5 ms·

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.
        ddalex 2y ago
        There are no economies of scale required. This is not a commercial venture, and it's not required to be commercially viable. This is a strategic and political program, and as a jobs program it is wonderfully executed - the more to throw away, the more jobs will be required for the next iteration.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > is a strategic and political program, and as a jobs program Jobs, yes, strategic, no. Being able to put ten birds up in a year means an adversary can blind your space capabilities, if we’re taking the argument to absurd ends. We Americans would be defensive about ULA, probably, if it weren’t for SpaceX. The problem is the EU has no plan B. If SpaceX cuts them off, Ariana or not, they’re crippled as a spacefaring enterprise.
        ddalex 2y ago
        You're still thinking about capitalisation and the scalability of space. EU doesn't think that's a viable expansion route - already expressed my view that EU thinks 10 launches a year is more then enough to cover all bases.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    > what prevents ESA from launching 90% of their payloads on SpaceX for reduced cost You only have to look at what happened with Starlink and Ukraine. Last thing EU wants is to put their vital strategic interests in the hands of Elon Musk and his erratic whims. Especially given they are planning to fine X 6% of their revenue which may end up bankrupting the company given its perilous financial state.
    - m4rtink 2y ago
      Well, that seems to have been a one-off episode. Since then modern versions of at least maritime drones & possible bigger aerial drones in Ukraine are almost certainly Starlink guided, possibly via the military version of it called Starshield.
- FranOntanaya 2y ago
  Ticket price doesn't tell the whole story, if those euros are staying in Europe instead of leaving the union and funding someone else's space program.
trueismywork 2y ago
Because extra money spent could be better invested elsewhere. Eventually, the high cost will harm the general expertise and readiness.

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.
      - ddalex 2y ago
        There are no economies of scale required. This is not a commercial venture, and it's not required to be commercially viable. This is a strategic and political program, and as a jobs program it is wonderfully executed - the more to throw away, the more jobs will be required for the next iteration.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > is a strategic and political program, and as a jobs program Jobs, yes, strategic, no. Being able to put ten birds up in a year means an adversary can blind your space capabilities, if we’re taking the argument to absurd ends. We Americans would be defensive about ULA, probably, if it weren’t for SpaceX. The problem is the EU has no plan B. If SpaceX cuts them off, Ariana or not, they’re crippled as a spacefaring enterprise.
        ddalex 2y ago
        You're still thinking about capitalisation and the scalability of space. EU doesn't think that's a viable expansion route - already expressed my view that EU thinks 10 launches a year is more then enough to cover all bases.
- threeseed 2y ago
  > what prevents ESA from launching 90% of their payloads on SpaceX for reduced cost You only have to look at what happened with Starlink and Ukraine. Last thing EU wants is to put their vital strategic interests in the hands of Elon Musk and his erratic whims. Especially given they are planning to fine X 6% of their revenue which may end up bankrupting the company given its perilous financial state.
  - m4rtink 2y ago
    Well, that seems to have been a one-off episode. Since then modern versions of at least maritime drones & possible bigger aerial drones in Ukraine are almost certainly Starlink guided, possibly via the military version of it called Starshield.
FranOntanaya 2y ago
Ticket price doesn't tell the whole story, if those euros are staying in Europe instead of leaving the union and funding someone else's space program.

trueismywork 2y ago

Because extra money spent could be better invested elsewhere. Eventually, the high cost will harm the general expertise and readiness.