5 ms·
Remember when USA americans were demanding Europe would just give their money to Elon instead of working on their own stuff? I was wasting my time to explain E
by simion314 2y ago
Remember when USA americans were demanding Europe would just give their money to Elon instead of working on their own stuff? I was wasting my time to explain Elon fans why this is stupid and now we have proof that would have been stupid.
- ChocolateGod 2y agoI noticed a lot of Americans suddenly became experts on European politics overnight.
- TMWNN 2y agoAbout time, given that lots of Europeans are self-described experts on American politics
- ChocolateGod 2y agobut at least those Europeans know where America is on a map.
- nickff 2y agoWhen were the Americans “demanding” that Europe ‘give up’? The criticisms of Ariane 6 are mostly based around the expendable architecture and high launch costs. The Wikipedia article covers the program’s programs fairly well.
- rqtwteye 2y agoI would just wish that Europe worked on more ambitious designs. Ariane 6 was outdated years before its first flight.
- saddat 2y agoLet’s see on with which rocket the next JWST will be delivered
- pyrale 2y agoThe big issue with this is that when Ariane 6 was designed, there was not enough business to support a reusable launcher. SpaceX had a different outlook because they had a captive client planning to launch thousands of satellites. Vimes’ expensive boots paradox at work.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> when Ariane 6 was designed, there was not enough business to support a reusable launcher This is Arianespace’s Israel’s propaganda. They couldn’t design a high-cadence launcher because there was no market, assuming you ignore Europe’s smallsat industry that’s constantly ridesharing with SpaceX. > SpaceX had a different outlook because they had a captive client planning to launch thousands of satellites SpaceX was working on high-frequency low-cost launch before Starlink was in anyone’s mind. The launch cadence caused Starlink, not the other way.
- pyrale 2y ago> assuming you ignore Europe’s smallsat industry that’s constantly ridesharing with SpaceX. I'm not saying "build it and they will come" is a bad saying, my point is that it's not a very good talking point when you try to sell stuff to European governments. > SpaceX was working on high-frequency low-cost launch before Starlink was in anyone’s mind. The launch cadence caused Starlink, not the other way. Before that, they had a sugar daddy billionaire. Obviously, Arianespace doesn't have that.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> my point is that it's not a very good talking point when you try to sell stuff to European governments The European smallsat market already exists. The global launch market already exists. This isn’t build it and they’ll come, it’s they built it and they’re going there. > Before that, they had a sugar daddy billionaire. Obviously, Arianespace doesn't have that The ESA has poured more money into Arianespace than NASA and Elon combined have put into SpaceX. Again, Europe is running the track America would have it NASA hadn’t done COTS. That path would have precluded NASA SpaceX and left ULA with a monopoly where they could argue there was no other choice and no market for cheap, frequent launch. Again: Arianespace underwrites SpaceX’s transatlantic dominance. For all the things Elon rails at, notice his silence on Ariane.
- jeroen79 2y agoIt is not outdated just because it isn't reusable, at least it can use green hydrogen fuel.
- perihelions 2y agoThat's deceptive marketing. Most of the fuel (by mass) isn't hydrogen/oxygen; it's the solid propellant in the booster rockets. That's very, very not-green: it's a chlorine-rich mixture that destroys stratospheric ozone.
- DarmokJalad1701 2y ago> green hydrogen fuel It is manufactured by steam reforming of natural gas which produces CO2 as a byproduct.
- simion314 2y agoAnd Webb was sent on space with Ariane because it is a safe rocket. Thins new one still very safe so far. Maybe one of the private space companies in Europe will play with more unsafe stuff, move fast and break things soon.
- perihelions 2y agoNo; Webb was contracted to Ariane 5 when that was still a new rocket (a still unproven and problematic one), because there was a diplomatic cost-sharing compromise that ESA contribute and pay for Webb's launch vehicle. Ariane 5 has a track record of reliability, but the decision to put Webb on top of it was made long before it developed that track record. It wasn't a consequence of it.
- orwin 2y agoIt's unfair. Vulcan2.1 is at the edge of cryotechnology. It might be a poor choice to use hydrogen rather than methane, but the hope was (still is) that gradual improvement will make the technology usable for planes one day.
- Gravityloss 2y agoHere's Everyday Astronaut visiting two European launcher startups in Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRFnGnJzRJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRFnGnJzRJQ And there are others.
- rqtwteye 2y agoI don 't think they are getting enough funding to really make it. There would be no SpaceX without massive NASA contracts.
- Gravityloss 2y agoMaybe they should get part of the 800 billion defense package.
- rqtwteye 2y agoThey for sure will.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoIt would have been rational for Europe to spend money on SpaceX. Ariane 6 is 50% pricier per launch. It is not just late to the party but wildly uncompetitive. I don’t think anyone was demanding that Europe “give their money to Elon”, but it would be a rational thing to expect European launches to use the lowest cost provider.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoAriane 6 is Europe’s SLS, Arianespace its ULA. Every launch requires public subsidies to float and cements SpaceX’s global advantage by denying funding to European companies who might one day compete with SpaceX.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Teever 2y agoBut the cost to develop falcon 9neas peanuts. Europe can toss that money to a bunch of different groups and get the results of the talent is there while maintaining an ability to launch with Ariane 6 in the meantime.
- bojan 2y agoThe ESA and Arianespace provide hundreds of European companies with business, most of those subsidies go directly back to the knowledge economy that in turn generate tax income. It's a win-win really, and I'd rather have that than a private company that is dependent on a whim of one man. Not for something so crucial.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoArianespace is essentially assured launch leadership for SpaceX. It denies Europe economies of scale in launch. At the end of the day, if Europe is happy having a small fraction of its own launch market, whatever, Arianespace keeps people employed.
- Gravityloss 2y agoThere are European launcher startups. But they are years away from being dependable launch vehicles. Meanwhile Ariane is strategically important. So it has to exist. Ariane was actually born because Americans wouldn't launch European satellites if they competed with American ones.
- bbatsell 2y agoArianespace ≈ ULA, yes. Ariane 6 ≈ SLS, absolutely not. There is no official figure yet, but even the most pessimistic estimates place its per-launch cost at $150m (as opposed to $2b for SLS — with a hazy goal to eventually trim it to $500m). The rumors are that Ariane 6 is already well below $100m.
- TMWNN 2y ago>Remember when USA americans were demanding Europe would just give their money to Elon instead of working on their own stuff? No Americans did this, except in your imagination.
- simion314 2y agoShould I do a search for HN? It would be a waste of time, since you probably would ignore the reality again it is always the same with Elon fanboys, in their mind the car is self driving but the bureaucrats are preventing it to happen BUT Elon and Trump are now the top guys how can Elon fans still explain the cars are not self driving around without a human inside ? Is Elon too busy with the fascists to handle the evil bureaucrats that prevent for years his self driving AI to be unleashed ?