6 ms·

> 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 *

> 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.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Most of the rockets they launch are small hypergolic rockets They’re decently far along on their reusable booster [1], with a methalox engine being developed by a private company [2]. Of course, everything looks cute until it flies. But that programme is arguably ahead of anything ArianeSpace is working on. [1] https://spacenews.com/china-to-debut-large-reusable-rockets-in-2025-and-2026/ https://spacenews.com/china-to-debut-large-reusable-rockets-... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longyun_(rocket_engine) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longyun_(rocket_engine)
- lm28469 2y ago
  HN is amazing: Europe does something > Aha it's bad why did they even try Europe doesn't do anything > Aha Europe always late, never innovate, Europe bad
  - krisoft 2y ago
    I mean maybe what they do is not good, and also not doing anything is bad too? I don't see the contradiction what you seem to be implying. Just because something must be done, doesn't mean that anything done should be celebrated. One can still do the wrong thing, and people can comment on that. Also HN is not a single entity. Even if you would see some contradiction between attitudes (which I don't see here) it could be still explained by the fact that many different people post on HN and they have different opinions, thoughts and values.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    As an European, this project is quite typical for Europe. Technically behind the times, serves French strategic interests, non-competitive on the private launch market. "Doing something" isn't a goal in itself. Ariane 6 in context of the 2020s is similar to programming a new MySpace app for Symbian OS right now. Hard work, costly, needs a lot of qualified workforce, and the product has very limited audience.
    - ncruces 2y ago
      So the entire world should rather be dependent on SpaceX, and be done with it? Arianespace had the lead and lost it, because it kept the old way of doing things. Or are you arguing Ariane 5 was technically behind and wasn't competitive in the '00s? Ariane 6 is not that far behind the other "old space" companies, which the US is struggling to keep around as alternatives to SpaceX. It's not like Boeing and ULA are doing much better. We should be critical of Arianespace, and find ways to get it to improve, but just throwing everything at SpaceX will do nothing to keep them honest.
      - inglor_cz 2y ago
        "So the entire world should rather be dependent on SpaceX, and be done with it?" That is not what I said. We badly need (real) alternatives. But French-government-need-driven development is bringing us nowhere. Paris is happy to have six launches a year and doesn't feel the need to finance and support anything beyond that. The rest of the EU doesn't seem to have any strong motivations either. Yes, the US old space is exactly as bad.
unethical_ban 2y ago
Two operational, and a bunch of dreams. Right now, Europe has a functioning rocket program under their own control. I think it's understandable for an engineering community to talk about the tech, but people seem to be forgetting the geopolitics.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > Two operational, and a bunch of dreams. Lol. Starship has successfully launched more than Ariane 6. The only reason they aren't launching payloads right now is because they want to nail down reuse first. There's less info on New Glenn, but a lot more footage has come out since David Limp took over. And the DoD thinks Blue Origin has a good enough shot at launching this year that they added them to NSSLv3. > Right now, Europe has a functioning rocket program under their own control. > I think it's understandable for an engineering community to talk about the tech, but people seem to be forgetting the geopolitics. Sure. But that would have also been true if they'd just kept Ariane 5. A lot of people are dumping on Ariane 6 because ArianeGroup spent a bunch of money and time to make a rocket that's not that much better than the previous one. When they could have made an actually competitive rocket instead.
- jccooper 2y ago
  You must have some wild dreams. Starship and New Glenn are basically as dreamy as Ariane 6. Starship is essentially operational as an expendable launcher already, and NG is starting the paperwork for first launch. Ariane 6 will serve fine as an "assured access to space" for the local market (which is important), and good on them for finally getting it off the ground. But it's design goal was "Falcon 9 competitor" and it certainly isn't.
  - verzali 2y ago
    Ariane 6 has flow successfully. New Glenn is missing in action, and Starship still has a long way to go before it is ready to actually put payloads in orbit. Ariane 6 is ahead of both, given it has actually flown and delivered satellites to orbit.
mort96 2y ago
Relying on a company which is headed by a famously unreliable narcissist seems like a bad choice though, I wouldn't really count those SpaceX options as proper alternatives EDIT: I would like downvotes to explain their reasoning.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  It's a tired ad hominem, all the evidence shows that SpaceX is by far the most reliable operator in the space industry right now.
  - mort96 2y ago
    When the question is "should we trust this guy?", judging the character of the guy based on past behavior and statements is not a fallacy.
    - dotnet00 2y ago
      What exactly has Musk actually done that goes so far beyond the pale of typical corporate shenanigans that it would register as not being trustworthy to governments? At most he has had overly optimistic timelines, overly optimistic social media statements about future capabilities, a bunch of business ideas that didn't pan out and some QA issues in a car manufacturer. This is pretty par for the course for every business. The whining about him being untrustworthy stems almost entirely from him having different political views (and not being afraid to voice them), and the stream of mostly unsubstantiated hit pieces and awful reporting regarding Starlink in Ukraine. With the way you guys talk about it though, he might as well have personally caused the crash of more than two full passenger jets.
      - mort96 2y ago
        I wouldn't downplay the Starlink Ukraine thing the way you're doing. But if you're still a Musk apologist after all these years, there's nothing I can say to convince you. For many of us, the whole diver pedophilia accusation was enough, and that pales in comparison to everything that came after.
m4rtink 2y ago
Not to mention the quite cheap flight-proven Indian rockets & a whole bunch of traditional + private Chinese companies, some actively trying to clone Falcon 9 or even Starship.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > Not to mention the quite cheap flight-proven Indian rockets & a whole bunch of traditional + private Chinese companies, some actively trying to clone Falcon 9 or even Starship. It seems like most of the world has decided not to fly on Chinese rockets, so those aren't really competition. But I totally agree with regard to India: PSLV and GSLV are both good, competitive rockets. It'd kind of a shame that they don't launch more often. It makes me wonder if there's some sort of organizational dysfunction going on. It does sound like they're going to be launching OneWeb going forward, though, which is nice.
  - igravious 2y ago
    > It seems like most of the world has decided not to fly on Chinese rockets, so those aren't really competition. The Chinese market is so large that this does not matter: https://payloadspace.com/2023-orbital-launches-by-country/ https://payloadspace.com/2023-orbital-launches-by-country/ India's space program/industry, though significant, is much smaller than China's. SpaceX makes up 90% of USA's launches at present. US: 109. China: 67. Russia: 19. Europe: 3. Other: 25.

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.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Most of the rockets they launch are small hypergolic rockets They’re decently far along on their reusable booster [1], with a methalox engine being developed by a private company [2]. Of course, everything looks cute until it flies. But that programme is arguably ahead of anything ArianeSpace is working on. [1] https://spacenews.com/china-to-debut-large-reusable-rockets-in-2025-and-2026/ https://spacenews.com/china-to-debut-large-reusable-rockets-... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longyun_(rocket_engine) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longyun_(rocket_engine)
lm28469 2y ago
HN is amazing: Europe does something > Aha it's bad why did they even try Europe doesn't do anything > Aha Europe always late, never innovate, Europe bad
- krisoft 2y ago
  I mean maybe what they do is not good, and also not doing anything is bad too? I don't see the contradiction what you seem to be implying. Just because something must be done, doesn't mean that anything done should be celebrated. One can still do the wrong thing, and people can comment on that. Also HN is not a single entity. Even if you would see some contradiction between attitudes (which I don't see here) it could be still explained by the fact that many different people post on HN and they have different opinions, thoughts and values.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  As an European, this project is quite typical for Europe. Technically behind the times, serves French strategic interests, non-competitive on the private launch market. "Doing something" isn't a goal in itself. Ariane 6 in context of the 2020s is similar to programming a new MySpace app for Symbian OS right now. Hard work, costly, needs a lot of qualified workforce, and the product has very limited audience.
  - ncruces 2y ago
    So the entire world should rather be dependent on SpaceX, and be done with it? Arianespace had the lead and lost it, because it kept the old way of doing things. Or are you arguing Ariane 5 was technically behind and wasn't competitive in the '00s? Ariane 6 is not that far behind the other "old space" companies, which the US is struggling to keep around as alternatives to SpaceX. It's not like Boeing and ULA are doing much better. We should be critical of Arianespace, and find ways to get it to improve, but just throwing everything at SpaceX will do nothing to keep them honest.
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      "So the entire world should rather be dependent on SpaceX, and be done with it?" That is not what I said. We badly need (real) alternatives. But French-government-need-driven development is bringing us nowhere. Paris is happy to have six launches a year and doesn't feel the need to finance and support anything beyond that. The rest of the EU doesn't seem to have any strong motivations either. Yes, the US old space is exactly as bad.

unethical_ban 2y ago

Two operational, and a bunch of dreams. Right now, Europe has a functioning rocket program under their own control. I think it's understandable for an engineering community to talk about the tech, but people seem to be forgetting the geopolitics.

nordsieck 2y ago
> Two operational, and a bunch of dreams. Lol. Starship has successfully launched more than Ariane 6. The only reason they aren't launching payloads right now is because they want to nail down reuse first. There's less info on New Glenn, but a lot more footage has come out since David Limp took over. And the DoD thinks Blue Origin has a good enough shot at launching this year that they added them to NSSLv3. > Right now, Europe has a functioning rocket program under their own control. > I think it's understandable for an engineering community to talk about the tech, but people seem to be forgetting the geopolitics. Sure. But that would have also been true if they'd just kept Ariane 5. A lot of people are dumping on Ariane 6 because ArianeGroup spent a bunch of money and time to make a rocket that's not that much better than the previous one. When they could have made an actually competitive rocket instead.
jccooper 2y ago
You must have some wild dreams. Starship and New Glenn are basically as dreamy as Ariane 6. Starship is essentially operational as an expendable launcher already, and NG is starting the paperwork for first launch. Ariane 6 will serve fine as an "assured access to space" for the local market (which is important), and good on them for finally getting it off the ground. But it's design goal was "Falcon 9 competitor" and it certainly isn't.
- verzali 2y ago
  Ariane 6 has flow successfully. New Glenn is missing in action, and Starship still has a long way to go before it is ready to actually put payloads in orbit. Ariane 6 is ahead of both, given it has actually flown and delivered satellites to orbit.

mort96 2y ago

Relying on a company which is headed by a famously unreliable narcissist seems like a bad choice though, I wouldn't really count those SpaceX options as proper alternatives EDIT: I would like downvotes to explain their reasoning.

dotnet00 2y ago
It's a tired ad hominem, all the evidence shows that SpaceX is by far the most reliable operator in the space industry right now.
- mort96 2y ago
  When the question is "should we trust this guy?", judging the character of the guy based on past behavior and statements is not a fallacy.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    What exactly has Musk actually done that goes so far beyond the pale of typical corporate shenanigans that it would register as not being trustworthy to governments? At most he has had overly optimistic timelines, overly optimistic social media statements about future capabilities, a bunch of business ideas that didn't pan out and some QA issues in a car manufacturer. This is pretty par for the course for every business. The whining about him being untrustworthy stems almost entirely from him having different political views (and not being afraid to voice them), and the stream of mostly unsubstantiated hit pieces and awful reporting regarding Starlink in Ukraine. With the way you guys talk about it though, he might as well have personally caused the crash of more than two full passenger jets.
    - mort96 2y ago
      I wouldn't downplay the Starlink Ukraine thing the way you're doing. But if you're still a Musk apologist after all these years, there's nothing I can say to convince you. For many of us, the whole diver pedophilia accusation was enough, and that pales in comparison to everything that came after.

m4rtink 2y ago

Not to mention the quite cheap flight-proven Indian rockets & a whole bunch of traditional + private Chinese companies, some actively trying to clone Falcon 9 or even Starship.

nordsieck 2y ago
> Not to mention the quite cheap flight-proven Indian rockets & a whole bunch of traditional + private Chinese companies, some actively trying to clone Falcon 9 or even Starship. It seems like most of the world has decided not to fly on Chinese rockets, so those aren't really competition. But I totally agree with regard to India: PSLV and GSLV are both good, competitive rockets. It'd kind of a shame that they don't launch more often. It makes me wonder if there's some sort of organizational dysfunction going on. It does sound like they're going to be launching OneWeb going forward, though, which is nice.
- igravious 2y ago
  > It seems like most of the world has decided not to fly on Chinese rockets, so those aren't really competition. The Chinese market is so large that this does not matter: https://payloadspace.com/2023-orbital-launches-by-country/ https://payloadspace.com/2023-orbital-launches-by-country/ India's space program/industry, though significant, is much smaller than China's. SpaceX makes up 90% of USA's launches at present. US: 109. China: 67. Russia: 19. Europe: 3. Other: 25.