3 ms·
>>> 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
by 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 agoLOL. 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 agoYou 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 agoHow 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.