12 ms·

The keyword is Europe. Take Europe out of that sentence and it's completely false.

by zie 3y ago

ordu 3y ago
Ahh, I see. Thanks.
wkat4242 3y ago
We didn't invest so much into launch systems but it's not super important anyway. It's important to have some capability for things like Galileo. But Europe doesn't have the ambition for its own space station etc so the number of launches are always going to be low.
- mcv 3y ago
  Ariane 5 has done a lot of launches, including for the ISS. > But Europe doesn't have the ambition for its own space station Are you aware that the ISS is not a purely American project? Many other countries and organisations are involved, including ESA.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Another interpretation could be, we do not have ambitions to launch our very own space station.
- timeon 3y ago
  ESA is not just Galileo. Sentinel is leading platform for Earth observation.
- zie 3y ago
  I agree, IF you change the perspective, so it's keep Europe able to fly stuff into space as needed, then Ariane 5 is a great program. It's just not true that it's cheap at launching stuff into space, it's not true that it's the most successful, etc. It's WAY cheaper than the SLS, so clearly Europe isn't as bad off as America is when it comes to a national/govt launch system. I'm not trying to put Ariane 5/6 down, I'm merely saying, Ariane 5 is not the most successful program in the world to send stuff to space. Space X currently has that crown, but I'm sure eventually someone else will figure out how to do it better. Maybe not in my lifetime. NASA used to be the leader here, then ULA, now SpaceX. Maybe China or India will be next? I have no idea.
raverbashing 3y ago
"completely false" Yeah, 112 successful launches (including a couple for Nasa), but it is a complete failure Sounds like the most optimistic Eastern European opinion
- zie 3y ago
  If the sentence replaces Europe with "is the" it would read "Ariane 5 is the most successful launch system to date" That's not remotely true, see Falcon 9 for example. 282 successful missions so far and they are now running about 100 launches a year. I'm not trying to put Ariane 5 down, it's great for what it's supposed to accomplish, much like SLS is good for what it is supposed to accomplish. A govt jobs program that occasionally launches stuff into space. If your goal is launch stuff into space as cheaply as possible, they are total failures. If your goal is to create a jobs program and keep the local population capable of launching stuff to space, then they are obviously successful. Just like Ariane 6.

The keyword is Europe. Take Europe out of that sentence and it's completely false.

by zie 3y ago

The keyword is Europe. Take Europe out of that sentence and it's completely false.

ordu 3y ago

Ahh, I see. Thanks.

wkat4242 3y ago

We didn't invest so much into launch systems but it's not super important anyway. It's important to have some capability for things like Galileo. But Europe doesn't have the ambition for its own space station etc so the number of launches are always going to be low.

mcv 3y ago
Ariane 5 has done a lot of launches, including for the ISS. > But Europe doesn't have the ambition for its own space station Are you aware that the ISS is not a purely American project? Many other countries and organisations are involved, including ESA.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Another interpretation could be, we do not have ambitions to launch our very own space station.
timeon 3y ago
ESA is not just Galileo. Sentinel is leading platform for Earth observation.
zie 3y ago
I agree, IF you change the perspective, so it's keep Europe able to fly stuff into space as needed, then Ariane 5 is a great program. It's just not true that it's cheap at launching stuff into space, it's not true that it's the most successful, etc. It's WAY cheaper than the SLS, so clearly Europe isn't as bad off as America is when it comes to a national/govt launch system. I'm not trying to put Ariane 5/6 down, I'm merely saying, Ariane 5 is not the most successful program in the world to send stuff to space. Space X currently has that crown, but I'm sure eventually someone else will figure out how to do it better. Maybe not in my lifetime. NASA used to be the leader here, then ULA, now SpaceX. Maybe China or India will be next? I have no idea.

raverbashing 3y ago

"completely false" Yeah, 112 successful launches (including a couple for Nasa), but it is a complete failure Sounds like the most optimistic Eastern European opinion

zie 3y ago
If the sentence replaces Europe with "is the" it would read "Ariane 5 is the most successful launch system to date" That's not remotely true, see Falcon 9 for example. 282 successful missions so far and they are now running about 100 launches a year. I'm not trying to put Ariane 5 down, it's great for what it's supposed to accomplish, much like SLS is good for what it is supposed to accomplish. A govt jobs program that occasionally launches stuff into space. If your goal is launch stuff into space as cheaply as possible, they are total failures. If your goal is to create a jobs program and keep the local population capable of launching stuff to space, then they are obviously successful. Just like Ariane 6.