Comments
BoringEntropist t1_ixia3z5 wrote
Countries have a strategic need for independent access to space. Navigation, intelligence and communication infrastructure in space has become vital, and if states have to rely on other countries they become dependent on them. So, Europe is going to build rockets whether F9 or Starship exists or not.
Europe just got lucky with the Ariane 4. It was the F9 of its days: cheap, reliable and accessible. It paid for itself which made it popular to politicians who have to explain the funding to the tax payers.
My_Soul_to_Squeeze t1_ixii2ik wrote
And political / self sufficiency factors are important enough that this future rocket doesn't have to beat F9 or SH at anything really. It just has to be good/ cheap enough to rationalize paying the "made in Europe by Europeans" premium.
Ramenastern t1_ixjmhw1 wrote
There is that aspect to it, but it should be kept in mind that Ariane for the most part is a commercial operation, carrying commercial payloads, so it does have to be fairly competitive.
CosmosExpedition t1_ixk8xvd wrote
Ariane is too big to fail. Even if it was hemorrhaging money, either the French government would bail it out or a plan between the major European powers would probably be made to bail it out.
toodroot t1_ixks6v5 wrote
Arianespace is hemorrhaging money.
CosmosExpedition t1_ixkxm0r wrote
toodroot t1_ixky2oa wrote
Yes, that on-time completion of Ariane 6 really helped their financials! That plus the Amazon order means they didn't need any launch subsidies in the most recent ESA budget.
Oh, wait.
CosmosExpedition t1_ixl1x7i wrote
Let’s completely ignore publicly available financial data because… reasons! Arianespace is not hemorrhaging money. There is no debate here.
Sorry.
toodroot t1_ixl7bxy wrote
The article says that Arianespace expected to break even for 2021, including a subsidy.
How did 2022 turn out? Well, Arianespace had to give OneWeb some of their money back, Ariane 5 launched twice and one launch only had a single satellite, Vega C will probably launch twice, and woo hoo, 1 Soyuz launch in February.
panick21 t1_ixj0mzj wrote
And then the developed Ariane 5 and it was mostly a bad idea badly designed opening the market up to get their ass kicked.
Ramenastern t1_ixjpd7l wrote
Beg your pardon? Before SpaceX came along, their cost was fairly competitive, and they had over 80 consecutive successful launches. It's not been quite as reliable as the Ariane 4, but still has a success rate of over 95% (93% if you discount partial successes), so it's not exactly a dud.
But yes, it's not as competitive as it used to be, and a successor is overdue. Funny to read Ariane 7 is being planned before 6 has even launched the first time.
Edit: Just to illustrate the reliability point: JWST was launched on Ariane, partly because it was such a proven, established platform with a good track record.
toodroot t1_ixkse88 wrote
> Just to illustrate the reliability point: JWST was launched on Ariane, partly because it was such a proven, established platform with a good track record.
That was a barter agreement with NASA, not any kind of competition. SpaceX didn't exist when that barter was decided, but ULA certainly did.
BoringEntropist t1_ixjfir5 wrote
True. But A4 had one major problem: the fuel. Not only was extremely toxic, difficult to handle and ecological concerning, but the French were transitioning to solid fuel for their SLBMs. The supply of hydrazine would then become a problem. A new design became necessary, one that could use the the solid fuel rockets the French were developing. Essentially they copied the approach the Americans were using for the shuttle system: A big, low thrust first stage burning hydrogen with some big strap-on boosters for the initial kick.
They hoped the solid fuel would keep the costs down, in combination of dual launching satellites. The market caught up with them though. The Russians and the Chinese opened their market and sold launches much cheaper.
I wouldn't go as far as saying the A5 was badly designed. It made sense with the constraints the Europeans were working with. But like the shuttle the system didn't became as profitable as they hoped for.
panick21 t1_ixjmdm5 wrote
I defiantly agree they should not have continued with the A4.
> Essentially they copied the approach the Americans were using for the shuttle system: A big, low thrust first stage burning hydrogen with some big strap-on boosters for the initial kick.
Lessen Nr.1, copy from Von Braun or the Soviets, not post-Apollo NASA.
> in combination of dual launching satellites.
This was actually a major mistake, it limited the number of launches, limiting their options for mass production and they were not able to dominating both mid and large market.
> It made sense with the constraints the Europeans were working with. But like the shuttle the system didn't became as profitable as they hoped for.
I disagree that it made sense. If they can develop a GG hydrogen rocket, they could have developed a GG RP-1 rocket.
BoringEntropist t1_ixkgevl wrote
Yeah, going full kerolox in the first stage would have been better. I think it was because of politics, in particular pressure from the French. They were (and still are) leading the project. They wanted solid fuel to subsidize their military rocket developments, and kerolox would have made that unnecessary. This was the constraints I was talking about. In aerospace often times politics are more important than the engineering itself.
In A6 you can see this too. At the beginning it was envisioned as having a purely solid first stage, but the Germans wanted to keep building large tanks. Basically it was planned as a larger Vega, but instead we've got a shrunken A5.
panick21 t1_ixl6lof wrote
> This was the constraints I was talking about.
A self imposed constraint is not a constraint.
> In aerospace often times politics are more important than the engineering itself.
And it often makes the difference between a great design and a not so great one.
Adeldor t1_ixhfixx wrote
It'll be good for everyone if they can execute on this. However, earlier European dismissal - "selling a dream" (spool to 3:25) - and subsequent resistance to reusable rocket development - "that does not make sense" (Google translation) - have put them in a very uncompetitive position.
noxx1234567 t1_ixhkprs wrote
Isn't the European space program even behind china nowadays ? Or can they realistically catch up to spaceX ?
Reddit-runner t1_ixhxasc wrote
Yes, they COULD catch up, but instead they throw billions at non-reusable rockets, which can never compete with Falcon9, let alone Starship.
pietroq t1_ixhy8u6 wrote
IMHO we can't catch up until a seismic change in how innovation is handled. SpaceX is innovating faster. This means that the gap is increasing, not decreasing.
Reddit-runner t1_ixi3wi2 wrote
>IMHO we can't catch up until a seismic change in how innovation is handled
I think the "easiest" way would be milestone based fixed-cost contracts. But that would kill about every big aerospace-related company we have right now...
panick21 t1_ixj0rp5 wrote
Europe doesn't really have the space companies willing to take that risk in real numbers.
Reddit-runner t1_ixj149t wrote
>Europe doesn't really have the space companies willing to take that risk in real numbers.
Yes. Obviously.
Why else do you think I proposed milestone based fixed-cost contracts?
That way even relatively small companies can stem the finacial burden and quickly grow.
panick21 t1_ixj2twk wrote
That requires banks to lend those companies money, or investors to pay that until they get some money from the contracts. Given that these companies are unproven this is unlikely to happen.
Maybe for some tiny projects, and that would make sense to build up the industry, but not for really serious stuff.
Reddit-runner t1_ixj61sp wrote
When the milestones are close enough together the risk for investors is relatively small.
So each milestone would be a "tiny project" within "really serious stuff".
ballthyrm t1_ixi2v3t wrote
They should change gear TBH. Maintain the rockets for national security reason but expand to other opening fields with this new cheap access to space.
Europe is very good at building satellites and space stations parts.
toodroot t1_ixirezn wrote
Satellites are a much bigger part of the space market than launchers, yet Europe seems to want to throw all of their subsidy money into commercially-disastrous launchers.
rouille t1_ixix0op wrote
That's entirely false. Europe has been and is still quite strong at commercial satellites. Maybe Europe needs to invest more in launchers because it is lagging behind on that front?
toodroot t1_ixiye22 wrote
I agree Europe has been and is still quite strong at commercial satellites.
[deleted] t1_ixk4thp wrote
[removed]
ferrel_hadley t1_ixhud5f wrote
Musk? You are being over taken by RocketLabs and the other small launch systems will not be that far behind. You are in the wrong paradigm. ULA survives as its custom built for the DOD\NRO work. Everything that is not cheap and agile will die.
If Musk disapears tomorrow you will only be a few years beyond instead of more than a decade.
Vega should have been the warning. Its not a statist industry anymore.
twcoolio t1_ixhxznp wrote
>Vega should have been the warning. Its not a statist industry anymore.
True. Companies in this industry just get subsidies and contratcs from the government, from which they get most of their profits.
panick21 t1_ixj261f wrote
People need to understand. The Ariane 6 is literally a slightly upgraded Ariane 5 that was already planned. The engine of the upper stage for example had been in development for decades. And the same goes for the boosters. Vulcan was just slightly upgraded from 2.0 to 2.1 and that was also part of Ariane 5 ES development.
And despite that, Ariane 6 development is gone end up costing some 5 billion$. That is more then the whole cost of Falcon 1, Falcon 9, re-usability development, Falcon Heavy and Raptor development combined. And that 5$ billion does not include all the cost for all those parts that had been in development already.
In addition, from the start of development in 2014ish, it will take them almost 10 years for this slightly improved Ariane 5.
This is just the same show over again. They are designing a rocket now, to compete if what SpaceX had a few years ago. In about 12 years when this rocket might actually fly and then a few years after that when they have actually managed to reuse a singe one, we will all laugh again because they did the same thing again, plan to beat the competition they can currently see.
Seriously, their engine for this rocket is still a gas generator, competing with the Merlin (and likely not well) they are not even approaching Raptor.
The Vinci engine they have spend 25 years developing looks impressive, but then you realize they have so totally mishandled their upper stage build, that all that performance is lost. Even traditional aluminum upper stages should have been much lighter. Typical European, making this super awesome expensive thing, and then losing all that performance failing to do something that is comparatively easy and low tech. They have no mindset of iteratively improving, identifying bottlenecks and systematically improving those.
Ramenastern t1_ixjqxd3 wrote
>Typical European, making this super awesome expensive thing, and then losing all that performance failing to do something that is comparatively easy and low tech. They have no mindset of iteratively improving, identifying bottlenecks and systematically improving those.
I'm not even disputing the assessment itself, but "typical European" is just unnecessary nonsense. A unit of Airbus builds and develops the Ariane 5 and 6, respectively, another unit of Airbus made a bit of a hash of the A400am military transport, while their commercial unit is currently absolutely dominating their US counterpart (which is also struggling in their military and space divisions) partly by doing exactly what you claim Europeans are unable of: iteratively improving, identifying bottlenecks and systematically improving those.
My point being - it's not about nationality/continent, it's about the capabilities of the organisation in question.
panick21 t1_ixjtyba wrote
I am European and I was mostly talking about the rocket program.
Ramenastern t1_ixl44p5 wrote
Thanks for clarifying, that didn't come across immediately for me.
luvpaxplentytrue t1_ixk45pf wrote
How is airbus "dominating their US counterpart"? Where is the US "struggling in their military and space divisions"? This is complete nonsense.
The US exceeds the EU in space technology in almost every category. The ESA has a higher failure rate, less innovation, more cost, etc. ... Europe doesn't have any advantage over the USA in space technology.
CosmosExpedition t1_ixkakit wrote
That comment from /u/Ramenastern was one of the more ignorant bits of wannabe analysis I’ve ever read on this sub lol
Ramenastern t1_ixl3vzg wrote
Oh, you'll love Scott Hamilton's analyses of the state of Boeing commercial, then. Or even Richard Aboulafia's.
Ramenastern t1_ixl3t55 wrote
>How is airbus "dominating their US counterpart"?
Have you seen market shares recently, especially in the narrowbody sector? Have you seen sales figures and delays for the 777X? Have you seen how Boeing tried to lobby away the CSeries instead of innovating, scoring an impressive own goal in the process as it ended up giving Airbus the CSeries platform? Have you heard about the MAX debacle and the one year delivery stop for the 787 due to quality issues? Are you aware of the previous 787 screw-ups that led to a) Airbus selling more A330s after the 787 was offered than before (noting the A330 was the plane the 787 was supposed to kill) and b) the programme hardly ever being able to recover its R&D costs?
jku1m t1_ixl67v6 wrote
He was obviously talking about air travel.
[deleted] t1_ixo9g0h wrote
[removed]
toodroot t1_ixkt7x0 wrote
The unit of Airbus that designed the A380, which had the wrong length wiring due to a French/German software mismatch, and then was only built for 14 years before running out of orders? I mean, Boeing commercial aircraft has had some disasters, but so has Airbus commercial. You definitely don't want to be the person throwing stones out of your glass house.
[deleted] t1_ixl3cqt wrote
[removed]
pompanoJ t1_ixhkich wrote
"We are going to have a rocket to compete with Falcon 9 as soon as we finish developing our new, clean sheet rocket! Governments are stepping g up to help develop the technologies for the parts now!"
Yeah.....
Since it is still a paper rocket, I suppose they could design something to compete with Starship.... they just always seem to be aiming a generation behind.....
wrecktvf t1_ixhmp1a wrote
To be fair, Falcon 9 is 10 years old and hasn’t had a failure in 6 years, so they’re 10 years behind without even having started yet
Quiet_Dimensions t1_ixhz68a wrote
By the time that happens Falcon 9 itself will be obsolete. ESA needs to compete with the rocket after Starship, not F9.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_ixhqtti wrote
This unwavering anti-market approach reminds me of the famous "The beatings will continue until morale improves" that alledgely led to the Bounty's mutiny.
Jaggedmallard26 t1_ixhvlqo wrote
The mutiny on the bounty did lead to one of the greatest feats of recorded seamanship until Shackleton sailed from the Antarctic to the South Georgia in an open boat to get aid for his expedition. If the metaphor holds the Europeans might salvage something from this.
sryforcomment t1_ixiq2fg wrote
How about you compare space subsidies between ESA and the US over the last decades? ESA and its member states have a way leaner budget. You could say they're much more careful and efficient with spending tax payer money.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_ixjs2ll wrote
And the US also had a failing, terribly anti-market approach as well. Right until the CRS program that is. And this program, and commercial crew after, showed that not only a competitive, free market approach to space procurement for the government in space was possible, but that it was much, much better.
When no one thought it would work, then everyone was just ignorant. But when you've seen it work and you still decide to give a monopoly to a single entity, then thats something else entirely, now you're just being stupid.
sryforcomment t1_ixjtr4z wrote
Further commercialization of the space industry is already heavily underway in Europe and is pretty much orienting towards a market-based approach anyway, it's just going to take a while to truly see the effects.
The funding allocated for Ariane, Vega and new micro launcher startups across Europe to guarantee domestic launch options is pretty much nothing and is less market-distorting than those humongous budgets China and US have for space, whether civilian or military.
You do know EU governments and ESA have used and will use SpaceX rockets for some of their launches, right? ESA and its member states are never going to catch up to US or Chinese government funding on space. They simply lack the needed ambition. I'm just hoping European NewSpace companies are going to pick up the slack with mostly private funding.
runningray t1_ixhvev9 wrote
This reminds of SLS competing with the Falcon Heavy.
Koffeekage t1_ixilgbw wrote
If theyre not making reusable rockets then theyre not trying to compete.
Oxygenisplantpoo t1_ixie4ti wrote
It's good that they are already looking forward, because the race was already lost before we even started. Ariane 6 represents an outdated design philosophy despite not having launched yet, and there are small companies like Rocket Lab that are overtaking Ariane as well. I would really love to see the union countries increase funding towards space efforts, as of now we are too often piggybacking on US projects instead of really taking initiative of our own. I hope we will also get a capacity for our own manned launches.
Decronym t1_ixhzdnm wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CNSA|Chinese National Space Administration| |CRS|Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA| |ESA|European Space Agency| |ISRO|Indian Space Research Organisation| |JWST|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| |NRHO|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit| |NRO|(US) National Reconnaissance Office| | |Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO| |RP-1|Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene)| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Raptor|Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX| |kerolox|Portmanteau: kerosene fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
^(11 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has acronyms.)
^([Thread #8339 for this sub, first seen 23rd Nov 2022, 16:14])
^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
The-Sturmtiger-Boi t1_ixjhiup wrote
People be acting like independent rocket manufacturers are starting a second space race
seanflyon t1_ixjljn1 wrote
It is a bit one-sided right now, but Blue Origin and Rocket Lab are looking promising. We might get a real race in the future.
The-Sturmtiger-Boi t1_ixjmyl9 wrote
Race to what? appeasing the masses? the companies can care less what the others are doing.
seanflyon t1_ixjp6k6 wrote
A race to provide a better product at a lower cost and win customers.
The-Sturmtiger-Boi t1_ixk8zsn wrote
The launch vehicle itself is to be considered, in some cases you will want a small rocket, but others you will need a different one. some missions require different rockets, and trying to make humanity compete over our final frontier is a stupid.
Space is supposed to unite us, not divide
seanflyon t1_ixkb9a8 wrote
A race doesn't have to divide us. Competition is important because we want reality to determine what ideas are best, not a committee of bureaucrats.
[deleted] t1_ixm74fs wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixhcmjg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixhcn6c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixhdc7z wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixhelsc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixi02dj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixit148 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixk4mga wrote
[removed]
SouthernHaunt t1_ixhycca wrote
So with all the fuss over the newest space race, what's the end game? I know better than to think it's just a contest or for "advancement of the human race" lol. There has to be a financial or strategic gain right? Is it communications reliance on a foreign power, or they've found a different financial incentive? Anyone got any guesses?
Hypericales t1_ixihu92 wrote
The long-term financial gain will be the amount of money the European Union saves from investing in sustainable rockets and by extension cheaper launches, which also means billions saved for the taxpayers, and in turn frees up funding for more important scientific missions/investments via ESA.
The strategy is to be competitive against US aerospace giants such as ULA/SpaceX/RocketLab as well as agencies such as CNSA or ISRO. However beyond the brief mention investing in startups, ESA as usual signals that they want to place their eggs in the ArianeSpace basket as always.
Hopefully there is no endgame, as it implies them stopping after achieving their purpose. Which is eerily reminiscent of what happened after Apollo 17, when we packed bags and claimed one and done only to never return to the moon again.
kryptopeg t1_ixiiwt7 wrote
It's not really a race as such, at least not in this case - that's just the way the media puts things, as it makes for a good headline.
More than anything, it's wanting fall-backs and independence. Having to rely on foreign rocket builders and launch facilities is often considered a security risk, as well as risking you being put to the back of the queue if there's any delays to schedules.
Additionally a lot of countries would like to just generally build up an indigenous space industry, as it's a growing frontier for all kinds of missions (science, communications, exploration, navigation, settling, intelligence, asteroid capture, etc). It makes sense that they'd want to lay the foundations of an industry to access that area, but again it's not really a race. If you can build an industry then long-term you'll make more money on it rather than sending cash abroad, even if it takes you a while and has a bunch of failures on the way. Space is big, there's tons of room for all kinds of vehicles and organisations and missions.
RGregoryClark t1_ixm3zbu wrote
Actually, ESA could have had a crewed launcher years years ago:
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2018/02/multi-vulcain-ariane-6.html
LazyLobster t1_ixoc84j wrote
Race against SpaceX...can we stop mentioning Elon Musk as though he's out there welding the rockets together? I feel like people forget that SpaceX is filled with many talented people.
Xeludon t1_ixi5xbb wrote
Race against musk?
I didn't realise the smell in France had gotten that bad.
JohnDavidsBooty t1_ixkjjwi wrote
Calling it a "Race Against Musk" implies that he actually has anything to do with it besides acting as a figurehead.
A better description would be a "race against Gwynne Shotwell and team."
LazyLich t1_ixhozk8 wrote
The EMR^(2)
Elongated MuskRat
European MaRathon
[deleted] t1_ixhdoz2 wrote
[removed]
FoxHarem t1_ixhng3i wrote
There are (does not check the internet) thousands of employees at SpaceX. Fuck musk. He's a megalomaniac man child. Everyone else is for the most part chill and doing amazing work.
ergzay t1_ixhtkgu wrote
If all it takes is a "megalomaniac man child" to create a launch company that puts world governments to shame... Then lets have a lot more of them please! (This is a joke, OP's comment is ridiculous on the face of it.)
FoxHarem t1_ixhuj85 wrote
Am I the OP? I wasn't aware r/space was full of such a mix of pro ESA rocket fans and pro musk dangus'.
seanflyon t1_ixiprjh wrote
It is difficult to care about space exploration and not appreciate what Musk has accomplished with SpaceX.
durezzz t1_ixk6w1k wrote
That person doesn't care about space exploration or progress.
Only hating Musk.
CosmosExpedition t1_ixkhj9d wrote
A pretty damn acceptable way of thinking. Musk is such a nincompoop, despite his accomplishments.
seanflyon t1_ixl2nz4 wrote
r/space is an odd place for people who don't value space exploration.
arcosapphire t1_ixhpo0i wrote
Yes, but the problem is the looming threat that Musk can make some crazy declaration and derail a successful or upcoming program at any moment. He has fast become a liability to their success.
FoxHarem t1_ixhr6na wrote
Fair enough. I'll roughly cite the other comments on this post then. It is a paper rocket, it doesn't exist.
I want there to be competition, options, for commercial space flight but this isn't news. There are dozens of companies trying to do what spacex has done. They have real rockets, real hardware. I wil check in on this in 2ish years when ideas come to fruition.
arcosapphire t1_ixhsfqk wrote
Yeah, it sucks that the rest of the industry took so long to come around. It's not a wonderfully stable situation. At least now there are signs that it won't remain this way.
Newish_Username t1_ixhwlbd wrote
Designing a rocket to compete with spaceX, and actually competing with spaceX, are 2 different things.