Ariane 6 is set to match (CURRENT) SpaceX F9 Prices Per Kg

[wumpus]

5 hours ago, Laythe Dweller said:

I think that they're building a factory which will make cheap WiFi sats.

Somehow I doubt they are WiFi.  In the US, WiFi is open under some pretty specific guidelines and I'm absolutely certain that delivering a signal over 300km is forbidden (not that they will interfere with you connecting ranches in Idaho.  But the minute someone doing similar without illegal pringle's cans complains that the reason it doesn't work is because of Space-X's extra WiFi signal, Space-X will get a "cease and desist" letter from the FCC).

But something like WiMax is pretty likely.  It is a matter of owning the spectrum and politics.  And as long as existing competitors have sunk huge sums in their spectra, they won't let Space-X use free spectra without a fight.

[YumonStudios]

4 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

ESA needs to invest in Skylon..  that is their only card for the moment..  all these "new" rockets are made just for survive these period.

A lot of countries and companies are making their appearance in the space industry..  someone that always see the past will remain in the past..

 

Skylon is a bad idea, it's an SSTO, and thus efficiency is very low. Also, it depends on reuse to reduce costs, which has not even been shown to work.

So no, not until F9 finishes it reuse program on both stages.

4 hours ago, Pipcard said:

Falcon 9 is already competing against Soyuz, "Falcon 5" and VEGA-class launchers would only result in extra manufacturing costs (different production lines) and they would rather carry small satellites as secondary payloads on Falcon 9, which is why they aren't making Falcon 1s anymore.

They'd still use the same rocket diameter, and Merlin engines (falcon 5). Also, Smallsats are bad on Falcon 9, it's not designed for dual launch, not to mention its OP, even with RTLS reuse, where it has 10T to LEO that way.

If they end up using Barge landings as a baseline for F9, it'll have ~13T to LEO, and allow for F5 to launch Dragons and smallsats in a cheaper way overall.

It will increase costs due to less commonality, but F9 has a blind spot on small payloads, and can't effectively launch them. It's also far to big for Dragon, so it could end up reducing costs overall due to a smaller rocket.

4 hours ago, wumpus said:

Somehow I doubt they are WiFi.  In the US, WiFi is open under some pretty specific guidelines and I'm absolutely certain that delivering a signal over 300km is forbidden (not that they will interfere with you connecting ranches in Idaho.  But the minute someone doing similar without illegal pringle's cans complains that the reason it doesn't work is because of Space-X's extra WiFi signal, Space-X will get a "cease and desist" letter from the FCC).

But something like WiMax is pretty likely.  It is a matter of owning the spectrum and politics.  And as long as existing competitors have sunk huge sums in their spectra, they won't let Space-X use free spectra without a fight.

It's not truely wiFi, it's just mobile internet from LEO sats.

[goncaloeaguiar]

A6 may be using and recycling technology from A5 but don't forget the latter is a 30 year old rocket. It has 30 year old electronics and the such. Many of the electronic design is now much cheaper than it used to be. 

[Nibb31]

Actually, a lot of Ariane 5's avionics was recycled from Ariane 4, which was the main cause of the failure that occured on Ariane 5's maiden flight.

The electronics are a tiny part of the cost of the rocket. Aerospace-grade flight computers are pretty standard and don't need to be extremely powerful, but they need to be certified, and so does the software. The cost of hardware and software certification is typically higher than the cost reduction that you get by using more modern hardware. In other words, it costs more to certify new hardware, to write new code, and to certify that code, than to use 30 year-old computer technology.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Nibb31