3 ms·
As a _launch customer_, it doesn't _really_ matter to ESA what the underlying cost is, only what they are _charged_. For the time being, Ariane 6 isn't drastica
by rsynnott 1y ago
As a _launch customer_, it doesn't _really_ matter to ESA what the underlying cost is, only what they are _charged_. For the time being, Ariane 6 isn't drastically more expensive than the list price for the competition, and is, as above, _cheaper than the cost that other space agencies are actually paying for Falcon 9_.
If ESA was actually a commercial launch company, this would be different, but they're not. (Arianespace _is_, kind of, and _it_ should be far more concerned about this).
For practical purposes the number of Ariane 6 launches is gated by demand. Over the long term you'd probably expect it to be 5 to 10 per year, same as Ariane 5 used to be.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> For the time being, Ariane 6 isn't drastically more expensive than the list price for the competition That's because SpaceX is soaking up its spare capacity with Starlink. I expect once that market is saturated SpaceX's launch prices will begin plummeting, as it seeks to maximise volume through market share. More critically: SpaceX discounts for volume contracts. And it's the only launch company offering the kind of cadence populating a LEO constellation requires.
- NetMageSCW 1y agoYour cheaper cost is leaving out the subsidies paid to ArianeSpace by EU governments.