4 ms·
> It’s unfortunate that Ariane 6 already has no realistic chance of being price competitive with Space X The difference between the two looks a lot smaller whe
by Octoth0rpe 3y ago
> It’s unfortunate that Ariane 6 already has no realistic chance of being price competitive with Space X
The difference between the two looks a lot smaller when one considers the total price including the payload.
800M satellite + 75M for an Ariane 6 versus 800M satellite + 65M for a Falcon is, well, not quite a rounding error, but probably within the acceptable margin for keeping it in the European family for many projects.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y agoFalcon 9 payload is way more than that of Ariane 6. Ariane 62 (smaller variant, the one which costs 75M) has an LEO delivery capacity of ~10,000kg. Falcon 9 has a fully expended capacity of ~23,000kg and a reusable capacity of ~19,000 kg. Cost per kg on Ariane is unfortunately going to be more than double Falcon 9.
- manquer 3y agoShouldn't we be comparing Ariane 6 with Starship not falcon 9? Starship is in similar stage of development and by the time A6 comes online it will compete with Starship not falcon .
- AdamJacobMuller 3y agoThat's difficult since I don't think anyone at SpaceX has talked about Starship launch costs and it's even more difficult because the comparison will be even worse for Ariane.
- solarkraft 3y agoWell, Elon has been making crazy claims, of course. "Orders of magnitude" and so on.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y agoFor Falcon 9, the costs and payloads aren't just claims. You can go to SpaceX today and buy a flight. For Starship, it's an in-development rocket with a focus on novel technology as well as cost engineering. Orders of magnitude cheaper is a great goal but it's impossible to know if or when SpaceX can achieve it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- justrealist 3y ago$800mm is going to be a very hyperspecialized satellite. Normal weather or comms satellite is more like $200-$300mm.