As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/as-the-spacex-steamroller-surges-european-rocket-industry-vows-to-resist/
128 comments
This mentality is what's holding back the establishment in any field from doing anything radical. The status quo is worth trillions and trillions of dollars, and a lot of people will fight very, very hard to keep it that way, even when it's horribly inefficient, outdated and just plain stupid.
Electric cars? Nope, we've invested too much in ICE R&D and need to pay it back over another 100 years.
Solar? Nope, we promised the private coal plants decades of profits.
Public Healthcare (In the USA)? Nope, waaaaaay too many billions being made on insurance.
etc. etc.
Which is why we need to ignore what the establishment things and just do our own thing whenever possible, or at least support anyone trying to go clean slate.
Electric cars? Nope, we've invested too much in ICE R&D and need to pay it back over another 100 years.
Solar? Nope, we promised the private coal plants decades of profits.
Public Healthcare (In the USA)? Nope, waaaaaay too many billions being made on insurance.
etc. etc.
Which is why we need to ignore what the establishment things and just do our own thing whenever possible, or at least support anyone trying to go clean slate.
And this is also why the establishment rightfully fears disruption: because they could have done marginal improvements for a long time: they chose not to for valid strategic reasons. But then there is a competitor which leapfrogs all that and who threatens to just wipe them out!
Once it happens, as usual, the establishment begs/lobbies for political protection (think about jobs!) which will often be granted. But political favors can just at best slow their demise.
Reusable spacex rockets will be to the EU spatial industry what uber was to its taxis: turning them immediately irrelevant, and unsavageable as an industry.
A better example might be the high administrative costs of the US healthcare system. Obamacare couldn't cut all these jobs during a downturn, so they were preserved. But even now, for a lot of people it makes more sense to opt out of that craziness and just get healthcare abroad. This sector is ripe for disruption. Maybe not now, but in 10 years even more so.
Once it happens, as usual, the establishment begs/lobbies for political protection (think about jobs!) which will often be granted. But political favors can just at best slow their demise.
Reusable spacex rockets will be to the EU spatial industry what uber was to its taxis: turning them immediately irrelevant, and unsavageable as an industry.
A better example might be the high administrative costs of the US healthcare system. Obamacare couldn't cut all these jobs during a downturn, so they were preserved. But even now, for a lot of people it makes more sense to opt out of that craziness and just get healthcare abroad. This sector is ripe for disruption. Maybe not now, but in 10 years even more so.
The taxi thing totally did not happen in most European countries. Taxis are just fine here (specifically: in Germany), and the labor regulations, too, so Uber can kindly take a hike.
Political connections make miracles happen!
Not sure what you are talking about.
I mean that surely, the existence and political power of taxi unions are orthogonal to the decision by various government to protect the taxis!
The governments have just acted in the interest of the public, as usual.
The governments have just acted in the interest of the public, as usual.
Dunno, not much happened. Uber came in, broke the law, and went. The law already existed, and the taxi organizations aren't particularly powerful. Note that anybody can start driving taxis here after some mandatory course and exam, there's no bullion system.
Maybe, but I would still be surprised if whoever gives this courses and exams did not lobby for them to be applied to uber
as you said, "it broke the law": the law is made to benefit incumbants, not newcomers.
as you said, "it broke the law": the law is made to benefit incumbants, not newcomers.
It is true that taxi organizations lobbied ahainst Uber, but they had public opinion on their side. Uber is the one that was perceived as exploitative.
To me this is a major reason why the reusable launchers were not developed in Europe. The concept was being studied but never gained traction.
One of the reason might have been vanity but if you look at it with the view point of a CEO from a European firm, reusability was a risky gamble:
1) In order to keep your manufacturing quality, one needs to produce a new rocket every two or three months. Beyond that, the people manufacturing it losses knowledge and unless quality assurance is increased a lot, you will losses quality.
2) EU was doing around 12 launches a year, and that was by being very cheap. You could plan on increasing the market share but that starts being difficult as a lot of what remains cannot use a European launcher for political reasons.
3) For the sake of the argument, let say cheaper price double the market share, that leaves 24 launches a year. Based on a manufacturing of 6 launchers a year, this leaves 4 launches per rocket. And that is with very optimistic numbers (doubling of marketshare, no issue with reusability).
4) If you look at the numbers from SpaceX, 4 launches per rocket is where the reusability starts making sense. But ideally, you want more. 5) The Airbus people have shareholders to account to, not a CEO who does not care risking going banqueroute while pursuing a dream to go on Mars.
So yeah, doable but much more difficult than in a market with better access to investment and to huge cash cows named NASA and DoD
One of the reason might have been vanity but if you look at it with the view point of a CEO from a European firm, reusability was a risky gamble:
1) In order to keep your manufacturing quality, one needs to produce a new rocket every two or three months. Beyond that, the people manufacturing it losses knowledge and unless quality assurance is increased a lot, you will losses quality.
2) EU was doing around 12 launches a year, and that was by being very cheap. You could plan on increasing the market share but that starts being difficult as a lot of what remains cannot use a European launcher for political reasons.
3) For the sake of the argument, let say cheaper price double the market share, that leaves 24 launches a year. Based on a manufacturing of 6 launchers a year, this leaves 4 launches per rocket. And that is with very optimistic numbers (doubling of marketshare, no issue with reusability).
4) If you look at the numbers from SpaceX, 4 launches per rocket is where the reusability starts making sense. But ideally, you want more. 5) The Airbus people have shareholders to account to, not a CEO who does not care risking going banqueroute while pursuing a dream to go on Mars.
So yeah, doable but much more difficult than in a market with better access to investment and to huge cash cows named NASA and DoD
Alain Charmeau spelled this out explicitly to Der Spiegel:
> Charmeau said the Ariane rocket does not launch often enough to justify the investment into reusability. (It would need about 30 launches a year to justify these costs, he said). And then Charmeau said something telling about why reusability doesn't make sense to a government-backed rocket company—jobs.
> "Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a rocket which we can use ten times—we would build exactly one rocket per year," he said. "That makes no sense. I cannot tell my teams: 'Goodbye, see you next year!'"
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-di...
> Charmeau said the Ariane rocket does not launch often enough to justify the investment into reusability. (It would need about 30 launches a year to justify these costs, he said). And then Charmeau said something telling about why reusability doesn't make sense to a government-backed rocket company—jobs.
> "Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a rocket which we can use ten times—we would build exactly one rocket per year," he said. "That makes no sense. I cannot tell my teams: 'Goodbye, see you next year!'"
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-di...
What will make even more sense is when he says to his teams: "Farewell, it was really nice working with you all, too bad the foreign competition slashed prices and bankrupted us"
The solution is therefore pretty simple: taxes will subsidize "industries of national interest". It is for the same reason as the US would never buy Swedish fighter jets, Israeli ICBMs or German submarines. This has been true since the beginning of the nation state.
Great idea - note however the lack of existance of Swedish fighter jets, the low quality of Israeli ICBM, and the rarity of German submarines.
A government can subsidize with taxes an industry as much as it wants, and force its products down its citizens throat as much as it can: it will not be able to create quality, which is essential to get a large market demand.
Unless the industry is very hard to replicate for whatever reason like large capital requirements given the available technology (ex: a computer in the 1940s, sending a human to the moon in the 1960s) this create a market opportunity.
Natural market forces such as competition ensure the end result.
EDIT: My bad, I forgot about the Swedish Gripen. It exists, which is no small feat by itself! It is just low quality and rare.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
"Gripen has achieved moderate success in sales to nations in Central Europe, South Africa and Southeast Asia; bribery has been suspected in some of these procurements, but authorities closed the investigation in 2009"
Thanks to bribery, this wonderful piece of technology could be sold to major world powers like South Africa and Hungary.
A government can subsidize with taxes an industry as much as it wants, and force its products down its citizens throat as much as it can: it will not be able to create quality, which is essential to get a large market demand.
Unless the industry is very hard to replicate for whatever reason like large capital requirements given the available technology (ex: a computer in the 1940s, sending a human to the moon in the 1960s) this create a market opportunity.
Natural market forces such as competition ensure the end result.
EDIT: My bad, I forgot about the Swedish Gripen. It exists, which is no small feat by itself! It is just low quality and rare.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
"Gripen has achieved moderate success in sales to nations in Central Europe, South Africa and Southeast Asia; bribery has been suspected in some of these procurements, but authorities closed the investigation in 2009"
Thanks to bribery, this wonderful piece of technology could be sold to major world powers like South Africa and Hungary.
It is a great idea indeed, but note:
- The Gripen fighter jets (designed and built in Sweden) listing no less than 17 (!) current and confirmed future customers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational.... The list of nations considering buying those jets is even longer.
- You are either incredibly well informed or not informed at all about the quality of Israeli ICBMs, but since they are ordering submarines capable of launching ICBMs and are capable of launching satellites into orbit, the general state of Israeli ballistic capability is definitely high enough to deliver warheads anywhere on the planet.
- Allegedly, the latest generation of German submarines is good enough to penetrate the defenses of a US navy carrier group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine#Operations). They are in service with both the German and Italian navies with four more ordered by the Norwegians.
Quality helps with generating demand but it is not enough, especially when selling to governments. If you don't believe this, please consider if SpaceX had still gotten the NSA launch contracts if SpaceX had been a Chinese or Russian company.
- The Gripen fighter jets (designed and built in Sweden) listing no less than 17 (!) current and confirmed future customers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational.... The list of nations considering buying those jets is even longer.
- You are either incredibly well informed or not informed at all about the quality of Israeli ICBMs, but since they are ordering submarines capable of launching ICBMs and are capable of launching satellites into orbit, the general state of Israeli ballistic capability is definitely high enough to deliver warheads anywhere on the planet.
- Allegedly, the latest generation of German submarines is good enough to penetrate the defenses of a US navy carrier group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine#Operations). They are in service with both the German and Italian navies with four more ordered by the Norwegians.
Quality helps with generating demand but it is not enough, especially when selling to governments. If you don't believe this, please consider if SpaceX had still gotten the NSA launch contracts if SpaceX had been a Chinese or Russian company.
I fully agree that, when selling to friendly governments, quality is not much of a factor
Actually Saab has been producing fine Swedish jet fighters for 60 years. Ever heard of the JAS 39 Gripen?
The Gripen is not Swedish?
Competition works when the market is open. But the space market is far from being open. Even building a satellite without including an ITAR or EAR part was politically impossible a few years ago for an EU company.
Competition works when the market is open. But the space market is far from being open. Even building a satellite without including an ITAR or EAR part was politically impossible a few years ago for an EU company.
> note however the lack of existance of Swedish fighter jets
Er, what?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
Er, what?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
My bad.
"Gripen has achieved moderate success in sales to nations in Central Europe, South Africa and Southeast Asia; bribery has been suspected in some of these procurements, but authorities closed the investigation in 2009"
Thanks to bribery, this wonderful piece of technology could be sold to major world powers like South Africa and Hungary.
"Gripen has achieved moderate success in sales to nations in Central Europe, South Africa and Southeast Asia; bribery has been suspected in some of these procurements, but authorities closed the investigation in 2009"
Thanks to bribery, this wonderful piece of technology could be sold to major world powers like South Africa and Hungary.
> the low quality of Israeli ICBM,
They really don't need to threaten anyone who lives far from them.
> and the rarity of German submarines.
Which makes a lot of sense given the mission of the German Navy (which is mostly protecting a relatively small coast from almost non-existent enemies).
They really don't need to threaten anyone who lives far from them.
> and the rarity of German submarines.
Which makes a lot of sense given the mission of the German Navy (which is mostly protecting a relatively small coast from almost non-existent enemies).
There are a number of reasons why Europe would prefer a more expensive European launcher over a cheap American one. More or less the same reasons the US military has preferred pre-SpaceX American expendable launchers to superior and cheaper European ones for a lot of missions.
Yes, Europe wants their own launchers anyway as the access to US launches is still a hazardous endeavour for critical payloads. And the recent moves of the US international politics are not going in the right direction.
As long as there is no reciprocity in the full access to the markets, we will live a semi-closed gardens. If the markets open, it won't take long for the European companies to develop a reusable launcher capability. The technology and the knowledge exists already, but there is no political or financial incentive to do that right now.
As long as there is no reciprocity in the full access to the markets, we will live a semi-closed gardens. If the markets open, it won't take long for the European companies to develop a reusable launcher capability. The technology and the knowledge exists already, but there is no political or financial incentive to do that right now.
But the premise that there will only be 10 launches per year is (hopefully) false.
If launches get much cheaper, there are many reasons to launch more stuff. To orbit, to the moon, to Mars, ...
If launches get much cheaper, there are many reasons to launch more stuff. To orbit, to the moon, to Mars, ...
Right. You build the rocket for the 10 guaranteed launches, then you move right on to building the next rocket, because you'll need another in case you lose the first. Then you build another after that, and that one can put up some payloads that were not-so-guaranteed. Then you build another after that, and by then, some of the labor that used to go completely into construction is now reconditioning and inspecting the reusable hardware instead. Eventually, your construction crews are building at the replacement rate for whatever sized fleet of reusable rockets you need to put up the payloads you can cram into your launch pipeline.
As it is, that pipeline is fixed at 10 launches per year. If the pipeline were fatter, they could fit more launches into it. If they can do more launches, they can court more customers.
If cost to orbit is cheap enough, you can do things like launch a big, dumb tank of water, xenon, hydrazine, liquid fuel, food supplies, oxygen candles, or anything else useful only in quantity, and requiring no life support. With those up there, you can do rendezvous-and-go missions, and it costs less money to get to wherever you're going. If you can do more launches, you can spread more missions out across multiple launches.
As it is, that pipeline is fixed at 10 launches per year. If the pipeline were fatter, they could fit more launches into it. If they can do more launches, they can court more customers.
If cost to orbit is cheap enough, you can do things like launch a big, dumb tank of water, xenon, hydrazine, liquid fuel, food supplies, oxygen candles, or anything else useful only in quantity, and requiring no life support. With those up there, you can do rendezvous-and-go missions, and it costs less money to get to wherever you're going. If you can do more launches, you can spread more missions out across multiple launches.
Consider you'd need to invest not only in manufacturing the rockets, but also on shipping them to launch sites, increasing launch site capacities to deal with extra launches, adding extra capacity for fueling the extra rockets, to prepare and mate the payloads (that'll need to be built by someone, somewhere)... Nothing there is really cheap.
In the end, the rocket is not really the most expensive part. It's just the part that, until recently, was expensive and thrown away after a single use.
In the end, the rocket is not really the most expensive part. It's just the part that, until recently, was expensive and thrown away after a single use.
Hopefully false, and you need to increase that number to at least 20, more likely 30 to pay for the investment. That is very the problem lies - the risk.
Looking at the spaceflight calendar for the rest of the year, there are 6 flights where Ariane 5 could used, if you exclude all the national missions from non-EU countries. Let's round that to 10 as this does not cover all the remaining launches. So we are at a possible market of ~20 launches a year, with the current cheap prices of SpaceX. In order to justify reusability, Arianespace/Airbus would need to plan on having a 90/100% marketshare of the very competitive market, while their US competitors could benefit from quite lucrative military missions.
Looking at the spaceflight calendar for the rest of the year, there are 6 flights where Ariane 5 could used, if you exclude all the national missions from non-EU countries. Let's round that to 10 as this does not cover all the remaining launches. So we are at a possible market of ~20 launches a year, with the current cheap prices of SpaceX. In order to justify reusability, Arianespace/Airbus would need to plan on having a 90/100% marketshare of the very competitive market, while their US competitors could benefit from quite lucrative military missions.
>If you look at the numbers from SpaceX, 4 launches per rocket is where the reusability starts making sense.
Shotwell mentioned that SpaceX actually saved money even on their first reused booster which was broken down and inspected to pieces. So I think your number doesn't stand. The Falcon 9 has a unique cost structure compared to other rockets, completely aimed towards making reusability work out as quickly as possible.
Shotwell mentioned that SpaceX actually saved money even on their first reused booster which was broken down and inspected to pieces. So I think your number doesn't stand. The Falcon 9 has a unique cost structure compared to other rockets, completely aimed towards making reusability work out as quickly as possible.
This is not just about having makework jobs. In order for the engines to be both cheap an reliable, there needs to be continuous line production. An engine put together by workers who build rocket engines for their living is better than one built by people who make rocket engines 1 month of a year, and for the line to work properly there are limits on how slowly things can be built. This means that if your engine demand goes too low, the quality suffers or price skyrockets.
The financial basis of SpaceX reusability is conditioned on having access to a lot of launches, and increasing the market even further by making launches cheaper. If SpaceX ended up only doing 12 launches a year each year from now on, they would lose money from reusability instead of saving it, because they would have pay ~as much to maintain the Merlin line as they do today, and that is probably most of the cost of making rockets. In order for them to make bank, they need to be able to maintain the line, and grow launches to consume all of it. (Hence, StarLink.)
Alternatively, they can produce all the first stages they ever intend to make, a good enough stockpile of Merlins for the second stages, and then shut down the line and get paid for launches without the expense of making rockets. This is what I suspect they'll do, except that at that point they will not shut down the line but will change it to make Raptors instead. Both for Raptor engined upper stages on Falcon 9:s, and eventually BFR.
In any case, Arianespace probably doesn't believe they can raise the launch count enough for reusability to be useful.
The financial basis of SpaceX reusability is conditioned on having access to a lot of launches, and increasing the market even further by making launches cheaper. If SpaceX ended up only doing 12 launches a year each year from now on, they would lose money from reusability instead of saving it, because they would have pay ~as much to maintain the Merlin line as they do today, and that is probably most of the cost of making rockets. In order for them to make bank, they need to be able to maintain the line, and grow launches to consume all of it. (Hence, StarLink.)
Alternatively, they can produce all the first stages they ever intend to make, a good enough stockpile of Merlins for the second stages, and then shut down the line and get paid for launches without the expense of making rockets. This is what I suspect they'll do, except that at that point they will not shut down the line but will change it to make Raptors instead. Both for Raptor engined upper stages on Falcon 9:s, and eventually BFR.
In any case, Arianespace probably doesn't believe they can raise the launch count enough for reusability to be useful.
This also exposes the shrewdness in using a rocket with 9 or 27 of your engines, instead of 2 or 3, which allows you to keep a continuous pace with a smaller sized production line vs having to stand it up and down.
This is all aside from the reliability/engine out gains.
This is all aside from the reliability/engine out gains.
Yup, a mistake done in the 80s with Ariane 5 architecture, that we are still paying. Smaller scale means slower changes and this is being partially addressed with Ariane 6 and Vega C.
Similar issue with the use of solid propulsion, mainly used to also keep it in line with military needs.
Similar issue with the use of solid propulsion, mainly used to also keep it in line with military needs.
This is like bemoaning plastic factory worker jobs because we've become too good at reusing cups/bags/packaging/whatever and don't need to produce as much plastic anymore. Man that would be a nice problem to have. Mind-bending levels of justification here.
Of all the places in the world, Europe is probably the most ripe for implementing a UBI, which would solve a lot of these problems.
A basic, subsistence income solves the problem of losing a high-paying job that allows for a comfortable lifestyle?
Well the alternative is propping up the high-paying jobs using subsidies and shutting out competition, which isn't exactly a winning long-term strategy. The high-paying jobs aren't going to stick around unless you force them to with some kind of jobs program which is just taxing everyone else so that this small, select group of people can benefit; why shouldn't everyone get a cushy do-nothing job at taxpayer expense? Clearly, that isn't sustainable or fair.
The UBI lets everyone in society have a safety net so they can go looking for another high-paying job, or get an education in another field to get a new high-paying job.
The UBI lets everyone in society have a safety net so they can go looking for another high-paying job, or get an education in another field to get a new high-paying job.
People get rich from government contracts. That's what drives a lot of this stuff not just jobs for voters.
That and the wish for a stable society- not some aristocratic mess reminding of the late Roman empire, so ready for a final civil war as show down, that its rulers rather collapse the whole problem outwards.
First-mover advantage is usually overrated. SpaceX is incurring in huge risks to prove a market hypothesis. When it's proven, other companies will follow. Blue Origin is right behind them.
SpaceX is following a series of failed initiatives - the Shuttle, SSTOs like the DC-X and Venturestar - and trying lots of seemingly crazy things in the process. Let's not get carried away by survivorship bias.
SpaceX is following a series of failed initiatives - the Shuttle, SSTOs like the DC-X and Venturestar - and trying lots of seemingly crazy things in the process. Let's not get carried away by survivorship bias.
> How many jobs will be created by opening up spaceflight at 1/100 the cost?
The old jobs were under your directive. The new jobs are not.
The old jobs were under your directive. The new jobs are not.
How many jobs would be created by having only 2% of the population in agriculture instead of >50% in the 19th century?
More to the point, what would the engine and booster factories do if they had 12 months off each year because all the payloads would fly on cheaper reusable rockets? If the jobs are doing something inefficient, they're going away anyway.
Cheaper flights would open up new markets which would increase demand. They didn't build a few passenger jets and call it a day, and the same would be true of cheap access to space.
In the long run most likely, but in the short term that might not be the case.
Quoting Charmeau from the article,
As a fun analogy, I'd love to think what would have happened if AT&T had kept their operators and not put in electronic switches.
Commerce would still be back in the 1950's, and everyone would work for AT&T. We'd be making nowhere near as many calls, and business would operate much slower than today, meaning innovation & collaboration would be much slower than today.
But that's the choice
"I think we are in different worlds,” he said. “In the US, they think and they speak like this. Our mission is different. Our culture is different.”
As a fun analogy, I'd love to think what would have happened if AT&T had kept their operators and not put in electronic switches.
Commerce would still be back in the 1950's, and everyone would work for AT&T. We'd be making nowhere near as many calls, and business would operate much slower than today, meaning innovation & collaboration would be much slower than today.
But that's the choice
The denial is strong. Reminds me of how cell phone makers responded to the iPhone:
“The development of mobile phones will be similar in PCs. Even with the Mac, Apple has attracted much attention at first, but they have still remained a niche manufacturer. That will be in mobile phones as well,” Nokia chief strategist Anssi Vanjoki told a German newspaper at the time.
Back in the day, smartphones were pretty much defined by devices like the Palm Treo, and Palm CEO Ed Colligan doubted some computer maker was going to just waltz in and eat his lunch.
“We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” Colligan said. “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.”
“The development of mobile phones will be similar in PCs. Even with the Mac, Apple has attracted much attention at first, but they have still remained a niche manufacturer. That will be in mobile phones as well,” Nokia chief strategist Anssi Vanjoki told a German newspaper at the time.
Back in the day, smartphones were pretty much defined by devices like the Palm Treo, and Palm CEO Ed Colligan doubted some computer maker was going to just waltz in and eat his lunch.
“We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” Colligan said. “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.”
> Even, so, Charmeau rejects comparisons to SpaceX, because he maintains that the company is heavily subsidized by the US government.
Isn't ESA subsidized by the member governments? I'd understand if the criticism was coming from a private entity and they'd be complaining about SpaceX getting preferential treatment, but coming from a state sponsored agency it seems odd.
Isn't ESA subsidized by the member governments? I'd understand if the criticism was coming from a private entity and they'd be complaining about SpaceX getting preferential treatment, but coming from a state sponsored agency it seems odd.
> Isn't ESA subsidized by the member governments?
"ArianeGroup is subsidized by its member governments." Furthermore, "SpaceX does not have a monopoly on [American] launches, as Arianespace does in Europe" and "had to compete with the US-based United Launch Alliance from the beginning to break that company’s monopoly on military and civil space missions" [1].
[1] Ars Technica
"ArianeGroup is subsidized by its member governments." Furthermore, "SpaceX does not have a monopoly on [American] launches, as Arianespace does in Europe" and "had to compete with the US-based United Launch Alliance from the beginning to break that company’s monopoly on military and civil space missions" [1].
[1] Ars Technica
Ariane 5's commercial launches are directly subsidized by the EU. But it's a muddled story all around: if SpaceX rents an unused launch pad from NASA instead of spending $1 billion to build a new one, is that a subsidy? Was NASA's competition for commercial cargo to the ISS a subsidy?
Agreed, if one could take into account all the subsidies, I am sure we would be at similar levels. The commercial cargo contract was on par with the ATV program, but the prospect is much bigger, with better financial stability.
And where should we stop counting subsidies? Are the government funded studies made by research institutes counted? They benefit a lot to the companies.
And where should we stop counting subsidies? Are the government funded studies made by research institutes counted? They benefit a lot to the companies.
You can look at the Boeing vs Airbus trade case to see how far folks are willing to go when adding up "subsidies" -- into the weeds.
[deleted]
> if SpaceX rents an unused launch pad from NASA instead of spending $1 billion to build a new one, is that a subsidy
No, it's called renting. If it was unused then the presumably low price SpaceX pays for it is the right one. This is actually efficient capitalist allocation of resources. If SpaceX was not allowed to pay a rent for the launch pad, capital would be used inefficiently on building one, instead of being spent on R&D. Furthermore, the depreciation and abandonment of the launch pad itself would result in a waste of tax-payer money.
No, it's called renting. If it was unused then the presumably low price SpaceX pays for it is the right one. This is actually efficient capitalist allocation of resources. If SpaceX was not allowed to pay a rent for the launch pad, capital would be used inefficiently on building one, instead of being spent on R&D. Furthermore, the depreciation and abandonment of the launch pad itself would result in a waste of tax-payer money.
You'd be correct if aerospace companies from other countries had as much of a right to rent the pad as SpaceX, but that's not the case.
The US with ITAR and other "national security" restrictions sets up a lot of economic moats around their aerospace companies, and the government gets to pick domestic winners over foreign competition. That's a subsidy.
Everyone plays this game when it comes to aerospace, it's why there's constant lawsuits between the likes of Boeing and Airbus on at the WTO.
The US with ITAR and other "national security" restrictions sets up a lot of economic moats around their aerospace companies, and the government gets to pick domestic winners over foreign competition. That's a subsidy.
Everyone plays this game when it comes to aerospace, it's why there's constant lawsuits between the likes of Boeing and Airbus on at the WTO.
There is no underlying platonic reality here to be discovered around the concept of a subsidy. It's not entirely unreasonable to be careful about allowing foreign governments to launch large rockets on domestic soil.
The entire booster stage of the Antares rocket, which is only used for NASA payloads, comes from Ukraine. And Antares and Atlas V's main engines come from Russia.
ITAR works in the other direction, when you take US tech into other countries.
Liability for the launching company, now that's a separate issue from ITAR.
ITAR works in the other direction, when you take US tech into other countries.
Liability for the launching company, now that's a separate issue from ITAR.
Rockets launched from the US are already considered to be malicious from a range safety perspective, since they might accidentally veer off course and turn into a ballistic missile.
Range safety officers already strap explosives to SpaceX's and other rockets and will detonate them in the event of an accident. This is how the SRBs on the Challenger space shuttle were detonated after the orbiter broke up.
So it's not because of range safety that foreign companies aren't allowed equal access to the US launch market. We could go into why that is. Briefly it's because rocketry is a core strategic military asset from both a proliferation and manufacturing perspective. Once you can launch a satellite into orbit you're really close to having an ICBM.
But that doesn't change the fact that this strategic advantage is partly maintained with subsidies to domestic companies, in a way that say doesn't happen when the US military needs to source some more basic technology (like nails, screws or lumber) from some outside provider.
Range safety officers already strap explosives to SpaceX's and other rockets and will detonate them in the event of an accident. This is how the SRBs on the Challenger space shuttle were detonated after the orbiter broke up.
So it's not because of range safety that foreign companies aren't allowed equal access to the US launch market. We could go into why that is. Briefly it's because rocketry is a core strategic military asset from both a proliferation and manufacturing perspective. Once you can launch a satellite into orbit you're really close to having an ICBM.
But that doesn't change the fact that this strategic advantage is partly maintained with subsidies to domestic companies, in a way that say doesn't happen when the US military needs to source some more basic technology (like nails, screws or lumber) from some outside provider.
SpaceX was "subsidized" by the govt even as they provided services to the govt in exchange for money. That's called business, and the customer here is the government. It's also in the best interest, long term financially, to have an American space launch company, so we don't have to give money to the Russians or Europeans to launch our astronauts or satellites. Language matters, subsidy vs. contract is an important distinction
In government contracts in the aerospace and defence, the semantic distinction blurs a little bit.
Government contracts are often inflated on purpose so that the work can leak towards other projects. Every country does that.
Government contracts are often inflated on purpose so that the work can leak towards other projects. Every country does that.
No doubt, contract bloat and missed deadlines are a hallmark of government contracting. Some combination of opportunism and lack of proper forecasting/planning lead to someone like ULA having much, much higher costs than a company like SpaceX.
ESA has much less money than NASA and the DoD, and is free to chose a launcher from another country as well.
Are the European space companies subsidized by ESA and the other European space agencies? Yes. Is it much different from the subsidies in the US? Not really. Is the US space market bigger than the European market? Definitely!
Are the European space companies subsidized by ESA and the other European space agencies? Yes. Is it much different from the subsidies in the US? Not really. Is the US space market bigger than the European market? Definitely!
[deleted]
I'm encouraged to see that their "vow to resist" seems to mainly involve trying to outperform SpaceX, as opposed to asking for legislation/regulation to give their rocket program special status.
EDIT: At least that was the gist of this article, it seems like other sources suggest they may pursue legislative avenues as well.
EDIT: At least that was the gist of this article, it seems like other sources suggest they may pursue legislative avenues as well.
Stéphane Israël has repeatedly called for European governments to stop competing any satellite launches and guarantee them all for Arianespace, as well as to increase direct subsidies.
http://www.france24.com/en/20150620-interview-stephane-israe...
http://aviationweek.com/space/arianespace-esa-we-need-help
Alain Charmeau has as well:
>Even as Charmeau decries what he calls subsidies for SpaceX from the US government, he admits that Ariane cannot exist without guaranteed contracts purchased by European governments. To make the Ariane 6 vehicle viable, Charmeau said Ariane needs five launches in total for 2021 and eight guaranteed launches for 2022.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/ariane-chief-seems-f...
http://www.france24.com/en/20150620-interview-stephane-israe...
http://aviationweek.com/space/arianespace-esa-we-need-help
Alain Charmeau has as well:
>Even as Charmeau decries what he calls subsidies for SpaceX from the US government, he admits that Ariane cannot exist without guaranteed contracts purchased by European governments. To make the Ariane 6 vehicle viable, Charmeau said Ariane needs five launches in total for 2021 and eight guaranteed launches for 2022.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/ariane-chief-seems-f...
The typical french reaction. I hope Germany will push back. Anyone remember the European search engine competitor "Quaero", another stillborn EU project?
a decision like that will keep europe decades behind in the space industry
> their "vow to resist" seems to mainly involve trying to outperform SpaceX
The planned Ariane 6 is cost uncompetitive with the Falcon 9 and variable cost and mass uncompetitive with the Falcon Heavy. There are no plans for a European reusable. The “our mission is different...our culture is different” comment implies a regulatory, not technological, solution.
The planned Ariane 6 is cost uncompetitive with the Falcon 9 and variable cost and mass uncompetitive with the Falcon Heavy. There are no plans for a European reusable. The “our mission is different...our culture is different” comment implies a regulatory, not technological, solution.
>The planned Ariane 6 is cost uncompetitive with the Falcon 9
This isn't really true. Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable).
Because Ariane uses a "dual-berth" conops, it (generally) flies two payloads per launch, whereas Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused. The two rockets are thus of comparable cost to a satellite customer, with pros and cons for each — Ariane is more reliable, but you have to work around the other customer's schedule.
The worry is that Ariane 6 won't be competitive with future rockets, like New Glenn or BFR.
This isn't really true. Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable).
Because Ariane uses a "dual-berth" conops, it (generally) flies two payloads per launch, whereas Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused. The two rockets are thus of comparable cost to a satellite customer, with pros and cons for each — Ariane is more reliable, but you have to work around the other customer's schedule.
The worry is that Ariane 6 won't be competitive with future rockets, like New Glenn or BFR.
> Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable)
Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9?
Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, your numbers don't paint the Arianes favorably.
> Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused
Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them.
[1] http://spaceflight.com
Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9?
Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, your numbers don't paint the Arianes favorably.
> Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused
Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them.
[1] http://spaceflight.com
>Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9?
Because their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million while another customer pays the rest in the lower berth. Capability isn't useful if your payload doesn't use it.
>Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, I think you made your counterargument.
These prices are within 20%, which I'd call competitive given non-price factors. The claim was not that Ariane was cheaper.
>Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them.
Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate. Spaceflight's SHERPA mission was supposed to fly secondary to the (tiny) Formosat-5 payload, but was pulled due to delays.[0] SFI now plans to stick with "dedicated rideshare" on rockets booked by them entirely for their customers. Their first flight will be SSO-A on a dedicated Falcon 9 later this year.
Historically, Falcon has flown few secondary payloads. An OG-2 prototype flew as a secondary on CRS-1, but was lost due to the engine-out on ascent. Iridium-6 shared with NASA's Grace-FO, after both missions dropped off Dnepr due to the Ukraine crisis.[1] Hispasat-30W carried a small hosted (then released) secondary as part of an experimental deployment system.[2] I can't think of any other notable secondary payloads.
[0] https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-fin...
[1] https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch-sh...
[2] https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent-la...
Because their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million while another customer pays the rest in the lower berth. Capability isn't useful if your payload doesn't use it.
>Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, I think you made your counterargument.
These prices are within 20%, which I'd call competitive given non-price factors. The claim was not that Ariane was cheaper.
>Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them.
Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate. Spaceflight's SHERPA mission was supposed to fly secondary to the (tiny) Formosat-5 payload, but was pulled due to delays.[0] SFI now plans to stick with "dedicated rideshare" on rockets booked by them entirely for their customers. Their first flight will be SSO-A on a dedicated Falcon 9 later this year.
Historically, Falcon has flown few secondary payloads. An OG-2 prototype flew as a secondary on CRS-1, but was lost due to the engine-out on ascent. Iridium-6 shared with NASA's Grace-FO, after both missions dropped off Dnepr due to the Ukraine crisis.[1] Hispasat-30W carried a small hosted (then released) secondary as part of an experimental deployment system.[2] I can't think of any other notable secondary payloads.
[0] https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-fin...
[1] https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch-sh...
[2] https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent-la...
> their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million
€45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10 million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity.
> Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate
It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform. Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency.
Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't unreasonable ten years ago. I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, et cetera--that niche will narrow.
€45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10 million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity.
> Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate
It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform. Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency.
Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't unreasonable ten years ago. I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, et cetera--that niche will narrow.
>€45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10 million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity.
F9 reusable is about the same. For Falcon 9, you'll need that secondary payload provider to also pay for a custom payload adapter and deployment mechanism, since berths aren't standardized as on Ariane.
>It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform. Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency.
Certainly, but it's not one that has been solved. I suspect moving forward we'll see it mostly solved for very small sats on dedicated rideshare missions, while excess payload for larger commercial sats remains unused.
>Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't unreasonable ten years ago.
Certainly. But it's important to note that designing for first stage reusability wouldn't necessarily be profitable either. SpaceX is already cheaper without it and is quickly taking market share away. As launch cadence drops, financial returns on reusability fall quickly. If you're second fiddle already, you may very well lose money by investing in reusability.
>I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, et cetera--that niche will narrow.
I'd argue Ariane's niche remains reliability, not scheduling (which it has problems with because of the dual berth conops[0]). SpaceX will soon own schedule reliability as its backlog dissipates and boosters are rapidly reused. But there's a reason JWST is going on Ariane 5.
[0] https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/27/concerns-with-indian-p...
F9 reusable is about the same. For Falcon 9, you'll need that secondary payload provider to also pay for a custom payload adapter and deployment mechanism, since berths aren't standardized as on Ariane.
>It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform. Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency.
Certainly, but it's not one that has been solved. I suspect moving forward we'll see it mostly solved for very small sats on dedicated rideshare missions, while excess payload for larger commercial sats remains unused.
>Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't unreasonable ten years ago.
Certainly. But it's important to note that designing for first stage reusability wouldn't necessarily be profitable either. SpaceX is already cheaper without it and is quickly taking market share away. As launch cadence drops, financial returns on reusability fall quickly. If you're second fiddle already, you may very well lose money by investing in reusability.
>I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, et cetera--that niche will narrow.
I'd argue Ariane's niche remains reliability, not scheduling (which it has problems with because of the dual berth conops[0]). SpaceX will soon own schedule reliability as its backlog dissipates and boosters are rapidly reused. But there's a reason JWST is going on Ariane 5.
[0] https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/27/concerns-with-indian-p...
>Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate.
Ariane would be terrible for such payloads. These tend to go into lower orbits and Ariane can't restart it's upper stage engine to change the orbit. Something like Electron is a much better -and cheaper- choice.
Ariane would be terrible for such payloads. These tend to go into lower orbits and Ariane can't restart it's upper stage engine to change the orbit. Something like Electron is a much better -and cheaper- choice.
> Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate.
Can’t wait for a Lyft Line for space ;)
“Your rocket will depart in 3 months.”
Can’t wait for a Lyft Line for space ;)
“Your rocket will depart in 3 months.”
The company is named Spaceflight Industries.
When it comes to the cost of the mission those differences are peanuts. I guess that at some point SpaceX will find out that the the price of the launch wasn't the bottleneck after all.
Except it actually is. When a fully functioning satellite costs e.g. 200m$ and the launch is another 200m$ it makes sense to overbuild your satellite to 600m$ with crazy redundancies etc to make sure it won't fail early on it's mission life. At the same time the big dumb booster concept like Ariane 5 and 6 makes tradeoffs like no upper stage engine restart capabilities which are ok for GTO missions but mean that multi-sat LEO or MEO constellations are impossible( you can't change the orbit and drifting is expensive).
Historically speaking, generally because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent they could save. (Remember, there's a whole bunch of cost in building the satellite too.)
> because the money lost by SpaceX not being able to launch on anything close to schedule costs them more than the few percent they could save
This is a valid pitch. Memorably, Skybox almost went bankrupt waiting for their Ukranian launch partner to put their birds in orbit.
That said, this isn't a good business plan. Pitching availability for a non-just-in-time manufactured product is a bearish bet on competitors' production schedules. Not a bad bet in the rocket business. But re-usability both decreases costs and increases launch frequency. Ariane 6 is, on multiple levels, the EU calling Elon Musk on a bluff. Not unreasonable a decade ago, when the project was planned. But wrong today.
It's also awkward to advertise a project by the low demand for it.
This is a valid pitch. Memorably, Skybox almost went bankrupt waiting for their Ukranian launch partner to put their birds in orbit.
That said, this isn't a good business plan. Pitching availability for a non-just-in-time manufactured product is a bearish bet on competitors' production schedules. Not a bad bet in the rocket business. But re-usability both decreases costs and increases launch frequency. Ariane 6 is, on multiple levels, the EU calling Elon Musk on a bluff. Not unreasonable a decade ago, when the project was planned. But wrong today.
It's also awkward to advertise a project by the low demand for it.
Your numbers paint a very positive picture of Ariane 6 which I don't think is justified:
>Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO
There are a lot of GEO sats which are right at the 5 ton range so that leaves no room for a dual launch.
>Because Ariane uses a "dual-berth" conops, it (generally) flies two payloads per launch, whereas Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused.
Dual launches come with a lot of issues of coordination which crop up all the time and result in delayed launches for Ariane. Also Falcon 9's excess capacity is left unused because no one has ever asked for it. Per Musk's words they could develop a bigger fairing if a customer payed for it but no one has asked for it.
>The two rockets are thus of comparable cost to a satellite customer, with pros and cons for each
No they are not. There is literally no pro for Ariane. It's more expensive and the most important thing is that the engine is not restartable so it literally can't do a direct GEO no matter the payload penalty. That results in satellites requiring more powerful and complicated thrusters and having to sacrifice part of the capacity for extra fuel instead of just altitude correcting thrusters. All of this translates into extra cost.
>Ariane is more reliable
This is a complete myth for the media. Ariane 5's reliability means nothing for Ariane 6. One of the early Ariane 5 launch failures was due to the use of Ariane 4's software but not modified. On the other hand falcon 9 is now frozen and at this rate will have about the same launches Ariane 5 had in it's entire lifetime but only in a couple of years.
>The worry is that Ariane 6 won't be competitive with future rockets, like New Glenn or BFR.
Ariane 6 was competitive with the non-reusable falcon 9 at 90m$. The bet the European industry made was that SpaceX wouldn't be able to make an economically meaningful reusable rocket but every design choice on the falcon 9 has benefited reusability( number of engines, cost structure etc).
>Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO
There are a lot of GEO sats which are right at the 5 ton range so that leaves no room for a dual launch.
>Because Ariane uses a "dual-berth" conops, it (generally) flies two payloads per launch, whereas Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused.
Dual launches come with a lot of issues of coordination which crop up all the time and result in delayed launches for Ariane. Also Falcon 9's excess capacity is left unused because no one has ever asked for it. Per Musk's words they could develop a bigger fairing if a customer payed for it but no one has asked for it.
>The two rockets are thus of comparable cost to a satellite customer, with pros and cons for each
No they are not. There is literally no pro for Ariane. It's more expensive and the most important thing is that the engine is not restartable so it literally can't do a direct GEO no matter the payload penalty. That results in satellites requiring more powerful and complicated thrusters and having to sacrifice part of the capacity for extra fuel instead of just altitude correcting thrusters. All of this translates into extra cost.
>Ariane is more reliable
This is a complete myth for the media. Ariane 5's reliability means nothing for Ariane 6. One of the early Ariane 5 launch failures was due to the use of Ariane 4's software but not modified. On the other hand falcon 9 is now frozen and at this rate will have about the same launches Ariane 5 had in it's entire lifetime but only in a couple of years.
>The worry is that Ariane 6 won't be competitive with future rockets, like New Glenn or BFR.
Ariane 6 was competitive with the non-reusable falcon 9 at 90m$. The bet the European industry made was that SpaceX wouldn't be able to make an economically meaningful reusable rocket but every design choice on the falcon 9 has benefited reusability( number of engines, cost structure etc).
They are putting payloads into space, so it's the same mission. What the hell does "culture" have to do with anything? Really, there's a culture against re-useablility? No.
It's fine (or at least honest) to admit they're a protectionist block and are looking into regulation to ensure French contacts are safe.
But the mission is the same (put things into space), and the culture is irrelevant.
It's fine (or at least honest) to admit they're a protectionist block and are looking into regulation to ensure French contacts are safe.
But the mission is the same (put things into space), and the culture is irrelevant.
The culture is at least somewhat relevant if it gets in the way of efficiently performing the mission.
As I understand it, they don't have to ask for regulation since they already are state subsidized and a monopoly in Europe. However, they may have to culturally justify it to retain that position.
Not necessarily a monopoly. European states can still launch on other nations rockets. However, Arianespace is pushing for "European First" legislation to keep institutional payloads on domestic launchers.
And to put this into perspective, SpaceX has launched 1 Spanish government payload and has 2 German payloads on their manifest.
I remember the early 90s, when some EU bigwig (Modi? I forget) made a lot of noise about wanting to catch up to the U.S. economically.
My first instinct was amusement, seeing ESA's blatant denial and sour-grape-ization of SpaceX. But then I remembered that we all work on projects which someday will be similarly obsolete, and I can only hope we handle the situation a bit more gracefully and effectivity.
I'm always stunned by the degree to which "resisting" consists of haughty dismissiveness of SpaceX and whining about subsidies (which Arianespace itself receives in spades). I wonder if these people will be able to swallow their pride when SpaceX eats their lunch and they have to go work for the Americans.
> if Europe ever did develop a reusable rocket, one that could fly all the missions in a year, this would be unhelpful politically. What would the engine and booster factories sprinkled across Europe do if they built one rocket and then had 11 months off?
This problem will also bite the US launch industry. Hard.
Once SpaceX has proven they can do safe crewed flights and Blue Origin goes beyond testing flights, why is there a reason to pay the huge ULA markup any more?
ULA, as well as Airbus, has a problem: they're constantly being meddled with by politicians without any idea what they're doing and decide stuff that's totally unreasonable from an economical point but helpful for their (or their party's) reelections. Airbus employs 130k people, Boeing 140k and Lockheed 100k, and in addition there are a lot of people in the supplier companies. That's a lot of voters, and the companies are often enough big employers on a regional/local level.
Which means: SpaceX and Blue Origin will conquer the entire commercial sector plus an enormous amount of US government work. EU-founded projects will (politically mandated) stick to Airbus, but the political inability of Airbus to innovate will lead everything else go to SpaceX/BO. And the taxpayer will have to "save" them... or have to deal with hundreds of thousands people out of jobs.
Once SpaceX has proven they can do safe crewed flights and Blue Origin goes beyond testing flights, why is there a reason to pay the huge ULA markup any more?
ULA, as well as Airbus, has a problem: they're constantly being meddled with by politicians without any idea what they're doing and decide stuff that's totally unreasonable from an economical point but helpful for their (or their party's) reelections. Airbus employs 130k people, Boeing 140k and Lockheed 100k, and in addition there are a lot of people in the supplier companies. That's a lot of voters, and the companies are often enough big employers on a regional/local level.
Which means: SpaceX and Blue Origin will conquer the entire commercial sector plus an enormous amount of US government work. EU-founded projects will (politically mandated) stick to Airbus, but the political inability of Airbus to innovate will lead everything else go to SpaceX/BO. And the taxpayer will have to "save" them... or have to deal with hundreds of thousands people out of jobs.
> This problem will also bite the US launch industry
I don't think so. ULA was formed in 2006 [1]. Before that, the U.S. launch market was competitive within itself and with the Russians. The Falcon 9 first flew in 2015 (EDIT: "first flew commercially in 2013") [2], returning the American market to a competitive state. American aerospace engineers are used to working in a competitive culture. If ULA doesn't become competitive, either itself or by splitting, there are plenty of launch start-ups beyond SpaceX and Blue Origin hiring away that talent.
In contrast, the European market has no similar tradition of competition in launch services. The reaction to SpaceX isn't to consider a novel platform. It's to plod on with the old and raise the gates around European launch buyers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9
I don't think so. ULA was formed in 2006 [1]. Before that, the U.S. launch market was competitive within itself and with the Russians. The Falcon 9 first flew in 2015 (EDIT: "first flew commercially in 2013") [2], returning the American market to a competitive state. American aerospace engineers are used to working in a competitive culture. If ULA doesn't become competitive, either itself or by splitting, there are plenty of launch start-ups beyond SpaceX and Blue Origin hiring away that talent.
In contrast, the European market has no similar tradition of competition in launch services. The reaction to SpaceX isn't to consider a novel platform. It's to plod on with the old and raise the gates around European launch buyers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9
Falcon 9 first flew in 2010, and launched its first commercial payload in 2013.
> ULA, as well as Airbus, has a problem
Yep, exactly the same problem as IBM, Blackberry, and many other companies who were at the top and then either stopped innovating or got to big and slow.
Having the bigger companies fail in a respect is a good thing. Have those engineers go back into the free market. Have them create companies and make competition. Push technologies forward and pricing down.
Look at Rocket Lab and their Electron rocket. Pretty amazing if you ask me and didn't really cost that much.
Let the free market sort things out. It always does. Unless of course you start involving the government with their jobs program and you get an SLS rocket that costs $2b each and isn't reusable.
What we need are many more companies providing launch services. Lets get the cost down to $1k to send someone up. Lets get more companies building infrastructure in space, so we have 10, 20 or 50 space stations in LEO.
There's so much up for grabs, but it won't be available if we start protectionist policies.
Yep, exactly the same problem as IBM, Blackberry, and many other companies who were at the top and then either stopped innovating or got to big and slow.
Having the bigger companies fail in a respect is a good thing. Have those engineers go back into the free market. Have them create companies and make competition. Push technologies forward and pricing down.
Look at Rocket Lab and their Electron rocket. Pretty amazing if you ask me and didn't really cost that much.
Let the free market sort things out. It always does. Unless of course you start involving the government with their jobs program and you get an SLS rocket that costs $2b each and isn't reusable.
What we need are many more companies providing launch services. Lets get the cost down to $1k to send someone up. Lets get more companies building infrastructure in space, so we have 10, 20 or 50 space stations in LEO.
There's so much up for grabs, but it won't be available if we start protectionist policies.
ULA has 100% mission success. The Atlas family has 100% mission sucess since 1957. The ULA markup is justified for a high value mission. BO and spaceX have big shoes to fill when it comea to building industry and insurer trust. The Amos 8 failure was an expensive lesson for spacex.
>The Atlas family has 100% mission sucess since 1957.
Huh? Atlas I had failures in 1991, 1992, and 1993. Atlas G failed in 1984 and 1987.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_G
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html
Huh? Atlas I had failures in 1991, 1992, and 1993. Atlas G failed in 1984 and 1987.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_G
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html
[deleted]
Airbus seems to manage just fine building reusable airplanes.
It's like the thing about the mouse complaining that the cheese was moved.
Airplanes (or "aeroplanes" on that side of the pond) have always been reusable, so Airbus was able to establish itself and build a stable business building them.
Rockets have always been non-reusable (until SpaceX), so ArianeGroup built a stable business around that assumption. Now they're being out-competed by a foreign company that has proven that assumption wrong, and they don't know what to do except demand more subsidies and a monopoly so they don't have to compete.
Airplanes (or "aeroplanes" on that side of the pond) have always been reusable, so Airbus was able to establish itself and build a stable business building them.
Rockets have always been non-reusable (until SpaceX), so ArianeGroup built a stable business around that assumption. Now they're being out-competed by a foreign company that has proven that assumption wrong, and they don't know what to do except demand more subsidies and a monopoly so they don't have to compete.
Increasing supply often increases demand. Cheaper rockets will mean more trips which means you will still be building rockets.
But I think your model is a bit of hyperbole. You’re downplaying the statistical model that goes with this. Launching a rocket is Russian roulette. The odds are quite different when you want to launch a rocket once versus a dozen times.
(1 - p)^n = the odds that I still have a rocket after n launches, where p is the odds of it blowing up on any given launch. The asymptote is at 0 and it gets there pretty fast.
The good news is that the cost benefit analysis has a similar problem.
Let’s say you want to reuse a $10M part once. Right now it costs you $20M for two flights. You create a $11M version that costs $1M to refurbish. That’s $12M for two flights or $6M per flight. You got a 40% cost improvement. So now you go for 3 flights. Now you have a $12M part that costs $1M to refurb. That’s $14M for three flights or $4.66M per flight.
From 1 to 2 you saved $4M per flight. From 2-3 you saved an additional $1.33M per flight. From 3 to 4 you’d save $0.66M per flight, by adding another $1M to your up front costs.
The bean counters are probably going to push back here. Opportunity costs you see. They’re going to demand you reduce costs, find revenue neutral ways to improve profits. For instance if you can cut 25% off the refurb costs that’s a better cost improvement than getting to 5 launches. While that makes getting to five more appealing, it also takes time. So you can imagine what the gap between five and six will be filled with. Cheaper rocket, lower refurb costs again.
If they have money to spend at this point they’ll give it to the lobbyists or marketing department. You aren’t the best investment they have anymore. Increased revenue is.
But I think your model is a bit of hyperbole. You’re downplaying the statistical model that goes with this. Launching a rocket is Russian roulette. The odds are quite different when you want to launch a rocket once versus a dozen times.
(1 - p)^n = the odds that I still have a rocket after n launches, where p is the odds of it blowing up on any given launch. The asymptote is at 0 and it gets there pretty fast.
The good news is that the cost benefit analysis has a similar problem.
Let’s say you want to reuse a $10M part once. Right now it costs you $20M for two flights. You create a $11M version that costs $1M to refurbish. That’s $12M for two flights or $6M per flight. You got a 40% cost improvement. So now you go for 3 flights. Now you have a $12M part that costs $1M to refurb. That’s $14M for three flights or $4.66M per flight.
From 1 to 2 you saved $4M per flight. From 2-3 you saved an additional $1.33M per flight. From 3 to 4 you’d save $0.66M per flight, by adding another $1M to your up front costs.
The bean counters are probably going to push back here. Opportunity costs you see. They’re going to demand you reduce costs, find revenue neutral ways to improve profits. For instance if you can cut 25% off the refurb costs that’s a better cost improvement than getting to 5 launches. While that makes getting to five more appealing, it also takes time. So you can imagine what the gap between five and six will be filled with. Cheaper rocket, lower refurb costs again.
If they have money to spend at this point they’ll give it to the lobbyists or marketing department. You aren’t the best investment they have anymore. Increased revenue is.
My God this makes me ashamed at being European.
Who are these guys and in which century do they think they are? Innovate and compete or resign and make room for others who can do it. I'm sure there are enough European engineers who can build reusable rockets.
Who are these guys and in which century do they think they are? Innovate and compete or resign and make room for others who can do it. I'm sure there are enough European engineers who can build reusable rockets.
Oh yes there are enough of them. But to compete you need fair rules and open access to your competitors market, and that is not the case currently. What they are asking for is only the same protections as the US companies currently enjoy.
I'm sorry, what? What protections are you talking about? Nasa has booked flights on non-USA rockets many times in the past. SpaceX has received no subsidies( i.e. free money) but only contracts from the government which Ariane is now asking to be locked by law( and let's not even talk about subsidies).
Let's not forget who masterminded the moon missions after all: it wasn't an American.
I recommend to read the book "Why Nations fail" if you're interested in how some countries become rich or stay in poverty. One of the key ideas is something called creative destruction. There is always something destroyed when something new is created (there are always losers and winners). When there is uncertainty, there is an opportunity. The fear of losing is what makes certain companies (and countries) not adopt a new technology since it challenges their current standing and this circle tends to lead to the collapse of a company's ecnonomy.
This article is honest, but holds back a bit about how incredibly lost the european space industry is now.
If you'd like to read some more progressive thinking by a European, here's an interview with the CNES (French space agency) Director of Launchers:
https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director-of...
In which he talks about about a realistic path to a reusable rocket that could compete with Falcon 9. But it wouldn't launch until 2028-2030.
https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director-of...
In which he talks about about a realistic path to a reusable rocket that could compete with Falcon 9. But it wouldn't launch until 2028-2030.
> a realistic path to a reusable rocket
Technologically realistic. Politically unfeasible. ArianeGroup's factories provide high-paying jobs across Europe. Re-tooling them will not be possible for another generation.
Source: I worked with launch start-ups. Their dismissal by EU politicos was resounding, particularly in contrast to the American and other countries' responses.
Technologically realistic. Politically unfeasible. ArianeGroup's factories provide high-paying jobs across Europe. Re-tooling them will not be possible for another generation.
Source: I worked with launch start-ups. Their dismissal by EU politicos was resounding, particularly in contrast to the American and other countries' responses.
I figure that the opinion of the CNES Director of Launchers is pretty good when it comes to understanding European rocket politics, but if you want to claim you're a bigger expert, ok.
>>> “Are you buying a Mercedes because it is cheap?”
>>> Ranzo, sitting nearby, chimed in and referenced the India-based maker of the world’s least expensive car. As he put it, “We don’t sell a Tata.”
Not with that attitude ;) There's nothing wrong with cheap spaceflight, as long as they're human-rated for crewed missions. I hope they also know that Tata owns Jaguar Land Rover.
>>> Ranzo, sitting nearby, chimed in and referenced the India-based maker of the world’s least expensive car. As he put it, “We don’t sell a Tata.”
Not with that attitude ;) There's nothing wrong with cheap spaceflight, as long as they're human-rated for crewed missions. I hope they also know that Tata owns Jaguar Land Rover.
I have no idea what this headline is supposed to mean.
"Vows to resist"
Resist what, exactly?
"Vows to resist"
Resist what, exactly?
The headline is horrible.
"Steamroller surges"? Really? Has the author seen a surging steamroller? That's not what steamrollers do. It's hard to stop a steamroller, yes, but its moves aren't sudden. It doesn't suddenly accelerate. You can see the steamroller a mile coming. It starts slowly and goes slowly.
And as you noted, you don't usually resist steamrollers. That's a silly thing to do.
Reminds me of the singing octopus from Orwell's examples of how not to write:[1]
> The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash — as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot — it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking.
[1]http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...
"Steamroller surges"? Really? Has the author seen a surging steamroller? That's not what steamrollers do. It's hard to stop a steamroller, yes, but its moves aren't sudden. It doesn't suddenly accelerate. You can see the steamroller a mile coming. It starts slowly and goes slowly.
And as you noted, you don't usually resist steamrollers. That's a silly thing to do.
Reminds me of the singing octopus from Orwell's examples of how not to write:[1]
> The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash — as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot — it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking.
[1]http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...
SpaceX and other low cost space companies. If I read the article correctly, they plan on doing this by not innovating.
Isn't the article mentioning that they are working on 2 new rockets and that the plan is to not compete in SpaceX niche?
I assume that we do not know that much about the innovation due to much smaller PR budgets.
I assume that we do not know that much about the innovation due to much smaller PR budgets.
AFAIK they don't have any capabilities SpaceX won't have, so SpaceX's "niche" is to just charge less for the same service.
> they don't have any capabilities SpaceX won't have
Correct. Falcon 9 is cheaper than Ariane 6 and the Falcon Heavy can launch more mass than Arian 5 or 6 for less. Given the piggyback market, where unused launch mass can be sold to third parties, the only reason to pay up for this platform is for political or scheduling reasons.
Correct. Falcon 9 is cheaper than Ariane 6 and the Falcon Heavy can launch more mass than Arian 5 or 6 for less. Given the piggyback market, where unused launch mass can be sold to third parties, the only reason to pay up for this platform is for political or scheduling reasons.
What niche? They're all getting things into space.
I assume the innovation is regulatory...
I assume the innovation is regulatory...
cryptonector(2)
What I love about space is it is a great example of peaceful competition between nations. We need more of that.
[deleted]
Every team has a couple people who want to do better, but they can’t get budget for the work from management. When a threat comes the cost benefit analysis shifts, and now those people find a sympathetic ear.
This was an interesting article on an area I'd long meant to read about but never had, and there is some great history there. However, I got a very real feeling of "skating to where the puck is not where it is going" sense the farther I read. In particular, the article spends a certain amount of time on the under-development Ariane 6 series and Vega-C. But the comparisons were all to the existing Falcon 9. I wish Mr Berger had asked them at all about the BFR and the implications of a functional high performance methalox engine, because I think that has the potential to be a much bigger leap forward then seems to be generally discussed yet. Methane doesn't give quite the thrust of kerosene or the ISP of hydrogen, but from an economic and chemical-rockets-in-space perspective its got a lot going for it, not all of it immediately obvious. It doesn't coke at rocket temperatures, yet another bonus for more reusability. My understanding is that it's much easier to store then LH2 and the conditions are a closer match for LOX which potentially simplifies a number of steps. It can potentially be harvested or synthesized elsewhere in the solar system more easily. And even the cost factor shouldn't be ignored once the context is reusability, RP-1 isn't actually cheap (it's highly refined, I saw estimates north of $16/gallon). Fuel may be the least expensive part of an expendable rocket to the point it's not generally worried about, but for a reusable rocket a couple of million dollars extra per launch is real additional margin over time.
I'm certainly no expert by any means, but organizations like ArianeGroup comparing under development rockets to existing ones feels as though really sums up some of the issues with Old Space in a nutshell. It seems like they're thinking in terms of building a rocket where that one design might then be used essentially unchanged for 30-50 years despite there being clear theoretical improvements to be had. But that's not how the fully private enterprises seem likely to operate. SpaceX put a fair amount of effort into the Falcon Heavy for example, and it was spectacular. Except now apparently they've decided that it's effectively already obsolete, that BFR is going better then expected which mean FH will serve as a limited use minor stopgap and then be scrapped as a design. Even now I don't know if that sort of aggressiveness has really gotten into the consciousness of older style organizations yet.
I guess if they're comfortable with basically becoming a jobs program and massively subsidized strategic fallback for the EU that is in fact potentially sustainable a long time. Polities can have different levels of very long term priorities that are different from the faster pace of industry, there's nothing wrong with that. But it's a position that has risks too if the gap opens up too far, because it takes a very long time to make up that ground (if ever).
I'm certainly no expert by any means, but organizations like ArianeGroup comparing under development rockets to existing ones feels as though really sums up some of the issues with Old Space in a nutshell. It seems like they're thinking in terms of building a rocket where that one design might then be used essentially unchanged for 30-50 years despite there being clear theoretical improvements to be had. But that's not how the fully private enterprises seem likely to operate. SpaceX put a fair amount of effort into the Falcon Heavy for example, and it was spectacular. Except now apparently they've decided that it's effectively already obsolete, that BFR is going better then expected which mean FH will serve as a limited use minor stopgap and then be scrapped as a design. Even now I don't know if that sort of aggressiveness has really gotten into the consciousness of older style organizations yet.
I guess if they're comfortable with basically becoming a jobs program and massively subsidized strategic fallback for the EU that is in fact potentially sustainable a long time. Polities can have different levels of very long term priorities that are different from the faster pace of industry, there's nothing wrong with that. But it's a position that has risks too if the gap opens up too far, because it takes a very long time to make up that ground (if ever).
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's hard not to make the connection between this example of a clueless self entitled tantrum and the naked resentment towards a US rival by a euro bigwig complete with the instinct to seek government subsidizes and assistance against said US rival with the scrutiny US technology companies are receiving in the region.
It feels incredibly short-term to me. How many jobs will be created by opening up spaceflight at 1/100 the cost? How many new types of satellites, technology, human transport will be created?