"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
Upvote
265
(275
/
-10)
Look, I've been in technical meetings as a customer, talking to engineers of the firm we were going to hire fully prepared to sign a contract when in the course of conversation something is said that awakens a little voice in my head 'hold on, that didn't make any sense'. So I follow up with my line of questioning and another engineer says something that triggers the same voice. Within minutes that voice is SCREAMING at me, these guys are full of shit, abort! abort! abort! and I thank them for their time, let them know some things discussed in the meeting require me to consult with my leadership and I spend the next day coming up with a response that makes them never want to contact me again, without actually telling them that I think they're just winging it. It happens. And you never think it's going to be a meeting with Boeing or ArianeGroup that causes that to happen, but apparently that happens now.
Upvote
454
(460
/
-6)
Good feeling to know that I've not been the only one with one of those meetings and "abort abort abort" ...
Of course, there was the time when what I said was the reason for things to go of the rails...
(damned speaking of truth)
Upvote
184
(185
/
-1)
Sounds like it's time for Europe to declare SpaceX a gatekeeper and fine them 10% of their global profit.
Upvote
35
(156
/
-121)
As a big proponent of European self-sufficiency I still can understand this and support it fully. Ariane group gives off same vibes as Boeing. Incompetent to the n:th degree. They have the playbook on how to quickly advanced (Soviets first (they did fall into the whole "how it looks politically" trap after a while, but the start was good) then SpaceX). Iterate fast and advance, but no, that would be politically inconvenient to see failures (who remembers early SpaceX failures now that they are kicking everyone's behind?). All in all Europe should just shut down Ariane and replace it with someone who has a clear mandate to move fast even if it results in a few kabooms.
Upvote
119
(130
/
-11)
Didn’t Ariane recently indicate they weren’t worried about SpaceX? Maybe it’s time they start getting worried and really start thinking about the future. Scratch that, I think Europe in general really needs to start innovating in the launch sector and making it easier for new space to happen on the continent.
Right now it feels like there is still too much of an old space mentality on the continent.
Right now it feels like there is still too much of an old space mentality on the continent.
Upvote
197
(199
/
-2)
I applaud Eric’s restraint in not quoting the most egregious portion of Baptiste’s post which called for requiring EU satellites to be launched on European (French) rockets.
Upvote
134
(137
/
-3)
I think it makes a lot of sense, and the author even explained it in the final paragraphs…
Ariana6 has had been delayed by years, and this satellite would have been launched on a revised rocket that has not yet been tested.
I think it’s a no brainer to say “let’s launch this on a PROVEN system” rather than “let’s launch this on an unproven system that has a history of delays”
Ariana6 has had been delayed by years, and this satellite would have been launched on a revised rocket that has not yet been tested.
I think it’s a no brainer to say “let’s launch this on a PROVEN system” rather than “let’s launch this on an unproven system that has a history of delays”
Upvote
240
(240
/
0)
This is disappointing as the Ariene 6 is not a bad rocket. They "just" need to add meaningful reusability and rapid production. I think they will find their cost per launch will drop if they can "just" do those things.
Upvote
25
(43
/
-18)
snowman<ca>
Ars Praefectus
There is so many reasons I can see not to want to be a test case, which may not even be getting the price point of a much more tested platform of F9.
A business has a harder time justifying national/regional pride. Even propping up a second source is questionable in this case, since Rocket Labs and Blue Origin seem way closer to getting a reusable launcher for this class of payload. There at least finally seams interest in developing a reusable European rocket, but I have not seen anything that makes it seem clear we have a path to get there anytime soon.
A business has a harder time justifying national/regional pride. Even propping up a second source is questionable in this case, since Rocket Labs and Blue Origin seem way closer to getting a reusable launcher for this class of payload. There at least finally seams interest in developing a reusable European rocket, but I have not seen anything that makes it seem clear we have a path to get there anytime soon.
Upvote
87
(88
/
-1)
Seems a reasonable call. Eumetsat wants to launch their high profile bird in 2025. Depending on when in 2025, somewhere between 6 ~18 months out(The statement didn't mention when in 2025). Ariane 6 will make the first test flight hopefully next month. IF things go off on schedule and as hoped, maybe Eumetsat could trust Ariane 6 for that 2025 date. If things go sideways, then your launch date gets pushed. A storm tracking satellite sounds like something that could save lives so if the bird is ready, going up sooner is better then later. The Falcon9 is proven and ready today.
Upvote
123
(124
/
-1)
Well, that's how the EU works these days. When they can't innovate enough, just declare antitrust the technology companies and soak those companies that are actually doing things well and then fine them.
Upvote
-43
(99
/
-142)
And just wait until Starship and its promised further reduction in cost to orbit. Nothing on the planet will be able to compete price wise.
Last edited:
Upvote
51
(59
/
-8)
petulant bureaucrats settling scores? must be that. Otherwise this timing would never have been chosen for such news.
Upvote
4
(22
/
-18)
The Europeans are angry at each other because they didn't blindly close ranks and fall in line with France's demand that they put France first? Color me shocked.
France has far too long had a nationalist attitude (often clothed in "pro-european" clothing) that reeks of the type of "make america great again" misplaced pride Trump is so fond of... i'm plenty happy to have it knocked down a peg back into reality that it needs to compete on quality and merits and not just it's European identity.
France has far too long had a nationalist attitude (often clothed in "pro-european" clothing) that reeks of the type of "make america great again" misplaced pride Trump is so fond of... i'm plenty happy to have it knocked down a peg back into reality that it needs to compete on quality and merits and not just it's European identity.
Upvote
141
(166
/
-25)
Weren't the Europeans laughing at SpaceX around a decade ago? Like the Russians and Boeing?
Upvote
114
(120
/
-6)
On paper it is not a bad rocket. In reality it isn’t flight tested.
In the meantime we’ve seen more test launches of SpaceX’s spaceship and Falcon Heavy is a production flight tested solution.
As for cost, I feel that Ariane is still stuck in the same old school mentality as ULA. I wouldn’t go as far as SLS vibes, which are likely hyberbolic, but I’m still a little on the pessimistic side.
As for reusablity, only China really seems to be giving any indication that there is a proper government driven attempt to emulate.
Upvote
138
(139
/
-1)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
"I am impatiently waiting to understand what reasons could have led Eumetsat to such a decision."
Off the top of my head your rocket is expensive, obsolete, unproven, delayed, and with an uncertain future cadence. The competition is cheap, modern, reliable, available, and the highest cadence of any rocket in the last 30 years.
Arianespace doesn't have to be the cheapest best option but it needs to be in the ballpark. It spent a decade treading water while SpaceX got better and better.
Off the top of my head your rocket is expensive, obsolete, unproven, delayed, and with an uncertain future cadence. The competition is cheap, modern, reliable, available, and the highest cadence of any rocket in the last 30 years.
Arianespace doesn't have to be the cheapest best option but it needs to be in the ballpark. It spent a decade treading water while SpaceX got better and better.
Upvote
270
(271
/
-1)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
On paper it is a terrible rocket. A whose who of dead end design choices over the last half century. Ariane 5 has some "ghost of the STS" in its design DNA. Due to the obsolete architecture there is no chance of it evolving to something reusable.
Keep in mind the Falcon 9 wasn't reusable from day one. However the expendable Falcon 9 was a very cost effective design. It would have been a hard competitor even if reuse never worked. It also had the potential to evolve into something that is reusable while still competing as an expendable launcher. Initially the reuse was very limited and crude and a decade later they are flying booster 20+ times with plans of a fully reusable rocket which will be reused 100+ times.
Arianespace could have gone with an expendable rocket that had the potential for reuse in the future. A methalox powered traditional 2 stage falcon 9 clone for example. Even if they initially said we don't think reuse makes sense it would have the potential to evolve. Instead Ariane 5 was obsolete almost a decade before it launched the first time. Arianespace has just released an slightly tweaked passenger biplane touting how the new cupholders will help it compete against a Boeing 707.
Last edited:
Upvote
167
(170
/
-3)
I don’t think this decision was price driven - they had already budgeted for an Ariane 6 launch.
Upvote
77
(78
/
-1)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
It was scheduled to launch in 2025 but Ariane 6 was suppose to launch in 2019 and at a high cadence (ESA touted 12 flights per year at one point). By 2025 Ariane 6 should be proven and reliable with consistent no drama monthly launches.
Instead they were now facing a situation of being a test payload on an unproven rocket with uncertain reliability and getting to pay top dollar for that privilege. There are two different reliabilities to consider too. The first is will this rocket get my very expensive payload to orbit safely. This being unproven is a real risk but the odds are good it will work. The second is will my payload launch on schedule. That is less certain. It is somewhat surprising they waited until the "last minute" but my guess is management has probably been kicking the can down the road and they had some hard go no-go deadline in the contract so no more road left. Commit to Ariane 6 or cut bait.
Last edited:
Upvote
218
(218
/
0)
I don’t think this was a decision taken on price. The maybe €50-100m is a significant chunk of change, even for this satellite, but not enough to take the political fallout.
I think it’s the risk of a fairly new rocket in a brand new configuration that sealed the deal.
Upvote
99
(99
/
0)
snowman<ca>
Ars Praefectus
Yeah, if I recall correctly it was originally planed as the response to the expendable version of F9 gaining traction, at least what was stated publicly was they did not think that reuse made financial sense even if would be technically plausible.
Upvote
47
(47
/
0)
Starts with a D, six letters. Hmm....
Sure they'd budgeted for Ariane 6, but Ariane 6 is over-budget and late; and I bet the weather satellite is as well. Cutting launch costs (and the implied self-insurance cost) will for sure help.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
One of the reasons the EU does this is because the US doesn’t constrain them at all. And that’s fine - the US balances corporate profits and privacy different. But it does mean that companies that want to do business in the EU will need to adjust that business, at least for EU residents.
It is no different than when a financial institution wants to operate in the US. Then US banking laws apply.
Upvote
74
(87
/
-13)
Assumes facts not in evidence: Ariane 6 hasn’t launched once - it is definitely far too early to say they are on schedule for their third launch.
In addition as pointed out, this would be first launch of the 64 configuration, which increases schedule risk and launch risk.
I’m not sure that is true - even if they need a Falcon Heavy launch, I think SpaceX could fit it in by early 2025. They may have had to delay the launch due to satellite integration on EUMETSAT’s side however.
Edit: Looks like an ASDS F9 should be sufficient for GTO - the satellite isn’t that heavy, which makes we wonder why A64 is needed unless this is direct to GEO, which I think would require Falcon Heavy, even though it would be vast overkill. For some reason (fuel?) SpaceX doesn’t list direct to GEO for F9.
Last edited:
Upvote
74
(74
/
0)
It was scheduled for 2025, assuming the upcoming launch goes fine and everything after that goes fine, on a configuration that will have never launched before.
Or you spend less for a ride on F9 and with its proven track record and massive cadence advantage, you can pretty much take it to the bank that it'll fly within a reasonable timeframe.
Upvote
58
(58
/
0)
Can I argue your point slightly. Aren't we now at the point where F9 has the highest cadence EVER? I mean, yes, the Soviets were launching early versions of the R-7 variants that became Soyuz pretty sprightly but I don't think they were ever firing three in one day, consistently?
Upvote
87
(87
/
0)
That is a question I was about to ask:
Eric's article implies a launch on a F9: but earlier this week GEOS-U went up on an FH: and a very quick google suggests that this European weather satellite is of similar weight.
Won't they need an FH? (if they needed a '64??? )
Upvote
62
(63
/
-1)
"I am impatiently waiting to understand what reasons could have led Eumetsat to such a decision."
I mean... it's an important payload and they want to get it operational, so they picked the provider with a reliable schedule?
They don't want to send it up on what will effectively be a test flight for a rocket configuration that has never launched before?
They just wanted to save some money?
This is a very easy decision to understand in any context EXCEPT "we're European therefore we must use a European rocket." That's the only real reason too pick Ariane 6 for this bird.
I mean... it's an important payload and they want to get it operational, so they picked the provider with a reliable schedule?
They don't want to send it up on what will effectively be a test flight for a rocket configuration that has never launched before?
They just wanted to save some money?
This is a very easy decision to understand in any context EXCEPT "we're European therefore we must use a European rocket." That's the only real reason too pick Ariane 6 for this bird.
Upvote
111
(111
/
0)
So often reading Eric's work I imagine him gritting his teeth, bonded as he is to the high road. Stating the obvious in this case seems forgivable. And funny as hell.
Upvote
35
(43
/
-8)
In Neal Stephenson's 2015 novel Seveneves right off the bat the moon explodes for no adequately explored reason. Throughout the majority of the novel Ariane space is launching rockets non-stop from Kourou. All day, every day, with each one packed to the absolute weight limit. That's now the least realistic part of the entire 600 pages.
Upvote
107
(110
/
-3)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
GOES-U was Falcon Heavy because it was a direct to GEO payload. F9 would have worked for a traditional GTO delivery with the sat doing the apogee raising and dropping its inclination.
A week prior SpaceX put Astra 1P, a 5,000 kg payload, into GTO orbit using a reusable F9 (drone ship landing).
Upvote
76
(76
/
0)
ESA: * Breast beating * NATIONALISM! NATIONALISM! * more breast beating * NATIONALISM! NATIONALISM!
Eumetsat: "Our scientists need this this done faster than you idiots can do it."
Jesus, get the shit launched and stop relying on posturing tribalist fools to do the job.
Upvote
34
(49
/
-15)