y ago
  SpaceX launches every 3 to 4 days. There has been no shortage of F9 for a long time. Also, the majority of SpaceX’s launches are for Starlink, not US’s government. SpaceX would gladly bump those launches for paying customers. The Euclid mission that occurred last week was only booked in December 2022, extremely short lead time for a commercial launch. Independent space launch capability isn’t an issue. Clinging to obsolete technologies is. Ariane 6 was still on the drawing board when F9 landed for the 1st time. Since then F9 has landed consecutively - yes landing - more times than consecutive launches of any other rockets. Almost twice the number for Ariane 5. All occurred in the last 7 years, compare to 30 years for Ariane 5. Yet Europe refuse to revise the design. Now they are looking at a design that wouldn’t be competitive with F9, a decade later.
pfdietz 3y ago
Indeed. If maintaining independent access to space were the goal, they could have just kept building Ariane 5. So obviously that wasn't the goal driving the decision to build Ariane 6.