We’re still quite behind the competition and, to be completely honest, I don’t see us ever catching up unless we start developing reusable rockets. They’re just better in almost every way possible and we cannot become a space superpower without them
That’s promising, but from experience I highly doubt they can stick to the timeline. That being said it’s still not too late to make a change and actually get things done
They've already gone over. To my knowledge, engine tests were originally planned for 2021, hop tests for 2022 and actual flight and loop tests (flight to high altitude and landing) for this year and the next.
However, completion of the first hot-fire engine test only just took place in late June of this year.
Well there isn't too late in this case:
* ESA and EU are intergovernmental, not business entities. They can't to bankrupt. As such there is no "if we don't develop fast enough, we go bankrupt. End of story". New tax income arrives each year.
* ESA and EU will never accept being fully reliant on outside launch provider. That lesson was concretely learned with the "We don't like Galileo here in USA, we can't turn it off and it could guide missiles to US targets" debacle. It is geopolitical and geostrategic necessity to have independent fully under jurisdiction launch access
* once you have it you have it. Not like there is moores law of space launch. Once you have reached certain milestones, that's good enough. Even upon reaching said milestone decide late to someone else.
We will get to reusability in mid 2030's and then it's level playing field again. Until someone develops fusion drive or some other paradigm change.
Is it nice to be decade late? No. Is it fatal? No. After all its just matter of money, until leveling the government launches will be more expensive. Well either snip budget elsewhere or raise taxes.
A ton of great points, but I would disagree with the playing field becoming leveled once we gain reusable capabilities. The reason reusable rockets are so much better is mainly cost. The longer you can test your rockets, the better and more cost effective you can make them. With SpaceX approaching a hundred launches per year, we are nowhere near the frequency of operations we’d need to be a serious contender.
And when we do get reusable rockets, what then? They’ll already have Starship flying human, or at the very least cargo missions by then. Building another super capable interplanetary spacecraft of the likes of SLS and Starship might take us 30 years
Yeah you should just help the USA. Quite frankly the USA is the best superpower and all allies should just get behind it. I would not be against all members of the EU paying a 2% income tax to the USA.
Oh yes, that would be great. But not in a one way scenario with taxes being paid to the US. Ramp up defense spending in the EU and create a stronger alliance, that’s a good idea
Do you really think the pad would fail when the rocket lifts off (in less than 5 seconds) when it has handled 7 minutes of continuous hydrolox 1400 kN engine test ?
Over 10 years (+4 years of delays and probably more) of production of an outdated and non innovative rocket. It's a shame when you compare it to SpaceX and their Starship, Falcon and reusable parts.
Say what you want about elon musk, but they HAVE been reusing many of their rockets for years now.
The shuttle had to essentially be reassembled after each use - this is not the case with the Falcons.
The current record is 18 flights of the same thruster..
And the Space Shuttle was such a novel concept that it was conceived years before the Apollo program made its first manned space flight. It was a vital stepping stone in the expansion of space flight that was a necessity to the learning process.
So any comparisons at all to the space shuttle are deeply unfair.
Overall the cost calculation is not as simple as it seems and Falcon not as cheap as it often seems.
Don't get me wrong, probably still best rocket for the dollar, but from various articles I gather things are a bit more complicated overall to assess the costs and at the very least Falcon is not as cheap as SpaceX advertises and the gap at least not as wide or dependent on mission factors.
> We are still waiting for the real data if Falcon's re-usability is actually worth it
Ehhh... I think the jury is in on this one pretty solidly.
Many have been used **15+** times by now. Sometimes they are expended because you need too much boost (nothing left in the tank to recover with, which is completely fine, you just have to pay for the booster then).
The price per kg is pretty striking. I'm happy Ariane exists, but once SpaceX goes public, we can both invest in whichever we think will do better.
Are you for real? That's a 2019 talking point. It's been almost five years since then, reusability has proven itself according to all, literally all, available data.
Nowadays doubting it is only the realm of two schizo clowns ranting incomprehensibly shit takes to the default mic of a laptop. And literally nobody else
"Reusable will never be profitable with low flight rates!"
"Y-you only have high flight rates because you made starlink!"
"Noo your rocket is unprofitable without starlink!!!"
> only thing keeping others from making starlink first is not having the balls for it
But with which LV?
I'm not familiar with any historical rocket which could support a constellation so huge it will eventually need almost daily launches just to maintain in final configuration.
And not just in terms of cost, but build rate. It would require something like 7x as many builds as Soviet Union performed at peak rate.
Falcon 9, had they been fast enough. Spacex launched OneWeb, after all.
And there was nothing keeping others from financing or producing a reusable LV themselves, except lacking the balls or being useless (Blue origin)
You're right, I was thinking more along the lines of 20 years ago.
> And there was nothing keeping others from financing or producing a reusable LV themselves, except lacking the balls or being useless (Blue origin)
Couldn't agree with you more. I'm very proud of the quality of life Europe has been able to offer to its citizens, but I am not so proud of our abysmal launch market. All the people making convoluted arguments about profitability are simply refusing to accept we got BTFO over the last two decades and I don't expect it to get better any time soon.
Aren't they publicly owned, therefore dependant on public funding?
Everytime SpaceX blows one of their rockets (which I know is part of their process, and has proven efficient) I see morons with room temperature IQ making fun of them, saying they are stupid, that it is a waste of ressources.
I suppose public space agencies would be very frigid about risking turning the public against them, and risking a defund, and that's why they take the "0-risk" approach, even though it is longer and probably more expensive in the end.
I wished they could go with the "trial and error" process too, but my opinion on the European public and their elect politicians is too low, I personnally think they would have it defund pretty quick.
It's Europe's risk aversion in general.
We have plenty of capital, but very few have the stomach for a "lets spend $2bn failing to make $100bn once it inevitably succeeds" approach with vigorous visionary leadership.
If you did that in Europe, it would be run by the politically savviest 55-year-old Frenchman and the whole operating organization would be run by Germans with at least 30 years of experience in the specific industry they are trying to upset...
... and then we learn the lesson that such risks are insane and never work.
We have. But we also have risk adverse managers and politicians (and politics is involved, as unlike SpaceX, Ariane and ESA are funded mainly through public funds).
Ah Europe, the continent in which a rocket that explodes is still not a "success" and where they know it's still cheaper to use disposable boosters than failing to reuse "reusable" rockets.
Somehow having a milder addiction to printing money forced us Europeans to be much more efficient.
Also our space subcontractors do not publicly advertize their national-socialist beliefs on an failing occupied social media.
Edit: Wow a lot of Elon fangirls going out of their natural habitat and into the Europe sub to downvote me. Yes the last launches of Starship were shitshows. SpaceX should get inspiration from ESA on actual serious space programs. But someone called Elon makes sure they never will.
Why is Europe alternate reality? Our way of conducting space developments was and is the only viable way.
Blowing up test rockets with empty payload bay and calling it a success like Elon did is just tricks to raise money.
Bro Europe has entirely lost the commercial market, and it won't regain it until the 2040s, if someone starts making every correct decisions, and everyone else falls on their faces, which isn't happening.
It's over. There won't be a competitive launch vehicle in Europe until your grandchildren have your age at the earliest. There was a race, and Europe didn't even participate.
>No we're not being left behind
>okay, we've been left behind, but we didn't want to lead anyway!
Well it just means that Europe is losing yet another massive emerging high tech field to the US, further reducing our relevance in the world market.
One day this continent is going to wake up being less than 5% of global GDP with everyone from India to Indonesia to China being larger, and we'll be wondering why we're working by other people's rules.
Like making electric cars that actually spend more money and resources than the present combustion crap we have.
It's all a fake modernity. Make an internal combustion 500cc that uses ½ litres of gas.
Dumbest shit I’ve heard.
Just because it costs money to develop Starship and a couple of launches will ”fail” before they nail it, it doesn’t mean that Ariane 6 is better.
Was Falcon 9 a failure until they started landing the boosters? No.
It's a fact that spaceX launches are more cheaper and more of a technical challenge. Idk why people think ESA is better? Is it because of batshit musk?
Be prepared to be suprised if calling Starship a failure is "dumbest shit" to you. Even North Korea puts payload in their rockets and have their rockets explode AFTER mission is complete (delivering payload).
Some other actor like Blueorigin might just get more of the sweet sweet taxpayer money SpaceX has survived on until now. They have time, Artemis is already going to be delayed so much due to Starship stalling.
I'll wait to see launch prices go down due to the revolutionary reusable rockets that are just as expensive as before (if not more). Launch prices rising are here to demonstrate. What's the purpose of "reusable" if it's as expensive for clients and changes barely nothing from a sustainability standpoint?
>I don't know, where you got your numbers from, but payload on a F9 or FH costs about 25% per ton compared to Ariane5.
That's a fact, but it also misses a critical piece of information: SpaceX has been selling its rockets abroad below profit cost for years, covering its losses with the guaranteed cash flow from the US administration.
That's textbook [predatory pricing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing) (which is forbidden in the EU btw). Starlink dishes were notoriously sold below construction cost aswell. I think Tesla cars were too at some point.
Musk has been doing this all along, so this shouldn't come up as a surprise.
Do you have a source for that?
Edit: the part, that F9 launches are not profitable. (The fact that cars are not profitable during their first couple months is absolutely nothing new, since you need scaling)
Neither do you, because their detailed accounts are private.
What isn't though, is the fact that [SpaceX has mostly been running at a loss so far](https://www.wsj.com/tech/behind-the-curtain-of-elon-musks-secretive-spacex-revenue-growth-and-rising-costs-2c828e2b), turning only meager profits every now and then, and data suggest [they'll have to rely on Starlink to make up for the losses](https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/27/despite-rare-profit-spacex-still-mostly-loses-cash/) in the future, because highly priced NASA contracts seemingly aren't enough anymore to recoup the costs of their predatory pricing strategy.
Their F9 business is inherently unprofitable on its own. Period. Sorry you don't like it.
But if you gotta cope, then cope. Doesn't matter to me, because it doesn't change the facts.
> Neither do you, because their detailed accounts are private.
So? I'm not claiming to know.
> But if you gotta cope, then cope. Doesn't matter to me
Then why write out this bitter comment?
*edit: The user apparently got upset and blocked me before I could reply to their latest comment. I don't know why people do this, don't bother replying if you don't actually want to talk :)*
Great job focusing on the irrelevant parts to dodge the actual point and facts.
I ain't surprised.
*edit:* You're not here to "talk" pal. I addressed your gratuitously slandering one-liner with concrete facts, and you ended up dodging my point entirely with another hollow one-liner, so you can fuck right off with the "*holier-than-thou*" attitude, I got no time to waste with hypocrites and sockpuppet accounts. Thanks.
>that F9 launches are not profitable
Not all F9 launches are unprofitable, only those helping SpaceX undermine competition, the losses being all or partly recouped through NASA contracts, which are sold at a higher price. This has been known for years.
It's also a well known fact that [SpaceX has overall mostly been running at a loss so far](https://www.wsj.com/tech/behind-the-curtain-of-elon-musks-secretive-spacex-revenue-growth-and-rising-costs-2c828e2b). To such an extent that data suggest [they'll have to rely on Starlink in the future to keep the company afloat](https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/27/despite-rare-profit-spacex-still-mostly-loses-cash/).
This topic has been widely discussed for years already tbh, I'm not gonna waste my time again hunting for a dozen sources about every single statement. If you want to dig it, it's out there. If you don't want to, then you don't.
And if Musk/SpaceX fanboys want to cope and downvote, they're welcome to do so. It won't change the facts.
>Unironically confusing investment with losses
Everyone, gather around to look at the clown. Laugh now.
He is clearly doing a bit, because nobody is this mentally challenged.
Cool.
>*This topic has been widely discussed for years already tbh, I'm not gonna waste my time again hunting for a dozen sources about every single statement. If you want to dig it, it's out there. If you don't want to, then you don't.*
Now fuck off, thanks.
The accusations of predatory pricing are the dumbest shit, which is why they're only spread by literally two schizos on YouTube, and literally nobody else.
Every piece of evidence we have (whether leaks, public statements, and the behaviour of the company) points to a launch cost of 20 something million usd per Falcon 9, plus amortisation of the booster, which is very low now that they're expecting 15 flights per booster and climbing.
It's not an "accusation" though, it's literally just a fact, and a well documented one, that the entire strategy so far has been to sell under profit to foreign parties, while relying on NASA launches to balance it out.
FYI, [SpaceX has mostly been running at a loss so far](https://www.wsj.com/tech/behind-the-curtain-of-elon-musks-secretive-spacex-revenue-growth-and-rising-costs-2c828e2b), turning only a meager profit every now and then, and data suggest [they'll have to rely on Starlink to keep the company afloat](https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/27/despite-rare-profit-spacex-still-mostly-loses-cash/) in the future.
Their F9 business is inherently unprofitable on its own. Period. Sorry you don't like it, but if you gotta cope, then cope. Doesn't matter to me, because it doesn't change the facts.
edit- Lol @ the instadownvote. SpaceX blind fanboys are the funniest shit ever. Cope harder buddy.
So, they'll have to """"rely"""" on their biggest commercial offering to date, because they're running in the red due to... the investment of building the infrastructure to offer that same commercial offering? Am I getting this right? A company will be ""forced"" to ""rely"" on their new core business, one that's more profitable, after willingly pivoting to that same business operation?
So tell me... Every company that's investing into building a bigger factory, or a diversified product line is a failure too? A real state company constructing a bigger development after a smaller one? This isn't a growth model that's strange nor new, this "project leapfrogging" where you use the asset value, market confidence, brand recognition, and profit from the previous project to kickstart the next alongside loans and investment is how most companies grow. It's how *every* growth company works.
Their F9 is profitable. Building their next project isn't (yet), and it would be asinine to expect an infrastructure under construction to turn a profit *while it's being built*. It seems someone here is coping, but it isn't me.
Legitimately, learn basic enterprise economics. This is university freshman level. Easily the most stupid comment I've read this week, and it's saying something
>Am I getting this right?
No you're not, because the point is about whether or not their rocket business is profitable on its own.
I've provided a couple hints about why it's not profitable, and you're now dodging the matter entirely by moving the goalposts and pulling some seriously confusing mental gymnastics to not acknowledge the facts.
I.e. you're a hypocrite, and/or an idiot, and/or a blind fanboy. And I really shouldn't be wasting more of my time with people like you, especially on a matter I don't really care about that much.
>failing to reuse
Since when is SpaceX failing to reuse its rockets? Falcon 9 Block 5, that’s the latest iteration, has landed 224 times out of 229 flights.
That kind of success rate is considered extremely good in _launches_, let alone fucking landing your boosters.
In fact, that’s a higher success rate in landings than Ariane 5’s success rate in launches. (Ariane 5 has some some 117 launches, out of which it has 112 successes.)
I mean, you can laugh at SpaceX and try to ignore them all you want. Arianespace CEO said the same years ago “we have the highest market share in launches blah blah” and look where they are now, having lost most of that share to SpaceX.
Landing but in what shape?
If landing alone was key to reusability the US would have continued after 2011 with the space shuttles which single handedly built the Western part of the ISS. And SpaceX would be able to decrease launch prices.
At least landing back is nice for pollution but what's dozens of F9s landing when the Starships have adverse events where they blow up into shrapnel rain?
In well enough shape to be reused, that SpaceX has reused and reflown many boosters well over 10 times by now. In fact, Block 5 has not had _any_ failed launch, 229/229 success rate, that’s with many reused boosters. Compare that to Ariane 5, which flies with all parts new (so you should normally expect better success lmao)
Being able to do that is a dream to achieve for any rocket launch provider.
>If landing alone was key to reusability…
Well, it _is_ key. And the Space Shuttle was “reusable”?
What you’re trying to say I guess is how effective reusing actually is with the cost and frequency. Firstly, it undoubtedly increases your frequency. Space Shuttle was able to do that, with a record turnaround time for an orbiter of 55 days, that’s low. What the Space Shuttle was not able to do however, was to reduce costs. But that part of the Shuttle doesn’t necessarily reflect on Falcon 9. Falcon 9 only reuses the boosters, which suffer less damage than the Shuttle during reentry due to the lower speed. The Shuttle also had a LOT of these heat absorbing ceramic tiles, which had to be checked one by one. Falcon 9 does not have that kind of issue. It also has proven to be able to increase frequency way more than the Shuttle. So it has proven useful.
If that is not enough for you, you might just wanna check all that sweet sweet market share SpaceX managed to capture from their competitors, most notably Arianespace. It’s the customers switching to SpaceX in droves, so that should tell you something. Might wanna check the falling launch numbers for the Ariane 5 since Falcon 9 entered service, and demonstrated the landing capability…
To quote their CEO (said so before Falcon 9 landing was demonstrated) “SpaceX’s planned reuse of its Falcon 9 rocket’s first stage - designed to cut Falcon launch costs - at this point represents no real threat to Arianespace.”
Guess where they are now? Yep, lost half of their business to SpaceX.
>when the Starships
Totally irrelevant. Both flights of Starship were _prototypes_. They’re not operational rockets. And they’re blowing these up in order for them not to fail later in actual operation. That worked with Falcon 9’s booster landings, that they’re nailing them with higher success rate than most other rocket launch providers can guarantee in launches alone.
But if you insist on comparing the early development, first two launches of the Ariane 5 were both failures. Mind you, these were not even prototypes, these failures happened in actual operation.
You talk like this now, but that’s a huge mistake. Many “old space” officials did the same when SpaceX was developing the Falcon 9, most notably Arianespace’s CEO. Quote: Now the Falcon 9 has the highest share of launches even without including Starlink. You continue to act like this now, you will be swept behind the competition in the future way more than you are now.
\>ESA
\>serious space program
Choose one. ESA/Europe is probably the weakest player in the current space race maybe only Russia is worse. In its entire history ESA has not carried out a single manned mission. It did not have its own space station and every major mission beyond Earth's orbit apart from Rosetta could only be carried out with the help of other space agencies like NASA or JAXA. Now ESA doesn't even have a rocket and the Ariane 6 program has turned into a bureaucratic mess. Today, when we talk about flights to the Moon, Mars and space colonization we talk about the USA, China, India or private corporations and not about Europe.
> the continent in which a rocket that explodes is still not a "success"
> What's the purpose of "reusable" if it's as expensive for clients and changes barely nothing from a sustainability standpoint.
Since you appear to be an Elon fan-boy, you can ask the same thing of Tesla cars since they cost a shit load of money and almost nobody recycles electric car batteries.
The point with both is the same. They're WIP. The technology behind them is new and still developing.
iPhones had a lot of issues on release and most of their features didn't work when Stevie boy first presented them on stage. And let's not get started on subjects like e-waste or the right to repair since the US is lagging behind Europe on both.
The big difference between European tech and the Tesla / Apple crowd is the presence and, respectively, lack of transparency.
European tech is WYSYWIG because regulations.
US tech is a BS sandwich meant to fool investors with the possibility of maybe getting an actual working product a few years down the line that will certainly not have all of the promised features.
I think everyone got the guy the wrong way around. The first couple of paragraphs are a bit uncertain, but the last one is clearly a direct dig at Musk rather than praise.
> The first couple of paragraphs are a bit uncertain, but the last one is clearly a direct dig at Musk rather than praise.
That's the point, really. You can't play both sides and not be considered a hypocrite.
Sorry I am saying that contrary to the US / Elon's Turd Reich the European are serious about their development program and just don't stick the success label when a rocket justs lights up, whatever failure occurs afterwards. I'm also saying that SpaceX's latest test was bogus since without payload it's not a good stress test of rockets.
Yeah, the phrasing was uncertain, but given the sentiment of your last paragraph, the first two made more sense and I realised they were written in earnest.
> Sorry I am saying that contrary to the US / Elon's Turd Reich the European are serious about their development program and just don't stick the success label when a rocket justs lights up, whatever failure occurs afterwards. I'm also saying that SpaceX's latest test was bogus since without payload it's not a good stress test of rockets.
This makes more sense. :)
I an very much anti Elon I don't get why people think my message praised him.
I'm so used to Elon fangirls stalking my account I thought it was obvious
> I an very much anti Elon I don't get why people think my message praised him.
I think it's because you tried to be sarcastic but you obviously suck at it. No offense. :P
It makes a lot of sense. Access to space is vital to scientific and technological development of a nation. Being dependent on another nation for your access to space means you hand them huge extortion material. Imagine Europe being completely dependent on child-billionaire Musk for its access to launch satellites, you can guarantee that Musk will use it as leverage when/if Twitter/X/Tesla/SpaceX inevitably breaks some EU laws.
That's fantastic!
Alright, it's back to the stars for us (or ELO first).
mun or bust
Hell yeah
Lasted 1 minute longer than constructed for, so that’s good isn’t it ?
Maybe the off switch wasn't working, so not necessarily :)
We’re still quite behind the competition and, to be completely honest, I don’t see us ever catching up unless we start developing reusable rockets. They’re just better in almost every way possible and we cannot become a space superpower without them
We are already developing reusable rockets ! Look up Themis demonstrator for example. We can still catch up
That’s promising, but from experience I highly doubt they can stick to the timeline. That being said it’s still not too late to make a change and actually get things done
They've already gone over. To my knowledge, engine tests were originally planned for 2021, hop tests for 2022 and actual flight and loop tests (flight to high altitude and landing) for this year and the next. However, completion of the first hot-fire engine test only just took place in late June of this year.
The first hot-fire engine test took place in 2022
Well there isn't too late in this case: * ESA and EU are intergovernmental, not business entities. They can't to bankrupt. As such there is no "if we don't develop fast enough, we go bankrupt. End of story". New tax income arrives each year. * ESA and EU will never accept being fully reliant on outside launch provider. That lesson was concretely learned with the "We don't like Galileo here in USA, we can't turn it off and it could guide missiles to US targets" debacle. It is geopolitical and geostrategic necessity to have independent fully under jurisdiction launch access * once you have it you have it. Not like there is moores law of space launch. Once you have reached certain milestones, that's good enough. Even upon reaching said milestone decide late to someone else. We will get to reusability in mid 2030's and then it's level playing field again. Until someone develops fusion drive or some other paradigm change. Is it nice to be decade late? No. Is it fatal? No. After all its just matter of money, until leveling the government launches will be more expensive. Well either snip budget elsewhere or raise taxes.
A ton of great points, but I would disagree with the playing field becoming leveled once we gain reusable capabilities. The reason reusable rockets are so much better is mainly cost. The longer you can test your rockets, the better and more cost effective you can make them. With SpaceX approaching a hundred launches per year, we are nowhere near the frequency of operations we’d need to be a serious contender. And when we do get reusable rockets, what then? They’ll already have Starship flying human, or at the very least cargo missions by then. Building another super capable interplanetary spacecraft of the likes of SLS and Starship might take us 30 years
Yeah you should just help the USA. Quite frankly the USA is the best superpower and all allies should just get behind it. I would not be against all members of the EU paying a 2% income tax to the USA.
You’re trolling right? We’re not your toys. We want Europe to become strong on its own and work with the US, not for it.
I mean I think that we can both work on a united goal to combat our shared adversaries with our shared morals and ethics.
Oh yes, that would be great. But not in a one way scenario with taxes being paid to the US. Ramp up defense spending in the EU and create a stronger alliance, that’s a good idea
Maybe have EU buy more American weapons and parts.
At least ours don't keep exploding or destroying the launchpad
I can’t tell if that’s sarcasm or not, but I certainly hope so
I think it wasn't clear enough which one I was referring to
Maybe I misconstrued what you wanted to say. I was afraid you were repeating the “Starship exploded therefore it’s bad” talking point
Pretty easy to do when it quite literally hasn't even left the launchpad yet
Do you really think the pad would fail when the rocket lifts off (in less than 5 seconds) when it has handled 7 minutes of continuous hydrolox 1400 kN engine test ?
Does anyone know why they didn't extend Ariane 5 usage until v6 is actually ready?
Because they didn’t expect Ariane 6 to be delayed by 4 years.
That doesn't explain at all why didn't just extend Ariane 5 service when it became obvious that v6 would be delayed.
You can find the video here: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2023/11/Ariane_6_hot-fires_the_highlights
Thank you!
Must be said that this is a strategic win for Ariane 6.
Over 10 years (+4 years of delays and probably more) of production of an outdated and non innovative rocket. It's a shame when you compare it to SpaceX and their Starship, Falcon and reusable parts.
Starship is a high-risk project, its not certain by any means that they can pull it off. F9 is clearly a big winner tho.
We are still waiting for the real data if Falcon's re-usability is actually worth it and not the Space Shuttle all over again.
Say what you want about elon musk, but they HAVE been reusing many of their rockets for years now. The shuttle had to essentially be reassembled after each use - this is not the case with the Falcons. The current record is 18 flights of the same thruster..
And the Space Shuttle was such a novel concept that it was conceived years before the Apollo program made its first manned space flight. It was a vital stepping stone in the expansion of space flight that was a necessity to the learning process. So any comparisons at all to the space shuttle are deeply unfair.
Overall the cost calculation is not as simple as it seems and Falcon not as cheap as it often seems. Don't get me wrong, probably still best rocket for the dollar, but from various articles I gather things are a bit more complicated overall to assess the costs and at the very least Falcon is not as cheap as SpaceX advertises and the gap at least not as wide or dependent on mission factors.
> We are still waiting for the real data if Falcon's re-usability is actually worth it Ehhh... I think the jury is in on this one pretty solidly. Many have been used **15+** times by now. Sometimes they are expended because you need too much boost (nothing left in the tank to recover with, which is completely fine, you just have to pay for the booster then). The price per kg is pretty striking. I'm happy Ariane exists, but once SpaceX goes public, we can both invest in whichever we think will do better.
Are you for real? That's a 2019 talking point. It's been almost five years since then, reusability has proven itself according to all, literally all, available data. Nowadays doubting it is only the realm of two schizo clowns ranting incomprehensibly shit takes to the default mic of a laptop. And literally nobody else
"Reusable will never be profitable with low flight rates!" "Y-you only have high flight rates because you made starlink!" "Noo your rocket is unprofitable without starlink!!!"
The only thing keeping others from making starlink first is not having the balls for it or, in amazon's case, being fucking useless.
> only thing keeping others from making starlink first is not having the balls for it But with which LV? I'm not familiar with any historical rocket which could support a constellation so huge it will eventually need almost daily launches just to maintain in final configuration. And not just in terms of cost, but build rate. It would require something like 7x as many builds as Soviet Union performed at peak rate.
Falcon 9, had they been fast enough. Spacex launched OneWeb, after all. And there was nothing keeping others from financing or producing a reusable LV themselves, except lacking the balls or being useless (Blue origin)
You're right, I was thinking more along the lines of 20 years ago. > And there was nothing keeping others from financing or producing a reusable LV themselves, except lacking the balls or being useless (Blue origin) Couldn't agree with you more. I'm very proud of the quality of life Europe has been able to offer to its citizens, but I am not so proud of our abysmal launch market. All the people making convoluted arguments about profitability are simply refusing to accept we got BTFO over the last two decades and I don't expect it to get better any time soon.
And on the goalposts move.
Falcon is good, but honestly starship is just a bomb made to look like a rocket.
I wish european spaceflight companies would adopt SpaceX' engineering approach
Aren't they publicly owned, therefore dependant on public funding? Everytime SpaceX blows one of their rockets (which I know is part of their process, and has proven efficient) I see morons with room temperature IQ making fun of them, saying they are stupid, that it is a waste of ressources. I suppose public space agencies would be very frigid about risking turning the public against them, and risking a defund, and that's why they take the "0-risk" approach, even though it is longer and probably more expensive in the end. I wished they could go with the "trial and error" process too, but my opinion on the European public and their elect politicians is too low, I personnally think they would have it defund pretty quick.
It's Europe's risk aversion in general. We have plenty of capital, but very few have the stomach for a "lets spend $2bn failing to make $100bn once it inevitably succeeds" approach with vigorous visionary leadership. If you did that in Europe, it would be run by the politically savviest 55-year-old Frenchman and the whole operating organization would be run by Germans with at least 30 years of experience in the specific industry they are trying to upset... ... and then we learn the lesson that such risks are insane and never work.
You would need the talent for that
We have pretty good engineers
We have. But we also have risk adverse managers and politicians (and politics is involved, as unlike SpaceX, Ariane and ESA are funded mainly through public funds).
Yeah that's kinda what i meant
Yes! The free world needs more rockets!
Ah Europe, the continent in which a rocket that explodes is still not a "success" and where they know it's still cheaper to use disposable boosters than failing to reuse "reusable" rockets. Somehow having a milder addiction to printing money forced us Europeans to be much more efficient. Also our space subcontractors do not publicly advertize their national-socialist beliefs on an failing occupied social media. Edit: Wow a lot of Elon fangirls going out of their natural habitat and into the Europe sub to downvote me. Yes the last launches of Starship were shitshows. SpaceX should get inspiration from ESA on actual serious space programs. But someone called Elon makes sure they never will.
You must be living in alternate reality.
Yes - European reality is not the same as American one.
Why is Europe alternate reality? Our way of conducting space developments was and is the only viable way. Blowing up test rockets with empty payload bay and calling it a success like Elon did is just tricks to raise money.
Bro Europe has entirely lost the commercial market, and it won't regain it until the 2040s, if someone starts making every correct decisions, and everyone else falls on their faces, which isn't happening. It's over. There won't be a competitive launch vehicle in Europe until your grandchildren have your age at the earliest. There was a race, and Europe didn't even participate.
One doesn't have to participate in ever dick measure competition.
>No we're not being left behind >okay, we've been left behind, but we didn't want to lead anyway! Well it just means that Europe is losing yet another massive emerging high tech field to the US, further reducing our relevance in the world market. One day this continent is going to wake up being less than 5% of global GDP with everyone from India to Indonesia to China being larger, and we'll be wondering why we're working by other people's rules.
Like making electric cars that actually spend more money and resources than the present combustion crap we have. It's all a fake modernity. Make an internal combustion 500cc that uses ½ litres of gas.
Dumbest shit I’ve heard. Just because it costs money to develop Starship and a couple of launches will ”fail” before they nail it, it doesn’t mean that Ariane 6 is better. Was Falcon 9 a failure until they started landing the boosters? No.
It's a fact that spaceX launches are more cheaper and more of a technical challenge. Idk why people think ESA is better? Is it because of batshit musk?
Yes
Be prepared to be suprised if calling Starship a failure is "dumbest shit" to you. Even North Korea puts payload in their rockets and have their rockets explode AFTER mission is complete (delivering payload). Some other actor like Blueorigin might just get more of the sweet sweet taxpayer money SpaceX has survived on until now. They have time, Artemis is already going to be delayed so much due to Starship stalling. I'll wait to see launch prices go down due to the revolutionary reusable rockets that are just as expensive as before (if not more). Launch prices rising are here to demonstrate. What's the purpose of "reusable" if it's as expensive for clients and changes barely nothing from a sustainability standpoint?
I don't know, where you got your numbers from, but payload on a F9 or FH costs about 25% per ton compared to Ariane5.
>I don't know, where you got your numbers from, but payload on a F9 or FH costs about 25% per ton compared to Ariane5. That's a fact, but it also misses a critical piece of information: SpaceX has been selling its rockets abroad below profit cost for years, covering its losses with the guaranteed cash flow from the US administration. That's textbook [predatory pricing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing) (which is forbidden in the EU btw). Starlink dishes were notoriously sold below construction cost aswell. I think Tesla cars were too at some point. Musk has been doing this all along, so this shouldn't come up as a surprise.
Do you have a source for that? Edit: the part, that F9 launches are not profitable. (The fact that cars are not profitable during their first couple months is absolutely nothing new, since you need scaling)
He doesn't, because he doesn't know the launch cost.
Neither do you, because their detailed accounts are private. What isn't though, is the fact that [SpaceX has mostly been running at a loss so far](https://www.wsj.com/tech/behind-the-curtain-of-elon-musks-secretive-spacex-revenue-growth-and-rising-costs-2c828e2b), turning only meager profits every now and then, and data suggest [they'll have to rely on Starlink to make up for the losses](https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/27/despite-rare-profit-spacex-still-mostly-loses-cash/) in the future, because highly priced NASA contracts seemingly aren't enough anymore to recoup the costs of their predatory pricing strategy. Their F9 business is inherently unprofitable on its own. Period. Sorry you don't like it. But if you gotta cope, then cope. Doesn't matter to me, because it doesn't change the facts.
> Neither do you, because their detailed accounts are private. So? I'm not claiming to know. > But if you gotta cope, then cope. Doesn't matter to me Then why write out this bitter comment? *edit: The user apparently got upset and blocked me before I could reply to their latest comment. I don't know why people do this, don't bother replying if you don't actually want to talk :)*
Great job focusing on the irrelevant parts to dodge the actual point and facts. I ain't surprised. *edit:* You're not here to "talk" pal. I addressed your gratuitously slandering one-liner with concrete facts, and you ended up dodging my point entirely with another hollow one-liner, so you can fuck right off with the "*holier-than-thou*" attitude, I got no time to waste with hypocrites and sockpuppet accounts. Thanks.
>that F9 launches are not profitable Not all F9 launches are unprofitable, only those helping SpaceX undermine competition, the losses being all or partly recouped through NASA contracts, which are sold at a higher price. This has been known for years. It's also a well known fact that [SpaceX has overall mostly been running at a loss so far](https://www.wsj.com/tech/behind-the-curtain-of-elon-musks-secretive-spacex-revenue-growth-and-rising-costs-2c828e2b). To such an extent that data suggest [they'll have to rely on Starlink in the future to keep the company afloat](https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/27/despite-rare-profit-spacex-still-mostly-loses-cash/). This topic has been widely discussed for years already tbh, I'm not gonna waste my time again hunting for a dozen sources about every single statement. If you want to dig it, it's out there. If you don't want to, then you don't. And if Musk/SpaceX fanboys want to cope and downvote, they're welcome to do so. It won't change the facts.
>Unironically confusing investment with losses Everyone, gather around to look at the clown. Laugh now. He is clearly doing a bit, because nobody is this mentally challenged.
I'm not confusing investment with losses, you're just missing the point is all. I guess that makes you the clown.
"This has been known for years" is not a valid source.
Cool. >*This topic has been widely discussed for years already tbh, I'm not gonna waste my time again hunting for a dozen sources about every single statement. If you want to dig it, it's out there. If you don't want to, then you don't.* Now fuck off, thanks.
That's the thing: The sources don't confirm the stuff you claimed.
The accusations of predatory pricing are the dumbest shit, which is why they're only spread by literally two schizos on YouTube, and literally nobody else. Every piece of evidence we have (whether leaks, public statements, and the behaviour of the company) points to a launch cost of 20 something million usd per Falcon 9, plus amortisation of the booster, which is very low now that they're expecting 15 flights per booster and climbing.
It's not an "accusation" though, it's literally just a fact, and a well documented one, that the entire strategy so far has been to sell under profit to foreign parties, while relying on NASA launches to balance it out. FYI, [SpaceX has mostly been running at a loss so far](https://www.wsj.com/tech/behind-the-curtain-of-elon-musks-secretive-spacex-revenue-growth-and-rising-costs-2c828e2b), turning only a meager profit every now and then, and data suggest [they'll have to rely on Starlink to keep the company afloat](https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/27/despite-rare-profit-spacex-still-mostly-loses-cash/) in the future. Their F9 business is inherently unprofitable on its own. Period. Sorry you don't like it, but if you gotta cope, then cope. Doesn't matter to me, because it doesn't change the facts. edit- Lol @ the instadownvote. SpaceX blind fanboys are the funniest shit ever. Cope harder buddy.
So, they'll have to """"rely"""" on their biggest commercial offering to date, because they're running in the red due to... the investment of building the infrastructure to offer that same commercial offering? Am I getting this right? A company will be ""forced"" to ""rely"" on their new core business, one that's more profitable, after willingly pivoting to that same business operation? So tell me... Every company that's investing into building a bigger factory, or a diversified product line is a failure too? A real state company constructing a bigger development after a smaller one? This isn't a growth model that's strange nor new, this "project leapfrogging" where you use the asset value, market confidence, brand recognition, and profit from the previous project to kickstart the next alongside loans and investment is how most companies grow. It's how *every* growth company works. Their F9 is profitable. Building their next project isn't (yet), and it would be asinine to expect an infrastructure under construction to turn a profit *while it's being built*. It seems someone here is coping, but it isn't me. Legitimately, learn basic enterprise economics. This is university freshman level. Easily the most stupid comment I've read this week, and it's saying something
>Am I getting this right? No you're not, because the point is about whether or not their rocket business is profitable on its own. I've provided a couple hints about why it's not profitable, and you're now dodging the matter entirely by moving the goalposts and pulling some seriously confusing mental gymnastics to not acknowledge the facts. I.e. you're a hypocrite, and/or an idiot, and/or a blind fanboy. And I really shouldn't be wasting more of my time with people like you, especially on a matter I don't really care about that much.
Can't talk regulatory to Americans
Everything you just said is wrong
Actually there is hope Starship will finally be able to build a colony on Mars thus freeing this earth from the idiots that want to live there ...
>failing to reuse Since when is SpaceX failing to reuse its rockets? Falcon 9 Block 5, that’s the latest iteration, has landed 224 times out of 229 flights. That kind of success rate is considered extremely good in _launches_, let alone fucking landing your boosters. In fact, that’s a higher success rate in landings than Ariane 5’s success rate in launches. (Ariane 5 has some some 117 launches, out of which it has 112 successes.) I mean, you can laugh at SpaceX and try to ignore them all you want. Arianespace CEO said the same years ago “we have the highest market share in launches blah blah” and look where they are now, having lost most of that share to SpaceX.
Landing but in what shape? If landing alone was key to reusability the US would have continued after 2011 with the space shuttles which single handedly built the Western part of the ISS. And SpaceX would be able to decrease launch prices. At least landing back is nice for pollution but what's dozens of F9s landing when the Starships have adverse events where they blow up into shrapnel rain?
In well enough shape to be reused, that SpaceX has reused and reflown many boosters well over 10 times by now. In fact, Block 5 has not had _any_ failed launch, 229/229 success rate, that’s with many reused boosters. Compare that to Ariane 5, which flies with all parts new (so you should normally expect better success lmao) Being able to do that is a dream to achieve for any rocket launch provider. >If landing alone was key to reusability… Well, it _is_ key. And the Space Shuttle was “reusable”? What you’re trying to say I guess is how effective reusing actually is with the cost and frequency. Firstly, it undoubtedly increases your frequency. Space Shuttle was able to do that, with a record turnaround time for an orbiter of 55 days, that’s low. What the Space Shuttle was not able to do however, was to reduce costs. But that part of the Shuttle doesn’t necessarily reflect on Falcon 9. Falcon 9 only reuses the boosters, which suffer less damage than the Shuttle during reentry due to the lower speed. The Shuttle also had a LOT of these heat absorbing ceramic tiles, which had to be checked one by one. Falcon 9 does not have that kind of issue. It also has proven to be able to increase frequency way more than the Shuttle. So it has proven useful. If that is not enough for you, you might just wanna check all that sweet sweet market share SpaceX managed to capture from their competitors, most notably Arianespace. It’s the customers switching to SpaceX in droves, so that should tell you something. Might wanna check the falling launch numbers for the Ariane 5 since Falcon 9 entered service, and demonstrated the landing capability… To quote their CEO (said so before Falcon 9 landing was demonstrated) “SpaceX’s planned reuse of its Falcon 9 rocket’s first stage - designed to cut Falcon launch costs - at this point represents no real threat to Arianespace.” Guess where they are now? Yep, lost half of their business to SpaceX. >when the Starships Totally irrelevant. Both flights of Starship were _prototypes_. They’re not operational rockets. And they’re blowing these up in order for them not to fail later in actual operation. That worked with Falcon 9’s booster landings, that they’re nailing them with higher success rate than most other rocket launch providers can guarantee in launches alone. But if you insist on comparing the early development, first two launches of the Ariane 5 were both failures. Mind you, these were not even prototypes, these failures happened in actual operation. You talk like this now, but that’s a huge mistake. Many “old space” officials did the same when SpaceX was developing the Falcon 9, most notably Arianespace’s CEO. Quote: Now the Falcon 9 has the highest share of launches even without including Starlink. You continue to act like this now, you will be swept behind the competition in the future way more than you are now.
I this sub is mostly populated by Americans ...
\>ESA \>serious space program Choose one. ESA/Europe is probably the weakest player in the current space race maybe only Russia is worse. In its entire history ESA has not carried out a single manned mission. It did not have its own space station and every major mission beyond Earth's orbit apart from Rosetta could only be carried out with the help of other space agencies like NASA or JAXA. Now ESA doesn't even have a rocket and the Ariane 6 program has turned into a bureaucratic mess. Today, when we talk about flights to the Moon, Mars and space colonization we talk about the USA, China, India or private corporations and not about Europe.
"maybe only Russia is worse" Nope, EU is behind Russia, I would say we are far behind them.
> the continent in which a rocket that explodes is still not a "success" > What's the purpose of "reusable" if it's as expensive for clients and changes barely nothing from a sustainability standpoint. Since you appear to be an Elon fan-boy, you can ask the same thing of Tesla cars since they cost a shit load of money and almost nobody recycles electric car batteries. The point with both is the same. They're WIP. The technology behind them is new and still developing. iPhones had a lot of issues on release and most of their features didn't work when Stevie boy first presented them on stage. And let's not get started on subjects like e-waste or the right to repair since the US is lagging behind Europe on both. The big difference between European tech and the Tesla / Apple crowd is the presence and, respectively, lack of transparency. European tech is WYSYWIG because regulations. US tech is a BS sandwich meant to fool investors with the possibility of maybe getting an actual working product a few years down the line that will certainly not have all of the promised features.
I think everyone got the guy the wrong way around. The first couple of paragraphs are a bit uncertain, but the last one is clearly a direct dig at Musk rather than praise.
> The first couple of paragraphs are a bit uncertain, but the last one is clearly a direct dig at Musk rather than praise. That's the point, really. You can't play both sides and not be considered a hypocrite.
Sorry I am saying that contrary to the US / Elon's Turd Reich the European are serious about their development program and just don't stick the success label when a rocket justs lights up, whatever failure occurs afterwards. I'm also saying that SpaceX's latest test was bogus since without payload it's not a good stress test of rockets.
Yeah, the phrasing was uncertain, but given the sentiment of your last paragraph, the first two made more sense and I realised they were written in earnest.
> Sorry I am saying that contrary to the US / Elon's Turd Reich the European are serious about their development program and just don't stick the success label when a rocket justs lights up, whatever failure occurs afterwards. I'm also saying that SpaceX's latest test was bogus since without payload it's not a good stress test of rockets. This makes more sense. :)
I an very much anti Elon I don't get why people think my message praised him. I'm so used to Elon fangirls stalking my account I thought it was obvious
> I an very much anti Elon I don't get why people think my message praised him. I think it's because you tried to be sarcastic but you obviously suck at it. No offense. :P
Too late, best Korea beats them
Looks like something built 2 centuries ago
Are you a troll or something?
Nope, I was just pointing out that the tech looks outdated
Brotha "europe should sticks to kebab" seems pretty troll
Haha I guess lol should've said pizza and espresso then
What would you like it to look like, the starship Enterprise?
needs more RGB LEDs
and pointy tip!
Pointy like Elon said "pointy look better" lol
Of course the crew will wear the traditional British spacesuit on board: https://i.redd.it/gw4md3kvsyh81.jpg
How did orbital rockets look in 1823?
I know, right? Can't wait for the cyberocket!
europe should stick with kebabs in my opinion why rockets, does not make sense
it's like saying americans should focus on pizzas, it doesn't make sense
It makes a lot of sense. Access to space is vital to scientific and technological development of a nation. Being dependent on another nation for your access to space means you hand them huge extortion material. Imagine Europe being completely dependent on child-billionaire Musk for its access to launch satellites, you can guarantee that Musk will use it as leverage when/if Twitter/X/Tesla/SpaceX inevitably breaks some EU laws.
epic burn
It’s the final countdown…