3 ms·

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 becaus

by 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.

by pyrale 2y ago

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.