Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 129 posts

Re: As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

#61

Post by rory096 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47
rory096 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The planned Ariane 6 is cost uncompetitive with the Falcon 9 This isn't really true. Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable). Because Ariane uses a "dual-berth" conops, it (generally) flies two payloads per launch, whereas Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually…

> Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable) Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9? Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5…

>Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9?

Because their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million while another customer pays the rest in the lower berth. Capability isn't useful if your payload doesn't use it.

>Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, I think you made your counterargument.

These prices are within 20%, which I'd call competitive given non-price factors. The claim was not that Ariane was cheaper.

>Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them.

Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate. Spaceflight's SHERPA mission was supposed to fly secondary to the (tiny) Formosat-5 payload, but was pulled due to delays.[0] SFI now plans to stick with "dedicated rideshare" on rockets booked by them entirely for their customers. Their first flight will be SSO-A on a dedicated Falcon 9 later this year.

Historically, Falcon has flown few secondary payloads. An OG-2 prototype flew as a secondary on CRS-1, but was lost due to the engine-out on ascent. Iridium-6 shared with NASA's Grace-FO, after both missions dropped off Dnepr due to the Ukraine crisis.[1] Hispasat-30W carried a small hosted (then released) secondary as part of an experimental deployment system.[2] I can't think of any other notable secondary payloads.

[0] https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-fin...

[1] https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch-sh...

[2] https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent-la...

Re: As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

#62

Post by rory096 »

pocketstar wrote: post #46
mschuster91 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

ULA has 100% mission success. The Atlas family has 100% mission sucess since 1957. The ULA markup is justified for a high value mission. BO and spaceX have big shoes to fill when it comea to building industry and insurer trust. The Amos 8 failure was an expensive lesson for spacex.

>The Atlas family has 100% mission sucess since 1957.

Huh? Atlas I had failures in 1991, 1992, and 1993. Atlas G failed in 1984 and 1987.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_G

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html

Re: As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

#63

Post by JumpCrisscross »

makomk wrote: post #55
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable) Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9? Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5…

Historically speaking, generally because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent they could save. (Remember, there's a whole bunch of cost in building the satellite too.)

> because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent they could save

This is a valid pitch. Memorably, Skybox almost went bankrupt waiting for their Ukranian launch partner to put their birds in orbit.

That said, this isn't a good business plan. Pitching availability for a non-just-in-time manufactured product is a bearish bet on competitors' production schedules. Not a bad bet in the rocket business. But re-usability both decreases costs and increases launch frequency. Ariane 6 is, on multiple levels, the EU calling Elon Musk on a bluff. Not unreasonable a decade ago, when the project was planned. But wrong today.

It's also awkward to advertise a project by the low demand for it.

Re: As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

#64

Post by Pica_soO »

Retric wrote: post #43
magduf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all the places in the world, Europe is probably the most ripe for implementing a UBI, which would solve a lot of these problems.

People get rich from government contracts. That's what drives a lot of this stuff not just jobs for voters.

That and the wish for a stable society- not some aristocratic mess reminding of the late Roman empire, so ready for a final civil war as show down, that its rulers rather collapse the whole problem outwards.

Re: As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

#65

Post by paul »

The denial is strong. Reminds me of how cell phone makers responded to the iPhone:

“The development of mobile phones will be similar in PCs. Even with the Mac, Apple has attracted much attention at first, but they have still remained a niche manufacturer. That will be in mobile phones as well,” Nokia chief strategist Anssi Vanjoki told a German newspaper at the time.

Back in the day, smartphones were pretty much defined by devices like the Palm Treo, and Palm CEO Ed Colligan doubted some computer maker was going to just waltz in and eat his lunch.

“We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” Colligan said. “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.”

Re: As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

#66

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rory096 wrote: post #61
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable) Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9? Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5…

>Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9? Because their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million while another customer pays the rest in the lower berth. Capability isn't useful if your payload doesn't use it. >Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9…

> their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million

€45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10 million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity.

> Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate

It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform. Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency.

Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't unreasonable ten years ago. I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, et cetera--that niche will narrow.

Re: As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

#67

Post by marsokod »

greglindahl wrote: post #26
rdtsc wrote: post #10

> 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.

Ariane 5's commercial launches are directly subsidized by the EU. But it's a muddled story all around: if SpaceX rents an unused launch pad from NASA instead of spending $1 billion to build a new one, is that a subsidy? Was NASA's competition for commercial cargo to the ISS a subsidy?

Agreed, if one could take into account all the subsidies, I am sure we would be at similar levels. The commercial cargo contract was on par with the ATV program, but the prospect is much bigger, with better financial stability.

And where should we stop counting subsidies? Are the government funded studies made by research institutes counted? They benefit a lot to the companies.

Re: As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

#68

Post by [deleted] »

greglindahl wrote: post #26
rdtsc wrote: post #10

> 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.

Ariane 5's commercial launches are directly subsidized by the EU. But it's a muddled story all around: if SpaceX rents an unused launch pad from NASA instead of spending $1 billion to build a new one, is that a subsidy? Was NASA's competition for commercial cargo to the ISS a subsidy?

[deleted]

Re: As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

#69

Post by Osmium »

rory096 wrote: post #61
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable) Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9? Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5…

>Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9? Because their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million while another customer pays the rest in the lower berth. Capability isn't useful if your payload doesn't use it. >Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9…

> Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate.

Can’t wait for a Lyft Line for space ;)

“Your rocket will depart in 3 months.”

Post reply on HN