6 ms·
I don't know how obsolete it was since it appears to have decent performance numbers even if its not lading the boosters for re-use, but its a common theme when
by mrtksn 2y ago
I don't know how obsolete it was since it appears to have decent performance numbers even if its not lading the boosters for re-use, but its a common theme when the government is involved. They like to play it safe(at least in perception) and comes with added rigidity since public funds are involved.
Even the USA has these problems, when it comes to government contracts Musk and Bezos fight over it, the Boeing swoops in etc. Can you imagine how hard it is when it involves not only multiple businesses but also multiple countries?
It works well when it has a market dominant customer base, like with Airbus, but when its the governments pushing things into existence its is usually optimised for other needs like contracts being given in such a way that stakeholders are happy.
- grecy 2y ago> I don't know how obsolete it was Launch costs will be at an absolutely minimum twice as much, likely more like 3-5x. It will only be able to launch a handful of times per year. It is literally bringing a muzzle loader to a machine gun fight.
- mrtksn 2y agoSo? Some companies in Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland and Sweden will get that money and they will train and employ people. More expensive but they don't have to ask anybody to fly this thing. You can ask Ukrainians how shitty it is when your supplier doesn't let you do things.
- usrusr 2y agoBut it isn't a fight. They want to beat the gravity well ("PvE", in video game terms), not SpaceX ("PvP"). And when they do have the capability to use their own expensive launch system in a pinch, they are free to buy launch capacity from the lowest bidder without becoming too dependent.