"I am impatiently waiting to understand what reasons could have led Eumetsat to such a decision."
See full article...
See full article...
Mere days before its debut, the Ariane 6 rocket loses a key customer to SpaceX
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
It's 2030. In the 4 years since Ukraine forced Russia to retreat and joined the EU and NATO, it has resurrected its domestic aerospace industry with profitable missile technology and is working on a reusable 'European' medium lift booster which is basically a Falcon 9 knockoff at reasonable prices. A FH-like heavy is also planned.
Upvote
26
(28
/
-2)
Just to give a context to all this through the timeline of both projects, Eumetsat chose Ariane 6 in July 2020 to be launched in 2023. Additionally, in july 2020, first flight of Ariane 6 was supposed to happen in 2021 (after being already delayed)
After knowing this, the ride change doesn't sound so unexplainable anymore...
After knowing this, the ride change doesn't sound so unexplainable anymore...
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
The US doesn't mandate all government launches be done on US rockets, only defense launches. Civilian government satellites do ride on EU launchers.
Upvote
30
(31
/
-1)
The problem is that those aren't good explanations. The customer has known the competition was cheaper, more modern, more reliable, more available for YEARS. And yet, they just made this decision.
I want to know what meeting, memo, investigative report, whatever caused someone's oshitometer to start strobing. There was some new information added to that assessment and I'm curious.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
In ESAs defense on this policy, in the event that say, Trump gets elected (why yes, I am a bit more concerned about that possibility in the last 24 hours, why do you ask?) and decides to throw in with Putin, ESA would be pretty fucked for launch capability if they can't get their own stuff launched. That's not nationalism, that's basic national security. Being self-sufficient isn't a bad thing for critical stuff. Nobody here was thrilled when the US was reliant on Soyuz to get to ISS.
I mean, yeah, the solution is to make your shit work, but there is real benefit to practicing and refining that capability even if it's not the most cost effective option.
Upvote
13
(17
/
-4)
No, it isn't. The US industry wasn't commercially competitive for decades. It became competitive in the 2010s because of a fortuitous set of circumstances entirely independent of mandates to use US vehicles.
Upvote
39
(40
/
-1)
Well, NASA wasn't going to fund a non-US vehicle for ISS cargo deliveries. But it's not like Antares took over the world's launch market single-handedly.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
I really feel it was the launch of the Galileo satellite that provided enough political coverage for the ESA-aligned countries to bow to the pressure of the non-ESA countries in their group.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
I don't think non-US launch vehicles were eligible for COTS or Commercial Crew.
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
That was sort of my point. It was a US launcher mandate that was one of those fortuitous circumstances that led to US launcher competitiveness.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
NASA was only pitching in about 40% of the money for COTS/CRS. Nobody outside the US was going to come up with the rest of the funding (and a technically viable solution) even if they were eligible.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
The most likely answer is $$ and the satellite operators probably couldn't care less about launcher rivalries.
Launch insurance for such an expensive bird on a brand new launcher would have been significantly more expensive than launching on a Falcon 9
Launch insurance for such an expensive bird on a brand new launcher would have been significantly more expensive than launching on a Falcon 9
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I've had trouble pretty much all along understanding why this platform is so damned expensive. I mean, I understand the political need for distributed operations and manufacturing. But is that it?
Arianespace strikes me as an organization suffering from monopoly fever. It does not understand a competitive market, nor is it able to recognize that launch services have become one.
To me, that bodes ill for their future, even if Ariane 6 never fails a mission objective.
Arianespace strikes me as an organization suffering from monopoly fever. It does not understand a competitive market, nor is it able to recognize that launch services have become one.
To me, that bodes ill for their future, even if Ariane 6 never fails a mission objective.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
Makes perfect sense. Go with the people you know can actually do the job VS some unknown untested machine. You might find yourself stranded on a space station.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
As mentioned earlier in the thread, it could merely be a contractual milestone which would make it more difficult/expensive to back out. Something like "Half the cost is due after the first successful orbital test of A6" or whatever.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
SRBs are expensive, especially when the European manufacturer knows you have to buy from them. Dealing with hydrogen is expensive. Shipping everything across the Atlantic and maintaining a launch site there can't be cheap either.
Upvote
31
(32
/
-1)
The confluence of necessary circumstances (and domestic-only eligiblity wasn't a necessary circumstance, merely a happenstance) that resulted in SpaceX could only happen in the US, therefore the ineligiblility of non-US companies is irrelevant.
Even if NASA wanted to kickstart a non-US company and had a mandate and funding to do so, it was technically and financially impossible to duplicate their success with SpaceX anywhere else. There just weren't enough opportunities anywhere else to get the money, technical skill, leadership, and luck all in the same spot at once.
Last edited:
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Was it? Is it?
I recall, perhaps incorrectly, that NASA didn't set any technology requirements. So I don't think ITAR was a barrier. Of course, nothing US-confidential or classified could use such a platform. So there's that. I can't help thinking Congress would be distinctly displeased with it as well, unless the US gained some political dona... sorry, "strategic benefits" from such a partnership.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
NASA might have gotten another Antares from allowing international entrants (Antares is basically an international entrant anyway).
They would never have gotten another Falcon 9.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
Case in point, NASA's James Webb Space Telescope was launched on Ariane 5. In fact it's designed around the capacity of Ariane 5. They got a pretty good deal but ESA scientists got some lense time out of it.
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
Let's suggest that for a rational consumer:
1. Reusability doesn't matter to the consumer, it's COGS for the launcher and part of whatever price is quoted
2. Reliability matters above all for the consumer
3. Schedule is important for the consumer
4. Anything which doesn't impact reliability or schedule is less important
Given we've a rocket with proven delays and unproven reliability, if cost isn't prohibitive, why not solve for 2 and 3?
1. Reusability doesn't matter to the consumer, it's COGS for the launcher and part of whatever price is quoted
2. Reliability matters above all for the consumer
3. Schedule is important for the consumer
4. Anything which doesn't impact reliability or schedule is less important
Given we've a rocket with proven delays and unproven reliability, if cost isn't prohibitive, why not solve for 2 and 3?
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Nah we just want to avoid that some boso cuts us of from space and suggests to use a trampoline because we refused to give him a new teddy bear.
Upvote
-10
(2
/
-12)
"Sorry, Haters" was definitely a shining example of high-road-taking
Upvote
-8
(4
/
-12)
It seems to me that in a way, China has the same advantage that SpaceX has. SpaceX is not a publicly owned entity that has to answer to some external group of vested or non-vested interests Yes, they have private shareholders, But those shareholders are in it for the long and understand share exclusivity and near term risk.
China can make all the investments they want and blow up all the rockets they want. In a state owned media landscape , There is no public To complain.
These other launch entities don’t necessarily have those luxuries. And they seem to be prisoners of their own making.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
I think a larger factor in this is how the Vega C program has performed, and the solid rocket supplier for both programs. There were apparently numerous quality control issues found as they went through the work figuring out the issues with Vega C. And now this launch would depend on a version of Ariane 6 that had never flown for such a critical launch. To put it in comparison fairly low value or mass simulators flew on the first Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy and now Vulcan if they keep the heavier config that was to be used for Dreamchaser for this upcoming flight. The first flight of Delta Heavy was a partial failure.
Avio the SRB provider initially blamed the Ukrainian company for the nozzle failure of the Vega flight, only to source an EU manufactured one and have the same failure on the test stand finally leading to a redesign and retesting it. Can't say I blame them for not trusting the third launch of a rocket and a config that has never flown before to such a critical payload that would take years to replace.
I will be curious if they get a rare expendable F9 launch on a well flown first stage as a way to get the most performance out the launch? In expendable form it's payload to GTO is around 8 tons, double the sat mass so it's likely they could deliver to a GTO 1000 or better orbit instead of the typical GTO 1800 out of the cape.
But given how late Ariane 6 is, that the config Ariane 6-4 will be untested, and how long it's taken the Vega C program to sort out it's failures, none of this surprises me with the last minute change.
Avio the SRB provider initially blamed the Ukrainian company for the nozzle failure of the Vega flight, only to source an EU manufactured one and have the same failure on the test stand finally leading to a redesign and retesting it. Can't say I blame them for not trusting the third launch of a rocket and a config that has never flown before to such a critical payload that would take years to replace.
I will be curious if they get a rare expendable F9 launch on a well flown first stage as a way to get the most performance out the launch? In expendable form it's payload to GTO is around 8 tons, double the sat mass so it's likely they could deliver to a GTO 1000 or better orbit instead of the typical GTO 1800 out of the cape.
But given how late Ariane 6 is, that the config Ariane 6-4 will be untested, and how long it's taken the Vega C program to sort out it's failures, none of this surprises me with the last minute change.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
OK well this is true but my question still would be why now. Which I guess nobody outside of those making the decision know exactly.
Upvote
-15
(0
/
-15)
It wasn't free, it was the price of their contribution to the project and part of what pays for their access to the telescope. Sometimes barter is much easier to accomplish to pay for contributions than exchanging money is, and since it would have likely been a Delta Heavy if it didn't get that ride, it certainly was a lot less expensive. There have been other joint EU-US collaborations where NASA supplied the ride instead.
Upvote
40
(41
/
-1)
snowman<ca>
Ars Praefectus
Plausible, but at least some of reports during process of getting development funding made it seem like they have issues common to government jobs programs. Existing political support wanted existing jobs building rockets to continue, expendable gives that pretty solid assurance (granted at the time of decision was before reuse was proven or started impacting launch cost). Reusability both cuts down on assurance to builders, potentially shifts around where revenue might flow (likely to a smaller political base), and probably would have had a lot higher development costs.
Last edited:
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
From the first Google result to a query regarding launch cost comparisons,
Rhetoric and regional pride does not make a product more competitive. Making it competitive is what makes it competitive. As a fellow European (though as a Norwegian we have a looser association with the EU, but we are a part of ESA), I like the idea of EU being a player in this space. Which means getting some heads out of the sand.
Yes, it's hard to come second player in this space. You have to play catch up for years, and all the way people will be pointing at you and ridiculing you for not being able to do what SpaceX is doing. On the other hand, SpaceX has shown it is possible, and it will be easier/cheaper to try to replicate whatever they have done - plus you can skip directly ahead to some of the Starship technologies.
The thing you do not do is to keep throwing good money after bad. Yes, Ariane 6 is probably a necessary interim step to ensure EU has some launch capability - which means also spending your own money on it, even knowing it is possibly an inferior product - but not to the point of stupidity, you launch it with a dummy payload or two before risking valuable cargo. But then you go ahead betting on the real contender for the space race. And at this point in time, there is a space race. Even if you don't believe in the potential commercial value of future space operations, space is starting to get militarized, and as the EU you don't want China and Russia to start exerting complete dominance of our near space - or to rely on an increasingly unstable and unreliable US.
Rhetoric and regional pride does not make a product more competitive. Making it competitive is what makes it competitive. As a fellow European (though as a Norwegian we have a looser association with the EU, but we are a part of ESA), I like the idea of EU being a player in this space. Which means getting some heads out of the sand.
Yes, it's hard to come second player in this space. You have to play catch up for years, and all the way people will be pointing at you and ridiculing you for not being able to do what SpaceX is doing. On the other hand, SpaceX has shown it is possible, and it will be easier/cheaper to try to replicate whatever they have done - plus you can skip directly ahead to some of the Starship technologies.
The thing you do not do is to keep throwing good money after bad. Yes, Ariane 6 is probably a necessary interim step to ensure EU has some launch capability - which means also spending your own money on it, even knowing it is possibly an inferior product - but not to the point of stupidity, you launch it with a dummy payload or two before risking valuable cargo. But then you go ahead betting on the real contender for the space race. And at this point in time, there is a space race. Even if you don't believe in the potential commercial value of future space operations, space is starting to get militarized, and as the EU you don't want China and Russia to start exerting complete dominance of our near space - or to rely on an increasingly unstable and unreliable US.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
One piece of showcase European technology in orbit >> Two pieces of showcase European technology burning up together...
Even without the vibes, you don't want to put the crown jewels on an early launch.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
Is it necessary now? Yes.
Was it necessary when EU decided to go ahead with Ariane 6 development? No. SpaceX was already landing boosters. It was time to suck it up, reassess and keep using Ariane 5 for longer while developing a rocket with a reusable booster.
Upvote
28
(29
/
-1)
I was a bit surprised that a Falcon 9 was able to replace the 4 SRB version of Ariane 6. I thought that the 2 SRB version of Ariane 6 was competing against F9, while the A64 was competing against Falcon Heavy. And FH is less expensive than A64, so Arianespace was already behind. However, if there is overlap between the performance envelope of F9 and A64, then things are even worse. Ariane 6 is even less competitive price wise than I first thought (and I didn't view it as very competitive in the first place).
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Eumetsat also would know more than the public if the new version of the rocket was going to be delayed. They may have contacts with the engineers and other staff and heard a few things that shook their confidence in the launch date or reliability or both.
It may have been also a warning shot. Along the lines of we just showed you that we can pull a launch so get your act together or there will be more of the same.
It may have been also a warning shot. Along the lines of we just showed you that we can pull a launch so get your act together or there will be more of the same.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)