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

291–300 of 403 posts

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

#291

Post by tocs3 »

m4rtink wrote: post #275
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.

The problem with this is, that at that point Europe will be most likely again behind not just Space X, with fully reusable Starship likely being operational but possibly even some Chinese Falcon 9 clones (once they get the hold-down clamps sorted out). Sure, Ariane 6 is a stop gap and likely has some interesting tech that will be useful later on, but it was stupid not starting a full blown reusable rocket program at…

Falcon 9 made its first landing (during an orbital mission) Dec. 2015[1]. It was very successful after that.

The Ariane 6 program was selected Dec 2014[2].

Reusable vehicles are clearly the way to go but that was a little early to say Falcon 9 was going to be the success it is today.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6

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

#292

Post by nick238 »

InTheArena wrote: post #188
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…

Having followed the launch industry for 30 years, I can safely tell you that this is the exact line that every competitor (save RocketLabs and the startups fueled by the SpaceX diaspora of engineers) says whenever they are trying to justify their legacy wasteful rockets. Even Rocketlab's CEO had to "eat his hat" when he finally realized that the cost difference was real, that reusability was here to stay, and they ha…

Not sure why "eat his hat" is in quotes as it's very much literal, other than maybe that he just ate part of a (probably clean) hat?

https://youtu.be/Rafa_WBFIyE?si=34h4rZWiLUSCMKQq&t=188

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

#293

Post by m4rtink »

nordsieck wrote: post #44
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.

> 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. 1. Ariane Next will use a Methalox first stage and a Hydrolox 2nd stage[1], not Kerolox (RP-1). 2. Given how long it took to get Ariane 6 to the launch pad, and its similarities to Arian…

Not just the engines - using different propellants between stages complicates ground infrastructure & reduces economy of scale + parts commonality.

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

#294

Post by verzali »

jccooper wrote: post #273
unethical_ban wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two operational, and a bunch of dreams. Right now, Europe has a functioning rocket program under their own control. I think it's understandable for an engineering community to talk about the tech, but people seem to be forgetting the geopolitics.

You must have some wild dreams. Starship and New Glenn are basically as dreamy as Ariane 6. Starship is essentially operational as an expendable launcher already, and NG is starting the paperwork for first launch. Ariane 6 will serve fine as an "assured access to space" for the local market (which is important), and good on them for finally getting it off the ground. But it's design goal was "Falcon 9 competitor" and…

Ariane 6 has flow successfully. New Glenn is missing in action, and Starship still has a long way to go before it is ready to actually put payloads in orbit. Ariane 6 is ahead of both, given it has actually flown and delivered satellites to orbit.

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

#295

Post by nick__m »

protomolecule wrote: post #210
dividedbyzero wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the event of another Trump presidency (or a successor in spirit) getting cut off for military purposes is probably more like expected, and in a post-NATO world Russia might get a lot more aggressive towards western Europe. That's probably what is behind most such time horizons right now, but even in the mid to long term, rocket tech will remain highly strategic (e.g. for nuclear weapon delivery), and capabilities…

[flagged]

NATO is purely defensive, it won't invade Russia. It only threatens Putin's empire rebuilding dreams. Without NATO he is free to rebuild and expand Russia's empire.

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

#296

Post by m4rtink »

cubefox wrote: post #37
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.

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.

Yeah, I think this is the only way Europe is going to get a viable reusable rocket in the end. Arianespace is a dead end.

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

#297

Post by charles_f »

627467 wrote: post #135
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?

at this stage I question the resolve of any European leader in actually wanting to achieve anything of note in a consequential manner. it's cheaper but not cost-free to sustain a narrative of "independence" and "alternative to incumbent" when the actual result is just wasting tax payers money for vanity projects with no clear path to actually build a sustainable alternative to the incumbent. ESA has no resources to d…

I am not sure if you heard about it, but there's a war going on to the east, and the stance of the government currently saying yeah or nay to launching European stuff to space is far from being guaranteed to remain the same.

I'd wager to say that this is hardly a matter of competition, but simply to guarantee continuation of a basic need in a situation where it might become much more important

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

#298

Post by dotnet00 »

jinzo wrote: post #107
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seems quite reasonable considering the Ariane 6 is a non-reusable, low-volume design It’s after subsidies [1]. Actual costs are 4 to 6x Falcon 9, and that’s comparing actual costs today for Falcon 9 to projected costs in the future for Ariane 6. [1] https://www.space.com/europe-ariane-6-rocket-debut-launch

You do know that this article completely forgets to mention if SpaceX got any subsidies? From a quick google search, it seems that this is not the case and I have a feeling that Falcon 9 sticker price is in fact subsidied by the USA. So - why compare apples to apples, when you can compare apples to oranges.

Falcon 9 is 'subsidized' by the USA in the way that businesses 'subsidize' development of new products and services through profit from selling products, getting investors and completing contracts at fixed cost to the customer. Ariane is subsidized in that their development expenses are fully paid for by government coffers, and additional money is provided yearly regardless of services rendered to make the sticker price for a launch seem lower.

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

#299

Post by m4rtink »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13
Y_Y wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're quite right, but for apples-to-apples you should compare to NASA rather than SpaceX. "Move fast and break things" is an attitide that only relatively new rocket builders can have.

> for apples-to-apples you should compare to NASA rather than SpaceX ESA is analogous to NASA. ArianeSpace is Europe’s ULA. Europe doesn’t have a SpaceX; Ariane 6 is a Yugo in the modern launch market.

Rocket Factory Augsburg or Isar Aerospace might become the Space X of Europe. ;-)

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

#300

Post by verzali »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #180
TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arianne 6 is not about competition, but about strategic independence at the first place.

And also, SpaceX is booked full for years; there is plenty of space for competition even if it costs more.

Ariane 6 is booked for years, SpaceX use most of their launches to put Starlink satellites in orbit. They have a lot of capacity to sell more launches, actually.
Post reply on HN