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

81–90 of 403 posts

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

#81

Post by Cipater »

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…

>SpaceX benefits from massive taxpayer support

Ariane 6 was funded by European taxpayers to the tune of €2.815 billion.

>and uses facilities built by the military and NASA.

Ariane is launched from the Guiana Space Centre which is owned and operated by the ESA. Since you haven't familiarised yourself with the topic, ESA is the European Space Agency and is owned by 22 European governments.

In addition, the member states of the ESA will subsidize the rocket for up to €340 million annually in return for an 11% discount on launches.

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

#83

Post by trueismywork »

szundi wrote: post #6
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #4

I’m happy it exists but it’s incredibly disappointing how non competitive it is. There was a lot of hubris in the project in the beginning and now it’s clear that they are years behind. Which in turn makes future funding a challenge I’m sure. I really hope they don’t give up and manage become more ambitious.

Funding hard to lose when the end result is needed and is a strategic objective. Not funding it would make the EU depend on others and knowledge would be lost. Interesting to think about a way how these perfectly connected people could be exchanged to some new, pragmatic generation.

Yeah, but govt could find multiple companies instead of a monopoly. Encourage domestic competition.

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

#84

Post by amelius »

ur-whale wrote: post #20
amelius wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is that impressive anymore. We've been building rockets for decades. Making them return to Earth is peanuts compared to building a self driving car. You can even make a simulation that is 99% accurate without much effort. Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics. Of course, building a rocket requires a shit-ton of resources, so if anything is impressive then it's the management of those resourc…

> Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics. Disagree. The newtonian physics part of flying a rocket is indeed the boring part of rocket science in these days of Ghz computing. But all the engineering (an altogether different - if related - discipline) required is anything but simple. And engineering and all of its sub-disciplines (materials science, propellant research, iterative refinement, operational researc…

I view the things you mention as incremental improvements on stuff that basically worked since the 60s.

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

#85

Post by lm28469 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #53
nordsieck wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place. The first doesn't imply the second. Ariane 6 is behind: * ULA's Vulcan * SpaceX's F9/FH * SpaceX's Starship (who knows when it'll start launching payloads) * Blue Origin's New Glenn (supposed to be launched in September) in terms of raw performance as well as $/kg. There are also a number of other rockets like RocketLab's Neutron and…

And that’s before we start counting in China and, soon, possibly, India. Ariana 6 might be the stupidest civil aerospace project in the world after Boeing’s Starliner.

HN is amazing:

Europe does something

> Aha it's bad why did they even try

Europe doesn't do anything

> Aha Europe always late, never innovate, Europe bad

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

#86

Post by snowpid »

In Germany there are 3 companies, I heard in France 2 companies, I don't any in other parts of Europe but there are definitely but I suppose the European rocket start up pipeline is filled.

P. S. HN please tell me about your (European) nation's future rocket builder.

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

#87

Post by Cipater »

littlestymaar wrote: post #76
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

ESA member states contributed €2.815 billion for the development of Ariane 6. Industry contributed €400 million.

Additionally, the member states have agreed to subsidize the Ariane 6 to the tune of €340 million annually.

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

#88

Post by lm28469 »

ur-whale wrote: post #17
crest wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So because an incumbent exists ESA should give up, let their production and development pipeline rot away and "enjoy" the monopoly until it's too late to change something?

> 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.

> My money is on they're not going to come out ahead in the race.

What race ? Having your own launcher is already a win in a fast changing world

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

#89

Post by ddalex »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45
Larrikin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Why is it a race instead of being of public and international importance to have an alternative to a for profit company? It’s not a meaningful alternative. The comparison to a Yugo is apt: it’s more expensive and less capable, with its sole advantage being it’s made in Europe and so will get European launches. But anyone launching on it is structurally disadvantaged against a competitor (or peer) who launches on Sp…

it's about maintaining political options - what happens when your peer denies your launches on their platform; what prevents ESA from launching 90% of their payloads on SpaceX for reduced cost, while maintaining alive a credible option ?

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

#90

Post by panick21_ »

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…

Lol, how delusional.

ArianeGroup literally just got 5 billion $ plus use of lots of tax payer subsidized infrastructure. That is 4 billion $ more then SpaceX ever got for development of Falcon 9.

Falcon 9 got an old shitty broken down launch sites they had rebuild, ArianeGroup got a whole new built launch site for free.

But feel free to live in fantasy land.

> 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.

Actual smart people and analyist firms have done a lot of work on this. And literally every single expert on the topic disagrees with you.

Its literally impossible to assume SpaceX is not saving money, because it would be insane for them to do 100+ launches if they couldn't do as cheaply as they claim.

> Given Musks history of creative accounting quoting their PR numbers, the ones they pitch congress, as facts is naive in the extreme.

No idea what you are talking about. All SpaceX contracts with the government a fixed cost. What they actually cost doesn't matter, if SpaceX can't deliver, they pay it themselves.

If the were constantly offering prices cheaper then they can do things for, they wouldn't exist.

Its amazing the brain power it takes to believe that SpaceX is losing money on launches, losing money on development contracts, and is developing Starlink and Starship and is losing money on Starlink operations. But somehow they still exist because 'mmhhh they raised money'.

Problem is we know how much money SpaceX raised, you can look it up. And we know what they get paid for their government contract. Their money raising isn't that crazy, in fact, its hard to believe that they have enough to work on Starlink and Starship at the same time. Other companies have spent far, more on things that are far less impressive.

But somehow they did both at the same time while also developing human launch. Increasing launch rates. And taking on a number of other fixed price development contracts. And somehow they still exist.

Anybody who actually studies these numbers come to the same conclusion. And those simply don't agree with you. Go and actually try to build a model and do the numbers yourself. You will prove yourself wrong. But of course you wont do that, because you were already to lazy to look up what all the space analysts already concluded.

Better just keep repeating those anti-Musk talking points you found on twitter from people who wouldn't know what side of a rocket points up.

Post reply on HN