Arianespace launch thread

[Exoscientist]

3 hours ago, RCgothic said:

I'd be very interested to know more about the hydrogen-fuelled Prometheus. Until now everything we know about it says methane.

 

 Here’s one article I found on it after a web search:

High-Performance, Partially Reusable Launchers for Europe
Martin Sippel, Sven Stappert, Leonid Bussler, Steffen Callsen Martin.****@****.de Tel. +49-421-****
Space Launcher Systems Analysis (SART), DLR, Bremen, Germany
https://elib.dlr.de/142199/1/IAC20-D2.4.1.pdf

 In Table 3 on p. 3, the specifications for the hydrogen-fueled Prometheus used for a second stage are virtual identical to those of the Vulcain engine.

 

  Robert Clark

Edited October 25, 2023 by Exoscientist

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, tater said:

I'm not sure how demand could increase by that much. Half the cost per kg to LEO, and you need to double the demand to keep the same tiny annual revenue.

With about 1/3 to 1/2 the US population (and who knows how many globally) convinced the planet has "too many people" opening off world industry and colonies is the only viable path to avoid some very messy centrally planned political solutions being crammed down our throats

Edited October 25, 2023 by darthgently

[tater]

16 minutes ago, darthgently said:

With about 1/3 to 1/2 the US population (and who knows how many globally) convinced the planet has "too many people" opening off world industry and colonies is the only viable path to avoid some very messy centrally planned political solutions being crammed down our throats

Population will peak soon according to pretty much everyone I have read.

Off world industry is a great idea—I'm totally on board with the Bezos framing of moving dirty industry offworld, keeping Earth as a park/home for humanity—but the reality is that contrary to "millions of people living and working in space," I think there will be millions of robots doing that work, long before very many humans live in space (I'm including Mars, etc, as "space" here, as all people would live in built environments).

That's at least a decent "kill app" for low cost to space, though. Build robots, ship to space to mine resources. Then have robots build factories (factories are also robotic). At some point the robots can build places for humans, and then, assuming safety has been demonstrated (airline level safety, though maybe from some earlier era ), humans will want to visit space as a mass market.

[darthgently]

No one who has made population predictions or population effect predictions, in either direction, has been very correct historically.  Like dismally incorrect.  It might be slower than a stock exchange, but still has that chaotic human decision and innovation element at its core making predicting it more guess than science.  As for space habitation, it is a field of dreams.  Build it and they will come as that is what life does when a new niche arises 

[SunlitZelkova]

7 hours ago, darthgently said:

With about 1/3 to 1/2 the US population (and who knows how many globally) convinced the planet has "too many people" opening off world industry and colonies is the only viable path to avoid some very messy centrally planned political solutions being crammed down our throats

This idea brings to mind Philip K. Dick’s novels for me. Although the events in Ubik, Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep vary wildly, one common thread across all of them is that humanity has colonized the Moon and Mars in the near future.

Dick’s novels were not hard SF, and the novels I listed take place around 1990. But still, assuming advances in medical care will allow me to live to 90~ even without a particularly health conscious lifestyle, it would be really cool to see the first steps towards such an endeavor. I suppose Starship, and to a lesser extent, New Glenn are intended to be that. iSpace’s dreams of a 500 person lunar colony by 2040 are also quite tantalizing.

[DDE]

12 hours ago, darthgently said:

With about 1/3 to 1/2 the US population (and who knows how many globally) convinced the planet has "too many people" opening off world industry and colonies is the only viable path to avoid some very messy centrally planned political solutions being crammed down our throats

Getting society to agree to a mass euthanasia program for broad swathes of "unproductives" and "undesirables" is cheaper than shipping excess people off-world.

But I concur

12 hours ago, tater said:

Population will peak soon according to pretty much everyone I have read.

There's a theory that there will be a rebound afterwards, and that it may already be happening in France thanks to underappreciated natal policies, but it's mostly just a theory...

And even Africa is gradually peaking.

Edited October 26, 2023 by DDE

[Exoscientist]

 European space can dominate the commercial launch market again IF they make the right, though difficult choices. But to make those right, but tough choices, they have to first ask the right, but tough questions:

“Does a single solid rocket on the Ariane 6 and Vega-C really cost €20 million?” “So that the two on the Ariane 62 cost €40 million, and the four on the Ariane 64 cost €80 million?” “So that €80 million of the recommended €115 million price of the Ariane 64 is due just to the SRB’s alone?”

 But ESA is lacking the independent oversight to be forced to ask these questions. In effect, ESA serves as the oversight agency of itself:

Towards return of Europe to dominance of the launch market, Page 2: ESA needs an independent oversight agency.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/10/towards-return-of-europe-to-dominance_25.html

  Bob Clark

[tater]

4 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

European space can dominate the commercial launch market again

No, they can't. There is no plausible way they can compete with even SpaceX in a meaningful way, much less SpaceX with ULA flying Vulcan (NET Dec 24), and BO flying NG (2024?). They need to be able to launch a F9 sort of payload at an internal cost <$30M. Not for 1 stage, all-in for the entire launch.

That's what it takes to *have a chance to* become "dominant."  (in ** is an edit)

Add in some competition, and it's a completely impossible goal for Arianespace, and that's completely ignoring the elephant on the pad in TX.

BTW, as far as I can tell, Europe "dominated" the commercial launch market 2 years. 2001, and 2002 (based on them having the plurality of commercial launches those 2 years).

Edited October 26, 2023 by tater

[darthgently]

10 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

But still, assuming advances in medical care will allow me to live to 90~ even without a particularly health conscious lifestyle

IDK, many think, and the evidence supports, that the big elephant in the room with medicine is that healthy lifestyle is by far the dominating factor and the biggest advances in health will be there, pharma patents be damned.

 

10 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This idea brings to mind Philip K. Dick’s novels for me.

One of the best in psychological sci fi

[Exoscientist]

 Europe is beginning to freak-out about the inability of the Ariane 6 or the Vega-C to compete with SpaceX. A translated article from the French:

———————————————————————————————————————

Europe's space rockets on the verge of implosion.

By Véronique Guillermard

Ariane 6. S MARTIN / S MARTIN

DECRYPTION - The Europeans are torn apart over public aid for the operation of Ariane 6. Berlin and Rome want to put an end to ArianeGroup's monopoly in heavy launchers.

It is a summit of European space ministers, accompanied by a council of the European Space Agency (ESA), which will be held on November 6 and 7 in Seville, Spain. In the background, the unprecedented European rocket crisis. Europe no longer has independent access to space. Ariane 6, four years late, will not fly before 2024. It is therefore not yet ready to take over from Ariane 5, which carried out its final mission last July.

Vega C, the new version of the small Italian Vega rocket, is unavailable until the end of next year, since the failure of its first commercial mission at the end of 2022. And it is no longer possible to count on Soyuz, since the cessation of cooperation with Russia, in the wake of the aggression of Ukraine.

Rethinking European strategy

Hence the urgency to fundamentally rethink the European strategy in terms of space transport. And, in the short term, to do everything possible to make Ariane 6 a success, by agreeing on its operating conditions. These have given rise, for weeks, to a standoff between the 13 ESA member states out of 22, which finance the program, and ArianeGroup, the prime contractor for Ariane 6, as well as its subcontractors. . The industry is in fact calling for a reassessment of public support, in order to balance the operation of the new rocket. In short: a substantial annual subsidy so as not to lose money on the commercial market. ArianeGroup is asking for 350 million per year, more than double the amount granted in 2021.

Also read|Space tourism, giant rockets, constellations... The rush for the stars is causing risks to explode⁠

However, when Ariane 6 was launched in 2014, ESA and Cnes (National Center for Space Studies), to which the European agency had until now delegated project management of the Ariane rockets, had agreed to leave this responsibility of project management at ArianeGroup, just created by Airbus and Safran. In return, the latter had promised to no longer request public support for exploitation. “Industrialists have not kept this commitment and have requested public support from 2021,” specifies Toni Tolker-Nielsen, director of space transport at ESA.

In 2021, we estimated the need for Ariane 6 at 140 million per year for a launch rate of 9 rockets per year.

Toni Tolker-Nielsen, director of space transportation at ESA

Request accepted due to a profound change in the market since 2014, with the rise of SpaceX, which slashed prices with the Falcon 9 launcher, and the arrival of high-speed internet constellations. Without forgetting the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. “In 2021, we estimated the need for Ariane 6 at 140 million per year for a launch rate of 9 rockets per year,” specifies the director of space transport at ESA. This help covers the first 16 missions.

The rule of geographic return

Since then, manufacturers have had to deal with the return of inflation, the rise in energy prices and the additional costs linked to Ariane 6 delays. “As it is not possible to pass on the entirety of inflation on commercial customers, States are once again called to the rescue,” summarizes Toni Tolker-Nielsen of the ESA. The fact remains that the 13 states do not want to sign a blank check. In particular France and Germany, the two biggest contributors to the Ariane 6 program, from which their industry captures the largest benefits. “Industrialists from these two countries share 50% and 20% respectively of the added value of Ariane 6,” specifies the ESA. “There will be no new subsidy without compensation. It will be give and take,” we summarize.

ESA requires an effort to reduce industrial costs. According to our information, ArianeGroup has accepted “a double-digit reduction in its costs.” Negotiations are proving more difficult with the 600 European subcontractors. They are protected by the Geographic Return (GEO) rule, which states that each State contributing to a program receives a workload aligned with its financial commitment. This benefits its manufacturers, without ArianeGroup being able to choose them or negotiate prices. “Certain price increases made by suppliers are not justified. They must make an effort adapted to their size,” emphasizes Toni Tolker-Nielsen.

Also read|Francis Rocard: “The objective of landing men on the Moon in 2025 with Starship seems unrealistic”⁠

The ESA also requires new governance which gives it the right to review and audit Ariane 6. This is to ensure that all manufacturers respect a fair price policy. And that Ariane 6 is not sold off on the commercial market, to the detriment of institutional customers. The ESA, the European Commission, Eumetsat, which operates the weather satellites, and the States have already agreed to pay more than commercial satellite operators. The Europeans have adopted the same logic as NASA and the Pentagon, who often buy their launches twice as much, so that SpaceX is ultra-competitive on the commercial market. It is therefore via a massive and overpaid public order that SpaceX is in reality also subsidized. The American institutional market is in fact five times larger than the European one.

Price and competition

But, on the Old Continent, “the institutional prices defined in 2021, which have not increased since with significant inflation, cover the launch costs, no more”, specifies Toni Tolker-Nielsen, of the ESA. However, if the price charged to institutional clients increases further, they will be tempted to turn to American, Indian or Japanese rockets. In the absence of an equivalent to the Buy American Act, a federal law that came into force in… 1933, European countries are not obliged to buy Ariane 6, which they nevertheless finance! A grotesque situation. Berlin has never been without it: in April 2021, an observation satellite was entrusted to SpaceX, to the detriment of Ariane 5.

The German Spectrum mini-launcher. Isar Aerospace

The ESA hopes to reach an agreement on the operation of Ariane 6 (subsidy, cost reduction, new governance) by next Monday. This new psychodrama around Ariane 6 makes it more necessary than ever to overhaul the space transport strategy. Germany, which dreams of taking leadership from France in heavy launchers, sees this as an opportunity to obtain the introduction of intra-European competition on this market. Which, in the eyes of several specialists, would create emulation beneficial to innovation.

 France is not afraid of competition, it draws on decades of expertise in a complex and risky industry

Close to ArianeGroup

In mid-2021, Berlin has already obtained a competitive bid from Paris in the mini and microlauncher segment. ArianeGroup immediately reacted by creating a new entity, MaiaSpace, in start-up mode, with the mission of developing a mini-launcher, ready to fly in 2025. And starting point for a new family of rockets. “France is not afraid of competition, it draws on decades of expertise in a complex and risky industry. But it requires its corollary: total freedom for the industry, which was not the case for Ariane 6, whose difficulties can be explained by maintaining the geographical return,” explains a person close to ArianeGroup.

Also read|“Europe’s spatial disconnection”⁠

Across the Rhine, where it is repeated that the historic manufacturer has not kept its cost and deadline commitments, Berlin is counting on Isar Aerospace or RFA to take the lead. The German outsiders are developing mini-rockets which are expected to give rise to a range of increasingly powerful launchers.

The Italian rocket Vega E. Jacky Huart

In its fight, Germany is joined by Italy. Avio, the manufacturer of Vega, has, on good authority, received the creation of MaiaSpace very poorly. “A decision taken against Italy, aiming to do without Vega rockets,” according to a person close to the Italian group. The latter is developing Vega E, a version 20% more powerful than VegaC, which is due to make its first flight in 2026. It will be a direct competitor to one of the two versions of Ariane 6. This encourages Rome to regain its independence commercial. So no longer go through Arianespace, which markets European rockets, revealed La Tribune at the end of October. In order to calm things down and get Avio on board in preparing for the future, he was asked to become a shareholder in MaiaSpace. Proposal declined at this stage.

Ariane 6 delays and difficulties

For its part, the ESA has decided to rethink its role. The delays and difficulties of Ariane 6 “show that the next launchers will have to be developed in a radically different framework from the one we know today,” predicted, in the spring, Philippe Baptiste, president of Cnes.

Should rockets be taken out of the ESA framework? The idea is promoted by certain manufacturers. From a very good source, launchers should be considered as objects of sovereignty, treated at community level by the European Commission, and not by the ESA. Brussels has already equipped the Union with strategic infrastructure with Galileo (navigation and positioning) in order to free itself from American GPS, Copernicus, the world number one in Earth observation, and the future Iris2 constellation. However, there is no consensus on this path. Or should the ESA be transformed into a real EU agency, modeled on NASA, which buys rockets and manned capsules without getting involved in their design?

Also read|The European space elite joins forces to put the Iris 2 constellation into orbit⁠

On the verge of implosion, Europe's launchers must urgently put everything back together. And create new effective governance and put an end to the GEO return rule, which undermines the competitiveness and speed of execution of the industry, without taking into account real skills. The system is running out of steam. The shock wave caused by SpaceX's successes highlighted this.

In Seville, the Europeans must succeed in going beyond their divisions. Otherwise, they risk fratricidal wars. To the greatest benefit of SpaceX… whose ultra-domination (68 successful launches at the end of October, out of 100 planned for 2023) worries customers, eager to have the choice.

———————————————————————————————————————

 Original article in French:

L'Europe des fusées spatiales au bord de l'implosion
Par Véronique Guillermard
https://archive.ph/XldxI

 

 Usually, to make some great advance in a technical field you need the great experts in the field to make the key insights. Quite ironic is that in order to solve the crisis in the European launch industry all it requires is someone, anyone to simply ask some pointed questions.

EU Space Week is this week:  https://www.euspaceweek.eu/

 Every European space journalist will be reporting on it if not being there in person. Will any journalist or anyone in the audience ask the questions of the ESA:

“Does a single P120 solid rocket used for the Ariane 6 SRB’s and the Vega-C first stage really cost €20 million?” “So that the two SRB’s on the Ariane 62 cost €40 million, and the four on the Ariane 64 cost €80 million?” “So that out of the €115 million ($125 million) recommended price of the Ariane 64, €80 million is just for the 4 solid side boosters?”

For if the answers to those questions is yes, then it becomes clear why the current version of the Ariane 6 is not price competitive to the SpaceX Falcon 9. And it also becomes clear how to get an Ariane 6 version that matches the Falcon 9 both in payload and price:

Towards return of Europe to dominance of the launch market.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/10/towards-return-of-europe-to-dominance.html

  Bob Clark

Edited November 5, 2023 by Exoscientist

[tater]

It's good that they realize they have a problem, but honestly it's too late to compete with Falcon 9, much less with Starship, New Glenn, or even Nova (stoke) unless they really try to copy SpaceX. I don't mean tech, I mean methods.

[Exoscientist]

Another article on the crisis in European launch capability, translated into English:

—————————————————————————————-

Europe saves the future of Ariane 6 against opening up to competition.
In Seville, the member states of the European Space Agency agreed to provide more funding for Ariane 6, in exchange for opening the launch market to competition by 2025.

By Anne Bauer
Published on Nov. 6, 2023 at 7:31 p.m. Updated on Nov. 6, 2023 at 7:47 p.m.
Plunged into a serious crisis since the loss of its access to space due to the delays of Ariane 6 and the difficulties of Vega C, space Europe has finally found a compromise to ensure the medium-term future of its launchers .
The negotiations were tough and long, but the Member States finally agreed, on Monday in Seville, to further finance Ariane 6. When the new heavy launcher was launched in 2014, the promise was to obtain a competitive rocket, capable of do without public aid.
“We are failing on this point, but we are ensuring our autonomous access to space in the long term,” explains the director of CNES, Philippe Baptiste. “The operation of Ariane 6 is guaranteed, which is very good news,” said ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher.
Open to competition from 2025

In exchange for this new financial effort, the States, first and foremost Germany, have imposed an opening to competition in the launcher market. A first call for competition will be carried out by the European Space Agency (ESA) from 2025 for small launchers, while the Ariane 6 succession will be put into competition a few years later.
READ ALSO:
With Euclid, Europe wants to unlock the secret of the invisible
For ArianeGroup and its subcontractors, this is a great relief. Faced with inflation, rising energy prices, American competitive pressure and accumulated delays, the economic equation negotiated in 2021 no longer held water.
The States had defined aid of 140 million euros per year until the 15th flight for the ramp-up until the end of 2026. In Seville, they agreed to finance the operation of the rocket from the 16th to the 42nd firing , which will cover the operation of the rocket between 2027 and 2029. The annual amount will be between 290 and 340 million euros maximum.
Audits and private financing
The ESA will carry out audits in 2024, to decide on the precise amount for its 2025 budget conference, the one where States set the programs they finance for three years. The future of the small Italian launcher Vega C will also be helped to the tune of a maximum of 21 million euros per year. In both cases, manufacturers are under surveillance to verify their cost reduction efforts.
In exchange for this support, which satisfies the French government, the main contributor to Ariane 6 with a share of around 50%, the ESA must lead its revolution and open the launcher market to competition. Germany, which is pushing small launcher projects from German companies like Isar Aerospace or OHB, was the main advocate, but it was supported by a large majority of ESA member states.
“We want competition that attracts private money, to strengthen Europe's total budget in space, because the difference in funding also concerns the private sector between Europe and the United States,” explained Anna Christmann, coordinator of German space policy.
The future heavy launcher will be put into competition
In 2025, ESA will select small launchers following a competition where the winners will obtain a funding package of 150 million euros.
READ ALSO:
“Europeans must maintain a collective effort in space”, believes the boss of CNES
“I hope that the candidates will gradually come together, it would be a shame to only have a competition between nations, while the market is narrow,” notes Toni Tolker-Nielsen, director of space transport at ESA. Beyond that, a new competition will be launched, probably in 2028, for the successor to Ariane 6. “Which suggests competition for Ariane 6 by 2035,” adds Toni Tolker-Nielsen.

The Minister of the Economy, Bruno Le Maire, welcomes the compromise reached, which confirms the life of Ariane 6, introduces competition and establishes the essential role of the Kourou spaceport. For its part, Italy is delighted with the agreement reached, which will allow Avio to leave Arianespace and directly market the flights of its Vega launcher. “It is an act of simplification and it is decided in perfect agreement between France and Italy,” commented Bruno Le Maire.
Anne Bauer

—————————————————————————————-

 From the original in French:

A Séville, les Etats membres de l'Agence spatiale européenne ont accepté de financer davantage Ariane 6, en échange d'une ouverture à la compétition du marché des lancements à l'horizon 2025.
Par Anne Bauer
Publié le 6 nov. 2023 à 19:31Mis à jour le 6 nov. 2023 à 19:47
https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/leurope-sauve-lavenir-dariane-6-contre-louverture-a-la-concurrence-2027060

 ESA will open up competition but just for small launchers in 2025. For the Ariane 6 it will open up competition by 2028 with such being fielded  by 2035. So it still means Ariane 6 subsidized by €350 million per year for another decade. My opinion, ArianeSpace will be bankrupt by then.

 Also notable in the section, “Audits and private financing”, ESA will be conducting an audit of expenditures. But this is ESA auditing itself. What is needed is an independent authority to review ESA’s spending and launcher selections. That is the only way it will be acknowledged that using large SRB’s is the cause of the high prices both for the Ariane 6 and for the Vega-C.

  Bob Clark

Edited November 7, 2023 by Exoscientist
Typo.

[tater]

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 11/5/2023 at 11:52 AM, tater said:

It's good that they realize they have a problem, but honestly it's too late to compete with Falcon 9, much less with Starship, New Glenn, or even Nova (stoke) unless they really try to copy SpaceX. I don't mean tech, I mean methods.

I commented in another thread that the move fast and break things method might be difficult to justify when using public funds... 

But I'm wondering if that's not too traditional thinking.  

Fact is that SX has proven in the modern era what was done in the early days - that rapid iterations of and a tolerance for failure leading to progress is a working method. 

I don't know how similar to the US traditional aerospace industry is the European industry - but the problem (of adopting similar methods) seems to be 'who's willing to bear the cost of failure'?  There are too many stakeholders. 

Still - I think that can be overcome. Might take a formal restructuring with the method in mind and sharing of profit and loss... But it could be done. 

 

[tater]

SpaceX does what they do partially because they have to. Testing everything in advance takes loads of infrastructure, money, and time. I recall reading that every Saturn V stage had 4 non-flight articles built for testing for example. Then the testign facilities, etc.

[RKunze]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I commented in another thread that the move fast and break things method might be difficult to justify when using public funds...

Well, politicians (on both sides of the pond) are pretty good at justifying spending public funds, even for basically no results. They probably could come up with a justification for it, if they wanted.

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I don't know how similar to the US traditional aerospace industry is the European industry

Not that much different. Big, fat, multinational behemoths that get a big portion of their money from public funds. Yo have the ULA and Boeing for that, we have Arianespace and Airbus. Main difference is the history (the US aerospace firms started out as private enterprises that grew into multinational behemoths by swallowing up competing enterprises, while the european version has been constructed that way on purpose by the EU member states) and the main way of getting public money to them (the military in the US, EU grants in Europe).

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[Exoscientist]

CNES Boss on Damage Control for ArianeGroup on Ariane 6 Failures
By Andrew Parsonson -
November 6, 2023
In a startling revelation, Baptiste pointed to one “large subcontractor” in particular “from a neighboring country” that he says is “demanding price increases of nearly 60% from ArianeGroup, while the same country’s space agency vehemently criticizes the cost of the programme.”

France neighbours Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, and Italy. There are subcontractors from all five countries working on Ariane 6. However, considering the size of the contributions of each country, large Ariane 6 contractors are probably limited to Germany and Italy. As far as I know, neither ASI nor DLR has openly criticized the price of Ariane 6, but the bad blood between France and Italy when it comes to their respective launcher programmes has been well documented. And the only Ariane 6 subcontractor of note from Italy is, of course, Avio. The company is contracted to contribute to a number of Ariane 6 systems but is most notable for its contributions to the development and production of the P120C solid boosters through a joint partnership with ArianeGroup called Europropulsion. This is far from confirmed, but it is possible that this is the subcontractor Baptiste was referring to.
https://europeanspaceflight.com/cnes-boss-on-damage-control-for-arianegroup-on-ariane-6-failures/

 The Ariane 6 SRB manufacturer demands a 60% price increase. European tax payers paid billions of dollars for the development of the Ariane 6, but they are not permitted to know the cost of the components of that launcher: 60% higher than what? What is the price now being demanded for the SRB’s?

 If you look up cost of Vulcain engine used on the core that is openly given as €10 million. But the cost of the SRB’s? That must not be asked or answered!

  Robert Clark



[tater]

And by "lost" they literally mean "misplaced."

LOL.

[darthgently]

6 hours ago, tater said:

And by "lost" they literally mean "misplaced."

LOL.

Just...wow:

"...the tanks were eventually found. This was, however, not the good news Avio had hoped for. The tanks are, unfortunately, not in a usable state. They had been crushed and were found alongside metal scraps in a landfill..."

[grawl]

You should never get involved in a dispute with the italian mafia...

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, grawl said:

You should never get involved in a dispute with the italian mafia...

Or never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line... 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by darthgently

[Exoscientist]

ArianeGroup CEO Finally Says Quiet Part Out Loud
By Andrew Parsonson - December 8, 2023
https://europeanspaceflight.com/arianegroup-ceo-finally-says-quiet-part-out-loud/

Quite astonishing. The ArianeGroup CEO suggests the previous design of the Ariane 6 using two large SRB’s for its first stage instead of a liquid-fueled core would have been better. He hasn’t gotten the point reusability is essential to be competitive with SpaceX.

It’s like Tory Bruno head of ULA questioning whether reusability is worthwhile. Here it is with SpaceX beating ULA into the ground with their price cuts from reusability, with ULA being driven to the brink of bankruptcy, and with ULA opening themselves up for sale to forestall going under, and the CEO doesn’t know why.

The New Space starts-ups all recognize the importance of reusability. Old Space has become old and decrepit.

  Bob Clark

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, Exoscientist said:

ArianeGroup CEO Finally Says Quiet Part Out Loud
By Andrew Parsonson - December 8, 2023
https://europeanspaceflight.com/arianegroup-ceo-finally-says-quiet-part-out-loud/

Quite astonishing. The ArianeGroup CEO suggests the previous design of the Ariane 6 using two large SRB’s for its first stage instead of a liquid-fueled core would have been better. He hasn’t gotten the point reusability is essential to be competitive with SpaceX.

It’s like Tory Bruno head of ULA questioning whether reusability is worthwhile. Here it is with SpaceX beating ULA into the ground with their price cuts from reusability, with ULA being driven to the brink of bankruptcy, and with ULA opening themselves up for sale to forestall going under, and the CEO doesn’t know why.

The New Space starts-ups all recognize the importance of reusability. Old Space has become old and decrepit.

  Bob Clark

You are taking this out of context. He isn’t saying “using solid fuel core stages would have been better so we could compete with SpaceX” he is saying “using solid fuel core stages would have been better so we could get this thing flying on time.”

Realistically it is pointless to ponder if Ariane 6 could have been made reusable. The meeting in question where they dropped the solid fuel core for a liquid fueled one took place in 2014, a year before Falcon 9’s first landing. Prior to that feat, no one knew reusability of conventional rockets was feasible or would be so good for business.

It would have been idiotic if he had actually said “if only we tried to make Ariane 6 reusable”. Not only would that not meet the 2020 in-service deadline, but it is also a bit like saying “if only we didn’t build the Space Shuttle like we did”. With hindsight it makes sense but no one knew things were going to end up how they did. People made the best decision they could have at the time in the face of funding and political issues. It only makes sense to lament a decision if you could have realistically changed it.

If you could not have, it is best to accept something you thought was good had an unfortunate effect, and move on and try to make the best of the situation you are in now.

I feel like that is something a lot of folks don’t think about when they wonder why there are so many non-reusable rockets still being produced. A lot of these projects started a few years before anyone even knew reusability was feasible and cost effective. It would be incredibly expensive to change the design 50 or 60% through development, and money doesn’t exactly grow on trees when it comes to space development funding. The bottom line for a rocket is that if it can get stuff into space, it is useful and worth being worked on. It isn’t like military equipment where you can radically change a design or cancel it on a whim if changing strategy and tactical situations make the piece of technology in question obsolete.