14 ms·

Ariane 6 exists so that European countries can get independent access to space between now and 2030s. The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9. Both

• Kuinox 2y ago
  By then, startship would have lowered cost even further.
  • threeseed 2y ago
    Starship has a payload 10x-15x larger than the smaller Ariane 6 variant. It seems like for the cost to be lower you would be wanting to fit as much as possible thus impacting how often it is being launched. So not sure if the two have the same requirements.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > seems like for the cost to be lower you would be wanting to fit as much as possible thus impacting how often it is being launched Starlink alone will fill Starship’s most-ambitious deployment schedules for years. That gives plenty of piggyback capacity to swamp the market with.
    • dhedberg 2y ago
      I suspect that you don't really need to fill all the seats of a reusable 737 before it's cheaper to fly than a single-use Cessna.
• Y_Y 2y ago
  You're quite right, but for apples-to-apples you should compare to NASA rather than SpaceX. "Move fast and break things" is an attitide that only relatively new rocket builders can have.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > for apples-to-apples you should compare to NASA rather than SpaceX ESA is analogous to NASA. ArianeSpace is Europe’s ULA. Europe doesn’t have a SpaceX; Ariane 6 is a Yugo in the modern launch market.
    • m4rtink 2y ago
      Rocket Factory Augsburg or Isar Aerospace might become the Space X of Europe. ;-)
• justin66 2y ago
  > The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9. I bet it will be a lot more than that.
• sligor 2y ago
  Is the cost difference mostly due by design or also due to much higher production volume and launches for Falcon 9 ?
  • topspin 2y ago
    Both.
• crest 2y ago
  So because an incumbent exists ESA should give up, let their production and development pipeline rot away and "enjoy" the monopoly until it's too late to change something?
  • ur-whale 2y ago
    > So because an incumbent exists ESA should give up No. But they should learn their lesson and try to run instead of plodding along at a glacial pace. Oh but wait, they're govt funded with no success incentives other than some sort of vague sense of pride for a job well done. My money is on they're not going to come out ahead in the race.
    • threeseed 2y ago
      > they're not going to come out ahead in the race What race ? And if there is even one who cares ? If EU pays 10x or 100x more to launch satellites the world isn't going to change all that much.
      • nordsieck 2y ago
        > If EU pays 10x or 100x more to launch satellites the world isn't going to change all that much. That may be true for a few military satellites. But ESA is talking about putting up a Europoean mega-constellation. In that context, launch costs do really matter.
        • threeseed 2y ago
          > In that context, launch costs do really matter. Not really. Strategically important projects rarely live or die based on costs. Especially when they are a fraction of the total spend on the project.
          • nordsieck 2y ago
            > There was a lot of hubris in the project in the beginning and now it’s clear that they are years behind. That may be true of other projects, but LEO communications satellite constellations have a history of going bankrupt. Cost is very relevant in this case. > Especially when they are a fraction of the total spend on the project. I guess 40-50% is technically a fraction.
• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > 6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar …at which point it will be competing with Starship.
  • haspok 2y ago
    You don't know that. Starship does not exist.
    • chgs 2y ago
      a thing which can get into orbit and deploy objects exists
      • simiones 2y ago
        A thing which can nearly get into orbit. It never quite reached it (probably intentionally). But more importantly, the recent Starship tests ran with no payload whatsoever, and they definitely didn't deploy anything into orbit.
        • chgs 2y ago
          It reached orbital velocity, just in a suborbital direction. Had they pointed it a different way it would have been in orbit.
      • imtringued 2y ago
        I don't know what you mean by deploy objects, but even according to Musk himself, the current Starship version will not carry any payloads any time soon.
        • chgs 2y ago
          It’s already deployed objects - tiles, paint etc. The doors opened on IFT3. If it was life or death starship could put something into orbit right now. Obviously it’s not the best solution for that currently (compared to say an FH) - they want to get the reuse working, but that doesn’t negate the fact that starship has been to orbital height and speed (albeit on a suborbital trajectory)
• ur-whale 2y ago
  > 6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar: And by then, SpaceX will be 10 years ahead of them with a next-gen platform. Not a great sounding story.
  • jajko 2y ago
    For any European? Thats fantastic. Let that ego maniac and putin's admirer chase latest and shiniest, we all will learn from his success and failures. We (US vs Europe) are not racing nor competing in this in any way, we just need to put out payload up there too. We desperately need our own skillset though, with Trump or similar breed potentially at power across the pond US will become more hostile towards Europe and let russia roll over Ukraine and maybe further, absolutely no doubt there.
  • TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
    > And by then, SpaceX will be 10 years ahead of them with a next-gen platform. Or going bust if Starship will turn out to be a flop.
• kuschku 2y ago
  Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place. All while being independent from the whims of one single individual, ensuring independent launch capabilities for national security reasons.
  • EasyMark 2y ago
    Not a big deal though, as long as they are independent of other nations (or regional coalitions), this is a huge boon for Europe, especially with what might happen in America after the next election and what happened to Russia and China a long time ago.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • nordsieck 2y ago
    > Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place. The first doesn't imply the second. Ariane 6 is behind: * ULA's Vulcan * SpaceX's F9/FH * SpaceX's Starship (who knows when it'll start launching payloads) * Blue Origin's New Glenn (supposed to be launched in September) in terms of raw performance as well as $/kg. There are also a number of other rockets like RocketLab's Neutron and Relativity's Terran R that seem like they'll outcompete Ariane 6. The medium/heavy lift market is getting much more crowded than it has been in the past.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      And that’s before we start counting in China and, soon, possibly, India. Ariana 6 might be the stupidest civil aerospace project in the world after Boeing’s Starliner.
      • nordsieck 2y ago
        > And that’s before we start counting in China China is... weird. Most of the rockets they launch are small hypergolic rockets (Long March 2-4) with clear ICBM heritage. Which are multiple generations "behind" Ariane 6. They do have some more modern cryogenic rockets, but they can't seem to scale those operationally. Presumably it'll happen eventually. But who knows when that'll be.
• christkv 2y ago
  The main genius of SpaceX is the mass production. Hopefully they can replicate that in the future.
  • TMWNN 2y ago
    For context, my understanding is that SpaceX builds one new Falcon 9 upper stage (not reused) every day. I doubt there is another entity on earth building a new rocket every month. SpaceX has a large fleet of Falcon 9 reusable boosters, but still needs to build one every now and then.
  • TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
    Well question is why would EU want mass production of rockets and for what purpose?
    • dotnet00 2y ago
      Well, right now they lack that capability and don't show any interest in it, so why would anyone in the EU even bother working on the things that would use it, like, LEO megaconstellations (ie Starlink or Starshield alternatives)? They also miss out on business building out such constellations from other companies. Amazon bought up a bunch of Ariane 6 launches, but obviously in the long term they'll be shifting to something which can potentially be more cost efficient like New Glenn.
    • pfdietz 2y ago
      I guess the pride that requires them to have their own launcher has its limits.
• contrarian1234 2y ago
  Are the Europeans wworried that "between now and 2030s" the US will cut off their access to space? I understand things can go wrong and it's good to have a backup plan in the long term... But that's not that many years out. You can go without access for a few years .. It seems like a tiny risk
  • PedroBatista 2y ago
    Looking at the geopolitical situation both next door and across the pond the answer is a yes. Also keeping the expertise and the people is a critical factor.
  • jltsiren 2y ago
    The US has been an unreliable partner since Bush Jr. became the president. Every 4 years, there is a real risk that things will go wrong.
    • Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
      It's more complicated than that. Even before W Bush, the United States didn't hesitate to twist the arm of its partners in economic matters. France and the USA may be allies, but economic relations have been complicated for over 40 years. The USA has no hesitation in interfering with or sabotaging the French economy (aukus subs, alstom, airbus defense, galileo), claiming that its law is extraterritorial in order to condemn company directors, and all the drity tricks imaginable. This is what led many European companies and gouv in the 90's and 00's to prefer partnerships with Chinese and Russsian companies. Even the British, with their special relationship, have completely isolated their nuclear industry from all US companies for fear of being screwed and at the same time signed partnership with CGN in China.
      • pfdietz 2y ago
        That's what happens when your group of nations freeloads on a superpower for their defense.
  • nabla9 2y ago
• cubefox 2y ago
  I think it would be, in the long term, more cost effective for ESA to contract two or three private European rocket start-ups, like RFA, to build such reusable launch vehicles. To create some competition in price and development speed. Arianespace (ArianeGroup) seems to be "old space" by now, similar to ULA or Boeing in the US.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > more cost effective for ESA to contract two or three private European rocket start-ups, like RFA, to build such reusable launch vehicles That would trigger politically-impossible lay-offs in France.
    • nordsieck 2y ago
      > That would trigger politically-impossible lay-offs in France. And yet, that seems like the model ESA is moving to. Not exactly - it's more NASA style letting companies bid on launches instead of directly funding rockets. But close enough. I don't think ArianeGroup is in trouble in the near term. But Avio - the makers of Vega - are very unhappy about that direction, since the current crop of Rocket startups more directly competes with them.
    • cubefox 2y ago
      Yeah, it seems impossible for ESA to act rationally in this regard when bound e.g. by French veto. The only opportunity would be for individual countries (like Germany) to fund such rockets alone, but that seems unlikely due to cost (and the fact that they already pay for ESA). Without substantial investment, companies like RFA don't have the means to create a larger rocket, due to heavy international competition. Not even NASA could resist developing their SLS rocket, which realistically should have been replaced with funding private heavy lift rockets. And that is despite the fact that they are much less politically constrained than ESA.
      • snowpid 2y ago
        The only opportunity would be for individual countries (like Germany) to fund such rockets alone, but that seems unlikely due to cost (and the fact that they already pay for ESA). Germany does it in its national program. https://www.dlr.de/de/ar/themen-missionen/raumfahrttechnologien/traegersysteme/dlr-mikrolauncher-und-nutzlast-wettbewerb https://www.dlr.de/de/ar/themen-missionen/raumfahrttechnolog...
• nordsieck 2y ago
  > 6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar: reusable, RP-1/LOX, Prometheus engine is similar reusable open cycle engine as Merlin with lots of 3D printed parts. 1. Ariane Next will use a Methalox first stage and a Hydrolox 2nd stage[1], not Kerolox (RP-1). 2. Given how long it took to get Ariane 6 to the launch pad, and its similarities to Ariane 5, 6-10 year is very optimistic. --- 1. From what I understand, this is due to political wrangling. Germany wanted to make the engines for the 2nd stage. IMO SpaceX's approach of using the same engine everywhere is superior.
  • m4rtink 2y ago
    Not just the engines - using different propellants between stages complicates ground infrastructure & reduces economy of scale + parts commonality.
• Reason077 2y ago
  > “The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9.” This actually seems quite reasonable considering the Ariane 6 is a non-reusable, low-volume design.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > seems quite reasonable considering the Ariane 6 is a non-reusable, low-volume design It’s after subsidies [1]. Actual costs are 4 to 6x Falcon 9, and that’s comparing actual costs today for Falcon 9 to projected costs in the future for Ariane 6. [1] https://www.space.com/europe-ariane-6-rocket-debut-launch https://www.space.com/europe-ariane-6-rocket-debut-launch
    • jinzo 2y ago
      You do know that this article completely forgets to mention if SpaceX got any subsidies? From a quick google search, it seems that this is not the case and I have a feeling that Falcon 9 sticker price is in fact subsidied by the USA. So - why compare apples to apples, when you can compare apples to oranges.
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > this is not the case and I have a feeling that Falcon 9 sticker price is in fact subsidied by the USA They’re both state supported. But Falcon 9 is cash-flow positive on commercial launches where the only operational subsidies are launch complex access.
      • InTheArena 2y ago
        It is not. The sticker price is not subsidized by the state. The state does buy a lot of launches as a consumer. These are often conflated.
      • dotnet00 2y ago
        Falcon 9 is 'subsidized' by the USA in the way that businesses 'subsidize' development of new products and services through profit from selling products, getting investors and completing contracts at fixed cost to the customer. Ariane is subsidized in that their development expenses are fully paid for by government coffers, and additional money is provided yearly regardless of services rendered to make the sticker price for a launch seem lower.
• MrSkelter 2y ago
  Falcon’s costs are a fiction. SpaceX benefits from massive taxpayer support and uses facilities built by the military and NASA. It’s not a like for like comparison especially give SpaceX keeping its books private and giving no clear public indication of how reusable its rockets really are or their refurb cost. Given Musks history of creative accounting quoting their PR numbers, the ones they pitch congress, as facts is naive in the extreme.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > SpaceX benefits from massive taxpayer support and uses facilities built by the military and NASA So does ArianeSpace [1]. (It’s majority owned by the French state. EDIT: It’s not.) > no clear public indication of how reusable its rockets really are or their refurb cost Refurb rates and turnaround times for Falcon 9 first stages are publicly documented [2]. Refurb costs are more opaque, but they’d have to be multiples of what SpaceX charges to approach Ariane 6’s cost projections. Ariane 6 is obsolete on arrival; ArianeSpace’s CEO admitted as much in asking the ESA to fund a reusable heavy booster like Falcon Heavy [3]. [1] https://www.space.com/europe-ariane-6-rocket-debut-launch https://www.space.com/europe-ariane-6-rocket-debut-launch [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_b... [3] https://www.illdefined.space/arianespace-the-only-fish-in-the/ https://www.illdefined.space/arianespace-the-only-fish-in-th...
    • ddalex 2y ago
      If I would be begging for new development money from the parent org after just launching a new product, I would also say that the new product is obsolete and we need to work on a replacement ASAP... especially in a pork-barrel org
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > I would also say that the new product is obsolete and we need to work on a replacement ASAP Sure. See the rest of the article. Everyone else has been saying the same for a decade. Note that the reusable heavy launcher he’s pitching is still aiming to deliver in a decade what SpaceX can do today. It’s not a strategic option, it’s a jobs programme.
• panick21_ 2y ago
  > Ariane 6 exists so that European countries can get independent access to space between now and 2030s. No it doesn't. That directly contradicts the actual rational for Ariane 6 as outlined in 2014. There were two options, Ariane 6 or Ariane 5 ME. With France principally favoring Ariane 6 and Germany Ariane 5 ME. With Ariane 6 costing many billions, and Ariane 5 ME costing a few 100 million $. The Ariane 5 ME would have done the 'independent access to space between now and 2030s' just fine. The explicit reason why they wanted Ariane 6 was to remain competitive against the Falcon 9. They were starting to lose launches on mass to Falcon 9 already by 2014 and were panicking. Its simply PR spin to now pretend this never happened. But rather admit that they spend 5 billion $ to lose the commercial market anyway and were basically now subsidizing uncommunicative launches for US cooperations instead. Ariane 6 achieved the exact opposite of what its rational was in 2014. Instead of helping Europe pay for its space industry, it has to be subsidized. > 6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar: reusable, RP-1/LOX, Prometheus engine is similar reusable open cycle engine as Merlin with lots of 3D printed parts. Sure in fantasy land this is true. The reality is, after the gigantic expanse of Ariane 6, that cost way more then expected. With Europe having huge debt and Ukraine was, plus very expensive new space systems, there is very little actual drive towards a new large rocket system. Such a rocket system would again cost many, many billions and this will be politically impossible, not just because of the money. Beyond the rational mentioned above, the reason Ariane 6 was picked, was that France was willing to give solid booster contracts to Italy. So France literally 'paid off' Italy to get them on board Ariane 6. The reality is, Italy simply will not wnat to move away from solids. And Germany is, very, very, very unlikely to be onboard for another gigantic rocket investment, after they already didn't want the Ariane 6 in the first place. Without Germany and Italy there simply isn't gone be a 'next big European rocket'. Between your optimistic 6 years prediction, I would say 2040 is a much more likely date then 2030. We have already seen delay with the test platforms. And we are already seen a collapse of the 'all ArianeGroup' all the time mantra that Europe had. The idea that ESA would hand ArianeGroup another 5 billion $ in the current environment just isn't gone happen. And this is simply because of exactly what people already pointed out in 2014. Wait until the technology is ready, and then develop a next generation rocket, rather then rush out a sub-optimal design 'quickly'. Now they have shot their powder and are stuck on a slightly improved Ariane 5 rocket with no reasonable path for upgrade. Exactly as many critics have pointed out in 2014. > reusable, RP-1/LOX, Prometheus engine is similar reusable open cycle engine as Merlin with lots of 3D printed parts. Prometheus has been in development since 2015 already, and they are not even at full duration testing yet. Bragging about a new GG engine today isn't that impressive, not for a space power that has been making engines for decades. RocketLab, has just recently switched from Gas Generator to Staged. And with much less money their Archimedes seems to be developing much faster then Prometheus while being much more advanced. Europe is just being out executed in so many way. RocketLab will basically develop a complete new rocket and advanced engine for a cost comparable to what Europe spends on engine development and re-usability test programs. RocketLab will put this stuff into commercial deployment a decade before ArianeGroup despite having started years later. Sorry, I'm not that impressed by 'maybe in 2035 we will clone SpaceX architecture from 2020' just with a much less optimized engine.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• admissionsguy 2y ago
  > 6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design That's what presentation by some high-ranking ESA person said when I was considering joining a Master's program in Spacecraft Design in Kiruna, Sweden, where some ESA launch facilities are located. I found that goal extremely uninspiring, especially combined with European salaries, so I opted to keep getting paid well working on software to feed people more burgers.
• Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  It may be 2x the cost of Falcon 9, but it's a different use case and volume (~10 per year for Ariane, ~100 for Falcon 9); Ariane 6 would not be cheaper at those volumes if it was reusable. Also keep in mind that most of Falcon's use is for SpaceX itself, 2/3rds of launches are for Starlink.
• zitterbewegung 2y ago
  Not sure why everyone here is talking about cost when independent control is much more to be desired. If a country / countries aren’t as friendly or dislike what you want to do they might not let you do what you want.
• Sakos 2y ago
  > The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9. I can't be the only one who thinks this is still a huge win. What did launch costs look like 10-30 years ago?
• m4rtink 2y ago
  The problem with this is, that at that point Europe will be most likely again behind not just Space X, with fully reusable Starship likely being operational but possibly even some Chinese Falcon 9 clones (once they get the hold-down clamps sorted out). Sure, Ariane 6 is a stop gap and likely has some interesting tech that will be useful later on, but it was stupid not starting a full blown reusable rocket program at the same time, when it became evident how much of a dead end it is.
  • tristor 2y ago
    > but it was stupid not starting a full blown reusable rocket program at the same time, when it became evident how much of a dead end it is. Redundancy in novel fields is not a waste, it creates opportunities to try subtly different approaches in various places, and in so doing creates new knowledge that can progress all similar projects in the future. At some point, if you dump the same amount of human resources into a single project vs separate projects, you end up with something approaching the same thing, but resources (dollars/people) aren't entirely fungible and having separated projects provides an opportunity for cultural dissimilarity and other human factors to create innovation that would otherwise be stifled in a larger funded project. Personally, I am really happy to see how much investment from many different angles is happening around space.
  • tocs3 2y ago
    Falcon 9 made its first landing (during an orbital mission) Dec. 2015[1]. It was very successful after that. The Ariane 6 program was selected Dec 2014[2]. Reusable vehicles are clearly the way to go but that was a little early to say Falcon 9 was going to be the success it is today. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6