4 ms·

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

• 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...
      • cubefox 2y ago
        That's just for small launchers and the funding is only 25 million in total (to be divided by several companies) which is orders of magnitude lower than would be required for a partly reusable Ariane 6 replacement.
        • snowpid 2y ago
          start small and start a competition. Then afterwards you get more and more competent companies.
• protomolecule 2y ago
  SpaceX wasn't the first American rocket startup, other ones failed. What makes you think European startups won't fail?
  • cubefox 2y ago
    I suggested funding multiple ones.
    • protomolecule 2y ago
      China has multiple rocket startups now, they are not too successful.
      • echoangle 2y ago
        Galactic energy has had 13/14 successful launches, how is that not successful?
        • protomolecule 2y ago
          Those are launches of small rocket flying on toxic hydrazine and capable of getting whopping 300 kg of payload into LEO. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Energy#Ceres-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Energy#Ceres-1
          • echoangle 2y ago
            Ok? Aren’t you shifting goalposts now? Is rocket lab also not successful, because they only have 300 kg payload, too? And how does the toxicity of the fuel matter?
            • protomolecule 2y ago
              >Aren’t you shifting goalposts now? No, but mentioning successful launches of a small disposable rocket in the context of conversation about replicating reusable Falcon-9 is shifting goalposts. Galactic energy, that you named, is only trying to develop its Pallas-1 rocket that resembles Falcon-9. >how does the toxicity of the fuel matter It's the technology of the previous century when the need to achieve strategic goals out-weighted a lot of safety concerns.
• m4rtink 2y ago
  Yeah, I think this is the only way Europe is going to get a viable reusable rocket in the end. Arianespace is a dead end.