3 ms·

> So, it may be a bit expensive but in the end you get a rocket, They already had a rocket. It was called Ariane 5 and it was being evolved into Ariane 5 ME (t

> So, it may be a bit expensive but in the end you get a rocket, They already had a rocket. It was called Ariane 5 and it was being evolved into Ariane 5 ME (that where Ariane 6 got its upper stage engine from). > a workforce who knows how to design and build rockets Instead of designing a new rocket that is essentially a minimal upgrade of the existing design, you actually get a workforce who knows how to design an actual modern rocket. Not a design that is inspired by Space Shuttle. > therefore a local solution must be developed even if its not the most cost effective ... they already had a local solution. > It also must help train and retain local talent and distribute funds to participating parties. You can do that by investing in future technology, not minimal upgrades over existing technology. The reality is simply. It will require 50+ launches for Ariane 6 to be worth it and likely more. And launches that were subsidized, like those they sold to Amazon don't really count. So the reality is, they could have continue Ariane 5 for a few more years, put some of the lighter payloads on commercial US rockets. And then invest those 5-6 billion $ into an actual modern rocket design. As it stands, with Ariane 6 Europe is now stuck with a 80s rocket design until likely 2040.

mrtksn 2y ago
What makes you think that this is old technology? That the boosters don't land upright for re-use?
- panick21_ 2y ago
  There is a reason not a single modern commercial rocket startup uses a hydrolox core, solid boosters and a hydrogen upper stage. Late staging makes it impossible to ever develop real re-usability. The first stage engine, is very old and very expensive and slow to build. Its a gas-generator and not a very well optimized one. Solids are simply not competitive and only used by government launchers. Its an architecture that goes back to the Post-Apollo area. The believe in hydorgen fuel and solids is inspired by the Shuttle. Ariane 5 was literally design for a Shuttle clone type system. The Upper stage, while having an amazing modern engine (20 years in development), is actually just terrible in terms of structural design and is getting out-performed massively by Vulcan 5, Falcon 9 Upper stage and new entrance like Neutron. The system requires 3 different types of propulsion systems and all of them in low volume. Yeah why would that not be efficient. SpaceX on the other hand only uses two variants of the same engine. Despite re-usability that engine gets produced in high volumes. So for each $ invested in better engines, SpaceX improves its whole stack. Arianespace needs to optimize 3 radically different engine system to improve its whole stack. This partially explains why SpaceX radically out innovated Arianespace even in the same rocket generation. Go look at what the French Space agency proposed for their 'Ariane Next' design only a few years after Ariane 6 was agree on. It was basically a Falcon 9 design. Think of the Ariane 6 design like a WW1 bi-plane design evolved for use early in WW2 and we are now already going into post WW2 war jet fighters with systems like Starship/Raptor.
  - rurban 2y ago
    > Its an architecture that goes back to the Post-Apollo area. The believe in hydorgen fuel and solids is inspired by the Shuttle. Ariane 5 was literally design for a Shuttle clone type system. The solid rockets were demanded by military only. The Germans then in control at NASA (Apollo) said what a stupid idea, Lyndon Johnson fired all of them, moved to Houston, and thus the Shuttle desaster began. The Ariane design is also for military usage mostly.

mrtksn 2y ago

What makes you think that this is old technology? That the boosters don't land upright for re-use?

panick21_ 2y ago
There is a reason not a single modern commercial rocket startup uses a hydrolox core, solid boosters and a hydrogen upper stage. Late staging makes it impossible to ever develop real re-usability. The first stage engine, is very old and very expensive and slow to build. Its a gas-generator and not a very well optimized one. Solids are simply not competitive and only used by government launchers. Its an architecture that goes back to the Post-Apollo area. The believe in hydorgen fuel and solids is inspired by the Shuttle. Ariane 5 was literally design for a Shuttle clone type system. The Upper stage, while having an amazing modern engine (20 years in development), is actually just terrible in terms of structural design and is getting out-performed massively by Vulcan 5, Falcon 9 Upper stage and new entrance like Neutron. The system requires 3 different types of propulsion systems and all of them in low volume. Yeah why would that not be efficient. SpaceX on the other hand only uses two variants of the same engine. Despite re-usability that engine gets produced in high volumes. So for each $ invested in better engines, SpaceX improves its whole stack. Arianespace needs to optimize 3 radically different engine system to improve its whole stack. This partially explains why SpaceX radically out innovated Arianespace even in the same rocket generation. Go look at what the French Space agency proposed for their 'Ariane Next' design only a few years after Ariane 6 was agree on. It was basically a Falcon 9 design. Think of the Ariane 6 design like a WW1 bi-plane design evolved for use early in WW2 and we are now already going into post WW2 war jet fighters with systems like Starship/Raptor.
- rurban 2y ago
  > Its an architecture that goes back to the Post-Apollo area. The believe in hydorgen fuel and solids is inspired by the Shuttle. Ariane 5 was literally design for a Shuttle clone type system. The solid rockets were demanded by military only. The Germans then in control at NASA (Apollo) said what a stupid idea, Lyndon Johnson fired all of them, moved to Houston, and thus the Shuttle desaster began. The Ariane design is also for military usage mostly.