Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Alan_Smithee_ t1_jaoqkvz wrote

Reply to comment by Thatingles in After flying four astronauts into orbit, SpaceX makes its 101st straight landing — ‘I just feel so lucky that I get to fly on this amazing machine.’ by marketrent

Everyone else is playing catch-up.

11

Reddit-runner t1_jaqi6fs wrote

"Playing" is the word here.

When in 2015-2017 SpaceX succeeded in landing their Falcon9 ArianeSpace and ESA acknowledged that this rocket would endanger the market position of their Ariane5. So they started to develop Ariane6.

But with the expressed goal of not designing it in a way reusability could be implemented later on, if need arose.

And they designed it as a rival to the Falcon9 of 2017, a rocket vastly less capable compared to the Falcon9 of today.

ArianeSpace and ESA now struggle to fill the books.

Soooo do they do the responsible thing and design a new rocket (ArianeNext) that will match SpaceX's capabilities in the future when ArianeNext will come online?

Ha, no. They have set up ArianeNext as a competitor to the Falcon9 of today, while betting that SpaceX can't get Starship to fly.

They are "playing" and they are playing badly.

11

MassProductionRagnar t1_jarddwk wrote

More or less, but primarily, Arianespace is there to provide independent European capability to space. That it dominated the launch market for a bit was a happy additional benefit, but not the primary mission.

2

Reddit-runner t1_jarieyw wrote

>primarily, Arianespace is there to provide independent European capability to space.

If that is the case then why even develop Ariane6 as an expressed rival to the Falcon9 of 2017 instead of just subsidising Ariane5 indefinitely?

Also why create a singe provider with basically no incentive for low prices instead of investing in the launch market as a whole to ensure "independent European capabilities to space"? With those €4B for Ariane6 Europ could have created TWO SpaceX!

Europe could have a much bigger space economy if it didn't hurdle itself with high, self inflicted, launch costs.

3

MassProductionRagnar t1_jasdd33 wrote

>If that is the case then why even develop Ariane6 as an expressed rival to the Falcon9 of 2017 instead of just subsidising Ariane5 indefinitely?

Because it makes more money, or rather means Ariane needs less subsidies.

1

Reddit-runner t1_jat9dne wrote

>Because it makes more money, or rather means Ariane needs less subsidies.

Your entire first argument was that Ariane6 is not an economic choice but a strategic one.

Now you argume that Ariane6 was designed to keep up with the market.

2