11 ms·
ESA’s new Ariane 6 rocket passed a major full-scale rehearsal
- alfredpawney 3y agoBut how many more decades until ESA finally has a launch vehicle stack with a fully reusable first stage? It’s like theyre still living in the 70s.
- mschuster91 3y agoMany more. ESA is still stuck in the dark ages where anything space is primarily used as pork to distribute funds across the EU.
- api 3y agoWhen pork distribution is the purpose inefficiency is a feature not a bug.
- sho_hn 3y agoESA has made some amazing contributions to probe and robotic missions. I really wish Europeans weren't always so cynical about the agency; some positive attention might do a lot to light the fire, too.
- alfredpawney 3y agoThats a good point and it would be nice if humanity could divide and conquer responsibilitys in a more effective way. I mean It would be nice if Europe would specialize in deep space vehicles if this is what their best at. They could allow SpaceX and the Chinese to compete for the Earth/Mars ship & cycler market, while Europe could step one step further distant. and become the king of ultra-long-haul journeys such as between Jupiter’s moons, the asteroids, etc. Eventually this could culminate in Europe leading the creation of modern, state of the art new vehicles to run the Grand Tour and go so fast they outrace the Voyagers. ..Somewhere in these paragraphs I totaly forgot to make a good pun about ruling Europa
- sho_hn 3y ago> and become the king of ultra-long-haul journeys In terms of "looking far away", Euclid is pretty amazing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_(spacecraft)
- alfredpawney 3y agoIncredible
- mschuster91 3y ago> I really wish Europeans weren't always so cynical about the agency It's hard to be anything else but that given the colossal failures of so many so expensive European projects. So much inefficiency and waste just because we can't get our shit together. We try to be a second USA, but we lack the willpower to do so - we have no clear, democratically backed European leadership (just look into how von der Leyen got into office!), the leadership that we do have is 90% incompetent duds that were shifted off to Brussels because their host countries wanted to get rid of them, the parliament can't even submit own proposals for laws, and the EU barely has any federal tax income so its budget is almost exclusively member state contributions and debt. On top of that, many countries choose to propose highly unpopular laws in Brussels, get them passed there, and blame "the EU" when local voters get enraged.
- wkat4242 3y agoWell when you want to look at the absolute maximum waste of resources just look at SLS. It's just government space that's inefficient. This is not limited to Europe. And I personally don't want us to be a second USA. I don't want that high level of crime and social inequality, low level of social welfare etc. Extreme prices of medical care in the US. Ubiquitous firearms. Here we do care about the climate, about privacy, work-life balance (holidays) and so many other things the US doesn't care about. The US measures everything in money. We don't. Quality of life is not about who produces the most billionaires. The EU is not a great institution I have to admit but I wouldn't trade it for the US. Here I just go to the doctor when I'm sick and I don't have to even whip out my wallet. Von der Leyen is not the sharpest tool but EU presidents are chosen to be the least offensive to everyone's national interests, not to be some strongman leader. I'd much rather have her in that position than someone like Trump. We don't have a political system trying to tear itself apart. We're doing just great and launch capability is a tiny rounding error in the equation of what being in the EU means to citizens. It's like Africa laughing at us because we're so inefficient at producing bananas. Sure if you ignore literally everything else it looks like they're better.
- guappa 3y agoI thought von der leyen was picked to be the most offensive to all of southern europe? Anyway, there is no such thing as president of the eu.
- dmix 3y agoChina already ditched their plans for expendable super heavy lift and doubled down on copying Starship after the success of Falcon Heavy. At least long term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March_9 I guess there’s still a lot of legacy gov backed ones with full sunk cost dynamics in the short term. Although I admittedly don’t have much knowledge of the business side.
- hankman86 3y agoNobody except SpaceX has developed reusable rocket stages, including other US-based aerospace companies. And it is very unclear how much SpaceX really saves in launch costs.
- resolutebat 3y agoSpaceX has already reused some Falcons 16 times. They're aiming for 20 and Elon, being Elon, thinks they can do 100x. At this point, the biggest expense will be fuel.
- dmoy 3y agoHow much cost is there to get a reused stage ready for the next flight? E.g. where does it land on the scale from "replace 30% of the parts due to wear and tear, and do a full disassembly reassembly, saving only 5% of the cost of the booster" to "full up the gas tank like a car and yolo the next ride"? All I know if is the one tweet from musk years ago that said 90% savings. But ... musk tweets a lot of bullshit so idk
- cratermoon 3y agoFor all we know, SpaceX could be taking a page of out Amazon's book and undercutting competitors while losing money and sustaining it long enough to monopolize the market. Then they raise prices.
- pixl97 3y agoAlmost all of spaceXs launches are to launch their own sats. Simply put if their costs were as high as other providers they couldn't afford to do it. Other providers costs are out of control.
- BurningFrog 3y agoThat story had been told forever. First time over heard it about Amazon.
- sho_hn 3y ago> But how many more decades until ESA finally has a launch vehicle stack with a fully reusable first stage? It’s like theyre still living in the 70s. Note that NASA also doesn't have one: It only has SpaceX'. Europe has a fair number of private rocket startups, e.g. Isar, Orbex, RFA ... some have seen government investments. We'll see if/when ESA becomes one of their customers.
- Octoth0rpe 3y ago> Note that NASA also doesn't have one: It only has SpaceX'. Another way of saying this is that SpaceX is a contractor; which means that both NASA and the ESA 'own' the same # of reusable rockets (zero), and have the ability to purchase the same number of reusable rockets from the industry (one, from spaceX).
- foreverobama 3y ago[dead]
- pelorat 3y agoArianespace cannot afford to experiment like SpaceX can, hence they take their time to make sure the first launch will be a customer launch that has a high likelihood of being successful.
- DrNosferatu 3y agoIs there a video?
- Choco31415 3y agoYes there is! Ariane 6 full stage engine hot-fire test https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HGoQhepVUio https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HGoQhepVUio
- the_mitsuhiko 3y agoYes. https://x.com/esa/status/1727773869702856901?s=46&t=xvVku2nNB5qI0ZzjVKuITw https://x.com/esa/status/1727773869702856901?s=46&t=xvVku2nN...
- the_mitsuhiko 3y agoIt’s unfortunate that Ariane 6 already has no realistic chance of being price competitive with Space X. However it’s great that they are doing something still as competition is what will push us forward.
- janc_ 3y agothere might be circumstances where it is price competitive in the market (certainly when launched from Kourou vs. the US).
- asadotzler 3y agoI don't think so. ArianeSpace's best price for an Ariane 6 launch, with all the subsidies applied, is gonna be around $75 million, maybe more. SpaceX's sticker is $67 million for Falcon 9 and they've been known to come down $10 million or even more to win an important contract (while still preserving fairly healthy profit margins). I don't think there is a single case where a customer would pick Ariane 6 over Falcon 9 except for political reasons.
- rq1 3y agoAnd your prices don’t even take into account the difference in payloads. (Favorable to Falcon) The price/kg is 3-4x higher for Ariane.
- janc_ 3y agoThere is also launch windows etc. Not everyone can or wants to wait forever. And IIRC Ariane 6 can also bring up somewhat heavier payloads because they launch from closer to the equator?
- GuB-42 3y agoThat's not the point, even if they would like to of course. The main point is for Europe to have launch capabilities and maintain their skills. That's also the reason why ESA is so inefficient, they are here mostly because of politics. If it wasn't for that, they would have used US, Russian or Chinese rockets. I suspect that the US gave a heavy push to SpaceX (they saved them from bankruptcy in the early days) because they were in the same situation with NASA. SpaceX was their chance, and they took it, they are also keeping an eye on Blue Origin, because who knows what will happen next.
- neverrroot 3y agoGood backup plan for the Europeans, maybe also good as a competition. But is it really a competition? In what areas?
- mr_toad 3y agoWhy did they go with a hydrolox first stage when they’re not even using the same engines as the second stage? Same reason as the SLS?
- perihelions 3y agoOne major reason is that they're a good fit with solid-rocket boosters. The Ariane rocket family SRB's have commonality with the French SLBM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_(missile) - "The three-stage engine of the M51 is directly derived from the solid propellant boosters of Ariane 5."
- lmm 3y ago> they're a good fit with solid-rocket boosters What? Why/how?
- dotancohen 3y agoHydrolox engines have very high ISP, but lack thrust at liftoff. Due to the low density of hydrogen, they require huge tanks that are as wide as possible, to reduce surface area and thus boil off. SRBs work well with wide first stages as that affords strong mounting points. And they provide significant thrust for liftoff.
- raverbashing 3y agoYeah I wonder how much "tying down" the test required, or if the engine alone is insufficient to make it fly (but still, if you make it too light it might wobble too much, etc). The SRBs are certainly fire and forget but I'm not sure how the ratio of SRBs/Main engine thrust are compared with something like the Space Shuttle
- Manuel_D 3y agoLiquid hydrogen has better energy density by mass than alternatives. Density by volume isn't as good, which makes hydrocarbons a better choice usually. But if a lightweight fuel container can be made, it's the more optimal choice.
- ordu 3y ago> which made Ariane 5 Europe's most successful launch system to date Not for a holywar but to enhance my educatedness: in what sense Ariane 5 is the most succesful? Low failure rate?
- cratermoon 3y agoWhat other launch systems does Europe have? Or had, in history? Oh, Soviet Union/Russia doesn't count as Europe in this context, just ESA countries. The author probably should have been more specific.
- ffgjgf1 3y agoAriane 4 and preceding versions? There was also the Tsyklon series (mix between Soviet and European tech). > should have been more specific Why? When someone says “America” without specifying anything it’s usually perfectly obvious they are talking about the US. Same applies to Europe and the EU(+associates) these days.
- weinzierl 3y agoI worked on the Ariane 5 during the transition from Ariane 4 to 5. Back then many did not like the Ariane 5 design. The Ariane 5 was originally meant as a carrier for the European Space Shuttle competitor Hermes and repurposing it for commercial payload launches involved many compromises. When the last remaining Ariane 4 had launched I asked one of my senior colleagues why we wouldn't just build a couple more of them. I was told that this was not realistic because for one, parts were built in batches and you could not just produce a few and for another many of the companies that were involved did not even exist anymore. Regardless if that is true, the last Ariane 4 launched 20 years ago so it is certainly a rocket of a long gone past.
- panick21_ 3y agoIn my opinion Ariane 5 was way overbuilt. This forced it into a niche and lead to it being not at all dominant. It speaks volumes how much ESA was reliant on Soyuz. Europe should have built an Ariane 4 replacement, using Kerolox as the base fuel.
- solarkraft 3y agoCongratulations! Hope they manage to land it as well.