Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ariane/Europe_s_new_Ariane_6_rocket_powers_into_space

by gostsamo • 2 years ago

330 343 2 years ago

nabla92• 2 years ago

Ariane 6 exists so that European countries can get independent access to space between now and 2030s. The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9. Both platforms can lift 22t to LEO.

6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar: reusable, RP-1/LOX, Prometheus engine is similar reusable open cycle engine as Merlin with lots of 3D printed parts.

Kuinox• 2 years ago

By then, startship would have lowered cost even further.

threeseed4• 2 years ago

Starship has a payload 10x-15x larger than the smaller Ariane 6 variant.

It seems like for the cost to be lower you would be wanting to fit as much as possible thus impacting how often it is being launched. So not sure if the two have the same requirements.

Y_Y• 2 years ago

You're quite right, but for apples-to-apples you should compare to NASA rather than SpaceX. "Move fast and break things" is an attitide that only relatively new rocket builders can have.

JumpCrisscross31• 2 years ago

for apples-to-apples you should compare to NASA rather than SpaceX

ESA is analogous to NASA. ArianeSpace is Europe’s ULA. Europe doesn’t have a SpaceX; Ariane 6 is a Yugo in the modern launch market.

justin662• 2 years ago

The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9.

I bet it will be a lot more than that.

sligor• 2 years ago

Is the cost difference mostly due by design or also due to much higher production volume and launches for Falcon 9 ?

topspin• 2 years ago

Both.

crest• 2 years ago

So because an incumbent exists ESA should give up, let their production and development pipeline rot away and "enjoy" the monopoly until it's too late to change something?

ur-whale3• 2 years ago

So because an incumbent exists ESA should give up

No. But they should learn their lesson and try to run instead of plodding along at a glacial pace.

Oh but wait, they're govt funded with no success incentives other than some sort of vague sense of pride for a job well done.

My money is on they're not going to come out ahead in the race.

6274676• 2 years ago

at this stage I question the resolve of any European leader in actually wanting to achieve anything of note in a consequential manner. it's cheaper but not cost-free to sustain a narrative of "independence" and "alternative to incumbent" when the actual result is just wasting tax payers money for vanity projects with no clear path to actually build a sustainable alternative to the incumbent.

ESA has no resources to directly compete with spaceX or china unless Europe changes attitude and realizes that they have the resources and responsibility to do more in this mission for humanity

fallingknife3• 2 years ago

They did give up by building a disposable rocket in the 2020s

JumpCrisscross31• 2 years ago

6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar

…at which point it will be competing with Starship.

haspok• 2 years ago

You don't know that. Starship does not exist.

pmontra• 2 years ago

It will still be building that knowledge inside Europe. Rocketry in general is deemed to be strategic so it's OK for any country to invest money in that, keep scientists and engineers on the subject, keep the industries alive, etc. It's not only about access to space, it's also about defense.

flohofwoe3• 2 years ago

Unless Europe wants to build a moon base or new ISS, won't a Starship competitor be a bit overkill for most payloads?

ur-whale3• 2 years ago

6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar:

And by then, SpaceX will be 10 years ahead of them with a next-gen platform.

Not a great sounding story.

jajko• 2 years ago

For any European? Thats fantastic. Let that ego maniac and putin's admirer chase latest and shiniest, we all will learn from his success and failures.

We (US vs Europe) are not racing nor competing in this in any way, we just need to put out payload up there too. We desperately need our own skillset though, with Trump or similar breed potentially at power across the pond US will become more hostile towards Europe and let russia roll over Ukraine and maybe further, absolutely no doubt there.

TheLoafOfBread7• 2 years ago

And by then, SpaceX will be 10 years ahead of them with a next-gen platform.

Or going bust if Starship will turn out to be a flop.

kuschku• 2 years ago

Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place. All while being independent from the whims of one single individual, ensuring independent launch capabilities for national security reasons.

nordsieck15• 2 years ago

Ariane is one generation behind SpaceX, but that still puts them on second place.

The first doesn't imply the second.

Ariane 6 is behind:

* ULA's Vulcan

* SpaceX's F9/FH

* SpaceX's Starship (who knows when it'll start launching payloads)

* Blue Origin's New Glenn (supposed to be launched in September)

in terms of raw performance as well as $/kg.

There are also a number of other rockets like RocketLab's Neutron and Relativity's Terran R that seem like they'll outcompete Ariane 6.

The medium/heavy lift market is getting much more crowded than it has been in the past.

cubefox8• 2 years ago

Arguably at most third place, since partly reusable New Glenn (Blue Origin) is already planned to launch in a few months, currently September. Though lower stage reuse might only happen later.

panick21_6• 2 years ago

This is not even close to being true.

Vulcan rocket has already launch and cost the same as Ariane 6 without subsidy. They have a credible reuse program called SMART. Vulcan uses advanced stage engines.

BlueOrigin, for all their diddling and money wasting, is gone launch pretty soon with a rocket that is way more advanced in literally every way.

RocketLab has been executing quickly and their next generation Neutron rocket will be on the market literally a decade before any reusable offering from Arianespace. Their engine development is working on a staged rocket engine far more advanced then ESA next generation engine. Development on that engine is progressing much, much faster and is cheaper.

Relativity's Terran R rocket is deep in development. Lots of component testing and fully built engines being tested. Their Terran R will also hit market many, many years ahead of whatever Ariane Next is gone.

And in fact, while all these people working on next generation system, there isn't even the glimmer of political agreement about development of a next generation European system.

Either you are just lying or you have not actually studied the launch market at all.

All while being independent from the whims of one single individual, ensuring independent launch capabilities for national security reasons.

Yeah really sucks for the US to have 5 very aggressive competitive companies coming online. Much better to have monopoly that requires 5 billion $ to get the most basic rocket upgrade ever to fly.

pantalaimon• 2 years ago

Are you deliberately ignoring China?

EasyMark• 2 years ago

Not a big deal though, as long as they are independent of other nations (or regional coalitions), this is a huge boon for Europe, especially with what might happen in America after the next election and what happened to Russia and China a long time ago.

christkv• 2 years ago

The main genius of SpaceX is the mass production. Hopefully they can replicate that in the future.

TheLoafOfBread7• 2 years ago

Well question is why would EU want mass production of rockets and for what purpose?

TMWNN4• 2 years ago

For context, my understanding is that SpaceX builds one new Falcon 9 upper stage (not reused) every day. I doubt there is another entity on earth building a new rocket every month.

SpaceX has a large fleet of Falcon 9 reusable boosters, but still needs to build one every now and then.

contrarian12342• 2 years ago

Are the Europeans wworried that "between now and 2030s" the US will cut off their access to space?

I understand things can go wrong and it's good to have a backup plan in the long term... But that's not that many years out. You can go without access for a few years .. It seems like a tiny risk

PedroBatista• 2 years ago

Looking at the geopolitical situation both next door and across the pond the answer is a yes.

Also keeping the expertise and the people is a critical factor.

jltsiren4• 2 years ago

The US has been an unreliable partner since Bush Jr. became the president. Every 4 years, there is a real risk that things will go wrong.

nabla92• 2 years ago

Not really, but European countries launch military payloads and other strategic stuff like Galileo satellites and communication satellites.

All are friends with NATO, but that does not exclude spying and all kinds of shenanigans. US spies non-Five Eye countries mercilessly. They get caught sometimes. Like the systematic wiretapping trough Danish cables from 2012-2014.

Beretta_Vexee5• 2 years ago

Are the Europeans wworried that "between now and 2030s" the US will cut off their access to space?

Ariane Group is first and foremost a defense company owned by the French state, Germany and several other European countries.

Ariane group designs and manufactures French ICBMs. This is a significant part of its business.

The French government wants a sovereign means of putting heavy military satellites into orbit (twice the weight of the Hubble telescope).

The French state will never let its intelligence, early warning and nuclear deterrent depend on the United States.

dividedbyzero• 2 years ago

In the event of another Trump presidency (or a successor in spirit) getting cut off for military purposes is probably more like expected, and in a post-NATO world Russia might get a lot more aggressive towards western Europe. That's probably what is behind most such time horizons right now, but even in the mid to long term, rocket tech will remain highly strategic (e.g. for nuclear weapon delivery), and capabilities like that need to be built up well before any conflict escalates.

boricj4• 2 years ago

The French mantra is strategic autonomy. We are allies with the USA, we are not vassals of the USA and we do not want to depend on anybody else to defend our own interests or our own agenda. This is why the French army has independent expeditionary and nuclear deterrent capabilities and why nearly all of our military kit is designed and produced either locally or in partnership with nearby European countries.

It's not that we don't trust the Americans per se (although opinions may differ on that topic), but we don't want to have to.

ArianeGroup also manufactures the M51 missile that goes inside our SSBNs and unlike the Brits we do not accept depending on Americans supplying us with the missiles for our nuclear deterrent.

badcppdev• 2 years ago

Sometimes nation states might disagree on what should be done in certain circumstances. An example of this is 39 years ago on this day the French government blew up a civilian boat in New Zealand [0]. Crazy but true. Having independent capabilities is part of being a sovereign rather than vassal state.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

yourusername• 2 years ago

Are the Europeans wworried that "between now and 2030s" the US will cut off their access to space?

Both US presidential candidates are not mentally well. Who knows what they might do.

cubefox8• 2 years ago

I think it would be, in the long term, more cost effective for ESA to contract two or three private European rocket start-ups, like RFA, to build such reusable launch vehicles. To create some competition in price and development speed. Arianespace (ArianeGroup) seems to be "old space" by now, similar to ULA or Boeing in the US.

JumpCrisscross31• 2 years ago

more cost effective for ESA to contract two or three private European rocket start-ups, like RFA, to build such reusable launch vehicles

That would trigger politically-impossible lay-offs in France.

protomolecule10• 2 years ago

SpaceX wasn't the first American rocket startup, other ones failed. What makes you think European startups won't fail?

m4rtink9• 2 years ago

Yeah, I think this is the only way Europe is going to get a viable reusable rocket in the end. Arianespace is a dead end.

nordsieck15• 2 years ago

6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar: reusable, RP-1/LOX, Prometheus engine is similar reusable open cycle engine as Merlin with lots of 3D printed parts.

1. Ariane Next will use a Methalox first stage and a Hydrolox 2nd stage[1], not Kerolox (RP-1).

2. Given how long it took to get Ariane 6 to the launch pad, and its similarities to Ariane 5, 6-10 year is very optimistic.

---

1. From what I understand, this is due to political wrangling. Germany wanted to make the engines for the 2nd stage. IMO SpaceX's approach of using the same engine everywhere is superior.

m4rtink9• 2 years ago

Not just the engines - using different propellants between stages complicates ground infrastructure & reduces economy of scale + parts commonality.

Reason0774• 2 years ago

“The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9.”

This actually seems quite reasonable considering the Ariane 6 is a non-reusable, low-volume design.

JumpCrisscross31• 2 years ago

seems quite reasonable considering the Ariane 6 is a non-reusable, low-volume design

It’s after subsidies [1]. Actual costs are 4 to 6x Falcon 9, and that’s comparing actual costs today for Falcon 9 to projected costs in the future for Ariane 6.

[1] https://www.space.com/europe-ariane-6-rocket-debut-launch

MrSkelter• 2 years ago

Falcon’s costs are a fiction.

SpaceX benefits from massive taxpayer support and uses facilities built by the military and NASA.

It’s not a like for like comparison especially give SpaceX keeping its books private and giving no clear public indication of how reusable its rockets really are or their refurb cost.

Given Musks history of creative accounting quoting their PR numbers, the ones they pitch congress, as facts is naive in the extreme.

JumpCrisscross31• 2 years ago

SpaceX benefits from massive taxpayer support and uses facilities built by the military and NASA

So does ArianeSpace [1]. (It’s majority owned by the French state. EDIT: It’s not.)

no clear public indication of how reusable its rockets really are or their refurb cost

Refurb rates and turnaround times for Falcon 9 first stages are publicly documented [2]. Refurb costs are more opaque, but they’d have to be multiples of what SpaceX charges to approach Ariane 6’s cost projections.

Ariane 6 is obsolete on arrival; ArianeSpace’s CEO admitted as much in asking the ESA to fund a reusable heavy booster like Falcon Heavy [3].

[1] https://www.space.com/europe-ariane-6-rocket-debut-launch

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_b...

[3] https://www.illdefined.space/arianespace-the-only-fish-in-th...

Xixi• 2 years ago

Ariane 6 is quite heavily subsidized, with ArianeGroup getting €340M per year to operate it [1]. With an expected 10 launches per year, that's about €34M/launch.

But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter: Europe needs to be able to put its own military satellites (or anything else critical) up there. Military satellites sold to third party countries also won't launch themselves...

[1] https://europeanspaceflight.com/arianegroup-to-receive-e340m...

hoseja• 2 years ago

Massive taxpayer support for such frivolous projects as the first and only global broadband (battlefield capable) communication system and the only working american human-rated launcher, both for quarter the cost the next guy would like to charge. Truly, shameless leeches.

Cipater2• 2 years ago

SpaceX benefits from massive taxpayer support

Ariane 6 was funded by European taxpayers to the tune of €2.815 billion.

and uses facilities built by the military and NASA.

Ariane is launched from the Guiana Space Centre which is owned and operated by the ESA. Since you haven't familiarised yourself with the topic, ESA is the European Space Agency and is owned by 22 European governments.

In addition, the member states of the ESA will subsidize the rocket for up to €340 million annually in return for an 11% discount on launches.

panick21_6• 2 years ago

Lol, how delusional.

ArianeGroup literally just got 5 billion $ plus use of lots of tax payer subsidized infrastructure. That is 4 billion $ more then SpaceX ever got for development of Falcon 9.

Falcon 9 got an old shitty broken down launch sites they had rebuild, ArianeGroup got a whole new built launch site for free.

But feel free to live in fantasy land.

It’s not a like for like comparison especially give SpaceX keeping its books private and giving no clear public indication of how reusable its rockets really are or their refurb cost.

Actual smart people and analyist firms have done a lot of work on this. And literally every single expert on the topic disagrees with you.

Its literally impossible to assume SpaceX is not saving money, because it would be insane for them to do 100+ launches if they couldn't do as cheaply as they claim.

Given Musks history of creative accounting quoting their PR numbers, the ones they pitch congress, as facts is naive in the extreme.

No idea what you are talking about. All SpaceX contracts with the government a fixed cost. What they actually cost doesn't matter, if SpaceX can't deliver, they pay it themselves.

If the were constantly offering prices cheaper then they can do things for, they wouldn't exist.

Its amazing the brain power it takes to believe that SpaceX is losing money on launches, losing money on development contracts, and is developing Starlink and Starship and is losing money on Starlink operations. But somehow they still exist because 'mmhhh they raised money'.

Problem is we know how much money SpaceX raised, you can look it up. And we know what they get paid for their government contract. Their money raising isn't that crazy, in fact, its hard to believe that they have enough to work on Starlink and Starship at the same time. Other companies have spent far, more on things that are far less impressive.

But somehow they did both at the same time while also developing human launch. Increasing launch rates. And taking on a number of other fixed price development contracts. And somehow they still exist.

Anybody who actually studies these numbers come to the same conclusion. And those simply don't agree with you. Go and actually try to build a model and do the numbers yourself. You will prove yourself wrong. But of course you wont do that, because you were already to lazy to look up what all the space analysts already concluded.

Better just keep repeating those anti-Musk talking points you found on twitter from people who wouldn't know what side of a rocket points up.

ekianjo• 2 years ago

do you imagine the ESAs some kind of private actor? its paid by the taxpayers whether it makes money or not

jve• 2 years ago

It’s not a like for like comparison especially give SpaceX keeping its books private and giving no clear public indication of how reusable its rockets really are or their refurb cost.

Elon in some interview was stating that Falcon architecture limits reusability to particular amount days so it is not _rapidly_ reusable in comparison to having Starship being catched by tower/reused rapidly. However mentioning merely days - that is surely pretty reusable and makes economical sense.

https://youtu.be/aFqjoCbZ4ik?si=pK-tptp0XbmOeoWN&t=432

"... a couple days to get booster back. At least a few days to refurbish it for flight ..."

In practice, wiki mentions 21 days as fastest turnaround for a single booster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_b... - So that means bringing booster back with ship, refurbishing, putting on the new payload and launching again.

sandworm101• 2 years ago

There is more to SpaceX than just cost comparisons. SpaceX is a US company, meaning anyone wanting on the rocket has to submit to a host of space-related regulations and US national security policies. Some launches don't want to, or cannot, deal with such oversight. A doubling of launch costs seems huge, but operating satellites isn't cheap. Many launches may prefer the premium price if it means launching on a European rocket.

InTheArena5• 2 years ago

Having followed the launch industry for 30 years, I can safely tell you that this is the exact line that every competitor (save RocketLabs and the startups fueled by the SpaceX diaspora of engineers) says whenever they are trying to justify their legacy wasteful rockets. Even Rocketlab's CEO had to "eat his hat" when he finally realized that the cost difference was real, that reusability was here to stay, and they had to develop a direct competitor to SpaceX.

SpaceX provides a per-seat, per-launch cost, not a direct government subsidy - That would be ULA. ULA was literally a direct mechanism for transferring tax revenue to large multi-national defense companies to procure "independent access to space" (sound familiar?).

They do use (and pay for and lease) NASA and Air Force facilities - but in America, airports are government institutions as well, that are explicitly leased out to airlines. Reuse of NASA's unused resources, rather than destroying them (or paying for the upkeep) after the shuttle program, was an explicit political decision.

So why isn't SpaceX cheaper? They have kept prices high (but still lower than everyone else) to help fund Starlink. The fact that they can do so is reflective of Falcon's costs.

Reusability is real. Ariane 6 is nothing more then the ULAification of Arianespace.

fallingknife3• 2 years ago

You don't actually believe that a rocket that is thrown away every launch could possibly be cost competitive with one that can be reused 20 times, do you?

bryanlarsen• 2 years ago

massive taxpayer support

When the Forest Service buys a truck from Ford do you also call that "taxpayer support"? The government buys stuff from SpaceX, it hasn't directly subsidized SpaceX for years. The government buys from the lowest bidder, which is almost always SpaceX. For example, NASA estimated that it would have to pay $1.5B to deorbit the ISS. After tender, SpaceX bid and won with an $843M bid. Who is subsidizing who here?

uses facilities built by the military and NASA.

And for which it pays quite dearly for, on the order of $1M per launch. It's quite clear from Rocket Lab's books that operating their own launch facility is far cheaper than using the Space Force's or NASA's.

creative accounting quoting their PR numbers,

To win their contracts, SpaceX has had to open their books to both the Space Force and NASA. It's one thing to lie to the press in a tweet, it's quite another to lie to the military in audited books. The press may be gullible, but army accountants are not incompetent and the consequences for lying to the military are not minor.

SpaceX's books are not open, but the amount they receive from the government is very public. It's quite obvious that SpaceX is highly profitable. They receive well under $2B from the government each year, they sell a couple dozen other rocket launches to others for ~$70M apiece, have not raised money for over 18 months, have a payroll approaching $1B per year and are quite obviously sinking multiple billions each year into Starship and Starlink. The only way the numbers add up is if Starlink is ridiculously cheap to build and Falcon is ridiculously cheap to launch.

dotnet0013• 2 years ago

It's sad seeing this delusional take despite all the evidence to the contrary.

panick21_6• 2 years ago

Ariane 6 exists so that European countries can get independent access to space between now and 2030s.

No it doesn't. That directly contradicts the actual rational for Ariane 6 as outlined in 2014.

There were two options, Ariane 6 or Ariane 5 ME. With France principally favoring Ariane 6 and Germany Ariane 5 ME. With Ariane 6 costing many billions, and Ariane 5 ME costing a few 100 million $.

The Ariane 5 ME would have done the 'independent access to space between now and 2030s' just fine.

The explicit reason why they wanted Ariane 6 was to remain competitive against the Falcon 9. They were starting to lose launches on mass to Falcon 9 already by 2014 and were panicking.

Its simply PR spin to now pretend this never happened. But rather admit that they spend 5 billion $ to lose the commercial market anyway and were basically now subsidizing uncommunicative launches for US cooperations instead.

Ariane 6 achieved the exact opposite of what its rational was in 2014. Instead of helping Europe pay for its space industry, it has to be subsidized.

6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design will be very similar: reusable, RP-1/LOX, Prometheus engine is similar reusable open cycle engine as Merlin with lots of 3D printed parts.

Sure in fantasy land this is true. The reality is, after the gigantic expanse of Ariane 6, that cost way more then expected. With Europe having huge debt and Ukraine was, plus very expensive new space systems, there is very little actual drive towards a new large rocket system.

Such a rocket system would again cost many, many billions and this will be politically impossible, not just because of the money.

Beyond the rational mentioned above, the reason Ariane 6 was picked, was that France was willing to give solid booster contracts to Italy. So France literally 'paid off' Italy to get them on board Ariane 6.

The reality is, Italy simply will not wnat to move away from solids. And Germany is, very, very, very unlikely to be onboard for another gigantic rocket investment, after they already didn't want the Ariane 6 in the first place. Without Germany and Italy there simply isn't gone be a 'next big European rocket'.

Between your optimistic 6 years prediction, I would say 2040 is a much more likely date then 2030. We have already seen delay with the test platforms. And we are already seen a collapse of the 'all ArianeGroup' all the time mantra that Europe had. The idea that ESA would hand ArianeGroup another 5 billion $ in the current environment just isn't gone happen.

And this is simply because of exactly what people already pointed out in 2014. Wait until the technology is ready, and then develop a next generation rocket, rather then rush out a sub-optimal design 'quickly'.

Now they have shot their powder and are stuck on a slightly improved Ariane 5 rocket with no reasonable path for upgrade. Exactly as many critics have pointed out in 2014.

reusable, RP-1/LOX, Prometheus engine is similar reusable open cycle engine as Merlin with lots of 3D printed parts.

Prometheus has been in development since 2015 already, and they are not even at full duration testing yet. Bragging about a new GG engine today isn't that impressive, not for a space power that has been making engines for decades.

RocketLab, has just recently switched from Gas Generator to Staged. And with much less money their Archimedes seems to be developing much faster then Prometheus while being much more advanced.

Europe is just being out executed in so many way. RocketLab will basically develop a complete new rocket and advanced engine for a cost comparable to what Europe spends on engine development and re-usability test programs.

RocketLab will put this stuff into commercial deployment a decade before ArianeGroup despite having started years later.

Sorry, I'm not that impressed by 'maybe in 2035 we will clone SpaceX architecture from 2020' just with a much less optimized engine.

admissionsguy• 2 years ago

6-10 years from now Ariane Next/SALTO will aims replicate Falcon 9 efficiency and the design

That's what presentation by some high-ranking ESA person said when I was considering joining a Master's program in Spacecraft Design in Kiruna, Sweden, where some ESA launch facilities are located. I found that goal extremely uninspiring, especially combined with European salaries, so I opted to keep getting paid well working on software to feed people more burgers.

Cthulhu_5• 2 years ago

It may be 2x the cost of Falcon 9, but it's a different use case and volume (~10 per year for Ariane, ~100 for Falcon 9); Ariane 6 would not be cheaper at those volumes if it was reusable.

Also keep in mind that most of Falcon's use is for SpaceX itself, 2/3rds of launches are for Starlink.

zitterbewegung• 2 years ago

Not sure why everyone here is talking about cost when independent control is much more to be desired. If a country / countries aren’t as friendly or dislike what you want to do they might not let you do what you want.

Sakos• 2 years ago

The launch cost is almost 2x the cost of Falcon 9.

I can't be the only one who thinks this is still a huge win. What did launch costs look like 10-30 years ago?

m4rtink9• 2 years ago

The problem with this is, that at that point Europe will be most likely again behind not just Space X, with fully reusable Starship likely being operational but possibly even some Chinese Falcon 9 clones (once they get the hold-down clamps sorted out).

Sure, Ariane 6 is a stop gap and likely has some interesting tech that will be useful later on, but it was stupid not starting a full blown reusable rocket program at the same time, when it became evident how much of a dead end it is.

tristor• 2 years ago

but it was stupid not starting a full blown reusable rocket program at the same time, when it became evident how much of a dead end it is.

Redundancy in novel fields is not a waste, it creates opportunities to try subtly different approaches in various places, and in so doing creates new knowledge that can progress all similar projects in the future. At some point, if you dump the same amount of human resources into a single project vs separate projects, you end up with something approaching the same thing, but resources (dollars/people) aren't entirely fungible and having separated projects provides an opportunity for cultural dissimilarity and other human factors to create innovation that would otherwise be stifled in a larger funded project.

Personally, I am really happy to see how much investment from many different angles is happening around space.

tocs3• 2 years ago

Falcon 9 made its first landing (during an orbital mission) Dec. 2015[1]. It was very successful after that.

The Ariane 6 program was selected Dec 2014[2].

Reusable vehicles are clearly the way to go but that was a little early to say Falcon 9 was going to be the success it is today.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6

karaokeyoga• 2 years ago

| Nevertheless, it had several passengers on board.

"passengers" → "payloads", I assume.

the_mitsuhiko• 2 years ago

I’m happy it exists but it’s incredibly disappointing how non competitive it is. There was a lot of hubris in the project in the beginning and now it’s clear that they are years behind. Which in turn makes future funding a challenge I’m sure.

I really hope they don’t give up and manage become more ambitious.

szundi• 2 years ago

Funding hard to lose when the end result is needed and is a strategic objective. Not funding it would make the EU depend on others and knowledge would be lost.

Interesting to think about a way how these perfectly connected people could be exchanged to some new, pragmatic generation.

trueismywork3• 2 years ago

Yeah, but govt could find multiple companies instead of a monopoly. Encourage domestic competition.

6274676• 2 years ago

knowledge is preserved by having more people have it and build upon it. subsidizing decaying incumbents is not an effective way to preserve knowledge

jari_mustonen• 2 years ago

Even though this is not impressive compared to SpaceX, it is still essential that we have multiple actors building rockets. The competition makes sure that SpaceX needs to push the boundaries. Our future as a multi-planetary species is not dependent on a single actor.

I'm hoping for some space race. It would be great if the United States would transfer a part of MIC funding to space exploration.

amelius3• 2 years ago

I don't think it is that impressive anymore. We've been building rockets for decades. Making them return to Earth is peanuts compared to building a self driving car. You can even make a simulation that is 99% accurate without much effort. Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics.

Of course, building a rocket requires a shit-ton of resources, so if anything is impressive then it's the management of those resources.

ur-whale3• 2 years ago

Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics.

Disagree.

The newtonian physics part of flying a rocket is indeed the boring part of rocket science in these days of Ghz computing.

But all the engineering (an altogether different - if related - discipline) required is anything but simple.

And engineering and all of its sub-disciplines (materials science, propellant research, iterative refinement, operational research, logistics, 3d printing, computing, simulation, structural engineering, etc...) is both where the complexity lives and where the greatest progress in rocket science has been made.

The devil is in details, as usual.

flohofwoe3• 2 years ago

Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics.

Spoken like a true software engineer ;)

JumpCrisscross31• 2 years ago

it is still essential that we have multiple actors building rockets. The competition

Twice the cost and at a small fraction of the frequency is competition in the way a rubber duck competes with a battle ship.

Ariana 6 isn’t meaningful competition. ArianeSpace’s sole value is in its potential of becoming competition if one day sensibly managed.

isodev• 2 years ago

It needs to start somewhere, right? We can't "just build" a NX-class starship without sciencing it out and R&D.

moffkalast• 2 years ago

Yeah this is ESA's see-we-have-domestic-launch-capability pointless SLS tier project basically, my tax dollars at work.

I'm really puzzled at the lack of investment into any kind of reusable launch vehicle that could even come close to competing with SpaceX. Launching on this expensive relic of the past makes zero sense unless your payload is a military spysat.

mytailorisrich2• 2 years ago

SpaceX came to be because of all of the knowledge, skills, industry, and people produced by NASA and the US taxpayers.

So it is crucial for Europe to maintain and develop its knowledge and industrial base, but indeed they should also adapt to compete because that's the only way to survive in the long term.

swarnie• 2 years ago

I'm not sure its meant to be "competetive", the intention is to have independent route to space for Europe.

Depending on Russia or the USA is an intolerable risk.

TheLoafOfBread7• 2 years ago

Arianne 6 is not about competition, but about strategic independence at the first place.

wongarsu• 2 years ago

We do have a minor space race between the Artemis program and the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program.

It's not as high-profile as the race to the first moon landing, but America's new ambitions to returning to the Moon are at least in part fueled by not wanting to be upstaged by the Chinese. Now both are aiming for putting humans on the moon again before 2030, and both have plans for at least one moon base (that each originally announced to happen before 2030)

mrtksn2• 2 years ago

Unfortunately the mission didn't perform smoothly as intended at the end, there was an issue with the auxiliary power unit and it wasn't able to de-orbit once deployed the cubesats:

https://x.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1810794808828641546

dotnet0013• 2 years ago

*auxiliary propulsion unit :)

It isn't the same thing as the APU in a plane (where I think most people are getting the 'auxiliary power unit'). The APU here is a secondary thruster which ensures proper pressure (and likely ullage) for the main engine to start.

mrtksn2• 2 years ago

Haha right, I paused for a second as I couldn't remember the exact word and went with power. Thanks for the correction and the explanation.

r721• 2 years ago

Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40918284 (57 comments)

snowpid6• 2 years ago

In Germany there are 3 companies, I heard in France 2 companies, I don't any in other parts of Europe but there are definitely but I suppose the European rocket start up pipeline is filled.

P. S. HN please tell me about your (European) nation's future rocket builder.

Maken• 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miura_5

T-A2• 2 years ago

I still don't know how seriously to take it, but this one really stands out from the crowd:

https://www.sidereus.space/

https://europeanspaceflight.com/sidereus-space-dynamics-comp...

snowpid6• 2 years ago

Now I found this one as well from Poland https://europeanspaceflight.com/ilr-33-amber-2k-makes-histor...

snowpid6• 2 years ago

Also here is a non rocket space device from Germany https://www.polaris-raumflugzeuge.de/ (I cant judge their seriousness, but they got funding by military)

witx2• 2 years ago

I guess something is better than nothing. But it's a shame to be launching something that seems obsolete from the start

Cthulhu_5• 2 years ago

It's not obsolete if it works and there's people paying for it. Most space rockets are decades old tech, calling it obsolete seems pointless.

witx2• 2 years ago

Obsolete as in it can be competitive or not ...

cooper_ganglia• 2 years ago

This is Europe's slogan.

sociorealist• 2 years ago

"but muuuh SpaceX ftw!"

The inspection costs needed for reusability are undervalued by the SpaceX fantroopers.

cabirum2• 2 years ago

No mention of an engine failure and the last payload could not be delivered. It is now floating helplessly in orbit, effectively turned into space debris, endangering other projects.

mauriciolange• 2 years ago

There were no last payload to be delivered. The remaining payload was intended to deorbit along with the second stage.

cabirum2• 2 years ago

"but the mission ended with the launcher coasting in orbit without releasing its final batch of payloads.", Reuters[1].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/europes-ariane-6-ro...

adolph• 2 years ago

The plan was for the last payloads to separate from second stage and deorbit along with it. That was the delivery.

  35:13
  end of this the upper stage will flip in space and restart the Vinci engine to 
  break and set itself on a collision
  35:19
  course with Earth burning up in our atmosphere and limiting space debris but   
  before it touches atmosphere two
  35:26
  capsules are set to detach and had on their own mission to survive the extreme     
  temperatures of the re-entry and all
  35:32
  three elements will then splash down in the Pacific Ocean far away from 
  civilization this will end our mission
  [0]

  [...]

  4:42:58
  according to this new situation which means that the Vinci engine decided not
  4:43:04
  to restart because there was no ipu uh operating so he was not in a good 
  condition to restart and so there was a
  4:43:12
  passivation of the upper stage which was triggered in order to make it an object
  4:43:18
  which does not create um dangers of debris and the passivation works
  4:43:25
  perfectly according to plan uh and also it was the the launcher system decided
  4:43:32
  automatically not to to release the two capsules the two passengers because it
  4:43:39
  would have created additional debr and so uh we have an event which is not
  4:43:44
  understood yet which is why did the Apu stop but all the rest of the mission was
  [1]

0. https://youtu.be/B0oFpOJaIYc?t=2113

1. https://youtu.be/B0oFpOJaIYc?t=16978

gkedzierski• 2 years ago

This is great! Now we're waiting for Themis to become a reality.

cdydsaigon• 2 years ago

thank you

numpad0• 2 years ago

Previous livestream submission, just 16 hours earlier than this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40918284

Top comment from above submission:

  mrtksn 18 hours ago
  IIUC this is one of those projects that the governments fund when the free market solution doesn't exist.
  Sure, Falcon 9 or Soyuz exists but those are foreign entities that might become unavailable due to politics, therefore a local solution must be developed even if its not the most cost effective. It also must help train and retain local talent and distribute funds to participating parties.
  So, it may be a bit expensive but in the end you get a rocket, a workforce who knows how to design and build rockets and they happen to spend the money they receive locally.
  IMHO they should invest in video production and art too, no one ever comes close to Space X in that department.
  edit: Wow, so much negativity for a successful launch.

nanna• 2 years ago

Beyond the great emotion I am feeling right now, my first thoughts are for all the teams in Kourou, Paris, Vernon, Les Mureaux, Toulouse, Bremen, Lampoldshausen, Liège, Barcelona, Colleferro, Zürich and everywhere else in Europe who made this success possible.

Would the UK have been a part of this pre-Brexit?

alibarber• 2 years ago

The UK is still part of ESA.

They do not have a direct involvement in the Ariane project however.

mglz• 2 years ago

The UK is part of ESA, which should be independant from EU membership. I am not sure where Ariane 6 parts are built though.

ThinkBeat• 2 years ago

Too bad they are not equipped to rescue the 2 astro nauts Boeing has been left stranded on the ISS for over a month.

There they are munching up unbudgeted food and oxygen.

Which will not be a problem, since ISS should have a reserve supply for 3 months, but it should impact the the next supply run.

Will Boeing bring them back?

I would think NASA has reached out to SpaceX, and possibly the Russians (? in today political climate?) and asked what their rescue capabilities might be. SpaceX seems likely to be able to prepare rescue rocket fairly quickly?

dotnet0013• 2 years ago

If they were actually stranded, the Crew Dragon being prepared for a private flight in August would probably be in the process of being prepared for heading to the ISS instead.

They are not stranded. They are staying because this Starliner is rated for 45 days at the station and since the service module (the location of the helium leak) is disposed of before reentry. Better to delay and attempt to gather as much information about the leak as possible while they can still run tests than have to try to figure out what might've been wrong after the fact.

delta_p_delta_x• 2 years ago

The bearishness, pessimism, and criticism in this thread—especially by just a handful of prolific commenters—is off-the-charts.

We have people comparing strategic assets and state-owned enterprises to private commercial enterprises. Well done.

Gud• 2 years ago

Sorry, but the pessimism, criticism and bearishness is warranted.

By now, making a new rocket today that is non-reusable is like inventing the penny farthing and trying to compete in modern day tour the France.

Europe deserves to be led by bold industrialists, not ran by frightened bureaucrats.

GMoromisato2• 2 years ago

This reminds me of reading about the launch of the HMS Dreadnought in 1906. The Dreadnought was a revolutionary battleship: a turbine engine made it faster than any other battleship, and it had all 12-inch guns (instead of a wasteful mix of small and large guns).

It was so clearly superior to all other battleships that the name "dreadnought" become a generic name for a modern battleship.

But here's the thing: navies around the world resisted building their own dreadnoughts. If you've spent your military treasure on pre-dreadnought battleships, how do you explain to citizens that they're all obsolete and you need to start from scratch?

And so it is with reusable rockets. In 2018, Alain Charmeau, an ArianeSpace exec, said that re-usable rockets make no sense because, "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!" And that would be bad because what do you do with the employees? [1]

This is classic sunk-cost fallacy.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/ariane-chief-seems-f...

GMoromisato2• 2 years ago

At the risk of beating a dead horse: In 2018, Starship was not even fully designed (later that year they switched to stainless steel instead of carbon-composite).

Yet Starship managed to fly into orbit and re-enter successfully before Ariane 6 flew even once.

TMWNN4• 2 years ago

later that year they switched to stainless steel instead of carbon-composite

A decision which, according to Isaacson's Elon Musk, Musk insisted on against considerable opposition from his engineers. One more point against the frequent claim that Musk isn't a "real" engineer/doesn't really do anything at SpaceX.

Europe's new heavy-lift rocket, Ariane 6, made its inaugural flight

Related Stories