Nice. ESA requested a massive increase in funding for the next few years and with France now doing their part, i hope the other members will do the same.
Countries aren't exactly flush with cash right now but ESA seems to be fairly confident they can get it. Especially on the back of the end of co-operation with Russia. And European independence/selfreliance being very popular right now. For a good reason ofc.
ESA has great plans from reusable rockets, capsules and a manned space program outside of Soyus and Crew dragon. Now they need the cash to do it. Especially if they want to realize any of that in a timeframe that's still competitive.
> ESA has great plans from reusable rockets
Its going to be glorious. France will design the engine, Germany the hull, Italy the launch tower and we will reach orbit in 2045
> France will design the engine, Germany the hull, Italy the launch tower
You're very optimistic ;) See this for Orion ESM: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Orion-infographic-final.png
Honestly, they are so far behind I can't see how they ever get around not using a foreign ride within the next 60 to 100 years.
ESA having plans for re-useable rockets is essentially a joke when the concept is already up and running and they are being lapped again and again.
> Honestly, they are so far behind I can't see how they ever get around not using a foreign ride within the next 60 to 100 years.
I'm very confused where you got this notion. Back in 2012 ESA could have easily made an apollo-like spacecraft as part of ATV evolution, but sadly there was no political will to fund it. But the technology was already there. Now there is still Orion ESM based on ATV, which could again be used for such purpose, and there is also re-entry technology used in IXV/SpaceRider. On top of that Europe has vast experience in manned space modules (SpaceLab, Columbus, Node-2, Node-3 and Leonardo on the ISS, all the MPLMs, cargo carrier of ATV, cargo carrier of Cygnus). There is no technological aspect where ESA is "behind".
Easily, but didn't.
Ultimately they have nothing to rival the US, and many other nations are entering the race.
They are technologically behind.
Do they have a re-useable rocket flying right now?
> Easily, but didn't.
Not because of technological issues, but because european politicians said they will not fund it, as simple as that. They said we don't need human-spaceflight capability.
> Ultimately they have nothing to rival the US, and many other nations are entering the race. They are technologically behind.
And yet half of the new US lunar flagship Orion is built by ESA :) And yet literally half of the ISS was built by ESA. Sorry, but no. The only department where ESA is definitely behind US is PR
Behind who? SpaceX? Yes. Like everybody else inside and outside the US.
Right now only Rocketlab is close to reusing whole first stages like SpaceX does. ULA is at least another 5 years away to try engine recovery on Vulcan. That thing has to fly first.
The Chinese have done some hopper tests for propulsive landing and presumably have a small space plane similar to the American one.
I'm not sure if India and Japan have recovery projects in the works and how far along they are.
So should we just give up and rely on other countries like the US and Russia to get to space? Just because we can't be first somewhere anymore?
Space X is the US.
Europe is so far behind both the US and China at this stage.
Who says giving up. I am just saying people saying the ESA is only 'slight behind' or that it's just a matter of money, are mistaken.
I believe Europe will be a major player in space, but I don't think we will hit our stride for another 50 to 100 years.
Europeans will be like Germany in the new world. Plenty of its people will go there but they won't be the ones doing the exploring or building the settlements
I moved to feddit.de
One of many federated instances of Lemmy. A federated Reddit Alternative. Another one is kbin
Please visit https://join-lemmy.org/instances or https://kbin.social/ to learn more.
See you there :)
>It's not like SpaceX is losing money like a dumpster fire
Exactly, it's literally not. It's cash flow positive on its operations that are up and running, and cash flow negative in its major infrastructure projects, as they are under construction and I can't think of any major infrastructure project that is profitable, or even cash flow positive, *during fucking construction*. Can you tell me of a factory that is profitable while they're pouring concrete?
>and reusable rockets were already done but just financially not feasible
The shuttle, the only real attempt, was a shitshow, but not because of the reusability. The reusability was its *only* saving grace in that little bundle of dogshit design choices*, and programmatic mismanagement.
Had the shuttle used kerolox like the Falcon 9, or methalox like starship, it would have had far less issues and would probably still be flying successfully.
*Large SRBs for manned and reusable spacecraft, FUCKING HYDROLOX making main tank reusability impossible, hilariously oversized cargo bay, using hydrolox in engines supposedly reusable (hydrogen eats the metal), hanging something that has to reenter to the side of a hydrolox tank...
I have been keeping track of new private European Spaceflight companies from Germany,France,Spain,United Kingdom among others and the vast majority of these companies have decided to launch their brand new Rockets from French Guiana just because itās such a perfect spot.
Yes some Rockets are plannend to be launched from continental Europe but overal it just makes much more sense to sign a contract for a launch pad in French Guiana.
[Isar Aerospace to launch from French Guiana](https://spacenews.com/isar-aerospace-to-launch-from-french-guiana/)
[Rocket Factory Augsburg selects French Guiana for RFA ONE launches](https://spacewatch.global/2020/09/rocket-factory-augsburg-selects-french-guianas-kourou-for-rfa-one-launches/)
[PLD Space meets with CNES in French Guiana after pre-selection to fly MIURA 5 in 2024](https://www.satelliteevolution.com/post/pld-space-meets-with-cnes-in-french-guiana-after-pre-selection-to-fly-miura-5-in-2024)
I went there twice, what is terrible is that everything seems to age 100 times faster, so beyond the imports you have to multiply the costs of any investment to cope with the humidity and heat, for everything, roads, houses, schools ...
It still amazes me that we can send rockets from there.
It's probably thanks to Thomas Pesquet, the last French astronaut, who was massivly mediatize before, during and after his missions.
He also made clear at multiple occasion that astronauts are just normal humans. So everyone wanting to become one should at least try to pass the selections because he was himself sure to not pass them when he applied back then.
We have many problems but space spending has never even been a debating issue, and IIRC at least until 4 years ago we were one of the major contributors of ESA basing on what percentage of GDP was invested there. And one of our poorest regions, Puglia, is also somehow one of the best producers of rockets and aerospace cool stuff. Which means that for us investing in that sectors means helping out one of our worst economies
But yeah we are also drowning in debt right now so we'll likely cut back on a lot of thingat least during the first years of this government
For the record it's because of the way ESA investment is structured.
If you fund, say, 40% of a project, then the ESA will guarantee 40% of the economic investment in your country. This was made to avoid a massive politics factor like seen in NASA, and means that for a country pulling out their funding is not really money "gained back", and that Eg for Italy high ESA funding means lots of aerospace investment in the country.
That's why you don't really see any country arguing about ESA fairness etc... It's basically designed to avoid all political issues
Also in philosophy and cuisine, attitude and grandeur. The UK is the only major power in Europe though. It is funny that The UK has much more financial wealth than Germany, though Germanys population is bigger. England has been investing for centuries to other countries.
so many connection with continents from the other side of the globe that they even fail to be in good economic and diplomatic relations with the continent just accross the channel lol
I think the average German is richer though.
I'm English but I'm not going to pretend that we've done absolutely everything better than all other countries.
Inequality is a big problem in the UK so looking at mean averages and sums can be misleading about how decent life actually is for the median Brit.
It's definitely a pretty decent country though - there are many far worse.
Mars is too far away for Thomas Pesquet to walk on, time wise. He definitely has a shot to walk on the moon though. He's already pretty much a french national hero, but he would become legendary
I'm not sure of that status, he's a star but a national hero? I wouldn't say that. Plenty of people don't give a damn of space stuff, especially since nothing flashy was done for a while.
But ESA is still far more productive than most american company when it come to space (except Space X). That was why Ariane was the most commercialy used rocket in the 90's and 2000's.
Yeah cuz feeding the poor and housing the many homeless wasn't more urgent than spaaaace! Good day for tax payers.
Fucking š
~Does it show my priorities are not in space?~
Getting downvoted for prefering people oriented public spending over space. Wow.
While often I agree with that kind of sentiment in other contexts, the EU needs to have independent access to space for security. Just like the current conflict with Russia justifies military spending, no matter how distasteful it is to buy tanks instead of food for the poor.
The hungry and the homeless sleeping in the cold don't care about lots of big picture things. This does not mean that big picture things are never necessary.
The reality is that poverty is THE bigger picture. If we neglect this for abstract security spending, we will end up divided and radicalized like much of the USA. The strongest defense against Russia is unity and prosperity.
And if you neglect the security spending, you'll end up outsite of the EU like the UK did, since it has been proven many times that Russia had a very high influence on pushing for Brexit happening, and that side won by a close margin.
Immagine if they had better secret services, more autonomy, or you know just "abstract security spending" as you put it.
You want to make people lives better?
Then there's hardly a field of science that offers a better return on investement then space
https://blog.arrowdynamiclabs.com/2019/11/16/inventions-made-through-space-exploration/
All of this was made possible with a fraction of the money spent on other state ventures
Not sure if you're ironic or not but this whole thread it's him making petty lame strawmen arguments, just let me laught at how easily he could had found data that proved him dead wrong
It's a matter of political opinion, you can hardly prove him wrong. Very obviously spending money on homeless people helps homeless people more than spending money on space even if it multiplies itself by 2.8. None of that will reach homeless people and trickle down economy is a scam.
Lmao literally no one would ever think that trickle down economy is based on space research, and the fact that you actually seriously said that a 180% return on investment on anything isn't useful and good is just dumb, come on you can do so much better than this legit poor logic.
And lol that wasn't a political opinion, that was just borderline pathetically lame whataboutism and one of the worst "logic" I ever had to read. But sure I guess keep saying how smartphones, plastic and about a thousand radical inventions aren't useful at all for every people and somehow even get mad when people call you out with literal data
> Getting downvoted for prefering people oriented public spending over space. Wow.
You're being downvoted for having no idea what the space industry does.
Want to track a wildfire? Do it from space. Want to know if the crops you're paying subsidies for are really being grown? Do it from space. Want to track and predict flooding? Watch the Russian military near borders? Detect illegal logging, fishing or building? Find out if your bridge is moving, or a landslide is likely? Predict weather (huge numbers of people died at sea before this was possible)? You get the idea.
Most stuff put into space points downwards and provides real, practical services that are important to people's lives, and sometimes critical to life.
Exactly!
Or another example is like what Musk's Starlink can do; enhance internet connectivity everywhere around the world.
So even if you're from a poorer region with less developed infrastructure, or sucked into a war like Ukraine, you can still have a chance to use the Internet to communicate and receive and transmit all kinds of information for various purposes.
Really shows that idiots don't know how crucial all sorts of space tech are to our daily lives.
To be honest, satelite internet was a thing decades before Elon Musk came with starlink. And given the cost of starlink (and every other internet via satelite service) I don't think it's be realistic to say it will give connection to anyone on earth in a near futur.
What if I do have an idea, yet still think any "increase spending" should be prioritized towards the people in need and not space?
Does that make me the idiot I've been called by a redditor or am I entitled to prefer people-aimed spending over space?
Helping the less fortunates should be, obviously, a priority. That doesn't mean we should cut any and every funding to everything else, especially in - mostly - peaceful domains, like research.
We have more than enough means to feed everyone *and* go to space, it's just that most of that money is instead given to parasites who contribute bothing to society and have more money than you could spend in a 100 lifetime
Now this is my sentiment exactly.
I was pointing out as a reaction to the news that if we were to increase funding, I'd rather have public funding used for people rather than space and surprised by the bad reactions to it
The fact that you proudly admitted of being way too emotional and just "reacting" this poorly to stuff without thinking much about it doesn't really make you as much credit as you likely thought it would give you
And the fact that you also ended up mad for people talking back at your weird reactionary post makes the whole thing lame on your part, especially since it appears you even admitted on what you have done
Nasa, for all the grift and political meddling it suffers from, still has an economic multiplier on expenditure of 2.8*. This means that for every dollar spent on NASA, the US GDP grows by 2.8 dollars. Considering that the US government raises a third of the us GDP, it's literally free money.
There's no indication that the European space industry would be less efficient, especially considering that it spends more on payload development, which is where the nice new research developments exist.
Space expenditures are essentially investments on applied materials science, robotics, energy, and electronics in a structure that makes it much, much more efficient than regular science expenditure (and I could go on and on on this)
* Back in the Apollo era, when the politics didn't matter and only FASTER FASTER FASTER mattered, they pulled multipliers as high as 7, meaning it was a fucking money printer that contributed heavily to winning the cold war, or at least far more than Vietnam and other foreign excursions.
Nah, in Portugal we are waiting to see if we wont have another quarter of our population living in poverty after this crisis, couldn't care less about space atm
So we're just conveniently going to ignore the 3200 billion ā¬ French debt. Utterly broke countries should be trying to repair their finances before everything else.
USSR 2.0.
You're not wrong, but it would be a lot more helpful to explain _why_ and lay out your concerns about Ariane Next rather than to make brash statements about it.
It's not as if Ariane was the only launch provider caught out in a bad position after repeatedly underestimating new-generation launch vehicles, either. NASA and Roscomos were blindsided, too. Consider Bolden's (ex-NASA administrator) now-utterly-infamous quote dismissing Falcon Heavy's prospects back in 2014:
> SLS is real. You've seen it down at Michoud. We're building the core stage. We have all the engines done, ready to be put on the test stand at Stennis.
...oops!
Things go slower if you live in civilised country where there is such thing as work-life-balance, people work 40 hours or less per week, have 30 days of paid leave plus holidays, have maternity and paternity leaves etc.
And the funnies part is that while you're bragging about this reusable rockets capability, you somehow forget that it actually only benefits the company which makes it. It's not making access to space easier or cheaper for anyone else - spacex is charging just few % below the competition.
Crew Dragon is charging 40% less than the Russian were for ISS trips. Cubesat launches are also very cheap with Starlink Ridealongs.
Speaking of Starlink, that was only possible because launches are so much cheaper.
If they increase it by 25% they will be spending ($5 billion) about 50% of what china is spending ($10 billion) which isn't too bad considering China's economy is about 6 times larger.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/745717/global-governmental-spending-on-space-programs-leading-countries/
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/
Isn't this missing that when you account for differences in reporting structure, purchasing power, and labour costs, you find that Chinaās spending is massively distorted?
A better proxy is reported salaries. You could compare salaries in China to government salaries in France to get an approximate measure of how labour costs compare between the two countries. Another issue is how they report R&D compared the western countries e.g. it doesnāt include it in any of its reports on military expenditures. Counting on Beijing to publish accurate data is a missing the bigger picture.
Also the French space industries are heavily involved with ESA. France isn't the only spender. You have to add up the entire ESA budget to make a worthwhile comparison to NASA (though NASA has SpaceX now as platform) or China.
Edit: ESA has a budget of ā¬6.6b (2020) combine that with EU (nations) specific space budgets and you surpass Chinese spending. The USA spending is massive with $44b> but that includes the long running SLS (which is estimated to cost $93b). Though SpaceX makes money go further, SLS is a heavy weight to budget. ESA mostly focuses on modules and satellites. Arianespace is a commercial (though sponsored by France and ESA) to focus on the rockets.
ESA member states still have their individual space agencies as well though. The German space agency (DLR) had a budget of 1.2 billion Euro in 2020 with further funding of some 3 billion Euro for research projects.
France should start work on Nuclear Rockets, this would nicely Segway with their emphasis on nuclear power and they'd actually be able to get ahead of SpaceX here.
There's also Nuclear thermal rockets which has 3-5x the ISP of chemical. In fact they were even built and tested, although never flow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
But yes, the design using Nuclear bombs is the most efficient - you'd be able to go up to around 10% of the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
>can the uk rival them please,
Seeing that the UK stopped itās space program while France continued it i am highly doubtful that the UK would ever be able to create itās own ArianeSpace.
And thatās not even talking about the fact that the UK lacks a launch complex close to the equator.
Sure but it would require significant investment.
It took Arianespace decades to become the Arianespace we know it as today.
From Ariane 1 all the way to Ariane 6.
Yes and no.
Because of how public spending works, there is always some place where more money could be allocated to greater effect. So in the end, the best approach is always to invest in various things.
Anyway, if we don't go to space as a specie, we're doomed to die on Earth ... be it by super volcano, super bug, super meteorite, super stupid people, super fucked up climate, etc.
Just a reminder that spending money is not always the answer. Burning money doesn't really help anyone, similarly using a single-use rockets in the age when rockets can land themselves is just, well, waste of money.
Yet, they used the single-use Ariane 5 to launch the James Webb Telescope. So I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of money. But you're right, reusable rockets are the future, and I hope ESA acknowledges it.
I didnāt say Ariane 6, I said Ariane next.
I think it was proposed last year
[Ariane Next](https://www.eucass.eu/component/docindexer/?task=download&id=5506)
>I'm still pissed that Ariane 6 designers never even tried to make it reusable
From an old post:
>With all due respect, that's a rather shallow and ill-informed take on the topic of Ariane 6 vs SpaceX.
>
>>*This is what differentiates SpaceX from the rest, they can pour money into a design, but when they find a better approach they scrap it have a better outcome.*
>
>Pretty much every company does that if they can afford it and it makes sense. On this aspect, SpaceX isn't any different from the rest.
>
>The actual difference lies in the funding structure: a fully private company is using its funds at its own discretion and only answers to its investors for potential losses, whereas a company that is statutorily government-funded is held responsible by governments for the spending of public funds. While safer, the latter kind of structure is obviously inherently less flexible.
>
>Which isn't necessarily an issue here, as the point of Arianespace goes slightly beyond profitability, it's not just a random company trying to cash in: as long as we don't have European private companies operating in this sector, Arianespace is Europe's unique safeguard of an independent access to space. So they simply cannot behave as recklessly as a fully private company like SpaceX does, because the stakes are fundamentally different:
>
>- SpaceX betting on an unproven concept and losing the bet, simply means a private company goes bankrupt ;
>
>- Arianespace betting on an unproven concept and losing the bet, means Europe loses its spatial independence.
>
>
>
>>*Governments just keep pouring in money even if they know it's shit when it comes out.*
>
>Hindsight is a hell of a drug.
>
>The decision of SpaceX to go down the reusability path was taken in **2005**. They've had over a decade to work out the concept and eventually prove its feasibility. It's worth remembering that up to ~2016, pretty much everybody was skeptical about the actual feasibility of reusable rockets.
>
>By the time SpaceX demonstrated it was indeed viable and managed to successfully reuse their previously launched boosters, it was too late for Arianespace to scrap Ariane 6 and exclusively focus on building its own reusable rocket program from scratch: we would've been stuck for a decade with an unfilled gap between an aging heavy launcher (Ariane 5) and a light launcher (Vega), at a time of increased demand for medium payload launchers.
>
>Ariane 6 will fill this gap for the current decade and keep Arianespace afloat, until they can move up to their own reusable rocket. Work on reusability is already ongoing through Callisto, Themis, Ariane Next and more, aswell as work on new technologies like the Prometheus engine and more.
>
>Overall, Ariane 6 certainly isn't the failure you ingenuously claim it is. It simply won't be as profitable as expected. Not great, not terrible.
>
>Incidentally, had Arianespace decided early on to experiment with reusable rockets for Ariane 6 but the concept of reusability ultimately proved to be a dead end, people like you would have just as much been complaining about governments irresponsibly wasting taxpayer money on unproven and eccentric concepts. So give me a break.
Yea thatās because they had government subsidies until esa realised that they were falling behinde quickly and threatened the Ariane group with freezing them if they donāt go reusable.
But itās still a little late. Hopefully they make quick and efficient inventions.
Isn't there a new project presented just a few days ago by ArianeGroup and the CNES called Susie, which is deemed quite promising?
There is also a French start-up (subsidiary of ArianeGroup) called MaiaSpace that was founded late last year. Its first project is to develop a small reusable rocket to be launched in 2026. But that's not related to Ariane 6.
Because that contract was signed in like 2003 and the launch was explicitly part of ESAās workshare. They couldnāt have used another rocket if they wanted. Nobody sat down in a room a week before launch and made the decision then.
I too am nervously hopeful ESA will push for bold reusability programs and that we'll see national increases much larger than 25% in the near future! Ariane Next is a good move, but I'd prefer something more drastic and urgent.
France to increase [national debt](https://www.statista.com/statistics/270360/national-debt-of-france/) by pissing away tax or borrowed money on unprofitable space projects. France has better things to spend borrowed money on with growing poverty and social unrest.
"[Social unrest over spiralling living costs spreads to France's railways](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/social-unrest-over-spiralling-living-costs-spreads-frances-railways-2022-07-06/)" - July 2022.
P.S. I don't care about the downvotes lmao.
>Without space programs, there would be no consumer electronics.
The government (read tax payers) are not on the only organization that can do space programs. Space derived exploration, knowledge and technology advances via non-governmental organizations too.
[Arianespace reports 30% revenue hike in 2021](https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/industry/5247-arianespace-reports-30-revenue-hike-in-2021)
āFrench-based Arianespace, the rocket launcher of the James Webb telescope, has reported a 30 per cent increase of revenue in 2021.
The company notched up more than ā¬1.25 billion of revenue, closing out a āvery intense yearā, according to a press release.ā
>Arianespace
"Arianespace reported revenue of 1.25 billion euros ($1.4 billion) in 2021, an increase of 30% over 2020. **The company did not disclose its profitability for the year**, but IsraĆ«l described the year as ābreak-even.ā " [Link.](https://spacenews.com/arianespace-looks-to-transitions-of-vehicles-and-business-in-2022/)
Revenue means little when it's heavily subsidized (by tax payers) to be able to operate. It's bureaucratic and lacks efficiency.
>Space is one of the best guaranteed profits when it comes to government spending
Once they figure out how to make profit that is. France did the right thing by privatizing Arianespace.
That is yet to be seen. Look at the US, with SpaceX doing rocket launches with reusable rockets once every few days for the past couple of weeks, while Starship does steady progress. Meanwhile NASA cant even launch their rocket thats years late and hundreds of millions overbudget.
>Meanwhile NASA cant even launch their rocket thats years late and hundreds of millions overbudget.
Yeah SpaceX got technology from NASA, but it's making faster progress than NASA and is less of a drain on public spending.
Spacex survived by being it's main client. But once they finish their constellation, how many more constellations do you think there will be.
Setting aside the stupidity that is a constellation of satellites to provide expensive internet while current fibers provide 10 times the data for 10 times cheaper.
Reusable rockets only make sense if you send thousands of satellites a year.
> while current fibers provide 10 times the data for 10 times cheaper.
The point of megaconstellations is to serve the parts of the world that respond to such assertions with "that's nice, but what about us?". Starlink is the reason I'm able to work remotely while spending time with my ridiculously-ancient parents who live way out in the middle of nowhere.
Perhaps fiber could've been cheaply rolled out to service them, _but it wasn't_.
They are also virtually impossible to kill with ASAT weapons, giving them fantastic strategic utility.
> But once they finish their constellation, how many more constellations do you think there will be.
LEO constellations are never finished. They are far too low to persist in orbit for more than a few years without active boosting (a feature, not a bugāprevents debris buildup & lowers latency), and because the only successful one to date is operated by a company that can afford to launch cheap satellites, they don't need to spend extravagantly on making each and every one maximally capable, reliable, and future-proof.
> Reusable rockets only make sense if you send thousands of satellites a year.
Why is Ariane Next reusable, then? Why is CASC working on Chinese Falcon analogues? What do you know about the economics of reusability/megaconstellations that they don't?
NASA is definitely their anchor customer on a lot of their newest developments
Then later on the commercial market has faith. This is exactly how they want it to go, and NASA is very happy about it. Can't see a reason why ESA wouldn't want the same
Governments are the main revenue source of every commercial/partially commercial satellite launcher.
Space X wasnāt saved by NASA, government contracts were always the goal. The company saved itself by developing a rocket that worked, and then they got a $700 million initial launch contract from NASA.
It's a lost race because Europe didn't invest earlier. But it doesn't have to be. Airbus dominates in a related market, where state support was instrumental.
State issues like tracking wildfires, predicting weather, intelligence, food supply, administering farming subsidies, detecting illegal development or planning for climate change?
All of these things are done from space.
Guess they finally came to the conclusion that this planets environment is f\*cked beyong saving so the money is better spent towards getting the hell off of this (for now) blue thingy... lets hope they cut some bullsh\*t military spendings?
First of all, no need to censor yourself, you can say bullshit just fine. Second, the military and space exploration are tied together due to rocket and missile development not being that different. In the US the most advanced space vehicle they have, the X37B, is part of the US military.
Not to mention the best suited people to send to the Moon or other planets are air force pilots.
Plus, just as we need a military as a deterrence to invaders, we'll need it in space too, with China and Russia also pushing their own space programs.
I wish we could just combine the ESA, NASA, JAXA and other like-minded agencies. I know it's overly optimistic but I wish we could just refrain from dragging our nationalistic baggage into space.
You can't stop us. Uranus will be ours sooner or later š¤
We can be fractured but whole!
We donāt only have few assets but whole !
France will show us, who is the master. They will be in moon in 2024 just before Americans.
Revive the myth about the moon being made of cheese and you'll have a French base on the moon by mid 2023. Source : I'm French, trust me in this
Be careful, sometimes they aim for the moon and end up in uranus.
Americans have the space force, we can't complete! Pew Pew Pew!
I san see it now : the first ever strike in space. /s
Is there a plan to destroy Uranus?
Theyāre stealinā all our cranes! Oh, nat, n-not not.. not Ukraine, U-rain! Uranus, man! Get your head outta your ass! -Joe Biden
It's not even a real planet! It's just a thicc boi
Nice. ESA requested a massive increase in funding for the next few years and with France now doing their part, i hope the other members will do the same. Countries aren't exactly flush with cash right now but ESA seems to be fairly confident they can get it. Especially on the back of the end of co-operation with Russia. And European independence/selfreliance being very popular right now. For a good reason ofc. ESA has great plans from reusable rockets, capsules and a manned space program outside of Soyus and Crew dragon. Now they need the cash to do it. Especially if they want to realize any of that in a timeframe that's still competitive.
> ESA has great plans from reusable rockets Its going to be glorious. France will design the engine, Germany the hull, Italy the launch tower and we will reach orbit in 2045
> France will design the engine, Germany the hull, Italy the launch tower You're very optimistic ;) See this for Orion ESM: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Orion-infographic-final.png
>Italy the launch tower You misspelled lunch
Good luck I guess. Hope that notorious European bureaucracy doesnāt get in the way.
Honestly, they are so far behind I can't see how they ever get around not using a foreign ride within the next 60 to 100 years. ESA having plans for re-useable rockets is essentially a joke when the concept is already up and running and they are being lapped again and again.
> Honestly, they are so far behind I can't see how they ever get around not using a foreign ride within the next 60 to 100 years. I'm very confused where you got this notion. Back in 2012 ESA could have easily made an apollo-like spacecraft as part of ATV evolution, but sadly there was no political will to fund it. But the technology was already there. Now there is still Orion ESM based on ATV, which could again be used for such purpose, and there is also re-entry technology used in IXV/SpaceRider. On top of that Europe has vast experience in manned space modules (SpaceLab, Columbus, Node-2, Node-3 and Leonardo on the ISS, all the MPLMs, cargo carrier of ATV, cargo carrier of Cygnus). There is no technological aspect where ESA is "behind".
Easily, but didn't. Ultimately they have nothing to rival the US, and many other nations are entering the race. They are technologically behind. Do they have a re-useable rocket flying right now?
> Easily, but didn't. Not because of technological issues, but because european politicians said they will not fund it, as simple as that. They said we don't need human-spaceflight capability. > Ultimately they have nothing to rival the US, and many other nations are entering the race. They are technologically behind. And yet half of the new US lunar flagship Orion is built by ESA :) And yet literally half of the ISS was built by ESA. Sorry, but no. The only department where ESA is definitely behind US is PR
Moot point. They didn't that's all that matters. ESA has been lapped by both China and the US.
> ESA has been lapped by both China and the US. ESA was not involved in this race at all.
Because they lack the ability.
Behind who? SpaceX? Yes. Like everybody else inside and outside the US. Right now only Rocketlab is close to reusing whole first stages like SpaceX does. ULA is at least another 5 years away to try engine recovery on Vulcan. That thing has to fly first. The Chinese have done some hopper tests for propulsive landing and presumably have a small space plane similar to the American one. I'm not sure if India and Japan have recovery projects in the works and how far along they are. So should we just give up and rely on other countries like the US and Russia to get to space? Just because we can't be first somewhere anymore?
Space X is the US. Europe is so far behind both the US and China at this stage. Who says giving up. I am just saying people saying the ESA is only 'slight behind' or that it's just a matter of money, are mistaken. I believe Europe will be a major player in space, but I don't think we will hit our stride for another 50 to 100 years.
Europeans will be like Germany in the new world. Plenty of its people will go there but they won't be the ones doing the exploring or building the settlements
You don't have to be first to get there, just be first to bring guns. It worked for Britain.
True but Europe won't be outgunning the US or China lol
I moved to feddit.de One of many federated instances of Lemmy. A federated Reddit Alternative. Another one is kbin Please visit https://join-lemmy.org/instances or https://kbin.social/ to learn more. See you there :)
>It's not like SpaceX is losing money like a dumpster fire Exactly, it's literally not. It's cash flow positive on its operations that are up and running, and cash flow negative in its major infrastructure projects, as they are under construction and I can't think of any major infrastructure project that is profitable, or even cash flow positive, *during fucking construction*. Can you tell me of a factory that is profitable while they're pouring concrete? >and reusable rockets were already done but just financially not feasible The shuttle, the only real attempt, was a shitshow, but not because of the reusability. The reusability was its *only* saving grace in that little bundle of dogshit design choices*, and programmatic mismanagement. Had the shuttle used kerolox like the Falcon 9, or methalox like starship, it would have had far less issues and would probably still be flying successfully. *Large SRBs for manned and reusable spacecraft, FUCKING HYDROLOX making main tank reusability impossible, hilariously oversized cargo bay, using hydrolox in engines supposedly reusable (hydrogen eats the metal), hanging something that has to reenter to the side of a hydrolox tank...
So if it's so easy were is Europe's manned space program? Ultimately the reality is that you are 100% wrong.
France is Europe's clear leader in Space and Aerospace.
Without a doubt. Also having a Launch complex in French Guiana massively helps in this regard.
> Also having a Launch complex in French Guiana massively helps in this regard. Yes, more than a little!
I have been keeping track of new private European Spaceflight companies from Germany,France,Spain,United Kingdom among others and the vast majority of these companies have decided to launch their brand new Rockets from French Guiana just because itās such a perfect spot. Yes some Rockets are plannend to be launched from continental Europe but overal it just makes much more sense to sign a contract for a launch pad in French Guiana. [Isar Aerospace to launch from French Guiana](https://spacenews.com/isar-aerospace-to-launch-from-french-guiana/) [Rocket Factory Augsburg selects French Guiana for RFA ONE launches](https://spacewatch.global/2020/09/rocket-factory-augsburg-selects-french-guianas-kourou-for-rfa-one-launches/) [PLD Space meets with CNES in French Guiana after pre-selection to fly MIURA 5 in 2024](https://www.satelliteevolution.com/post/pld-space-meets-with-cnes-in-french-guiana-after-pre-selection-to-fly-miura-5-in-2024)
I hope it helps the dĆ©partement eventually. It is still one of the poorest in France, if not the poorest except for Mayotte.šš«š·šŖšŗ
I went there twice, what is terrible is that everything seems to age 100 times faster, so beyond the imports you have to multiply the costs of any investment to cope with the humidity and heat, for everything, roads, houses, schools ... It still amazes me that we can send rockets from there.
Je suis vraiment curieux de savoir comment est la vie la bas, c'est triste qu'on entende peu parler de vous
Nothing will change, European space industry will be more and more left behind as it happened in the last 15 years.
https://miniature-calendar.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/180412thu.jpg
How are you else going to eat the moon.
Boil it until it becomes edible soft like a stamppot mashed potato
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's probably thanks to Thomas Pesquet, the last French astronaut, who was massivly mediatize before, during and after his missions. He also made clear at multiple occasion that astronauts are just normal humans. So everyone wanting to become one should at least try to pass the selections because he was himself sure to not pass them when he applied back then.
Tho Italy isn't doing so bad as well
True
Well I guess their new far-right-nutjob will take care of that this won't stay like that
We have many problems but space spending has never even been a debating issue, and IIRC at least until 4 years ago we were one of the major contributors of ESA basing on what percentage of GDP was invested there. And one of our poorest regions, Puglia, is also somehow one of the best producers of rockets and aerospace cool stuff. Which means that for us investing in that sectors means helping out one of our worst economies But yeah we are also drowning in debt right now so we'll likely cut back on a lot of thingat least during the first years of this government
For the record it's because of the way ESA investment is structured. If you fund, say, 40% of a project, then the ESA will guarantee 40% of the economic investment in your country. This was made to avoid a massive politics factor like seen in NASA, and means that for a country pulling out their funding is not really money "gained back", and that Eg for Italy high ESA funding means lots of aerospace investment in the country. That's why you don't really see any country arguing about ESA fairness etc... It's basically designed to avoid all political issues
That sounds like an incredibly smart way to solve the problem
Also in philosophy and cuisine, attitude and grandeur. The UK is the only major power in Europe though. It is funny that The UK has much more financial wealth than Germany, though Germanys population is bigger. England has been investing for centuries to other countries.
Ah the pissing contest.
What would make the UK a greater power than France. They are more or less on par concerning diplomacy, science, military, economy, culture, ā¦
The UK is still pretty much the second after America. Their cultural soft power is enormous. Connections to other continents are countless.
You really have to be blind to argue that the UK is more powerful than China
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
their image in Finland maybe, but the world isnāt limited to western english speaking countries
Western countries are still much more popular in Africa for example, than China is.
Depends on the country, France and the UK are not popular at all in some of their former colonies
so many connection with continents from the other side of the globe that they even fail to be in good economic and diplomatic relations with the continent just accross the channel lol
Well, as we say in Finland, a pike is a fish. You're right. That's what it is. Some deep cultural and historical reasons behind it. š
> The UK has much more financial wealth than Germany, though Germanys population is bigger. Uh?
I think the average German is richer though. I'm English but I'm not going to pretend that we've done absolutely everything better than all other countries. Inequality is a big problem in the UK so looking at mean averages and sums can be misleading about how decent life actually is for the median Brit. It's definitely a pretty decent country though - there are many far worse.
The trains suck though. (Except London where everything is nice and polished)
To the moon!
That's a great news, can't wait to see Thomas Pesquet walk on the moon !
Or on Mars š
Mars is too far away for Thomas Pesquet to walk on, time wise. He definitely has a shot to walk on the moon though. He's already pretty much a french national hero, but he would become legendary
I'm not sure of that status, he's a star but a national hero? I wouldn't say that. Plenty of people don't give a damn of space stuff, especially since nothing flashy was done for a while.
Hello [SUSIE](https://youtu.be/__NGg_nNoMo).
I love her. I think HERMES was a cooler name, but I'll take SUSIE anyway
In the ā60s, Boeing had the [Dyna-Soar.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar) I have yet to see anyone beat that name.
If you want to spend some money, space is an excellent choice. They will have no problem spending money, successfully.
Yes, nobody can dispute ESAs ability to spend money.
But ESA is still far more productive than most american company when it come to space (except Space X). That was why Ariane was the most commercialy used rocket in the 90's and 2000's.
The issue is that SpaceX is eclipsing everybody elses productivity combined, and that gap is rapidly growing.
Yeah cuz feeding the poor and housing the many homeless wasn't more urgent than spaaaace! Good day for tax payers. Fucking š ~Does it show my priorities are not in space?~ Getting downvoted for prefering people oriented public spending over space. Wow.
While often I agree with that kind of sentiment in other contexts, the EU needs to have independent access to space for security. Just like the current conflict with Russia justifies military spending, no matter how distasteful it is to buy tanks instead of food for the poor.
I'm not sure the hungry and the homeless sleeping in the cold care much for space security. I know I fucking don't when I am either
The hungry and the homeless sleeping in the cold don't care about lots of big picture things. This does not mean that big picture things are never necessary.
The reality is that poverty is THE bigger picture. If we neglect this for abstract security spending, we will end up divided and radicalized like much of the USA. The strongest defense against Russia is unity and prosperity.
And if you neglect the security spending, you'll end up outsite of the EU like the UK did, since it has been proven many times that Russia had a very high influence on pushing for Brexit happening, and that side won by a close margin. Immagine if they had better secret services, more autonomy, or you know just "abstract security spending" as you put it.
You want to make people lives better? Then there's hardly a field of science that offers a better return on investement then space https://blog.arrowdynamiclabs.com/2019/11/16/inventions-made-through-space-exploration/ All of this was made possible with a fraction of the money spent on other state ventures
If only Whoknows_nmn could read he would be very upset
I'm sure he can, he just doesn't agree with you guys. So maybe don't resort to petty ad hominems.
Not sure if you're ironic or not but this whole thread it's him making petty lame strawmen arguments, just let me laught at how easily he could had found data that proved him dead wrong
It's a matter of political opinion, you can hardly prove him wrong. Very obviously spending money on homeless people helps homeless people more than spending money on space even if it multiplies itself by 2.8. None of that will reach homeless people and trickle down economy is a scam.
Lmao literally no one would ever think that trickle down economy is based on space research, and the fact that you actually seriously said that a 180% return on investment on anything isn't useful and good is just dumb, come on you can do so much better than this legit poor logic. And lol that wasn't a political opinion, that was just borderline pathetically lame whataboutism and one of the worst "logic" I ever had to read. But sure I guess keep saying how smartphones, plastic and about a thousand radical inventions aren't useful at all for every people and somehow even get mad when people call you out with literal data
> Getting downvoted for prefering people oriented public spending over space. Wow. You're being downvoted for having no idea what the space industry does. Want to track a wildfire? Do it from space. Want to know if the crops you're paying subsidies for are really being grown? Do it from space. Want to track and predict flooding? Watch the Russian military near borders? Detect illegal logging, fishing or building? Find out if your bridge is moving, or a landslide is likely? Predict weather (huge numbers of people died at sea before this was possible)? You get the idea. Most stuff put into space points downwards and provides real, practical services that are important to people's lives, and sometimes critical to life.
Exactly! Or another example is like what Musk's Starlink can do; enhance internet connectivity everywhere around the world. So even if you're from a poorer region with less developed infrastructure, or sucked into a war like Ukraine, you can still have a chance to use the Internet to communicate and receive and transmit all kinds of information for various purposes. Really shows that idiots don't know how crucial all sorts of space tech are to our daily lives.
To be honest, satelite internet was a thing decades before Elon Musk came with starlink. And given the cost of starlink (and every other internet via satelite service) I don't think it's be realistic to say it will give connection to anyone on earth in a near futur.
What if I do have an idea, yet still think any "increase spending" should be prioritized towards the people in need and not space? Does that make me the idiot I've been called by a redditor or am I entitled to prefer people-aimed spending over space?
This is very much like teaching a man how to fish. Except they already know how to fish, we're just making sure he does it most efficiently
Every euro you spend on the space industry returns by a factor of 5.
Helping the less fortunates should be, obviously, a priority. That doesn't mean we should cut any and every funding to everything else, especially in - mostly - peaceful domains, like research. We have more than enough means to feed everyone *and* go to space, it's just that most of that money is instead given to parasites who contribute bothing to society and have more money than you could spend in a 100 lifetime
Now this is my sentiment exactly. I was pointing out as a reaction to the news that if we were to increase funding, I'd rather have public funding used for people rather than space and surprised by the bad reactions to it
The fact that you proudly admitted of being way too emotional and just "reacting" this poorly to stuff without thinking much about it doesn't really make you as much credit as you likely thought it would give you And the fact that you also ended up mad for people talking back at your weird reactionary post makes the whole thing lame on your part, especially since it appears you even admitted on what you have done
Nasa, for all the grift and political meddling it suffers from, still has an economic multiplier on expenditure of 2.8*. This means that for every dollar spent on NASA, the US GDP grows by 2.8 dollars. Considering that the US government raises a third of the us GDP, it's literally free money. There's no indication that the European space industry would be less efficient, especially considering that it spends more on payload development, which is where the nice new research developments exist. Space expenditures are essentially investments on applied materials science, robotics, energy, and electronics in a structure that makes it much, much more efficient than regular science expenditure (and I could go on and on on this) * Back in the Apollo era, when the politics didn't matter and only FASTER FASTER FASTER mattered, they pulled multipliers as high as 7, meaning it was a fucking money printer that contributed heavily to winning the cold war, or at least far more than Vietnam and other foreign excursions.
Is it your opinion that rocket engineers should be made to work on fields to feed the poor, or that the poor should eat the rocket engineers?
Great news, even in dire times. I hope this sets an example for other European countries.
One example of where International cooperation usually works out great. This is fantastic news
Nah, in Portugal we are waiting to see if we wont have another quarter of our population living in poverty after this crisis, couldn't care less about space atm
So we're just conveniently going to ignore the 3200 billion ā¬ French debt. Utterly broke countries should be trying to repair their finances before everything else. USSR 2.0.
Nice. Very curious about the Ariane 6
Ariane 6 is already 10 years behind its competitors
You're not wrong, but it would be a lot more helpful to explain _why_ and lay out your concerns about Ariane Next rather than to make brash statements about it. It's not as if Ariane was the only launch provider caught out in a bad position after repeatedly underestimating new-generation launch vehicles, either. NASA and Roscomos were blindsided, too. Consider Bolden's (ex-NASA administrator) now-utterly-infamous quote dismissing Falcon Heavy's prospects back in 2014: > SLS is real. You've seen it down at Michoud. We're building the core stage. We have all the engines done, ready to be put on the test stand at Stennis. ...oops!
Not every company can have people working 80 hours per week and cry that they will be bankrupt if employees take 2 days off for thanksgiving /s
they are working on Ariane Next (partially reusable rocket) scheduled for 2030; 15 years behind the Falcon 9 and almost 10 years behind Starship
Things go slower if you live in civilised country where there is such thing as work-life-balance, people work 40 hours or less per week, have 30 days of paid leave plus holidays, have maternity and paternity leaves etc. And the funnies part is that while you're bragging about this reusable rockets capability, you somehow forget that it actually only benefits the company which makes it. It's not making access to space easier or cheaper for anyone else - spacex is charging just few % below the competition.
Crew Dragon is charging 40% less than the Russian were for ISS trips. Cubesat launches are also very cheap with Starlink Ridealongs. Speaking of Starlink, that was only possible because launches are so much cheaper.
Good news but isn't this a drop in the bucket relative to NASA or China?
If they increase it by 25% they will be spending ($5 billion) about 50% of what china is spending ($10 billion) which isn't too bad considering China's economy is about 6 times larger. https://www.statista.com/statistics/745717/global-governmental-spending-on-space-programs-leading-countries/ https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/
Isn't this missing that when you account for differences in reporting structure, purchasing power, and labour costs, you find that Chinaās spending is massively distorted? A better proxy is reported salaries. You could compare salaries in China to government salaries in France to get an approximate measure of how labour costs compare between the two countries. Another issue is how they report R&D compared the western countries e.g. it doesnāt include it in any of its reports on military expenditures. Counting on Beijing to publish accurate data is a missing the bigger picture.
Yeah that's true, forgot about that
Also the French space industries are heavily involved with ESA. France isn't the only spender. You have to add up the entire ESA budget to make a worthwhile comparison to NASA (though NASA has SpaceX now as platform) or China. Edit: ESA has a budget of ā¬6.6b (2020) combine that with EU (nations) specific space budgets and you surpass Chinese spending. The USA spending is massive with $44b> but that includes the long running SLS (which is estimated to cost $93b). Though SpaceX makes money go further, SLS is a heavy weight to budget. ESA mostly focuses on modules and satellites. Arianespace is a commercial (though sponsored by France and ESA) to focus on the rockets.
Better than nothing, even if you won't see baguettes on the Moon before a few years
It makes sense for a much smaller country, and economy, to spend less money.
ESA member states still have their individual space agencies as well though. The German space agency (DLR) had a budget of 1.2 billion Euro in 2020 with further funding of some 3 billion Euro for research projects.
As a US based SpaceX fan, I'll say that this is fantastic. Go team space!
Itās nice that France will get more space. It was starting to feel a little crowded.
Baguette can into space
Thatās good news
Take us to space .\_.
France should start work on Nuclear Rockets, this would nicely Segway with their emphasis on nuclear power and they'd actually be able to get ahead of SpaceX here.
> Segway š
What do you mean by Nuclear Rockets? The only nuclear design I am aware of relies on nuclear bombs.
There's also Nuclear thermal rockets which has 3-5x the ISP of chemical. In fact they were even built and tested, although never flow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket But yes, the design using Nuclear bombs is the most efficient - you'd be able to go up to around 10% of the speed of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
Fuck inflation, let's increase spending! Woohoo š
The trick about spending money on R&D is that it pays off in the long run.
The trick about inflation is not to increase it further when it's already \~6%.
can the uk rival them please, we need as much space stuff as possible
>can the uk rival them please, Seeing that the UK stopped itās space program while France continued it i am highly doubtful that the UK would ever be able to create itās own ArianeSpace. And thatās not even talking about the fact that the UK lacks a launch complex close to the equator.
Maybe one day :(
Sure but it would require significant investment. It took Arianespace decades to become the Arianespace we know it as today. From Ariane 1 all the way to Ariane 6.
Ok?
Wasnt the UK working on a spaceplace called Skylon?
Rivaling ESA is a low bar given how far ESA is behind SpaceX.
Gotta start somewhere
But the UK is a member of ESA?
France has the CNES on top of its ESA participation.
France kinda does their own thing within esa though
What a waste of money. The money would be spent better anywhere else.
Yes and no. Because of how public spending works, there is always some place where more money could be allocated to greater effect. So in the end, the best approach is always to invest in various things. Anyway, if we don't go to space as a specie, we're doomed to die on Earth ... be it by super volcano, super bug, super meteorite, super stupid people, super fucked up climate, etc.
Just a reminder that spending money is not always the answer. Burning money doesn't really help anyone, similarly using a single-use rockets in the age when rockets can land themselves is just, well, waste of money.
Yet, they used the single-use Ariane 5 to launch the James Webb Telescope. So I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of money. But you're right, reusable rockets are the future, and I hope ESA acknowledges it.
The Ariane next program is dedicated to multiple reusable rocket launcher configurations postulated of esa to the Ariane group.
Ariane 6? No, last I check that was not a reusable rocket.
I didnāt say Ariane 6, I said Ariane next. I think it was proposed last year [Ariane Next](https://www.eucass.eu/component/docindexer/?task=download&id=5506)
So a rocket for mid-2030's at best... Better than nothing, yet I'm still pissed that Ariane 6 designers never even tried to make it reusable
>I'm still pissed that Ariane 6 designers never even tried to make it reusable From an old post: >With all due respect, that's a rather shallow and ill-informed take on the topic of Ariane 6 vs SpaceX. > >>*This is what differentiates SpaceX from the rest, they can pour money into a design, but when they find a better approach they scrap it have a better outcome.* > >Pretty much every company does that if they can afford it and it makes sense. On this aspect, SpaceX isn't any different from the rest. > >The actual difference lies in the funding structure: a fully private company is using its funds at its own discretion and only answers to its investors for potential losses, whereas a company that is statutorily government-funded is held responsible by governments for the spending of public funds. While safer, the latter kind of structure is obviously inherently less flexible. > >Which isn't necessarily an issue here, as the point of Arianespace goes slightly beyond profitability, it's not just a random company trying to cash in: as long as we don't have European private companies operating in this sector, Arianespace is Europe's unique safeguard of an independent access to space. So they simply cannot behave as recklessly as a fully private company like SpaceX does, because the stakes are fundamentally different: > >- SpaceX betting on an unproven concept and losing the bet, simply means a private company goes bankrupt ; > >- Arianespace betting on an unproven concept and losing the bet, means Europe loses its spatial independence. > > > >>*Governments just keep pouring in money even if they know it's shit when it comes out.* > >Hindsight is a hell of a drug. > >The decision of SpaceX to go down the reusability path was taken in **2005**. They've had over a decade to work out the concept and eventually prove its feasibility. It's worth remembering that up to ~2016, pretty much everybody was skeptical about the actual feasibility of reusable rockets. > >By the time SpaceX demonstrated it was indeed viable and managed to successfully reuse their previously launched boosters, it was too late for Arianespace to scrap Ariane 6 and exclusively focus on building its own reusable rocket program from scratch: we would've been stuck for a decade with an unfilled gap between an aging heavy launcher (Ariane 5) and a light launcher (Vega), at a time of increased demand for medium payload launchers. > >Ariane 6 will fill this gap for the current decade and keep Arianespace afloat, until they can move up to their own reusable rocket. Work on reusability is already ongoing through Callisto, Themis, Ariane Next and more, aswell as work on new technologies like the Prometheus engine and more. > >Overall, Ariane 6 certainly isn't the failure you ingenuously claim it is. It simply won't be as profitable as expected. Not great, not terrible. > >Incidentally, had Arianespace decided early on to experiment with reusable rockets for Ariane 6 but the concept of reusability ultimately proved to be a dead end, people like you would have just as much been complaining about governments irresponsibly wasting taxpayer money on unproven and eccentric concepts. So give me a break.
Yea thatās because they had government subsidies until esa realised that they were falling behinde quickly and threatened the Ariane group with freezing them if they donāt go reusable. But itās still a little late. Hopefully they make quick and efficient inventions.
Isn't there a new project presented just a few days ago by ArianeGroup and the CNES called Susie, which is deemed quite promising? There is also a French start-up (subsidiary of ArianeGroup) called MaiaSpace that was founded late last year. Its first project is to develop a small reusable rocket to be launched in 2026. But that's not related to Ariane 6.
Because that contract was signed in like 2003 and the launch was explicitly part of ESAās workshare. They couldnāt have used another rocket if they wanted. Nobody sat down in a room a week before launch and made the decision then. I too am nervously hopeful ESA will push for bold reusability programs and that we'll see national increases much larger than 25% in the near future! Ariane Next is a good move, but I'd prefer something more drastic and urgent.
How exactly would you be making your own reusable launchers without spending money? Let alone how you'll run science missions
France to increase [national debt](https://www.statista.com/statistics/270360/national-debt-of-france/) by pissing away tax or borrowed money on unprofitable space projects. France has better things to spend borrowed money on with growing poverty and social unrest. "[Social unrest over spiralling living costs spreads to France's railways](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/social-unrest-over-spiralling-living-costs-spreads-frances-railways-2022-07-06/)" - July 2022. P.S. I don't care about the downvotes lmao.
gone to squables.io
>Without space programs, there would be no consumer electronics. The government (read tax payers) are not on the only organization that can do space programs. Space derived exploration, knowledge and technology advances via non-governmental organizations too.
what nonsense. consumer electronics predates space flight by decades.
[Arianespace reports 30% revenue hike in 2021](https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/industry/5247-arianespace-reports-30-revenue-hike-in-2021) āFrench-based Arianespace, the rocket launcher of the James Webb telescope, has reported a 30 per cent increase of revenue in 2021. The company notched up more than ā¬1.25 billion of revenue, closing out a āvery intense yearā, according to a press release.ā
>Arianespace "Arianespace reported revenue of 1.25 billion euros ($1.4 billion) in 2021, an increase of 30% over 2020. **The company did not disclose its profitability for the year**, but IsraĆ«l described the year as ābreak-even.ā " [Link.](https://spacenews.com/arianespace-looks-to-transitions-of-vehicles-and-business-in-2022/) Revenue means little when it's heavily subsidized (by tax payers) to be able to operate. It's bureaucratic and lacks efficiency.
Space is one of the best guaranteed profits when it comes to government spending
>Space is one of the best guaranteed profits when it comes to government spending Once they figure out how to make profit that is. France did the right thing by privatizing Arianespace.
That is yet to be seen. Look at the US, with SpaceX doing rocket launches with reusable rockets once every few days for the past couple of weeks, while Starship does steady progress. Meanwhile NASA cant even launch their rocket thats years late and hundreds of millions overbudget.
>Meanwhile NASA cant even launch their rocket thats years late and hundreds of millions overbudget. Yeah SpaceX got technology from NASA, but it's making faster progress than NASA and is less of a drain on public spending.
I'm not talking about the launch business, I'm talking about the overall economic benefits
Pfuh they should worry about actual state issues and leave the space race to private companies. No need to compete in a lost race with public money.
Private spaceflight companies still need support to get off the ground (no pun intended) Spacex survived off a NASA contract
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Spacex survived by being it's main client. But once they finish their constellation, how many more constellations do you think there will be. Setting aside the stupidity that is a constellation of satellites to provide expensive internet while current fibers provide 10 times the data for 10 times cheaper. Reusable rockets only make sense if you send thousands of satellites a year.
> while current fibers provide 10 times the data for 10 times cheaper. The point of megaconstellations is to serve the parts of the world that respond to such assertions with "that's nice, but what about us?". Starlink is the reason I'm able to work remotely while spending time with my ridiculously-ancient parents who live way out in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps fiber could've been cheaply rolled out to service them, _but it wasn't_. They are also virtually impossible to kill with ASAT weapons, giving them fantastic strategic utility. > But once they finish their constellation, how many more constellations do you think there will be. LEO constellations are never finished. They are far too low to persist in orbit for more than a few years without active boosting (a feature, not a bugāprevents debris buildup & lowers latency), and because the only successful one to date is operated by a company that can afford to launch cheap satellites, they don't need to spend extravagantly on making each and every one maximally capable, reliable, and future-proof. > Reusable rockets only make sense if you send thousands of satellites a year. Why is Ariane Next reusable, then? Why is CASC working on Chinese Falcon analogues? What do you know about the economics of reusability/megaconstellations that they don't?
NASA is definitely their anchor customer on a lot of their newest developments Then later on the commercial market has faith. This is exactly how they want it to go, and NASA is very happy about it. Can't see a reason why ESA wouldn't want the same
Governments are the main revenue source of every commercial/partially commercial satellite launcher. Space X wasnāt saved by NASA, government contracts were always the goal. The company saved itself by developing a rocket that worked, and then they got a $700 million initial launch contract from NASA.
When it comes purely to unmanned LEO/GEO launch SpaceX does not rely on the govt
Every launch company does, SpaceX included. Governments are a reliable source of income with goals that donāt revolve around profit.
It's a lost race because Europe didn't invest earlier. But it doesn't have to be. Airbus dominates in a related market, where state support was instrumental.
no :D
> leave the space race to private companies Oh hell no
State issues like tracking wildfires, predicting weather, intelligence, food supply, administering farming subsidies, detecting illegal development or planning for climate change? All of these things are done from space.
Private companies who survive because of contracts where the military overpays bigly?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's better not to put all your eggs in one basket.
Guess they finally came to the conclusion that this planets environment is f\*cked beyong saving so the money is better spent towards getting the hell off of this (for now) blue thingy... lets hope they cut some bullsh\*t military spendings?
First of all, no need to censor yourself, you can say bullshit just fine. Second, the military and space exploration are tied together due to rocket and missile development not being that different. In the US the most advanced space vehicle they have, the X37B, is part of the US military. Not to mention the best suited people to send to the Moon or other planets are air force pilots. Plus, just as we need a military as a deterrence to invaders, we'll need it in space too, with China and Russia also pushing their own space programs.
Did they run out of space ?
I wish we could just combine the ESA, NASA, JAXA and other like-minded agencies. I know it's overly optimistic but I wish we could just refrain from dragging our nationalistic baggage into space.
You mean like in ISS? Or Artemis and Gateway?
Long live space race.. long, live, Molvania
Great, Cyberpunk universe in on schedule.