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

Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

esa.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 403 posts

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#71

Post by cubefox »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41
cubefox wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be, in the long term, more cost effective for ESA to contract two or three private European rocket start-ups, like RFA, to build such reusable launch vehicles. To create some competition in price and development speed. Arianespace (ArianeGroup) seems to be "old space" by now, similar to ULA or Boeing in the US.

> more cost effective for ESA to contract two or three private European rocket start-ups, like RFA, to build such reusable launch vehicles That would trigger politically-impossible lay-offs in France.

Yeah, it seems impossible for ESA to act rationally in this regard when bound e.g. by French veto. The only opportunity would be for individual countries (like Germany) to fund such rockets alone, but that seems unlikely due to cost (and the fact that they already pay for ESA). Without substantial investment, companies like RFA don't have the means to create a larger rocket, due to heavy international competition.

Not even NASA could resist developing their SLS rocket, which realistically should have been replaced with funding private heavy lift rockets. And that is despite the fact that they are much less politically constrained than ESA.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#72

Post by nordsieck »

threeseed wrote: post #21
ur-whale wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So because an incumbent exists ESA should give up No. But they should learn their lesson and try to run instead of plodding along at a glacial pace. Oh but wait, they're govt funded with no success incentives other than some sort of vague sense of pride for a job well done. My money is on they're not going to come out ahead in the race.

> they're not going to come out ahead in the race What race ? And if there is even one who cares ? If EU pays 10x or 100x more to launch satellites the world isn't going to change all that much.

> If EU pays 10x or 100x more to launch satellites the world isn't going to change all that much.

That may be true for a few military satellites. But ESA is talking about putting up a Europoean mega-constellation. In that context, launch costs do really matter.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#73

Post by snowpid »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32
pmontra wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will still be building that knowledge inside Europe. Rocketry in general is deemed to be strategic so it's OK for any country to invest money in that, keep scientists and engineers on the subject, keep the industries alive, etc. It's not only about access to space, it's also about defense.

> will still be building that knowledge inside Europe Ariane 6 cannibalises Europe’s chance at being more than an also-ran in space: “An Arianespace manager pushing his company as the only solution to Europe’s launch challenges isn’t that noteworthy. However, the fact [Arianespace’s CEO] urges the need for a ‘reusable heavy launcher’ is notable, considering his previous noncommittal remarks about rocket reusability.…

While that attitude makes sense for ArianeSpace , I doubt they will be successful.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#74

Post by trueismywork »

Larrikin wrote: post #24
ur-whale wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So because an incumbent exists ESA should give up No. But they should learn their lesson and try to run instead of plodding along at a glacial pace. Oh but wait, they're govt funded with no success incentives other than some sort of vague sense of pride for a job well done. My money is on they're not going to come out ahead in the race.

Why is it a race instead of being of public and international importance to have an alternative to a for profit company?

Because extra money spent could be better invested elsewhere. Eventually, the high cost will harm the general expertise and readiness.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#75

Post by trueismywork »

threeseed wrote: post #21
ur-whale wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So because an incumbent exists ESA should give up No. But they should learn their lesson and try to run instead of plodding along at a glacial pace. Oh but wait, they're govt funded with no success incentives other than some sort of vague sense of pride for a job well done. My money is on they're not going to come out ahead in the race.

> they're not going to come out ahead in the race What race ? And if there is even one who cares ? If EU pays 10x or 100x more to launch satellites the world isn't going to change all that much.

Lol it is. More money means less money some place else. Europe is not as rich as it was 40 years ago. General competency will decrease due to lack of money.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#76

Post by littlestymaar »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #62
MrSkelter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Falcon’s costs are a fiction. SpaceX benefits from massive taxpayer support and uses facilities built by the military and NASA. It’s not a like for like comparison especially give SpaceX keeping its books private and giving no clear public indication of how reusable its rockets really are or their refurb cost. Given Musks history of creative accounting quoting their PR numbers, the ones they pitch congress, as facts…

> SpaceX benefits from massive taxpayer support and uses facilities built by the military and NASA So does ArianeSpace [1]. (It’s majority owned by the French state. EDIT: It’s not.) > no clear public indication of how reusable its rockets really are or their refurb cost Refurb rates and turnaround times for Falcon 9 first stages are publicly documented [2]. Refurb costs are more opaque, but they’d have to be multipl…

> So does ArianeSpace [1]. (It’s majority owned by the French state.)

True, but the EU has tight rules about government subsidies (TFEU art. 107-109) which don't have equivalent in the US.

> Ariane 6 is obsolete on arrival; ArianeSpace’s CEO admitted as much in asking the ESA to fund a reusable heavy booster like Falcon Heavy [3].

This is true though.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#77

Post by hoseja »

MrSkelter wrote: post #47
nabla9 wrote: post #2

Ariane 6 exists so that European countries can get independent access to space between now and 2030s. The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9. Both platforms can lift 22t to LEO. 6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar: reusable, RP-1/LOX, Prometheus engine is similar reusable open cycle engine as Merlin with lots of 3D printed parts.

Falcon’s costs are a fiction. SpaceX benefits from massive taxpayer support and uses facilities built by the military and NASA. It’s not a like for like comparison especially give SpaceX keeping its books private and giving no clear public indication of how reusable its rockets really are or their refurb cost. Given Musks history of creative accounting quoting their PR numbers, the ones they pitch congress, as facts…

Massive taxpayer support for such frivolous projects as the first and only global broadband (battlefield capable) communication system and the only working american human-rated launcher, both for quarter the cost the next guy would like to charge. Truly, shameless leeches.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#78

Post by nordsieck »

flohofwoe wrote: post #49
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> won't a Starship competitor be a bit overkill for most payloads? No, for the same reason trucks aren’t overkill for horses in logistics. Unit costs, lead time, orbital flexibility: there isn’t a market for Ariane 6 left. Even ArianeSpace’s CEO admits Ariane 6 is obsolete and that Europe needs “a reusable heavy launcher” [1]. [1] https://www.illdefined.space/arianespace-the-only-fish-in-th...

...well the Ariane 6 is already in the category of "heavy lift vehicle" at up to 22 tons payload. I'm wondering how much of a market there is in the end for a super-heavy lifter like Starship. But I guess we'll see soon.

> I'm wondering how much of a market there is in the end for a super-heavy lifter like Starship. But I guess we'll see soon.

The biggest market is probably internally for Starlink. But itself, that'll be quite a lot of launches. Especially if SpaceX ends up pursuing an enlarged constellation size.

For the same reason, it's almost certain that ArianeSpace won't get any launches in the 2nd Kuiper tranche - New Glenn should be more efficient and capable than either Ariane 6 or Vulcan. Even if it isn't up to the task operationally, Vulcan will probably receive the balance of launches.

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#79

Post by ricdl »

cubefox wrote: post #54
kuschku wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place. All while being independent from the whims of one single individual, ensuring independent launch capabilities for national security reasons.

Arguably at most third place, since partly reusable New Glenn (Blue Origin) is already planned to launch in a few months, currently September. Though lower stage reuse might only happen later.

Ariane is apparently so obsolete that they are behind rockets that haven't even launched yet!

Re: Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

#80

Post by simiones »

chgs wrote: post #28
haspok wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't know that. Starship does not exist.

a thing which can get into orbit and deploy objects exists

A thing which can nearly get into orbit. It never quite reached it (probably intentionally). But more importantly, the recent Starship tests ran with no payload whatsoever, and they definitely didn't deploy anything into orbit.
Post reply on HN