"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
Not much different from the rest of the old guard be it European, American or Russian. SpaceX and a number of the new startups are thinking future, not past. Besides that SpaceX is much cheaper and more reliable.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Ariane 6 was designed to the standard big aerospace paradigm of the first flight being supposed to be proof of the design. No changes required. Everything after that is some flavour of operational.
This is the opposite of the hardware rich design-test-design-test... iteration being practised by some other companies.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I think this is a big to do about nothing. The Web was launched on the Ariane 5, not a ?falcoln 9. Was that ac big deal here, no.
i can understand the concern that the 6 wouldn’t be ready in its newer configuration. This is a complex, expensive satellite. When the booster is tested enough with payloads, this issue will end and everyone will forget about it. But for this one, hopefully last time, they did what they had to.
i can understand the concern that the 6 wouldn’t be ready in its newer configuration. This is a complex, expensive satellite. When the booster is tested enough with payloads, this issue will end and everyone will forget about it. But for this one, hopefully last time, they did what they had to.
Upvote
-5
(1
/
-6)
theradicalmoderate
Ars Tribunus Militum
I know nothing about the B21 project, but I'd be a little surprised if this were a test case. Weapons systems involving humans are things where the Pentagon gets insanely conservative, because they need the complete paper trail to write all the training and maintenance procedures.
The ones I've heard of were mostly ground segments for satellite systems. This is as close as you get to a pure software-as-a-service model in the DoD, so using iterative/Agile methodology is something that even Space Force will be comfy with.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
The primary contractor on the B21 is Northrup Grumman. I'd say they are the best performing of all the traditional companies. Although it is not entirely under budget. NG took 1.3 billion in charges related to the B21 program in 2023. But they do still seem to be on track to deliver it on time. Which is certainly better than what Boeing would have done had they gotten it and is probably better than what LockMart would have done it they had won the bid.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Why would you go to another launch operator if the current one has proven reliability and is cheaper?
What benefit will Ariane 6 offer other than the geographic location of the shareholders also being European?
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Brexit was done based off disinformation and the voters who did bother to vote being a bunch of racist idiots.
How well has Britain done since Brexit? About as well as one can predict when rational thought is trumped by racist rhetoric. Britain is getting what it deserves. If EU decides to vote in more neo-Nazi/Alt-right / white supremacist / nationalists like Britain did, then EU will also have the same issues.
Last edited:
Upvote
-3
(3
/
-6)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
I don't think it has to be that complicated. Ariane 6 was suppose to fly a long time ago and by 2025 it would have a proven track record. They likely made the call now because their contract has some drop dead date which is aproaching. They kicked the can down the road as long as they could.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
I would argue it wasn't. Ariane 5 was expensive but reliable. Ariane 6 will likely never fly enough to pay the cost of development $10B. If Arianespace wasn't ready for reuse it would have made sense to just keep flying Ariane 5 another 5-10 years until they are instead of lighting $10B on fire.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Nobody except those on the side will know for sure but the contract likely had a drop dead date approaching. The executives took the low risk option of kicking the can down the road but they were reaching a shit or get off the pot date. When finally forced by circumstances they chose to ditch.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I’ve found that if you actually do stand up during the meeting and scream “abort, abort, abort” that everything just sort of sorts itself out from there.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Because you solve for 2 and 3 by solving for 1.
SpaceXs schedule is because they don't need to build an unproven first stage every 3 days. They have 16 F9s each launching about every 8 weeks or so and they don't need to delay in order to build more. And because they can do that, they can chase reliability by dialing in operations.
Reusabilty doesn't solve cost. It solves schedule. And practice solves reliability, which relies on schedule.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Oohh nice. I have worked on the instrument for the sounder as an AIT engineer and was just about to check out if there any updates on the launch date as I work somewhere else now.
So I guess I got my update now
So I guess I got my update now
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Correct. The original thinking was that Ariane 6 would be much less expensive per launch than Ariane 5 and that this would be enough to pay for the cost of developing it. However, their estimates for how much it would cost to develop were way too low. They ended up spending billions more than originally planned in R&D costs. And the expected savings in cost per launch are not as great as originally projected. The cost to the customer is less than Ariane 5, so it is slightly more competitive. However, behind the scenes the Ariane 6 program is now getting over 350 million Euros per year in direct subsidies, which lets them sell the launches at below cost. Without this, the cost per launch would be a lot closer to Ariane 5 prices. From a pure financial standpoint, the Ariane 6 program is a disaster. As you said, they lit 10 billion on fire. And they are going to spend 350 million more per year to keep the fire burning.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I was going to comment something similar: NG currently impresses me as the most agile of the Old Guard. But it's also refreshing to see NG take a charge against the development. They're likely to get that money back over time for more purchases and for the long-term support of these craft.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
It’s still a significant money saver compared to Ariane 5. A5 was also sold below cost with significant direct subsidies.
If A6 survives as long as A5 did, the high development cost would have been worthwhile. A6 lasting as long as A5, being a design already outdated and obsolete before it even began operation, would be shameful to the European launch industry.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
So long as it's not a remote meeting initiated by the vendor. If we send it out ourselves, the vendor can't mute the foghorn noises, or the "danger, Will Robinson" clip.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Would it though. They spent 5 friggin billion dollars (realistically more given the increased operation subsidy to Arianespace). At best Ariane 6 will save $50M per launch A64 vs Ariane 5. That would require 100 launches to break even. However there is time value of money. If we assume a cost of capital at 6% then the break even is 140 launches. Ariane 5 flew 117 times.
It is just insane that Arianespace spent 5 to 10 billion dollars on a relatively small improvement to Ariane 5. That became dead money the minute they began. Too much cost for too little savings. It being cheaper only helps if it is cheap enough to grow the number of launches but compared even to where SpaceX was in 2014 it wouldn't be.
While A5 was subsidized Arianespace has asked for and gotten an increase in the subsidies which further increase actual cost and dilute any on paper cost savings.
I do agree with you if A6 flies 100+ times that will be a terrible outcome but not sure this made sense even if it did.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)