21–30 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX and other low cost space companies. If I read the article correctly, they plan on doing this by not innovating.
Isn't the article mentioning that they are working on 2 new rockets and that the plan is to not compete in SpaceX niche? I assume that we do not know that much about the innovation due to much smaller PR budgets.
I assume the innovation is regulatory...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX and other low cost space companies. If I read the article correctly, they plan on doing this by not innovating.
Isn't the article mentioning that they are working on 2 new rockets and that the plan is to not compete in SpaceX niche? I assume that we do not know that much about the innovation due to much smaller PR budgets.
> if Europe ever did develop a reusable rocket, one that could fly all the missions in a year, this would be unhelpful politically. What would the engine and booster factories sprinkled across Europe do if they built one rocket and then had 11 months off?
https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director-of...
In which he talks about about a realistic path to a reusable rocket that could compete with Falcon 9. But it wouldn't launch until 2028-2030.
> if Europe ever did develop a reusable rocket, one that could fly all the missions in a year, this would be unhelpful politically. What would the engine and booster factories sprinkled across Europe do if they built one rocket and then had 11 months off?
This problem will also bite the US launch industry. Hard. Once SpaceX has proven they can do safe crewed flights and Blue Origin goes beyond testing flights, why is there a reason to pay the huge ULA markup any more? ULA, as well as Airbus, has a problem: they're constantly being meddled with by politicians without any idea what they're doing and decide stuff that's totally unreasonable from an economical point but h…
I don't think so. ULA was formed in 2006 [1]. Before that, the U.S. launch market was competitive within itself and with the Russians. The Falcon 9 first flew in 2015 (EDIT: "first flew commercially in 2013") [2], returning the American market to a competitive state. American aerospace engineers are used to working in a competitive culture. If ULA doesn't become competitive, either itself or by splitting, there are plenty of launch start-ups beyond SpaceX and Blue Origin hiring away that talent.
In contrast, the European market has no similar tradition of competition in launch services. The reaction to SpaceX isn't to consider a novel platform. It's to plod on with the old and raise the gates around European launch buyers.
> Even, so, Charmeau rejects comparisons to SpaceX, because he maintains that the company is heavily subsidized by the US government. Isn't ESA subsidized by the member governments? I'd understand if the criticism was coming from a private entity and they'd be complaining about SpaceX getting preferential treatment, but coming from a state sponsored agency it seems odd.
It feels incredibly short-term to me. How many jobs will be created by opening up spaceflight at 1/100 the cost? How many new types of satellites, technology, human transport will be created?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stéphane Israël has repeatedly called for European governments to stop competing any satellite launches and guarantee them all for Arianespace, as well as to increase direct subsidies. http://www.france24.com/en/20150620-interview-stephane-israe... http://aviationweek.com/space/arianespace-esa-we-need-help Alain Charmeau has as well: >Even as Charmeau decries what he calls subsidies for SpaceX from the US government,…
The typical french reaction. I hope Germany will push back. Anyone remember the European search engine competitor "Quaero", another stillborn EU project?
If you'd like to read some more progressive thinking by a European, here's an interview with the CNES (French space agency) Director of Launchers: https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director-of... In which he talks about about a realistic path to a reusable rocket that could compete with Falcon 9. But it wouldn't launch until 2028-2030.
Technologically realistic. Politically unfeasible. ArianeGroup's factories provide high-paying jobs across Europe. Re-tooling them will not be possible for another generation.
Source: I worked with launch start-ups. Their dismissal by EU politicos was resounding, particularly in contrast to the American and other countries' responses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, they don't have to ask for regulation since they already are state subsidized and a monopoly in Europe. However, they may have to culturally justify it to retain that position.
Not necessarily a monopoly. European states can still launch on other nations rockets. However, Arianespace is pushing for "European First" legislation to keep institutional payloads on domestic launchers.