Live data from Hacker News

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

esa.int

361–370 of 403 posts

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

#361
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the USA needs NATO and other shit to have soft power and keep its hegemony. Shit like what you said truly makes me wonder about the state of education in the USA when you don't understand a basic geopolitical principle your country has enacted for 80+ years, with massive benefits.

Europe needs the US more than the US needs Europe as far as NATO is concerned, the defence spending disparities speak for themselves. I sincerely question the logic behind our servicemen putting their lives on the line for someone resenting America this bad.

> Europe needs the US more than the US needs Europe as far as NATO is concerned, the defence spending disparities speak for themselves.

As far as the USA hegemony is concerned, NATO is an instrumental piece of soft and hard power.

You are parroting Trump's arguments about defence spending as if the US spending is only concerning NATO, the US spend a lot in defence because it's been your bread and butter to maintain a global reach as a superpower, the moment you lose this you'll see America's influence diminish, if that's what you wish please go ahead and pull out but so far it's been very beneficial to you in the USA to be the de facto global enforcer during Pax Americana.

> I sincerely question the logic behind our servicemen putting their lives on the line for someone resenting America this bad.

Geopolitics are not based on feelings, it's based on advantages and trade-offs, your feelings don't matter for this.

Coming from a person that once said in a comment "love is a mental illness" you seem to be quite the non-rational actor, with knee-jerk reactions when your feelings are hurt. Try to comprehend that the life as you know as an American is dependent on keeping your dollar as the most powerful currency, which demands being backed by the most powerful military, with the most trading routes possible, and with trade as stable as possible around the globe.

NATO is just a piece of the puzzle, it's not about what the others allies feel about you.

You are also forgetting 4 years of Trump with a possible re-election of this piece of shit, there are reasons for allies to be resenting America, it's becoming unstable and less trustworthy.

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

#362
post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What could France have done more" Everything it is doing now towards Russia.

Giving weapons and ammo to Saddam Hussein? Besides the logistical, economical and industrial challenge of supplying enough kit to even make a dent against the expeditionary forces of the USA, which were still doped sky-high on Cold War hand-me-downs, that sounds like a terrible idea. Hussein's Iraq was not Zelensky's Ukraine and not just because of strategic reasons. The Gulf War happened because Hussein wasn't a fri…

You are mixing up the Gulf War of 1990, which was in defense of Kuwait, with the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on false pretenses.

"Giving weapons and ammo to Saddam Hussein?"

Pentagon is giving weapons and ammo to Azov [0], Ukrainian neo-Nazi ultra-nationalists.

And giving weapons is not everything that France is doing now. Think about other measures too, like cutting off American banks from SWIFT, let them use their ACH.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Brigade

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

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was very brave

Not very but look at the countries participating. Weaker or intertwined (UK)

"Weaker"

Poland, being Poland, was after Iraqi oil [0].

France kept doing business as usual with the US despite American illegal war.

[0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3043330.stm

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

#364
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we are not vassals of the USA Aren't you? In 2003 Russia, Germany and France were strongly against illegal American invasion of Iraq. The US invaded anyway, ruining the country. What have France and Germany done about that?

Yeah, so ? Did you expect France to fight the US ?

France is a nuclear power. But you are right, a vassal can't fight his suzerain.

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The point is it was never going to launch an attack on that certain very large country to the East. All the rhetorical moaning and puffing of its current incredibly thin-skinned and backward-looking regime notwithstanding.

So why lie about NATO being "purely defensive"?

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

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>So why isn't SpaceX cheaper? Another way to look at the price is from supply/demand angle. Even if real cost of falcon 9 launch is much lower than its price, SpaceX can not just lower the price, otherwise they will need to handle even greater demand. Even with current price their launch cadence grows exponentially year by year. With lower prices they would need to grow even faster.

I think where the economics around that get screwed up is that supply demand are very disconnected from each other here - tens, if not hundreds of millions and in a few case billions of dollars are spent on the payloads for Falcon, and Starlink - SapceX itself is 2/3rds of their own volume. Before Starlink started launching there were clear signs that SpaceX was building more capacity then the market could bear.

If you don't gain any additional volume by lowering cost, it doesn't make any sense to lower your cost.

It also doesn't help that Rockets (for fairly obvious reasons) are highly regulated, which further distorts this market.

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

#367
post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no economies of scale required. This is not a commercial venture, and it's not required to be commercially viable. This is a strategic and political program, and as a jobs program it is wonderfully executed - the more to throw away, the more jobs will be required for the next iteration.

> is a strategic and political program, and as a jobs program Jobs, yes, strategic, no. Being able to put ten birds up in a year means an adversary can blind your space capabilities, if we’re taking the argument to absurd ends. We Americans would be defensive about ULA, probably, if it weren’t for SpaceX. The problem is the EU has no plan B. If SpaceX cuts them off, Ariana or not, they’re crippled as a spacefaring en…

You're still thinking about capitalisation and the scalability of space. EU doesn't think that's a viable expansion route - already expressed my view that EU thinks 10 launches a year is more then enough to cover all bases.

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

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is it was never going to launch an attack on that certain very large country to the East. All the rhetorical moaning and puffing of its current incredibly thin-skinned and backward-looking regime notwithstanding.

So why lie about NATO being "purely defensive"?

Beats me, it wasn't my post.

The main thing is that Russia needs to pull its troops out of all of Ukraine; return those 20,000 abducted kids; set and adhere to a timetable for paying full reparations; and re-affirm its commitment to respecting the inviolable sovereignty of all of its neighbors, permanently and irrevocably.

After that we can dissect past NATO transgressions, and fix all the poorly thought / ahistorical comments on HN.

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

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX wasn't the first American rocket startup, other ones failed. What makes you think European startups won't fail?

I suggested funding multiple ones.

China has multiple rocket startups now, they are not too successful.

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

#370
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Where does SpaceX get its development funding from?

Depends. The original Falcon 1 funding mostly came from Musk and a few friends.

Then for the Falcon 9, they got the COTS contract for resupply of the station. Or rather they got a contract that would pay money if they were successful in executing. This funding was mostly for the Dragon Space craft, but it also funded Falcon 9. But that was a much smaller number then Ariane 6.

Then SpaceX got Commercial Crew, for 2.6 billion $. That mostly funded Crew Dragon space craft. But it also required human rating of Falcon 9. So those 2.6 billion $ were not assigned X amount for Dragon, Y for Falcon 9. SpaceX was just required to launch people to ISS and bring them back with NASA overview. During this time SpaceX finished the Block 5 version, and that was human rated.

Beyond that SpaceX did most of the development on the re-usability of Falcon 9 on their own money. They used costumer missions to do a lot of the testing. But importantly, SpaceX never got any money from NASA to develop re-usability.

Same goes for Falcon Heavy. SpaceX sold Falcon Heavy to DoD but they didn't get any development contract for the rocket itself. Falcon Heavy was fully developed by SpaceX on their own money.

SpaceX did miss out on a major DoD development funding when they bid Starship and DoD did want it. Other companies like BlueOrigin and ULA got a huge amount of money.

Both Raptor and Starship were mostly on SpaceX as well. A very early version of Raptor, when it was very different from what is now, once got a DoD research contract. Only when there was a competition for Human Moon Lander System, and Starship got selected, was government spending any money on Starship. And HLS is milestone based, so that will help SpaceX a little to pay for Starship. But a lot of that money will go into the customized version of Starship for use as a moon lander.

Starlink is basically fully funded by SpaceX. There never was any development money.

So in totality, SpaceX doesn't really get much development money for rockets or engine. They get money for spacecraft (Dragon 1, Crew Dragon, Cargo Dragon), and they just have to make sure they have a rocket that they can launch on. They could also just buy somebody else rocket, but of course that's not what SpaceX wants to do.

For all this stuff, Starship, Starlink and so on, they did raise like 10 billion $. That the majority of their major developments.

Post reply on HN