4 ms·

As an European, this project is quite typical for Europe. Technically behind the times, serves French strategic interests, non-competitive on the private launch

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.
  - awiesenhofer 2y ago
    > doesn't feel the need to finance and support anything beyond Where did you get that idea from? They are financing the development of Ariane Next - Europe's version of a Falcon Heavy - just as the other ESA members do.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the entire world should rather be dependent on SpaceX, and be done with it? No, compete. There is a menagerie of European space start-ups starved of oxygen by ArianeSpace. Arianespace is Europe’s ULA. Europe with Ariane 6 is about as dependent on SpaceX as Europe without. The difference is whether it will continue to be dependent on SpaceX. Every euro that goes to Arianespace cements SpaceX’s global dominance. > Arianespace had the lead and lost it When was Arianespace in the lead? > Ariane 6 is not that far behind the other "old space" companies Granted. Not a great show for €5bn.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    The space start-ups are starving, because nobody sees any business opportunities there, and because governments don't care about rockets beyond baseline national security needs. If somebody actually wanted a reusable rocket, the real issue would be engineering, not funding. Even a small country like Finland could run two programs the scale of Ariane 6 with the money it's currently using to support Ukraine.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > space start-ups are starving, because nobody sees any business opportunities there I’ve raised money for and invested in space start-ups. There is a lot of opportunity. There are even more vapid PowerPoint decks. > If somebody actually wanted a reusable rocket, the real issue would be engineering, not funding It’s absolutely a problem of funding. You need to be able to tell a group of highly-demanded engineers with other life options that they will have access to the materials and resources repeated destructive validation of exorbitantly-expensive kit requires. That doesn’t mean any numpty with a few billion can do it. But, like, Europe could. (It hasn’t because that would threaten Ariane 6.) > Even a small country like Finland could run two programs the scale of Ariane 6 with the money it's currently using to support Ukraine But they don’t.
      - jltsiren 2y ago
        The lack of funding reflects the lack of interest. For-profit investors don't see the business opportunity and governments don't see the need. There are other uses for the money, and the people with money don't want better rockets that much. Rockets are not particularly expensive, but they are also not particularly relevant.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
imtringued 2y ago
>"Doing something" isn't a goal in itself. Almost all space activity, with the exception of satellite launches, is useless. Let's say we build a Mars and Moon colony, then what? You do it, because you want it as a goal in itself. If you don't grasp that, you don't understand anything about space. The same fundamental problem also applies to the idea of an economy that is 100% productive and that consumption is evil. If you get rid of consumers, you can also get rid of the producers. You can get rid of the economy. No human existence can be justified under the guise of "productivity" unless that productivity leads up to some consumptive activity.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  "If you don't grasp that, you don't understand anything about space." That's quite a self-confident, if not arrogant, take, which also misinterpretes my words. Ariane 6 is a launcher, not a Moon base. Launchers should strive to be economical, because there is a real orbital economy, as you admit, and because the entities which launch them may be cash-strapped. You yourself wouldn't buy a car or a bicycle that would have to be discarded after the first trip. Or if your point is that Ariane 6 is basically a white elephant project, well, that would be pretty damning.
Epa095 2y ago
You could probably have said the same about Airbus at some point. But now we are pretty happy we don't have to rely on Boeing.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  Airbus hasn't been making excuses about how they don't need to compete with Boeing for a decade. They've been focusing on being actually competitive.
- jacobr1 2y ago
  Also there is real competition downmarket for regional jets

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.
- awiesenhofer 2y ago
  > doesn't feel the need to finance and support anything beyond Where did you get that idea from? They are financing the development of Ariane Next - Europe's version of a Falcon Heavy - just as the other ESA members do.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the entire world should rather be dependent on SpaceX, and be done with it? No, compete. There is a menagerie of European space start-ups starved of oxygen by ArianeSpace. Arianespace is Europe’s ULA. Europe with Ariane 6 is about as dependent on SpaceX as Europe without. The difference is whether it will continue to be dependent on SpaceX. Every euro that goes to Arianespace cements SpaceX’s global dominance. > Arianespace had the lead and lost it When was Arianespace in the lead? > Ariane 6 is not that far behind the other "old space" companies Granted. Not a great show for €5bn.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  The space start-ups are starving, because nobody sees any business opportunities there, and because governments don't care about rockets beyond baseline national security needs. If somebody actually wanted a reusable rocket, the real issue would be engineering, not funding. Even a small country like Finland could run two programs the scale of Ariane 6 with the money it's currently using to support Ukraine.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > space start-ups are starving, because nobody sees any business opportunities there I’ve raised money for and invested in space start-ups. There is a lot of opportunity. There are even more vapid PowerPoint decks. > If somebody actually wanted a reusable rocket, the real issue would be engineering, not funding It’s absolutely a problem of funding. You need to be able to tell a group of highly-demanded engineers with other life options that they will have access to the materials and resources repeated destructive validation of exorbitantly-expensive kit requires. That doesn’t mean any numpty with a few billion can do it. But, like, Europe could. (It hasn’t because that would threaten Ariane 6.) > Even a small country like Finland could run two programs the scale of Ariane 6 with the money it's currently using to support Ukraine But they don’t.
    - jltsiren 2y ago
      The lack of funding reflects the lack of interest. For-profit investors don't see the business opportunity and governments don't see the need. There are other uses for the money, and the people with money don't want better rockets that much. Rockets are not particularly expensive, but they are also not particularly relevant.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

imtringued 2y ago

>"Doing something" isn't a goal in itself. Almost all space activity, with the exception of satellite launches, is useless. Let's say we build a Mars and Moon colony, then what? You do it, because you want it as a goal in itself. If you don't grasp that, you don't understand anything about space. The same fundamental problem also applies to the idea of an economy that is 100% productive and that consumption is evil. If you get rid of consumers, you can also get rid of the producers. You can get rid of the economy. No human existence can be justified under the guise of "productivity" unless that productivity leads up to some consumptive activity.

inglor_cz 2y ago
"If you don't grasp that, you don't understand anything about space." That's quite a self-confident, if not arrogant, take, which also misinterpretes my words. Ariane 6 is a launcher, not a Moon base. Launchers should strive to be economical, because there is a real orbital economy, as you admit, and because the entities which launch them may be cash-strapped. You yourself wouldn't buy a car or a bicycle that would have to be discarded after the first trip. Or if your point is that Ariane 6 is basically a white elephant project, well, that would be pretty damning.

Epa095 2y ago

You could probably have said the same about Airbus at some point. But now we are pretty happy we don't have to rely on Boeing.

dotnet00 2y ago
Airbus hasn't been making excuses about how they don't need to compete with Boeing for a decade. They've been focusing on being actually competitive.
jacobr1 2y ago
Also there is real competition downmarket for regional jets