4 ms·
> “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.
by 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 agoYou 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 agoIt 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 agoFalcon 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.