... and their job is probably dealing with a lot of space policy, policy organizations, regulations, contractors, etc. not designing rockets. Who is their head of engineering / CTO?
Actually, Arianespace famously chided spacex for trying to do reusability. So A6 was not intended to be a predecessor at all. Almost no real new major tech.
China is doing a much more aggressive fast follow of SpaceX and ESA just recommitted to this Ariane 6 as the future backbone of EU space launch (they have a lot of vested interests on this rocket so chance of going hard on something else were pretty limited to begin with).
This rocket will probably need at least a billion in subsidies every 2-3 years in addition to forcing EU sats to go on it (for 2x the price of alternatives).
> FYI this is the predecessor to a reusable rocket
Not much of a predecessor, no.
When they started designing it, there was no interest in producing a reusable rocket, as it was not clear if it could be done in a cost-efficient manner, and the development uncertainty was too high. Hindsight is 20/20.
Of course, they might iterate and re-use some technology from Ariane 6 for a re-usable future launcher, as they leveraged technology from Ariane 5 and Vega for this launcher.
Rocket Lab, Firefly, Relativity, Stoke are all working on reusable rockets. Blue Origin’s New Glenn is supposed to have the first flight end of September, carrying some low risk NASA’s satellites. They also plan to land on the first try. We shall see if they can achieve that
I think a launch this year for New Glenn is pretty much entirely off the table now (or might just barely make it in by the end of the year), they haven't even gotten to static firing the rocket yet, let alone all the work after that needed to be able to fly.
They'd have to move as fast as SpaceX without running into any trouble on their very first time lighting up the fully integrated rocket and have launch licensing paperwork already being worked through to just barely make it to a September launch. Similarly, I bet that the next Starship test won't happen before mid-September/early-October if they stick to the plan of attempting a catch.
IIUC this is one of those projects that the governments fund when the free market solution doesn't exist.
Sure, Falcon 9 or Soyuz exists but those are foreign entities that might become unavailable due to politics, therefore a local solution must be developed even if its not the most cost effective. It also must help train and retain local talent and distribute funds to participating parties.
So, it may be a bit expensive but in the end you get a rocket, a workforce who knows how to design and build rockets and they happen to spend the money they receive locally.
IMHO they should invest in video production and art too, no one ever comes close to Space X in that department.
edit: Wow, so much negativity for a successful launch.
I agree that it makes sense for the EU to have it's own rocket and rocket talent, but the crazy part is the Ariane 6 was obsolete before it hit the design table.
Clearly SpaceX have upturned the industry, but to still be so blind to the fact reuse is the future is wilful ignorance.
I'm happy the government funds projects to keep expertise and local know-how, but it would be better if they weren't spending billions to be a decade (or two) obsolete.
I don't know how obsolete it was since it appears to have decent performance numbers even if its not lading the boosters for re-use, but its a common theme when the government is involved. They like to play it safe(at least in perception) and comes with added rigidity since public funds are involved.
Even the USA has these problems, when it comes to government contracts Musk and Bezos fight over it, the Boeing swoops in etc. Can you imagine how hard it is when it involves not only multiple businesses but also multiple countries?
It works well when it has a market dominant customer base, like with Airbus, but when its the governments pushing things into existence its is usually optimised for other needs like contracts being given in such a way that stakeholders are happy.
So? Some companies in Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland and Sweden will get that money and they will train and employ people.
More expensive but they don't have to ask anybody to fly this thing. You can ask Ukrainians how shitty it is when your supplier doesn't let you do things.
But it isn't a fight. They want to beat the gravity well ("PvE", in video game terms), not SpaceX ("PvP"). And when they do have the capability to use their own expensive launch system in a pinch, they are free to buy launch capacity from the lowest bidder without becoming too dependent.
> but the crazy part is the Ariane 6 was obsolete before it hit the design table.
No, that's re-writing history. When the design was started, SpaceX was still busy fumbling landings at sea, and it was not clear-cut that a reusable rocket could be developed and operated in a cost-efficient manner, and the development uncertainty was too high.
You are the one rewritting history. Even then it was clear that Falcon 9 was much cheaper and that it wasn't nearly at the end of its development.
Ariane 6 was not even competitive with non reusable Falcon 9 that was already starting to be deployed then.
Arianespace simply didn't believe that the kind of iterative upgrades that SpaceX was talking about were possible.
But that's what you get if you just ignore reality close your eyes and yell 'lalallalala' instead of honestly looking at what the competition is doing.
These things were pointed out back then. Everybody saw what SpaceX was doing. And people told this to Arianespace repeatably. They simply laughed it off.
Ariane 6's design was selected in 2014. At the time, Falcon 9 1.0 was flying for 4 years, had less than 10t of payload and the first landing and recovery of a first stage wasn't for another year.
Given than the Ariane program is about independent European access to space for institutional launches, efficiency and costs are secondary concerns. Each country pays for a share of a program and expects a corresponding industrial share. Launches aren't priced to expect a financial return, even if Ariane 5 was an unexpected success for geostationary commercial launches in its time.
ArianeGroup produces three main things: Ariane 6, Vega and the M51 missile used on French SSBNs. It's there so that the French can lob nukes without asking the Americans (unlike the Brits) and that the Europeans can lob institutional satellites in space without asking anyone else. It's not there to be SpaceX, to be profitable or to be efficient.
After Ariane 4 there very much was hope for commercial success of Ariane 5. If anything it fell short, but was saved by robust GEO market. Going away from Ariane 5 style smaller rocket was a huge failure and its part of the seed that lead to the situation we have now.
Had the Ariane 5 been a competitive design capable of competing with Soyuz on the low range and compete for big GEO birds on the high end, it would have been far better for European space policy.
A design like Atlas 5. Capable of launching without boosters or with booster for GEO. That would have been smarter then using a combination of Soyuz and Ariane 5.
SpaceX fanboys be like "no reuse is lame and obsolete", but something like 3/4th of F9 launches are Starlink launches, so it's not like reuse has converted to sales that much or at all.
Reuse supposedly saves massive cost too, but SpaceX isn't charging that much less to customers, and some competitors are aiming to undercut it by pure expendables, so that's kind of a dubious claim too.
Those guys chanting such claims are just regurgitating marketing messagings.
At this point they're just littering LEO. I was thinking 1/4 being commercial payload, but literally 2/3 of 2023 SpaceX launches are Starlink launches.
What viable business spare that much capacity for themselves?
Everybody should pay attention to this! This is what we call the SpaceX distortion effect.
1/4th of F9 launches are a gigantic number of launches in the pre-SpaceX world.
To act like '25% ony' therefore small, is just complete idiotic and misunderstanding of actual rocket industry.
> so it's not like reuse has converted to sales that much or at all
It has literally allowed for groundbreaking new communication systems that is producing billions of dollers per year. To just act like because they are not making money from selling launches, the launches don't matter is just purely idiotic.
With the increase capacity somebody was gone build a LEO constellation. And SpaceX would have to be part of launching that constellation. Everybody is planning larger constellations. Its just that SpaceX got their first and actually owned that, rather then being the launch provider.
> Reuse supposedly saves massive cost too, but SpaceX isn't charging that much less to customers,
Why would SpaceX massively reduce prices if they have a full manifest and still win most launches? And just FYI, if there ever was a serious commercial thread, SpaceX can just lower prices easily. That why the actual smart people at Arianespace already in 2014 realized that they had no chance long term and by 2018 they knew that even the Ariane 6 wasn't go do it. That's why their marketing changed so much from 'competition' to 'independent access'.
> and some competitors are aiming to undercut it by pure expendables
They can talk about it if they want, nobody believes them its just marketing spin for people like you. Every serious company is working on reuse. Even ULA has comited to making their reuse system work because literally everybody knows that reuse is the only way to compete.
Arianespace knows it and doesn't really try to compete. They got some commercial contracts thanks to massive subsidizes and the massive launch shortage that Starlink constellation brought. The other reusable system simply weren't on the market fast enough.
Outside of that Ariane 6 doesn't have much commercial and the universal message from ESA/Arianespace is about forcing European institutions to use Ariane 6 because 'Europe'. Even in their marketing they have stopped claiming to be competitive.
> so that's kind of a dubious claim too.
> Those guys chanting such claims are just regurgitating marketing messagings.
Its only dubious to people who need to categorically hate Musk and claim anybody who says anything good about SpaceX must be some Musk worshiper, rather then just somebody who looks at actual reality.
You are parroting the worst most delusional pro-Europe nationalist PR spin and act like you are above the 'SpaceX fanboys'. Ironically not even the mainstream European PR agrees with your position anymore. You are like relic from pre-2020 still repeating the same delusional spin that made Europe the laughing stock of the global launch market.
While literally every well financed rocket company in the world announced re-usability plans, RocketLab, ULA, Relativity, Blue Origin, NG-Firefly, many in China, Arianespace was still producing PR spin while their rocket was delayed and more and more Arianespace launches shifted to SpaceX. There is basically not a single large new rocket design in the works that doesn't have re-usability plans.
Sadly the idea that anything is competitive when SpaceX launches 100+ times a year is so utterly deranged and delusional that even French burocrates have realized that their media PR was only serving to make them an international laughing stock. That why their PR strategy has radically shifted. Only the people who have to somehow 'own the fanboys' still hold on to that old Arianespace PR nonsense.
Even the French space agencies who was pushing for 'Ariane Next' by 2028 (yes a delusional timeline) was literally propo...
Ariane 6 is just pork barrel politics at this point.
Will it launch? sure! Will it deliver some payloads in orbit? Of course. Is it already completely obsolete and completely overpriced? That goes without saying!
They just took the wrong turn many years ago and they have decided that it was better to keep going than to admit that they made a mistake.
If we assume it takes the same amount of time to produce a working version of Ariane Next(the European falcon 9) then it won't arrive before the the mid 2030s and by this point, I would expect Starship or another rocket to have taken over the entire market anyway.
Finally, I want to say that the money that funds this is not magic money that appears out of thin air, it's taxes or debt that we are saddling the next generation with and it seems considering the debt levels in Europe that we should aim to be a tad bit more careful how we spend these budgets.
The performance numbers are fine, it's not obsolete in the sense of usefulness. Anyway, this project is not a French project or a German project but combination of many, therefore it needs to serve the interest of all those, therefore its politically very complex, therefore the management can't act as Musk.
If it flies and delivers stuff into the space, even at higher prices, its a huge success.
> If it flies and delivers stuff into the space, even at higher prices, its a huge success.
Why do people keep repeating this nonsense. The goals of the project were outlined in 2014 when the project was greenlit. If anybody back then had suggested that
'If it flies and delivers stuff into the space, even at higher prices, its a huge success.'
They would have been laughed out of the room. It directly contradicts the whole rational for the Ariane 6 that made it politically viable.
If what you say was true, then Europe would be flying the Ariane 5 ME and developing a reusable launch vehicle of the future right now.
You are just repeating ESA and Arianespace PR spin, when around 2020 it was clear their 2014 justification were nonsense, the just changed their PR and everybody just repeats it no matter that it directly contradicts the actual rational that was outlined for Ariane 6 in 2014.
The first moon landing wasn’t going to have live video (heavy, contributes nothing to functionality or telemetry, so a total waste of fuel). Very late in the game, someone realized that it might be somewhat interesting to the rest of humanity. SpaceX grew up in the social media era so that was probably never a question!
> So, it may be a bit expensive but in the end you get a rocket,
They already had a rocket. It was called Ariane 5 and it was being evolved into Ariane 5 ME (that where Ariane 6 got its upper stage engine from).
> a workforce who knows how to design and build rockets
Instead of designing a new rocket that is essentially a minimal upgrade of the existing design, you actually get a workforce who knows how to design an actual modern rocket. Not a design that is inspired by Space Shuttle.
> therefore a local solution must be developed even if its not the most cost effective
... they already had a local solution.
> It also must help train and retain local talent and distribute funds to participating parties.
You can do that by investing in future technology, not minimal upgrades over existing technology.
The reality is simply. It will require 50+ launches for Ariane 6 to be worth it and likely more. And launches that were subsidized, like those they sold to Amazon don't really count.
So the reality is, they could have continue Ariane 5 for a few more years, put some of the lighter payloads on commercial US rockets. And then invest those 5-6 billion $ into an actual modern rocket design.
As it stands, with Ariane 6 Europe is now stuck with a 80s rocket design until likely 2040.
There is a reason not a single modern commercial rocket startup uses a hydrolox core, solid boosters and a hydrogen upper stage. Late staging makes it impossible to ever develop real re-usability.
The first stage engine, is very old and very expensive and slow to build. Its a gas-generator and not a very well optimized one. Solids are simply not competitive and only used by government launchers.
Its an architecture that goes back to the Post-Apollo area. The believe in hydorgen fuel and solids is inspired by the Shuttle. Ariane 5 was literally design for a Shuttle clone type system.
The Upper stage, while having an amazing modern engine (20 years in development), is actually just terrible in terms of structural design and is getting out-performed massively by Vulcan 5, Falcon 9 Upper stage and new entrance like Neutron.
The system requires 3 different types of propulsion systems and all of them in low volume. Yeah why would that not be efficient.
SpaceX on the other hand only uses two variants of the same engine. Despite re-usability that engine gets produced in high volumes.
So for each $ invested in better engines, SpaceX improves its whole stack. Arianespace needs to optimize 3 radically different engine system to improve its whole stack.
This partially explains why SpaceX radically out innovated Arianespace even in the same rocket generation.
Go look at what the French Space agency proposed for their 'Ariane Next' design only a few years after Ariane 6 was agree on. It was basically a Falcon 9 design.
Think of the Ariane 6 design like a WW1 bi-plane design evolved for use early in WW2 and we are now already going into post WW2 war jet fighters with systems like Starship/Raptor.
> Its an architecture that goes back to the Post-Apollo area. The believe in hydorgen fuel and solids is inspired by the Shuttle. Ariane 5 was literally design for a Shuttle clone type system.
The solid rockets were demanded by military only. The Germans then in control at NASA (Apollo) said what a stupid idea, Lyndon Johnson fired all of them, moved to Houston, and thus the Shuttle desaster began.
The Ariane design is also for military usage mostly.
These arguments about not risking losing capability and training a workforce are worn out, ArianeSpace's insistence on not earnestly working to innovate led to them already having had a gap in domestic capability. Similarly, they're just maintaining the workforce at great expense, but the private space booms in the US and China are actively growing the workforce on the back of mostly private capital.
On top of that, it isn't as if ArianeSpace is just acting as a stopgap until a private provider is ready, they're actively opposing the rise of private providers. They're even lobbying to choke the European satellite industry by forcing them to be restricted to European launchers, regardless of availability or capability.
> ArianeSpace's insistence on not earnestly working to innovate led to them already having had a gap in domestic capability
Yes and no, there are plenty of EU space startups. What Ariane has done is starve them of government funding to build a competitive EU based market. So I'd say it's drawing the investment into a hole.
Just a quick sample of EU space firms I'm aware of:
Yeah that's what I mean, Ariane isn't just standing in for something the market has no solution for, they're actively trying to stifle the solutions the market is working on.
By gap in domestic capability I'm referring to how various ESA launches had to be shifted to Falcon 9 due to the retirement of Ariane 5, the delays to Ariane 6 and the already booked manifest for Ariane 6.
For all of the various challenges, structural and political, that Ariane 6 has dealt with, I truly hope this is a flawless launch. Any kind of additional competition is worthwhile.
I think you're correct, Ariane isn't "competitive" with SpaceX, but it is "competition", which is a minor but important point.
I've been following SpaceX since the beginning, and I'm a huge fan of what they're doing. At the same time, I really want Ariane and others to be not just "competition" but also "competitive".
I'm more amazed by all the space startups in Germany, like RFA, Isar Aerospace, and HyImpulse - especially as they all have very different rocket designs (cheap/steel vs. highly engineered/carbon vs. hybrid rocket engines).
Ariane 6 is a disaster of a design and just terrible space policy. It was literally an emergency program because Arianespace was in a panic as by 2014 they were already losing commercial launches to SpaceX. Europe viewed their ability for Arianespace to dominate commercial launches as vital to their continued ability to be a first class space power.
Instead of taking a long term view and really thinking about future rocket strategy, they basically went into emergency 'we need to compete with Falcon 9 (2014 version)' as soon as possible. The then proposed a rocket design that was only minimally different from the Ariane 5.
In fact, at the time, there was a discussion about just continuing with the Ariane 5 and moving on the the Ariane 5 ME. This would have cost 100s of million, not billions. Upgrading the upper stage but otherwise continuing all the existing supply lines and most launch infrastructure. This would have worked for independent access but France wanted commercial success. And France was willing to buy of Italy, by forcing an Ariane 6 design that relied on Italians solids. Together France and Italy managed to push the current Ariane 6.
Even competing with Falcon 9 of 2014 would have been difficult for Ariane 6, but they didn't take into account Falcon 9 improving a lot faster then they imagined. And that's before re-usability. SpaceX improvement of engines and other system was just very rapidly, far, far faster then Arianespace. SpaceX was playing a new game, one of iteratively improving, rather then decades of the same design. And Ariane 6 cost targets were missed as well.
The upgraded from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 in terms of Main engine are not as significant as those that SpaceX made in the same timeframe. So despite SpaceX not launching a new design, they were innovating faster on their existing design, constantly rolling in new systems and improvements in every subsystem. These addressed performance and operational efficiency. For example the novel concept of deep cryo fuel.
So as the Ariane 6 was starting out, the target they aimed for Falcon 9 was already moving away faster then Ariane 6 catch up. And then Falcon 9 started to make re-usability operational and even the most patriotic French bureaucrat engineer had to understand that competing against SpaceX commercially in their traditional market was just not happening.
Once this was clear, the narrative out of ESA/Arianespace moved very much into 'its all about independent access to space'. Of course, they already had that, but that doesn't stop everybody from constantly repeating that line. Of course it mostly contradicts the rational that Ariane 6 was pushed threw politically, but hey, who is counting a few billion $.
And the promise and importance of continuing their domination of the commercial launch has transformed in three ways. Increase prices since traditional commercial launch isn't happening anyway (to be fair inflation also impacted SpaceX). Try to simply force anything European on the rocket via political pressure. And 3rd just outright subsidize commercial rocket buyers.
While SpaceX dominance was not expected, some things fell really well for Ariane 6. Russia and Europe splitting, made Soyuz go away. That means the major advantage of Ariane 6, namely launching with only 2 small solid boosters was way more useful. And second, that there is a major global shortage of heavy launch vehicles given the explosion of demand.
So in their eagerness to compete with SpaceX they are now subsidizing Amazon to launch on European rockets. Amazing strategy. And that works not because even with that subsidy Ariane 6 is competitive, it works because Amazon literally needs every single heavy lifter in the world to try to compete with Starlink. Amazon simply paying SpaceX to do it would be like literally just handing billions of $ to their direct competitor. Of course Amazon Kupiter only exists because of SpaceX revolution of the industry in the first place.
I'm not sure what you think you are referencing with this smart ass comment. Given that you wrote a just a short comment you are likely somebody that knows a little pop history (maybe you learn it during the JamesWebb launch where it was endless repeated by anti-SpaceX people) and instead addressing any of my arguments (because you clearly can't) you vaguely reference some pop history.
Europe as part of their contribution to James Webb financed the launch. That's the only relevant reason why Ariane 5 was picked. This is consistent with Europeas policy at the time to drive demand for Ariane 5. NASA accept this as Ariane 5 was known to be quite reliable.
You seem to be reflecting the narrative pushed by some unformed people that Ariane 5 was picked because it was somehow 'the best' or 'the safest', this isn't true.
Had Europe not offered this contribution to JamesWebb. ULA would have gotten the contract, in fact they were the only other option. The potential rocket options at the time were Atlas 5, Detla 4 and Delta 4 Heavy. Not sure about Atlas 5/Delta 4 had the performance. Delta 4 Heavy had the performance for sure and that would have likely been the launch vehicle picked. All of those rockets had the necessary certification for missions of the JamesWebb class mission. All those rockets have launched both DoD and NASA missions of the highest certification level.
ULA would 100% not have 'refused'. So I have no idea where or why you said 'And who refused?'. Nobody refused anything.
SpaceX was not at that time an option as they barley existed. The contract was assigned long before SpaceX was a thing in the launch market.
Of course when JamesWebb actually launched, Falcon 9 would have had the certification but this is hardly relevant as the launch was picked a decade before that.
62 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 153 ms ] threadEdit: Seems I mixed up the companies, so I'm taking back the ramble against the CEO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next
Would love to see at least one other provider get into reusability.
China is doing a much more aggressive fast follow of SpaceX and ESA just recommitted to this Ariane 6 as the future backbone of EU space launch (they have a lot of vested interests on this rocket so chance of going hard on something else were pretty limited to begin with).
This rocket will probably need at least a billion in subsidies every 2-3 years in addition to forcing EU sats to go on it (for 2x the price of alternatives).
China have basically a clone of the Falcon 9 in testing now. Nine engines, landing legs, etc. etc.
It's famous for accidentally taking off during an engine test recently - https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/chinese-space-firm-uni...
Not much of a predecessor, no.
When they started designing it, there was no interest in producing a reusable rocket, as it was not clear if it could be done in a cost-efficient manner, and the development uncertainty was too high. Hindsight is 20/20.
Of course, they might iterate and re-use some technology from Ariane 6 for a re-usable future launcher, as they leveraged technology from Ariane 5 and Vega for this launcher.
They'd have to move as fast as SpaceX without running into any trouble on their very first time lighting up the fully integrated rocket and have launch licensing paperwork already being worked through to just barely make it to a September launch. Similarly, I bet that the next Starship test won't happen before mid-September/early-October if they stick to the plan of attempting a catch.
Sure, Falcon 9 or Soyuz exists but those are foreign entities that might become unavailable due to politics, therefore a local solution must be developed even if its not the most cost effective. It also must help train and retain local talent and distribute funds to participating parties.
So, it may be a bit expensive but in the end you get a rocket, a workforce who knows how to design and build rockets and they happen to spend the money they receive locally.
IMHO they should invest in video production and art too, no one ever comes close to Space X in that department.
edit: Wow, so much negativity for a successful launch.
Clearly SpaceX have upturned the industry, but to still be so blind to the fact reuse is the future is wilful ignorance.
I'm happy the government funds projects to keep expertise and local know-how, but it would be better if they weren't spending billions to be a decade (or two) obsolete.
Even the USA has these problems, when it comes to government contracts Musk and Bezos fight over it, the Boeing swoops in etc. Can you imagine how hard it is when it involves not only multiple businesses but also multiple countries?
It works well when it has a market dominant customer base, like with Airbus, but when its the governments pushing things into existence its is usually optimised for other needs like contracts being given in such a way that stakeholders are happy.
Launch costs will be at an absolutely minimum twice as much, likely more like 3-5x. It will only be able to launch a handful of times per year.
It is literally bringing a muzzle loader to a machine gun fight.
More expensive but they don't have to ask anybody to fly this thing. You can ask Ukrainians how shitty it is when your supplier doesn't let you do things.
No, that's re-writing history. When the design was started, SpaceX was still busy fumbling landings at sea, and it was not clear-cut that a reusable rocket could be developed and operated in a cost-efficient manner, and the development uncertainty was too high.
Ariane 6 was not even competitive with non reusable Falcon 9 that was already starting to be deployed then.
Arianespace simply didn't believe that the kind of iterative upgrades that SpaceX was talking about were possible.
But that's what you get if you just ignore reality close your eyes and yell 'lalallalala' instead of honestly looking at what the competition is doing.
These things were pointed out back then. Everybody saw what SpaceX was doing. And people told this to Arianespace repeatably. They simply laughed it off.
Ariane 6's design was selected in 2014. At the time, Falcon 9 1.0 was flying for 4 years, had less than 10t of payload and the first landing and recovery of a first stage wasn't for another year.
Given than the Ariane program is about independent European access to space for institutional launches, efficiency and costs are secondary concerns. Each country pays for a share of a program and expects a corresponding industrial share. Launches aren't priced to expect a financial return, even if Ariane 5 was an unexpected success for geostationary commercial launches in its time.
ArianeGroup produces three main things: Ariane 6, Vega and the M51 missile used on French SSBNs. It's there so that the French can lob nukes without asking the Americans (unlike the Brits) and that the Europeans can lob institutional satellites in space without asking anyone else. It's not there to be SpaceX, to be profitable or to be efficient.
Had the Ariane 5 been a competitive design capable of competing with Soyuz on the low range and compete for big GEO birds on the high end, it would have been far better for European space policy.
A design like Atlas 5. Capable of launching without boosters or with booster for GEO. That would have been smarter then using a combination of Soyuz and Ariane 5.
Reuse supposedly saves massive cost too, but SpaceX isn't charging that much less to customers, and some competitors are aiming to undercut it by pure expendables, so that's kind of a dubious claim too.
Those guys chanting such claims are just regurgitating marketing messagings.
https://x.com/BryceSpaceTech/status/1796623202539434297
They're already cheaper than the competition, they have no need to sacrifice their own margin.
What viable business spare that much capacity for themselves?
As for why they're using 2/3 of their launches for themselves, they're doing it because it makes money:
https://www.satellitetoday.com/finance/2024/05/09/starlink-o...
Everybody should pay attention to this! This is what we call the SpaceX distortion effect.
1/4th of F9 launches are a gigantic number of launches in the pre-SpaceX world.
To act like '25% ony' therefore small, is just complete idiotic and misunderstanding of actual rocket industry.
> so it's not like reuse has converted to sales that much or at all
It has literally allowed for groundbreaking new communication systems that is producing billions of dollers per year. To just act like because they are not making money from selling launches, the launches don't matter is just purely idiotic.
With the increase capacity somebody was gone build a LEO constellation. And SpaceX would have to be part of launching that constellation. Everybody is planning larger constellations. Its just that SpaceX got their first and actually owned that, rather then being the launch provider.
> Reuse supposedly saves massive cost too, but SpaceX isn't charging that much less to customers,
Why would SpaceX massively reduce prices if they have a full manifest and still win most launches? And just FYI, if there ever was a serious commercial thread, SpaceX can just lower prices easily. That why the actual smart people at Arianespace already in 2014 realized that they had no chance long term and by 2018 they knew that even the Ariane 6 wasn't go do it. That's why their marketing changed so much from 'competition' to 'independent access'.
> and some competitors are aiming to undercut it by pure expendables
They can talk about it if they want, nobody believes them its just marketing spin for people like you. Every serious company is working on reuse. Even ULA has comited to making their reuse system work because literally everybody knows that reuse is the only way to compete.
Arianespace knows it and doesn't really try to compete. They got some commercial contracts thanks to massive subsidizes and the massive launch shortage that Starlink constellation brought. The other reusable system simply weren't on the market fast enough.
Outside of that Ariane 6 doesn't have much commercial and the universal message from ESA/Arianespace is about forcing European institutions to use Ariane 6 because 'Europe'. Even in their marketing they have stopped claiming to be competitive.
> so that's kind of a dubious claim too.
> Those guys chanting such claims are just regurgitating marketing messagings.
Its only dubious to people who need to categorically hate Musk and claim anybody who says anything good about SpaceX must be some Musk worshiper, rather then just somebody who looks at actual reality.
You are parroting the worst most delusional pro-Europe nationalist PR spin and act like you are above the 'SpaceX fanboys'. Ironically not even the mainstream European PR agrees with your position anymore. You are like relic from pre-2020 still repeating the same delusional spin that made Europe the laughing stock of the global launch market.
While literally every well financed rocket company in the world announced re-usability plans, RocketLab, ULA, Relativity, Blue Origin, NG-Firefly, many in China, Arianespace was still producing PR spin while their rocket was delayed and more and more Arianespace launches shifted to SpaceX. There is basically not a single large new rocket design in the works that doesn't have re-usability plans.
Sadly the idea that anything is competitive when SpaceX launches 100+ times a year is so utterly deranged and delusional that even French burocrates have realized that their media PR was only serving to make them an international laughing stock. That why their PR strategy has radically shifted. Only the people who have to somehow 'own the fanboys' still hold on to that old Arianespace PR nonsense.
Even the French space agencies who was pushing for 'Ariane Next' by 2028 (yes a delusional timeline) was literally propo...
Will it launch? sure! Will it deliver some payloads in orbit? Of course. Is it already completely obsolete and completely overpriced? That goes without saying!
They just took the wrong turn many years ago and they have decided that it was better to keep going than to admit that they made a mistake.
If we assume it takes the same amount of time to produce a working version of Ariane Next(the European falcon 9) then it won't arrive before the the mid 2030s and by this point, I would expect Starship or another rocket to have taken over the entire market anyway.
Finally, I want to say that the money that funds this is not magic money that appears out of thin air, it's taxes or debt that we are saddling the next generation with and it seems considering the debt levels in Europe that we should aim to be a tad bit more careful how we spend these budgets.
If it flies and delivers stuff into the space, even at higher prices, its a huge success.
Why do people keep repeating this nonsense. The goals of the project were outlined in 2014 when the project was greenlit. If anybody back then had suggested that
'If it flies and delivers stuff into the space, even at higher prices, its a huge success.'
They would have been laughed out of the room. It directly contradicts the whole rational for the Ariane 6 that made it politically viable.
If what you say was true, then Europe would be flying the Ariane 5 ME and developing a reusable launch vehicle of the future right now.
You are just repeating ESA and Arianespace PR spin, when around 2020 it was clear their 2014 justification were nonsense, the just changed their PR and everybody just repeats it no matter that it directly contradicts the actual rational that was outlined for Ariane 6 in 2014.
They already had a rocket. It was called Ariane 5 and it was being evolved into Ariane 5 ME (that where Ariane 6 got its upper stage engine from).
> a workforce who knows how to design and build rockets
Instead of designing a new rocket that is essentially a minimal upgrade of the existing design, you actually get a workforce who knows how to design an actual modern rocket. Not a design that is inspired by Space Shuttle.
> therefore a local solution must be developed even if its not the most cost effective
... they already had a local solution.
> It also must help train and retain local talent and distribute funds to participating parties.
You can do that by investing in future technology, not minimal upgrades over existing technology.
The reality is simply. It will require 50+ launches for Ariane 6 to be worth it and likely more. And launches that were subsidized, like those they sold to Amazon don't really count.
So the reality is, they could have continue Ariane 5 for a few more years, put some of the lighter payloads on commercial US rockets. And then invest those 5-6 billion $ into an actual modern rocket design.
As it stands, with Ariane 6 Europe is now stuck with a 80s rocket design until likely 2040.
The first stage engine, is very old and very expensive and slow to build. Its a gas-generator and not a very well optimized one. Solids are simply not competitive and only used by government launchers.
Its an architecture that goes back to the Post-Apollo area. The believe in hydorgen fuel and solids is inspired by the Shuttle. Ariane 5 was literally design for a Shuttle clone type system.
The Upper stage, while having an amazing modern engine (20 years in development), is actually just terrible in terms of structural design and is getting out-performed massively by Vulcan 5, Falcon 9 Upper stage and new entrance like Neutron.
The system requires 3 different types of propulsion systems and all of them in low volume. Yeah why would that not be efficient.
SpaceX on the other hand only uses two variants of the same engine. Despite re-usability that engine gets produced in high volumes.
So for each $ invested in better engines, SpaceX improves its whole stack. Arianespace needs to optimize 3 radically different engine system to improve its whole stack.
This partially explains why SpaceX radically out innovated Arianespace even in the same rocket generation.
Go look at what the French Space agency proposed for their 'Ariane Next' design only a few years after Ariane 6 was agree on. It was basically a Falcon 9 design.
Think of the Ariane 6 design like a WW1 bi-plane design evolved for use early in WW2 and we are now already going into post WW2 war jet fighters with systems like Starship/Raptor.
The solid rockets were demanded by military only. The Germans then in control at NASA (Apollo) said what a stupid idea, Lyndon Johnson fired all of them, moved to Houston, and thus the Shuttle desaster began.
The Ariane design is also for military usage mostly.
On top of that, it isn't as if ArianeSpace is just acting as a stopgap until a private provider is ready, they're actively opposing the rise of private providers. They're even lobbying to choke the European satellite industry by forcing them to be restricted to European launchers, regardless of availability or capability.
Yes and no, there are plenty of EU space startups. What Ariane has done is starve them of government funding to build a competitive EU based market. So I'd say it's drawing the investment into a hole.
Just a quick sample of EU space firms I'm aware of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Factory_Augsburg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isar_Aerospace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyImpulse
By gap in domestic capability I'm referring to how various ESA launches had to be shifted to Falcon 9 due to the retirement of Ariane 5, the delays to Ariane 6 and the already booked manifest for Ariane 6.
Also missing the tension a bit, no explosions, no flaps buring and so on. It was kind of boring without that, everything working just fine.
Agree with the sentiment, but is Ariane actually competitive with SpaceX
And if so, how ? Pricing for payload maybe ?
I think you're correct, Ariane isn't "competitive" with SpaceX, but it is "competition", which is a minor but important point.
I've been following SpaceX since the beginning, and I'm a huge fan of what they're doing. At the same time, I really want Ariane and others to be not just "competition" but also "competitive".
Instead of taking a long term view and really thinking about future rocket strategy, they basically went into emergency 'we need to compete with Falcon 9 (2014 version)' as soon as possible. The then proposed a rocket design that was only minimally different from the Ariane 5.
In fact, at the time, there was a discussion about just continuing with the Ariane 5 and moving on the the Ariane 5 ME. This would have cost 100s of million, not billions. Upgrading the upper stage but otherwise continuing all the existing supply lines and most launch infrastructure. This would have worked for independent access but France wanted commercial success. And France was willing to buy of Italy, by forcing an Ariane 6 design that relied on Italians solids. Together France and Italy managed to push the current Ariane 6.
Even competing with Falcon 9 of 2014 would have been difficult for Ariane 6, but they didn't take into account Falcon 9 improving a lot faster then they imagined. And that's before re-usability. SpaceX improvement of engines and other system was just very rapidly, far, far faster then Arianespace. SpaceX was playing a new game, one of iteratively improving, rather then decades of the same design. And Ariane 6 cost targets were missed as well.
The upgraded from Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 in terms of Main engine are not as significant as those that SpaceX made in the same timeframe. So despite SpaceX not launching a new design, they were innovating faster on their existing design, constantly rolling in new systems and improvements in every subsystem. These addressed performance and operational efficiency. For example the novel concept of deep cryo fuel.
So as the Ariane 6 was starting out, the target they aimed for Falcon 9 was already moving away faster then Ariane 6 catch up. And then Falcon 9 started to make re-usability operational and even the most patriotic French bureaucrat engineer had to understand that competing against SpaceX commercially in their traditional market was just not happening.
Once this was clear, the narrative out of ESA/Arianespace moved very much into 'its all about independent access to space'. Of course, they already had that, but that doesn't stop everybody from constantly repeating that line. Of course it mostly contradicts the rational that Ariane 6 was pushed threw politically, but hey, who is counting a few billion $.
And the promise and importance of continuing their domination of the commercial launch has transformed in three ways. Increase prices since traditional commercial launch isn't happening anyway (to be fair inflation also impacted SpaceX). Try to simply force anything European on the rocket via political pressure. And 3rd just outright subsidize commercial rocket buyers.
While SpaceX dominance was not expected, some things fell really well for Ariane 6. Russia and Europe splitting, made Soyuz go away. That means the major advantage of Ariane 6, namely launching with only 2 small solid boosters was way more useful. And second, that there is a major global shortage of heavy launch vehicles given the explosion of demand.
So in their eagerness to compete with SpaceX they are now subsidizing Amazon to launch on European rockets. Amazing strategy. And that works not because even with that subsidy Ariane 6 is competitive, it works because Amazon literally needs every single heavy lifter in the world to try to compete with Starlink. Amazon simply paying SpaceX to do it would be like literally just handing billions of $ to their direct competitor. Of course Amazon Kupiter only exists because of SpaceX revolution of the industry in the first place.
So what could a smart space policy h...
Yeah right
Europe as part of their contribution to James Webb financed the launch. That's the only relevant reason why Ariane 5 was picked. This is consistent with Europeas policy at the time to drive demand for Ariane 5. NASA accept this as Ariane 5 was known to be quite reliable.
You seem to be reflecting the narrative pushed by some unformed people that Ariane 5 was picked because it was somehow 'the best' or 'the safest', this isn't true.
Had Europe not offered this contribution to JamesWebb. ULA would have gotten the contract, in fact they were the only other option. The potential rocket options at the time were Atlas 5, Detla 4 and Delta 4 Heavy. Not sure about Atlas 5/Delta 4 had the performance. Delta 4 Heavy had the performance for sure and that would have likely been the launch vehicle picked. All of those rockets had the necessary certification for missions of the JamesWebb class mission. All those rockets have launched both DoD and NASA missions of the highest certification level.
ULA would 100% not have 'refused'. So I have no idea where or why you said 'And who refused?'. Nobody refused anything.
SpaceX was not at that time an option as they barley existed. The contract was assigned long before SpaceX was a thing in the launch market.
Of course when JamesWebb actually launched, Falcon 9 would have had the certification but this is hardly relevant as the launch was picked a decade before that.
> Yeah right
Congratulations, you played yourself.