4 ms·
Of course, even Europe cannot launch cheaply anymore. Arianespace is crawling to space; they are left for dead. The only serious players are the US and China. I
by mainecoder 2y ago
Of course, even Europe cannot launch cheaply anymore. Arianespace is crawling to space; they are left for dead. The only serious players are the US and China. It's reached a point where it has become like trying to manufacture a state-of-the-art 5nm chip in a developing nation: possible, but at an absurd cost. You might achieve an initial parametric yield of only 10%, meaning only a tiny fraction of the chips coming off the line meet the basic electrical specifications. Even then, the functional yield (the percentage that actually performs the intended computation correctly at the target speed) might be even lower, say 5%. You'd be throwing away 95 out of every 100 chips, and the cost per usable die would be astronomical due to the sheer expense of acquiring and maintaining the lithography equipment, cleanroom facilities, and specialized expertise – resources that are heavily concentrated in a few leading nations and require years, if not decades, to build from scratch.
- aaronblohowiak 2y agoWhat do you think about RFA?
- echoangle 2y agoAnd Isar Aerospace is also European and is set to launch tomorrow (although they seem to think it will explode at some point). But I don’t know if they will be particularly cheap.
- wat10000 2y agoSpaceX didn't spend an absurd amount of money getting Falcon 9 to where it is. It was a lot, but pretty typical, even somewhat cheap, for developing a brand new rocket. Repeating their feat should be even cheaper, since you won't be taking detours trying out parachutes and such before settling on the final architecture. It's a relatively straightforward application of known technology, not bleeding edge stuff like 5nm chip making. An organization that can produce Ariane 6 should be able to produce a Falcon 9 clone with similar effort. The real problem is overcoming the of the old, slow, expensive way of doing things.
- notahacker 2y agoFunnily enough the European Launcher Challenge just dropped recently, supposed to be modelled on NASA's procurement process that ultimately lead to SpaceX being a thing. But the EUR169m contracts aren't likely to get you a Falcon 9 clone, and there isn't exactly a ton of private capital for newspace sloshing around in Europe If anything Europe has the opposite problem: the launch startups are all far too small to do anything on a Falcon 9 scale. SpaceX did't get to Falcon 9 early either. Sure, Arianespace probably could build a Falcon 9 clone, but it's not something they'd want to self fund, and there's quite a few ESA members that don't want to see most of their budget contributions go to funding the development of a foreign launch monopolist...
- perihelions 2y agoIf it's so easy to clone it, where are the clones? I've been reading about Airbus' reusable/recoverable SpaceX-killers for over a decade now. They've yet to have anything to show for their work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeline_(rocket_stage) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeline_(rocket_stage) https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056 ("Airbus unveils 'Adeline' re-usable rocket concept" (2015)) - "...Airbus says it has been working on the concept since 2010 and has even flight-tested small demonstrators..." (That BBC article predates the first Falcon rocket landing).
- wat10000 2y agoDon't get me wrong, that problem of overcoming the old, slow, expensive way of doing things is huge for any established launch organization. I don't expect Airbus or ULA to get there. But it's not because the technology is so difficult that they can't do it. A new rocket company with a couple billion dollars in funding would have a good chance.
- trothamel 2y agoNote that in doing so, they'd be reaching where SpaceX was a decade ago, and by the time they got there, it seems pretty likely that full reusability will be working a year or so from now, at least for basic earth-orbit flights.
- dmitrygr 2y ago> The only serious players are the US and China Forgot one https://www.rocketlaunch.live/?filter=roscosmos https://www.rocketlaunch.live/?filter=roscosmos
- tonyhart7 2y agorussia is poor now that their entire economy is shaken by war, I doubt they would even get competitive in the future even I would award third place to India or CNSA
- dmitrygr 2y agoLuckily for you, the linked site has upcoming schedules to trivially look this up. India has 6 launches upcoming in 2025, Rosskosmos has 8 and Russian military has one more. So Russia is launching 50% more than India in 2025.
- tonyhart7 2y agoroscosmos launch is because they still get contract from NASA to International Space Station
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lupusreal 2y agoMoney doesn't change hands for Russia launching astronauts or NASA launching cosmonauts. They're basically bartering for the sake of knowing the station will be manned even if one side gets grounded.
- tonyhart7 2y ago"Money doesn't change hands for Russia launching astronauts or NASA launching cosmonauts" did you see my parent comment or not??? I am not trying to question their ability for them get to space, it doesn't matter if you CAN go to space but you didn't have money for it its clear that NASA and Roscosmos collaboration days is numbered and would not continue in the future because geo politic
- dyauspitr 2y agoIndia’s ISRO is definitely a serious player.
- lupusreal 2y agoRoscosmos is dead to international commercial partners, but are still putting a great deal into space. Third place behind SpaceX and China.