4 ms·
The problem with this is, that at that point Europe will be most likely again behind not just Space X, with fully reusable Starship likely being operational but
by m4rtink 2y ago
The problem with this is, that at that point Europe will be most likely again behind not just Space X, with fully reusable Starship likely being operational but possibly even some Chinese Falcon 9 clones (once they get the hold-down clamps sorted out).
Sure, Ariane 6 is a stop gap and likely has some interesting tech that will be useful later on, but it was stupid not starting a full blown reusable rocket program at the same time, when it became evident how much of a dead end it is.
- tristor 2y ago> but it was stupid not starting a full blown reusable rocket program at the same time, when it became evident how much of a dead end it is. Redundancy in novel fields is not a waste, it creates opportunities to try subtly different approaches in various places, and in so doing creates new knowledge that can progress all similar projects in the future. At some point, if you dump the same amount of human resources into a single project vs separate projects, you end up with something approaching the same thing, but resources (dollars/people) aren't entirely fungible and having separated projects provides an opportunity for cultural dissimilarity and other human factors to create innovation that would otherwise be stifled in a larger funded project. Personally, I am really happy to see how much investment from many different angles is happening around space.
- tocs3 2y agoFalcon 9 made its first landing (during an orbital mission) Dec. 2015[1]. It was very successful after that. The Ariane 6 program was selected Dec 2014[2]. Reusable vehicles are clearly the way to go but that was a little early to say Falcon 9 was going to be the success it is today. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6