50 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- trueismywork 2y ago
  Lol it is. More money means less money some place else. Europe is not as rich as it was 40 years ago. General competency will decrease due to lack of money.
- justin66 2y ago
  “It’s not my money.”
Larrikin 2y ago
Why is it a race instead of being of public and international importance to have an alternative to a for profit company?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Why is it a race instead of being of public and international importance to have an alternative to a for profit company? It’s not a meaningful alternative. The comparison to a Yugo is apt: it’s more expensive and less capable, with its sole advantage being it’s made in Europe and so will get European launches. But anyone launching on it is structurally disadvantaged against a competitor (or peer) who launches on SpaceX.
  - ddalex 2y ago
    it's about maintaining political options - what happens when your peer denies your launches on their platform; what prevents ESA from launching 90% of their payloads on SpaceX for reduced cost, while maintaining alive a credible option ?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > what happens when your peer denies your launches on their platform Strongly agree—Europe needs an indigenous launch option. Ariane 6 is not it, and I’m sceptical ArianeSpace can ever deliver it.
      - ddalex 2y ago
        What do you mean, can deliver it? This article is specifically about the maiden flight of Ariane 6, which was successful. It's already delivered.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > can deliver it? This article is specifically about the maiden flight of Ariane 6, which was successful. It's already delivered. It's not commercially viable. That means it has no room to organically drive economies of scale and thus learning curves, which has downstream effects on evertyhing from recruiting to supplier negotiations. Europe has a launch vehicile. It does not have a platform. Virtually everything in Ariane 6 will have to be thrown out to be relevant in a modern, reusable design. Put another way, SLS didn't prepare Boeing and Lockheed Martin one iota for the modern launch industry. If anything, it drove ambitious people away from them.
sschueller 2y ago
What race? The race to the price bottom and who can get us to the Kessler syndrom first?
- Diederich 2y ago
  > Kessler syndrom Is this a big risk in the low, high drag orbits that the vast majority of SpX launches target?
speedgoose 2y ago
I would rather work for the government than working to make someone so rich even more rich. To each their own.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  That is fine. Government should still be reasonably efficient. Not as efficient as possible by any means possible, with the ethical problems megacorporations have. But reasonably efficient. So it's worth keeping an eye on things and making comparisons. I at least, don't say any dollar more than SpaceX spent by Ariane is bad. But if they spend multiple billions more... maybe we could build some trains or something for that money.
Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
ESA and Ariane Group are two very different things. Ariane Group's main investor is the French state (61%). The French state wants a high-powered solid rocket booster for its ICBMs, and a sovereign and reliable means of launching large intelligence satellites. It couldn't care less about reusability. ESA is the equivalent of NASA and has no commercial activity, but subsidizes part of the Ariane program. Ariane group would rather be like a state own Lockheed Martin Space. Private investors interested in profitability and civil activities are in the minority at Ariane Group There is no race between ESA, NASA and Roscomos. The Russians and the French are not going to abandon their rockets and entrust their nuclear deterrent and early warning system to SpaceX.
- Reason077 2y ago
  > “The Russians and the French are not going to abandon their rockets and entrust their nuclear deterrent and early warning system to SpaceX.” The United States is certainly happy to (launch military payloads with SpaceX). Having access to far more launch capacity, far more cheaply, is surely a significant strategic advantage. Edit: Added text in parentheses for clarity.
  - pmezard 2y ago
    Are the US sending military payloads with non-US rockets?
    - Reason077 2y ago
      The US is sending military payloads with private, low-cost commercial launch provider SpaceX. The success of this model hasn’t gone unnoticed by China, who are funding several private rocket companies (such as Space Pioneer) to develop reusable launch platforms in competition with the state-owned contractor CASC. They are making rapid progress!
      - p_l 2y ago
        The USA has been sending military payloads with private vendors since 1970s. In some cases blocking contractually those vendors from providing civilian launch capability, even. SpaceX is absolutely nothing new in the process, other than having been funded by explicit military program to prop up new space launch vendors.
lm28469 2y ago
> My money is on they're not going to come out ahead in the race. What race ? Having your own launcher is already a win in a fast changing world
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

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.
trueismywork 2y ago
Lol it is. More money means less money some place else. Europe is not as rich as it was 40 years ago. General competency will decrease due to lack of money.
justin66 2y ago
“It’s not my money.”

Larrikin 2y ago

Why is it a race instead of being of public and international importance to have an alternative to a for profit company?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Why is it a race instead of being of public and international importance to have an alternative to a for profit company? It’s not a meaningful alternative. The comparison to a Yugo is apt: it’s more expensive and less capable, with its sole advantage being it’s made in Europe and so will get European launches. But anyone launching on it is structurally disadvantaged against a competitor (or peer) who launches on SpaceX.
- ddalex 2y ago
  it's about maintaining political options - what happens when your peer denies your launches on their platform; what prevents ESA from launching 90% of their payloads on SpaceX for reduced cost, while maintaining alive a credible option ?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > what happens when your peer denies your launches on their platform Strongly agree—Europe needs an indigenous launch option. Ariane 6 is not it, and I’m sceptical ArianeSpace can ever deliver it.
    - ddalex 2y ago
      What do you mean, can deliver it? This article is specifically about the maiden flight of Ariane 6, which was successful. It's already delivered.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > can deliver it? This article is specifically about the maiden flight of Ariane 6, which was successful. It's already delivered. It's not commercially viable. That means it has no room to organically drive economies of scale and thus learning curves, which has downstream effects on evertyhing from recruiting to supplier negotiations. Europe has a launch vehicile. It does not have a platform. Virtually everything in Ariane 6 will have to be thrown out to be relevant in a modern, reusable design. Put another way, SLS didn't prepare Boeing and Lockheed Martin one iota for the modern launch industry. If anything, it drove ambitious people away from them.

sschueller 2y ago

What race? The race to the price bottom and who can get us to the Kessler syndrom first?

Diederich 2y ago
> Kessler syndrom Is this a big risk in the low, high drag orbits that the vast majority of SpX launches target?

speedgoose 2y ago

I would rather work for the government than working to make someone so rich even more rich. To each their own.

lucianbr 2y ago
That is fine. Government should still be reasonably efficient. Not as efficient as possible by any means possible, with the ethical problems megacorporations have. But reasonably efficient. So it's worth keeping an eye on things and making comparisons. I at least, don't say any dollar more than SpaceX spent by Ariane is bad. But if they spend multiple billions more... maybe we could build some trains or something for that money.

Beretta_Vexee 2y ago

ESA and Ariane Group are two very different things. Ariane Group's main investor is the French state (61%). The French state wants a high-powered solid rocket booster for its ICBMs, and a sovereign and reliable means of launching large intelligence satellites. It couldn't care less about reusability. ESA is the equivalent of NASA and has no commercial activity, but subsidizes part of the Ariane program. Ariane group would rather be like a state own Lockheed Martin Space. Private investors interested in profitability and civil activities are in the minority at Ariane Group There is no race between ESA, NASA and Roscomos. The Russians and the French are not going to abandon their rockets and entrust their nuclear deterrent and early warning system to SpaceX.

Reason077 2y ago
> “The Russians and the French are not going to abandon their rockets and entrust their nuclear deterrent and early warning system to SpaceX.” The United States is certainly happy to (launch military payloads with SpaceX). Having access to far more launch capacity, far more cheaply, is surely a significant strategic advantage. Edit: Added text in parentheses for clarity.
- pmezard 2y ago
  Are the US sending military payloads with non-US rockets?
  - Reason077 2y ago
    The US is sending military payloads with private, low-cost commercial launch provider SpaceX. The success of this model hasn’t gone unnoticed by China, who are funding several private rocket companies (such as Space Pioneer) to develop reusable launch platforms in competition with the state-owned contractor CASC. They are making rapid progress!
    - p_l 2y ago
      The USA has been sending military payloads with private vendors since 1970s. In some cases blocking contractually those vendors from providing civilian launch capability, even. SpaceX is absolutely nothing new in the process, other than having been funded by explicit military program to prop up new space launch vendors.

lm28469 2y ago

> My money is on they're not going to come out ahead in the race. What race ? Having your own launcher is already a win in a fast changing world

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]