3 ms·

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

by 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
The only missions where Ariane 5 had even a shot at competing was if you have the perfect set of costumers want to launch 1 big and 1 'small' GEO sat. But even in that case, dedicated launching was cheaper. This dual launching was also a huge cost on Arianespace and its costumers. Waiting for both sats to be ready was a huge problem. And increasing as SpaceX came up, finding that set of costumers got harder and harder. So it wasn't a defend-able niche. > And Ariane still got paying customers, so their prices cannot be that outrageous, can they? Ariane has always launched more Sozus then Ariane 5. Vega is mostly used for non-commercial stuff. Ariane 6 has received large commercial contract from Amazon. The reason for this is that Amazon needs basically every single available heavy launch vehicle in the next 5 years to be legally complaint for their sat internet. Before that Ariane 6 did have lots of issue, already complaining that their manifast was not allowing them to set up the necessary production. In a purely commercial competition, an Ariane 6 is like 50% more expensive compared to SpaceX Falcon 9. And likely more in many cases. That isn't 'outrageous' but it isn't good either. The Ariane 5 was 2-3x as expensive. I also believe that on those prices Ariane Group isn't making much money, while SpaceX just set such as high price because they can.

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

The only missions where Ariane 5 had even a shot at competing was if you have the perfect set of costumers want to launch 1 big and 1 'small' GEO sat. But even in that case, dedicated launching was cheaper. This dual launching was also a huge cost on Arianespace and its costumers. Waiting for both sats to be ready was a huge problem. And increasing as SpaceX came up, finding that set of costumers got harder and harder. So it wasn't a defend-able niche. > And Ariane still got paying customers, so their prices cannot be that outrageous, can they? Ariane has always launched more Sozus then Ariane 5. Vega is mostly used for non-commercial stuff. Ariane 6 has received large commercial contract from Amazon. The reason for this is that Amazon needs basically every single available heavy launch vehicle in the next 5 years to be legally complaint for their sat internet. Before that Ariane 6 did have lots of issue, already complaining that their manifast was not allowing them to set up the necessary production. In a purely commercial competition, an Ariane 6 is like 50% more expensive compared to SpaceX Falcon 9. And likely more in many cases. That isn't 'outrageous' but it isn't good either. The Ariane 5 was 2-3x as expensive. I also believe that on those prices Ariane Group isn't making much money, while SpaceX just set such as high price because they can.