2 ms·

I would just wish that Europe worked on more ambitious designs. Ariane 6 was outdated years before its first flight.

saddat 2y ago
Let’s see on with which rocket the next JWST will be delivered
pyrale 2y ago
The 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.
    - rqtwteye 2y ago
      "Before that, they had a sugar daddy billionaire. Obviously, Arianespace doesn't have that." Ariane have ESA as sugardaddy. And SLS has NASA. Both are consuming more more money than SpaceX with less results. The main difference is that nobody pushes them to be more ambitious.
- perihelions 2y ago
  But there really isn't any difference; they started off in exactly the same place. SpaceX' having its captive client (Starlink) isn't some external factor that favored them and disfavored Arianespace: it's a business choice SpaceX made—a choice with enormous risks* of failure—which Arianespace did not. Arianespace took no risks, tried nothing, achieved nothing. That's the difference. *(People seem to have completely forgotten how incredibly unpopular the LEO megaconstellation idea was when Musk started working on it, mid-2010's. No one understood the point of it; pretty much everyone was skeptical that it could even find enough business customers to break even).
  - pyrale 2y ago
    > SpaceX' having its captive client (Starlink) isn't some external factor that favored them No, but it's an additional information they had to make their decision. > Arianespace took no risks, tried nothing, achieved nothing. If you replace Arianespace by Airbus, your point has merit. Airbus, as a publicly traded company, of which 25% is owned by nation-states, has a different risk appetite compared to a privately-owned company funded by someone with deep pockets.
jeroen79 2y ago
It is not outdated just because it isn't reusable, at least it can use green hydrogen fuel.
- perihelions 2y ago
  That'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 ago
And 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 ago
  No; 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 ago
It'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 ago
Here'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 ago
  I don 't think they are getting enough funding to really make it. There would be no SpaceX without massive NASA contracts.
  - Gravityloss 2y ago
    Maybe they should get part of the 800 billion defense package.
    - rqtwteye 2y ago
      They for sure will.

Let’s see on with which rocket the next JWST will be delivered

The 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.
  - rqtwteye 2y ago
    "Before that, they had a sugar daddy billionaire. Obviously, Arianespace doesn't have that." Ariane have ESA as sugardaddy. And SLS has NASA. Both are consuming more more money than SpaceX with less results. The main difference is that nobody pushes them to be more ambitious.
perihelions 2y ago
But there really isn't any difference; they started off in exactly the same place. SpaceX' having its captive client (Starlink) isn't some external factor that favored them and disfavored Arianespace: it's a business choice SpaceX made—a choice with enormous risks* of failure—which Arianespace did not. Arianespace took no risks, tried nothing, achieved nothing. That's the difference. *(People seem to have completely forgotten how incredibly unpopular the LEO megaconstellation idea was when Musk started working on it, mid-2010's. No one understood the point of it; pretty much everyone was skeptical that it could even find enough business customers to break even).
- pyrale 2y ago
  > SpaceX' having its captive client (Starlink) isn't some external factor that favored them No, but it's an additional information they had to make their decision. > Arianespace took no risks, tried nothing, achieved nothing. If you replace Arianespace by Airbus, your point has merit. Airbus, as a publicly traded company, of which 25% is owned by nation-states, has a different risk appetite compared to a privately-owned company funded by someone with deep pockets.

jeroen79 2y ago

It is not outdated just because it isn't reusable, at least it can use green hydrogen fuel.

perihelions 2y ago
That'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 ago

And 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 ago
No; 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 ago

It'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 ago

Here'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 ago
I don 't think they are getting enough funding to really make it. There would be no SpaceX without massive NASA contracts.
- Gravityloss 2y ago
  Maybe they should get part of the 800 billion defense package.
  - rqtwteye 2y ago
    They for sure will.