6 ms·

That'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

by GuB-42 3y ago

That'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.

jacquesm 3y ago
The big difference is that ESA is essentially a government entity, much like NASA. To compare NASA and SpaceX would fail for much the same reasons, they are simply not the same kind of entity. As far as I know NASA currently doesn't have any launch capability of their own, it is all through commercial suppliers.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  Also looking at the recent article about internal ESA issues, it seems that it is very corrupted by the lack of external control (being exteritorial corporation) and two tier "caste" system. I'm imagining a fossilized organization, where higher caste is busy engaged in the internal politics, securing their positions and preventing lower caste to gaining any benefits, suppressing any good ideas from the lower rank employees to prevent them showing you are not good enough. Not saying that all them are like that, but even some significant amount can grind whole company to a halt. Throw in malicious compliance, bureaucracy etc. and we have a picture.
  - Wytwwww 3y ago
    Sounds quite a bit like the EU itself.
    - Yizahi 3y ago
      Unfortunately very similar, yes.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > The big difference is that ESA is essentially a government entity, much like NASA The relationship between ESA and Arianespace is not necessarily that fundamentally different to that of NASA and SpaceX. Arianespace is only partially state owned (it's a join venture of two publicaclly traded companies) and in some ways it was the SpaceX of the 80s and 90s.Ariane 4 was very competitive and at some point had the majority of the commercial satellite launch market. Of course like the rest of Europe stagnation has set in and it was left behind over the last 10-20 years.
  - ahartmetz 3y ago
    Note that an approach similar to Arianespace has worked quite well in the past, you have probably heard of it: Airbus. Imagine a world without SpaceX: Arianespace would be considered quite successful. I wouldn't say that Arianespace is weak (relative to the rest of the competition) - it's just that SpaceX is very strong. Note that they are with... some? success trying to greatly reduce costs as a response to SpaceX. Have you heard of any other launcher company trying that recently?
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > Arianespace has worked quite well in the past, you have probably heard of it: Airbus Airbus owns 50% of Arianespace so it makes sense. > Have you heard of any other launcher company trying that recently? I guess the issue is that it's such a big market and there isn't a lot of competition and everything is partially or mostly subsidized by governments (through NASA or ESA) how all have their own agendas which introduces a massive amount of inefficiencies. It's not like Ariane 6 would have ever been developed for entirely commercial purposes.
someperson 3y ago
People regularly forget the distant second private rocket company after SpaceX is Rocket Lab, with no one else close. Blue Origin is almost completely irrelevant. Jeff Bezos may buy United Launch Alliance, but it likely won't help given Blue Origin's abysmal track record. Amazon's Project Kuiper (the Starlink competitor) has no affordable launch provider since they're avoiding SpaceX, so it's also dead in the water.
- chasd00 3y ago
  What happened at blue origin? Is it just a hobby and not a business?
  - jwells89 3y ago
    While I can’t confirm since I haven’t worked there and am not in the industry, I’ve read that one of the biggest issues Blue Origin is dealing with is trouble with retaining talent. One article I read couple years back called it a revolving door if I recall correctly. If that’s true there’s likely major managerial or structural issues that are gumming things up.
    - oh_sigh 3y ago
      Sounds just like some of Jeff's other ventures
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - dmd 3y ago
    Lots of people aren’t aware that Blue Origin hasn’t had even one launch to orbit yet. Or even a failed attempt. They literally haven’t left the starting line yet.
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      And that they were founded before SpaceX. It really emphasizes that space remains an extremely difficult industry, which makes all the recent progress even more exciting.
hankman86 3y ago
The US government keeps funding SpaceX through a number military and civilian contracts. Not to mention the in kind support that SpaceX receives from NASA. Arianespace does not get as many publicly funded contracts that would pay for expensive R&D programs. Also, nobody outside of SpaceX really knows how much their reusable first stages really saves them. That’s especially true for the Falcon Heavy (which is comparable to the Ariane 6) where the center stage does not / cannot be reused.
- ChickeNES 3y ago
  Hmm? The center stage can definitely be reused, they just lost two (one on landing, one in transit on the drone ship) and had multiple missions that needed the extra performance from expending the core.
- darknavi 3y ago
  It would be great to see the stats. The fact that they are actually reusing them (up to 18 times on their most used booster core!) probably says it makes economic sense.
- grecy 3y ago
  > The US government keeps funding SpaceX through a number military and civilian contracts The US government "funds" SpaceX in the same way you fund Apple when you buy an iPhone or Shell when you buy gas. They are a customer, they pay for a product/service. They are not giving money for free just to keep them afloat.
  - capableweb 3y ago
    > The US government "funds" SpaceX in the same way you fund Apple when you buy an iPhone or Shell when you buy gas. It's a bit different. Without the US gov as a early customer taking lots of risk, they company wouldn't exist. Apple or Shell wouldn't change even if 100,000 customers decided not to buy their products/service anymore. > The first two Falcon 1 launches were purchased by the United States Department of Defense under a program that evaluates new US launch vehicles suitable for use by DARPA. The first three launches of the rocket, between 2006 and 2008, all resulted in failures, which almost ended the company. Financing for Tesla Motors had failed, as well, and consequently Tesla, SolarCity, and Musk personally were all nearly bankrupt at the same time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#2005%E2%80%932009:_Falcon_1_and_first_orbital_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#2005%E2%80%932009:_Falc...
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
> I suspect that the US gave a heavy push to SpaceX I think they just gave contracts, not any grants or funding. And they got contract after successful test flight of falcon 9 afaik. I would hardly consider this heavy.
- GuB-42 3y ago
  It was the Falcon 1, a small rocket with a single Merlin engine on its first stage. The Falcon 9 is a serious rocket with 9 on the same engine (hence the name) which came later. As for the contract, it was a $1.6B contract, not small. And sure, it wasn't a grant, something was expected in return, but in practice, it was essentially the same, SpaceX wouldn't have been able to survive without it, and grant or contract, had they missed the chance, it would have been the end. Also, the US regularly gives new contracts to SpaceX, and I suspect at an inflated price compared to purely commercial launches. In theory, these are not subsidies, but in practice, I can't imagine NASA and the US government not do anything in their power to keep SpaceX healthy as they don't have anything better by far.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    I am not saying SpaceX would definitely have survived without government, but just disagreeing on the "heavy push" part if it just done for mutual benefit. Government only works with SpaceX because it is cheaper or better, not because they want SpaceX to succeed.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      Would they be as eager to work with a non American company which could offer the same price etc.? Even an European one? Highly unlikely..
      - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
        They used to use Russian rockets as well just few years back because it was cheaper[1], even though US has an more expensive replacement. I don't see any reason why US won't opt for europe's rocket if it means better cost. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/5674744/how-nasa-became-utterly-dependent-on-russia-for-space-travel https://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/5674744/how-nasa-became-utterly...
raverbashing 3y ago
Yeah SpaceX is the exception here The other US competitors are kinda behind as well, see the ULA Vulcan, or non-existent So yeah it's not about being the cheapest, it's about having the capability
the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
Politics on a very fundamental level is creating this competition. That’s even the whole premise of “All of Mankind” and the historic Space Race. It’s irrelevant if it’s for political reasons or capitalistic ones, competition beats no competition.

by GuB-42 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago

The big difference is that ESA is essentially a government entity, much like NASA. To compare NASA and SpaceX would fail for much the same reasons, they are simply not the same kind of entity. As far as I know NASA currently doesn't have any launch capability of their own, it is all through commercial suppliers.

Yizahi 3y ago
Also looking at the recent article about internal ESA issues, it seems that it is very corrupted by the lack of external control (being exteritorial corporation) and two tier "caste" system. I'm imagining a fossilized organization, where higher caste is busy engaged in the internal politics, securing their positions and preventing lower caste to gaining any benefits, suppressing any good ideas from the lower rank employees to prevent them showing you are not good enough. Not saying that all them are like that, but even some significant amount can grind whole company to a halt. Throw in malicious compliance, bureaucracy etc. and we have a picture.
- Wytwwww 3y ago
  Sounds quite a bit like the EU itself.
  - Yizahi 3y ago
    Unfortunately very similar, yes.
qwytw 3y ago
> The big difference is that ESA is essentially a government entity, much like NASA The relationship between ESA and Arianespace is not necessarily that fundamentally different to that of NASA and SpaceX. Arianespace is only partially state owned (it's a join venture of two publicaclly traded companies) and in some ways it was the SpaceX of the 80s and 90s.Ariane 4 was very competitive and at some point had the majority of the commercial satellite launch market. Of course like the rest of Europe stagnation has set in and it was left behind over the last 10-20 years.
- ahartmetz 3y ago
  Note that an approach similar to Arianespace has worked quite well in the past, you have probably heard of it: Airbus. Imagine a world without SpaceX: Arianespace would be considered quite successful. I wouldn't say that Arianespace is weak (relative to the rest of the competition) - it's just that SpaceX is very strong. Note that they are with... some? success trying to greatly reduce costs as a response to SpaceX. Have you heard of any other launcher company trying that recently?
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > Arianespace has worked quite well in the past, you have probably heard of it: Airbus Airbus owns 50% of Arianespace so it makes sense. > Have you heard of any other launcher company trying that recently? I guess the issue is that it's such a big market and there isn't a lot of competition and everything is partially or mostly subsidized by governments (through NASA or ESA) how all have their own agendas which introduces a massive amount of inefficiencies. It's not like Ariane 6 would have ever been developed for entirely commercial purposes.

someperson 3y ago

People regularly forget the distant second private rocket company after SpaceX is Rocket Lab, with no one else close. Blue Origin is almost completely irrelevant. Jeff Bezos may buy United Launch Alliance, but it likely won't help given Blue Origin's abysmal track record. Amazon's Project Kuiper (the Starlink competitor) has no affordable launch provider since they're avoiding SpaceX, so it's also dead in the water.

chasd00 3y ago
What happened at blue origin? Is it just a hobby and not a business?
- jwells89 3y ago
  While I can’t confirm since I haven’t worked there and am not in the industry, I’ve read that one of the biggest issues Blue Origin is dealing with is trouble with retaining talent. One article I read couple years back called it a revolving door if I recall correctly. If that’s true there’s likely major managerial or structural issues that are gumming things up.
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    Sounds just like some of Jeff's other ventures
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- dmd 3y ago
  Lots of people aren’t aware that Blue Origin hasn’t had even one launch to orbit yet. Or even a failed attempt. They literally haven’t left the starting line yet.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    And that they were founded before SpaceX. It really emphasizes that space remains an extremely difficult industry, which makes all the recent progress even more exciting.

hankman86 3y ago

The US government keeps funding SpaceX through a number military and civilian contracts. Not to mention the in kind support that SpaceX receives from NASA. Arianespace does not get as many publicly funded contracts that would pay for expensive R&D programs. Also, nobody outside of SpaceX really knows how much their reusable first stages really saves them. That’s especially true for the Falcon Heavy (which is comparable to the Ariane 6) where the center stage does not / cannot be reused.

ChickeNES 3y ago
Hmm? The center stage can definitely be reused, they just lost two (one on landing, one in transit on the drone ship) and had multiple missions that needed the extra performance from expending the core.
darknavi 3y ago
It would be great to see the stats. The fact that they are actually reusing them (up to 18 times on their most used booster core!) probably says it makes economic sense.
grecy 3y ago
> The US government keeps funding SpaceX through a number military and civilian contracts The US government "funds" SpaceX in the same way you fund Apple when you buy an iPhone or Shell when you buy gas. They are a customer, they pay for a product/service. They are not giving money for free just to keep them afloat.
- capableweb 3y ago
  > The US government "funds" SpaceX in the same way you fund Apple when you buy an iPhone or Shell when you buy gas. It's a bit different. Without the US gov as a early customer taking lots of risk, they company wouldn't exist. Apple or Shell wouldn't change even if 100,000 customers decided not to buy their products/service anymore. > The first two Falcon 1 launches were purchased by the United States Department of Defense under a program that evaluates new US launch vehicles suitable for use by DARPA. The first three launches of the rocket, between 2006 and 2008, all resulted in failures, which almost ended the company. Financing for Tesla Motors had failed, as well, and consequently Tesla, SolarCity, and Musk personally were all nearly bankrupt at the same time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#2005%E2%80%932009:_Falcon_1_and_first_orbital_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#2005%E2%80%932009:_Falc...

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

> I suspect that the US gave a heavy push to SpaceX I think they just gave contracts, not any grants or funding. And they got contract after successful test flight of falcon 9 afaik. I would hardly consider this heavy.

GuB-42 3y ago
It was the Falcon 1, a small rocket with a single Merlin engine on its first stage. The Falcon 9 is a serious rocket with 9 on the same engine (hence the name) which came later. As for the contract, it was a $1.6B contract, not small. And sure, it wasn't a grant, something was expected in return, but in practice, it was essentially the same, SpaceX wouldn't have been able to survive without it, and grant or contract, had they missed the chance, it would have been the end. Also, the US regularly gives new contracts to SpaceX, and I suspect at an inflated price compared to purely commercial launches. In theory, these are not subsidies, but in practice, I can't imagine NASA and the US government not do anything in their power to keep SpaceX healthy as they don't have anything better by far.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  I am not saying SpaceX would definitely have survived without government, but just disagreeing on the "heavy push" part if it just done for mutual benefit. Government only works with SpaceX because it is cheaper or better, not because they want SpaceX to succeed.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    Would they be as eager to work with a non American company which could offer the same price etc.? Even an European one? Highly unlikely..
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      They used to use Russian rockets as well just few years back because it was cheaper[1], even though US has an more expensive replacement. I don't see any reason why US won't opt for europe's rocket if it means better cost. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/5674744/how-nasa-became-utterly-dependent-on-russia-for-space-travel https://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/5674744/how-nasa-became-utterly...

raverbashing 3y ago

Yeah SpaceX is the exception here The other US competitors are kinda behind as well, see the ULA Vulcan, or non-existent So yeah it's not about being the cheapest, it's about having the capability

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago

Politics on a very fundamental level is creating this competition. That’s even the whole premise of “All of Mankind” and the historic Space Race. It’s irrelevant if it’s for political reasons or capitalistic ones, competition beats no competition.