4 ms·

I don't think Ariane have a "pretty good track record". Most expensive bug of all time that crashed a whole rocket, because of outdated and wrong software engi

• varjag 2y ago
  If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really. The EU had committed to a number of deep space and scientific instrument programmes spanning decades and seen them through to success. It operates its own GNSS constellation. It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous.
  • closewith 2y ago
    > It operates its own GNSS constellation. Only 33 years later and mostly launched on Russian rockets, behind GLONASS and BeiDou. > It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous. In what respect? Space? Certainly not, far behind the US and Russia and questionably competitive with China. Economically? Behind US and China. R&D? Behind US and China. Manufacturing? Behind US and China. You are refusing to recognise reality.
    • varjag 2y ago
      Russia had its last deep space mission (failed) in 1996. GLONASS did not operate until 2005. Chinese contributions to scientific space missions had been very modest although am sure they may catch up later. NASA has 3x the budget of ESA. The question was if the EU method of doing project works and it does in very unambiguous manner.
      • closewith 2y ago
        > GLONASS did not operate until 2005. Five years before Galileo. > The question was if the EU method of doing project works and it does in very unambiguous manner. As the EU falls economically and scientifically behinds what used to be our peers, it's obvious that it _doesn't_ work. Refusing to recognise that reality is a spectacular example of the Ostrich effect,
        • varjag 2y ago
          [dead]
        • randomNumber7 2y ago
          It works as good as our energy policy. Ah there are other well working policies in the EU like the migration of skilled workers. All works well /S
      • Xelbair 2y ago
        It works great! sadly the results are way behind it's peers, but method is great!
        • varjag 2y ago
          Yeah sure ESA lands a probe on bloody Titan while its peers crash land on the Moon but the results are "way behind". Delirious.
          • closewith 2y ago
  • mft_ 2y ago
    I suspect the previous poster's metric of innovation was more along the lines of: * developing the first meaningful fully-reusable first stage rocket, and continuing to develop it to the extent that no other launch systems are even in the same ballpark as regards cost, cadence, or mass to orbit * developing, and continuing to develop, the only full-flow staged combustion rocket engine * developing, and continuing to develop, a novel, completely-reusable, next-generation very-heavy-lift platform, before any of the competition have even caught with their previous generation * (to your snarky point about explosions) demonstrating that moving fast, evolving designs quickly, and not being afraid to (be seen to) fail (in the short term, in the court of public opinion, etc.) in the pursuit of success is much better than the traditional conservative approach (e.g. NASA, Blue Origin, etc.) I'm well aware that giving credit to anything related to Musk is increasingly difficult for some people at the moment, but let's give credit where it's due to SpaceX and its engineers.
    • varjag 2y ago
      The snarky point of explosions wasn't mine, the poster I replied to brought it up. The rest of your points is really one item, launch vehicles. It's where the USA clearly has the lead (above everyone else, not just ESA in particular). The question was whether the EU can successfully manage complex projects and it clearly can, suggesting otherwise is delirious.
      • mft_ 2y ago
        I'm not following you. The previous poster was basically supportive of SpaceX, talked about innovation, and didn't mention explosions at all. You wrote "If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really." I interpreted this as a snarky reference to the fact the lots of SpaceX rockets have blown up - mostly due to their different approach to development. The comment implying that SpaceX isn't innovative is what I was replying to - that looking at the work that SpaceX does (and not the whole pantheon of other space-related work it's not involved in) it's demonstrably innovative in a way that ESA just isn't (e.g. with Ariane).
  • graemep 2y ago
    > It operates its own GNSS constellation. Galileo did not start as an EU programme. China used to be member! What other EU programmes did you have in mind? The EU's efforts not even seem comparable to the European Space Agency (which is not part of the EU) let alone NASA.
  • Kuinox 2y ago
    Ariane 5 exploded with 4 satellites because they copy pasted code of the Ariane 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_flight_V88 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_flight_V88 It's the most expensive bug in history. On the other hand, you are bringing up explosions of empty rockets that are launched as test, that's bad faith. Look at the launch history and the Falcon 9 is simply more reliable than the Ariane 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Launch_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Launch_statistics I did not said it was a failure, I said, they do not have a "pretty good track record". ESA burn through EU money, and wont care to innovate as long as EU provide them unlimited money and dont pressure them. It's an ivory tower.
• Jon_Lowtek 2y ago
  > most expensive bug of all time that crashed a whole rocket being valued at $ 370 million in 1996 that bug was recently dwarved by crowd strikes multi-billion-dollar disaster in 2024