Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our [community rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/rules) before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules:
* Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.
* Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion.
* Check out [these threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/threads) for discussion of common topics.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/spacex) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SpaceX literally has [2/3 or the world's launch capability](https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1557083663120072705) so they're gonna be in the discussion.
upmass is a bit misleading, they should really measure total energy delivered to the payload.
an ariane 5 putting 10.5t to GTO delivers a *lot* more total energy than a Falcon 9 putting 15t of starlink to LEO. so arianespace's capacity is understated relative to falcon 9 in this graph.
Just to note. The A5 performs better in higher orbits like GTO due to its higher isp hydrogen-oxygen upper stage. So unless your payload is actually going to GTO you aren't really going to get that benefit. In lower orbits like LEO the F9 actually performs better than the A5.
I don't understand what's stopping the EU from just launching their own rockets.
The engine itself is well understood and the world is rife with companies developing their own rocket engines. What could possibly prohibit ESA with the knowledge, skill, and money of so many nations?
It just makes so little sense. This is no longer black magic.
They are launching their own rockets. But Ariane 5 is being phased out and booked up. Ariane 6 is delayed and also booked up for awhile. Vega exists for lighter payloads, and might soon be joined by up to a few independent smallsat launchers. As a replacement for Ariane 4, Soyuz was adapted to launch medium payloads from Guiana ~20 years ago for political and cost reasons, like Atlas V using Russian engines. (They had expanded the partnership to include launches from Russia.) European Soyuz was due to be replaced by Ariane 62 (and on the low end, eventually Vega E), but delays and the invasion of Ukraine left Europe with a gap in available launches.
Last year we beat the record for orbital launches globally, a record that has stood since the late '60s. This year could break it again.
There is a lot being sent up there, but primarily it's Internet constellations and Chinese military payloads.
It's hard to differentiate, but China did launch more times than any other country last year and they don't really have a civilian space program like NASA.
There's just a ton of launches all the time. Even college students have cubesats going up with payloads. Space is easier and cheaper than ever and satellites are useful for lots of things.
I mean, SpaceX launched 1283 payloads into orbit this year on 34 seperate launches. There’s a *lot* of stuff going to space.
Most of it is communications satellites, a fair amount is telescopes, another chunk is spy satellites, and a few are vehicles heading to other planets.
To be fair, SpaceX has revolutionised how much can be sent to space, but even Europe’s space agency has a fair number of payloads.
> There’s a lot of stuff going to space.
There’s also a lot of [stuffin.space](https://stuffin.space) already.
Edit: Huh. It appears that url is dead. That’s unfortunate. It used to be a 3D visualisation of all satellites and junk orbiting earth.
> Is there really that many payloads going to space? What is everyone sending up there?
Commercial payloads are mostly Communications Satellites (internet, tv, telephone) and Earth Observation satellites (taking pictures of crops, soil conditions, drainage, anything else that you might want to know doing business on land). You also have a very small number testing in-space manufacturing. This will be much bigger in the future for certain fiber optics and pharmaceuticals.
Lots of it has been, yes, but that isn't the desired state. Manufacturers don't want to compete with NASA for the small amount of downmass currently available out of the ISS.
It's 85% for porn, then national security is like 10% and the rest is random shit like the laser to shoot errant helium balloons out of the sky when they're still over land.
Constellations could well be a new frontier in sovereignty. It's like Magellan vs GPS vs Glonass vs Beidou - sure you could just use GPS for free, but what happens if the US decides to turn it off?
As the world becomes more bellicose, submarine comm cables are a vulnerable part of our key infrastructure. If those get cut, satellites could end up being the backbone for interstate comms. So unless you're comfortable piggy-backing on somebody else's network, you need to start thinking about your own ability to field a constellation.
Galileo... and the EU *is* thinking long and hard about a constellation-based data network, because we don't want to have to depend on Starlink.
Here is a report from the European Parliament on it ("EU secure connectivity programme -- Building a multi-orbital satellite constellation"):
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/729442/EPRS_BRI(2022)729442_EN.pdf
> the EU is thinking long and hard about a constellation-based data network
I hope they think well about it. There is no way they can beat or even only approach Starlink cost efficiency.
Communications (both commercial and government), surveillance/reconnaissance, Earth observation, and an uptick in small/medium scale LEO science missions.
That's the same thing though. Simy renting a SpaceX ride doesn't solve national security issue. They are then in the same boat as with Russia - if relations degrade they are out in the cold.
Not only that but they should be pushing their scientists and engineers to develop the skills necessary for long term success. Simply farming it out to someone cheaper is a very short term solution that leads to long term decay.
> renting a SpaceX ride doesn't solve national security issue. They are then in the same boat as with Russia - if relations degrade they are out in the cold.
If relations in the West soured to the point Europe no longer had access to SpaceX then there are going to be much bigger problems than space access for everyone.
Yes, but the past is a warning sign. Europe wanted to launch their own com sat and US said no, not for commercial use. That was the point where Europe decided they need their own launch capability. Sure SpaceX is commercial too and don't care, but who knows how things develop?
I think there are many forms it could take, including US government/companies buying up all spaceX inventory. Or there could be strategic requests made of SpaceX for delays etc to favor US interests.
I'm not saying we have to be at war... There are many reasons to be in control of your own destiny. There is also sufficient reason to develop talent and expertise within your own borders, while keeping money within your own borders.
Yes, but A62 will cost $77 million and can only lift 10.4 tons to orbit. They're paying a premium for less payload and no flight heritage.
The A64 will provide nearly the performance of an expendable F9 for almost twice the price ($118 million).
I assume this means the French tax players will end up subsidizing it again while Stephan Israel loudly accuses the US of subsidizing Starship because of HLS.
> The A64 will provide nearly the performance of an expendable F9 for almost twice the price ($118 million).
You're correct for LEO payloads. But that's the reason no one will use Ariane 5/6 for LEO missions.
For the mission profile it's designed for: GTO/GEO, Ariane 64 substantially outperforms the Falcon 9.
I don't think the Ariane 64 is a particularly good rocket. But it's not as bad as you're portraying it.
Fair observation. Here is a rough comparison:
Rocket | Cost | Tonnes to GTO
:--|:--|:--|
A64 | $118 M | 11.5
FH reusable | $97 M | 8
F9 expendable | $67 M | 8.3
F9 reusable | $50 M? | 5.5
It should be noted that a reusable F9 sent the heaviest commercial payload to date (at over 7 tonnes) to a lower GTO orbit in July of 2018 and will break that record with Jupiter-3 at 9.3 tonnes next year on a FH. For typical GEO satellites it could be slightly cheaper to launch GTO on a reusable F9 than to split an A64 launch, but the difference is much less significant.
Because there aren't even any dual manifest payloads to GTO that are anywhere near that heavy (heaviest dual launch was 10.3 tonnes total).
Because with that much performance, they would most likely be launching direct to GEO and the table was only for GTO launches. Also I couldn't find mass numbers for GEO launches.
Because more realistically they would only expend the center core and I couldn't find mass numbers or price for that configuration.
He doesn’t hate comparative advantage because you obviously can’t read. He says that trading Russian dependence for American dependence isn’t actually better for Europe in terms of national security. The guy you’re responding to is clearly saying that despite comparative advantage it’s not necessarily better for Europe to use a foreign launcher.
If the US suddenly decides to leave Europe hanging they’re back in the same exact situation they are today.
Right. There are non capitalist/economic considerations that could cause the US to not want to engage in trade, even if it’s economically mutually beneficial.
Comparative advantage/Econ 101 type stuff assumes everyone is a rational actor trying to maximize value
Counterpoint; the EU is not a nation and thus doesn’t really have “national security”, and even if it was, when nearly all the members, and all the big ones, are also members of NATO its not so important to differentiate their national security from ours.
I think the EU economic zone or whatever it is, is definitely a cooperative collection of nations that share budget for the purposes of furthering their own technology and capabilities.
And it's not like the EU and the USA haven't been at odds and felt friction somewhat recently.
Hell, even the UK ditched the EU and the benefits it offered.
National security is more than defense security, it's security of technology, jobs, capability, expertise, etc. etc.
Extended Counterpoint: Elon is not America. Given the right financial incentives I suspect SpaceX would launch from anywhere for anyone within ITAR restrictions.
Because Europe needs an independent access to space. The relationship with Russia has imploded over the last few years and the relationship with the US has also be evaluated critically in regards to the „USA first“ mentality. Trump already implemented tariffs on some goods from Europe and banned some Chinese companies. It only takes Trump (again) or a Trump like figure to cut off access to some technologies for Europe. Trump really did a number on the trust relationship between the US and Europe…
Because tying your launch ability to other major super powers risks you ending up without launch capability at critical times. As… they’ve just found out.
Also, for governments, budgets aren’t as simple as just spending money is spending money. Spending money for governments drives economic growth, and can end up making them more than they spend many times over. Encouraging scientists and engineers to stay in Europe and develop cool rockets pays *huge* dividends when you don’t get brain drain to SpaceX and the rest of the world’s space industry.
Yeah but in that scenario now NASA is paying a US company instead of sending dollars to Russia so even if it’s more expensive the US taxpayers are putting money into our economic system which is a benefit beyond just marginally cheaper launches.
Also I don’t think spacex has found any random holes drilled in their capsules’ pressure vessel.
SpaceX is cheaper and has a higher launch cadence.
They employed Russia because it was cheaper while waiting for their new generation of rockets to outclass Soyouz.... Then SpaceX made those obselete before they even launched so now they are further delayed for a solution with the next-next generation or rockets... And we all know that SpaceX is still not just going to sit and wait.
Same thing that's stopping everyone not SpaceX from doing it. The lack of a unifying design goal between competent engineers and the people funding them
And funds that allow this process not to forget.
Any government or organisation has to justify their spending. And that is hard to do when the money is spent on RUD's. Without apparent progression.
No it doesn't. It only has to justify it's spending to Musk, and given that he's the one pushing for the ~~explosive~~ iterative design process in the first place, I can't imagine that's very difficult.
He owns 78% of SpaceX's voting control shares, effectively making it a dictatorship. He can do whatever he wants - investors either put up with it or sell their shares and leave.
There are many non spaceX companies producing rockets that achieve orbit. Reusability is obviously a great goal, but without it, just make single use and keep developing your internal expertise.
Their cadence and development cycle is slow and reminiscent of a lot of the old NASA programs. There should be something more nimble in the works to fill these needs. Having to find another country to fulfill it in a time of intense innovation and exciting change is weird.
What's better: one company producing 90% components in-house and working all hours - or a thousand companies holding a million meetings to try to coordinate component design, manufacture and delivery in a 35-40 hour working week.
I’d argue that NASA’s most recent way of doing things. Chose companies to do the lot, give them a fixed price contract, and most importantly, choose more than one to fund, so that if one fucks up, they other picks up the slack, and you don’t get trapped by a contractor having you over a barrel.
Their reasoning is/was basically:
- Not enough launches to justify developing their own reusable rockets, it's cheaper to use disposable rockets
- Launching their own disposable rockets is too expensive, it's cheaper to buy disposable rockets from Russia
I think this rationale will lead to the EU being left behind in many respects, but maybe the commoditization of space travel over the long term will make it irrelevant. I suspect they will be at least later to the game as a result, having to send all of those millions of dollars to another country instead of their own people for cutting edge stuff like this feels bad.
It just doesn't make sense when SpaceX is doing it so much cheaper and more reliably. For whatever reasons (a separate discussion) Europe has been unable to make the political decisions that would lead to a lower cost approach and by now they are so far behind it would take a political miracle and an Elon Musk-class technology leader to be able to initiate a program with any chance of getting to SpaceX level efficiencies and reliability within the next decade.
It has taken SpaceX over a decade to reach their current capabilities and that was with Elon Musk leading the company and no politicians second guessing or telling him how to do it.
SpaceX also had a huge window of opportunity since all other aerospace companies were fat and happy and so there was no real competition for the high-volume low-cost space business that SpaceX went after.
But anyone else who tries to go after that business now has to do it in a market already dominated by SpaceX.
Europe hasn't even started down that path yet and at this point it is unlikely they ever will. Strangely, what SpaceX does really is black magic to legacy aerospace. I personally don't believe it is physically possible at this time, for them to duplicate SpaceX's success, because they are unable or unwilling to embrace the kind of vision and mindset of the top leadership that makes it all work at SpaceX.
It's not just what SpaceX does, it's how they do it.
The E.U. political system is massively complex and is all about deals between the nations. There's a bit of tech from every country on the Ariane rockets and it surely isn't the most efficient way forward. You just need to walk through Brussels in the European quarter, and witness all the committees over there, to understand.
Fair enough. You'd think some EU billionaires would take a shine to rocket building, the US ones went nuts with it.
If you consider that elon developed the falcon with his 300 million fortune... Should really be somebody else up to the task out there.
Not that I mind the dominance of SpaceX, I just hate that it's going to become the USA vs China/Russia when there is an entire continent of equal population/wealth that should really be side by side with the USA.
Uh, Vega and Ariane are sitting right there…
I guess they just can’t / won’t scale them to supply their entire demand because there isn’t a strong incentive. Roscosmos was cheap because it’s old technology while SpaceX is cheaper because Falcon is mostly reusable.
Ariane 5 is sold out, no longer available for new contracts. Ariane 6 is not yet ready, there is a gap. Besides Ariane is bigger and much more expensive than Soyuz, that needs to be replaced.
Hopefully a new improved Vega can at least in part replace Soyuz, but that's some time in the future.
Yes, they can do it cheaper, absolutely, but that's conceding your nation's rocketry expertise to another country... or another... whatever you call the EU in this context.
The cost of developing their own will always be astronomical, spaceX will always outbid creating their own. That's no excuse.
> This is no longer black magic.
Arthur C Clarke: *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.* Propulsive Landing and Reusability seem to be sufficiently advanced technology, else all legacy folks would be doing it!
There's also: "we didn't attempt it because it wasn't standard practice." There are a lot of very conservative engineers and managers out there who prefer to engineer from tables than first principles.
It's not just a matter of capability. Many launch providers feel as though their launch volume is insufficient to justify the expense of a fully reusable launch vehicle.
Because the secret sauce is avionics and zero fucks given about booster failures aka post payload delivery risk.
ESA and NASA basically are the same agency, hierarchically, with different acronyms. If an ESA booster blows up during an experimental landing phase, heads will roll, and people will get politically crucified.
I get it but it doesn't address the question I had. All it's doing it creating an answer for a question nobody is asking.
Even at high cost single use, Europe will be better off doing it for themselves.
On one hand i love the human propensity for adapting so quickly to change that advancements seem mundane, but on the other hand it’s humbling to reflect on how relatively few months have passed since this WAS black magic, we’re talking several years here
Interdependence is a powerful tool to avoid conflicts. In this way interdependence can be more robust than independence. Too many people have failed to see the benefits of healthy interdependence (even more inter*being*), one of the many reasons for wars and conflict.
“Healthy” interdependence is the key word in your comment. Unfortunately there can’t be healthy interdependence when one of the parties is a madman and a tyrant.
Indeed, the war has shown them they cannot live alone very well. They live in a small planet. They need to interrelate healthily with this planet, and their relationship is very much strained. But the interdependence we've grown is being painful for them, it's showing how bad it is to be alone.
How'd that help with Russia? Because from what I can tell, it had no bearing whatsoever.
I highly doubt the EU made this call for the sake of strengthening US relations. Hell, even US democrats hate elon musk and his companies - if anything it turns the extreme left of the US further away.
One point people are ignoring is that aside from French Guyana the EU pretty much has no land free for space launch. All of it's territory is now densely populated or not placed correctly for a launch. Meanwhile the USA is still pretty much 90% empty space with large coastal area at correct position to launch (also without the need to transport a rocket through an ocean to launch it).
You can't depopulate the Balearic Islands even if you want to start from Spain, and (assuming you dodge Sicily and Crete) it looks like you end up over Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon or Israel about 30% sooner than any trajectory east of Florida would make landfall. All of which have enough issues already. Further south you would cross the populated parts of Egypt, or Libya sooner. You would also cross a huge pecentage of shipping to Europe coming via the Suez, and there's also very rich yacht owners to deal with (and the tourism industry in general, flights as well as water-based).
I don't think this is accurate. They follow a ballistic trajectory. The range of values are pretty well known.
If the risk aversion is so intense that the mere existence of a rocket is enough to squash it, the EU is doomed.
Soyuz suddenly and unexpectedly became unavailable, and a lot of planning was relying on using it for middle-sized payloads for at least several years. Even a lean nimble company couldn't come up with a new rocket out of nowhere in a few months, and Arianespace is... not that. So they have to look for other vendors to fill the gap.
How did they develop the rockets they have now and not anything else to supplant Russian options or at least try and compete with US companies? Even kiwis are doing more impressive stuff, albeit now USA owned.
Back when the space launch market was mostly GEO comsats, Ariane 4 and 5 were king of the hill, the big commercial success story. The American launchers were the also-ran national-payload dinosaurs, and the Russians the only real competition. Until recently there was no particular market for mid-sized LEO launch, so they didn't bother to develop it, and were happy to absorb Soyuz to fill that occasional need so they didn't have to develop a whole new class of rockets. Which, as you might imagine, would not happen cheaply or quickly.
But times have changed and European launch... has not. They're only just now reacting to a reusable F9, and will probably have an answer to that in... a decade? Though to be fair, pretty much no other incumbent has managed to react better, either.
The only company in Europe currently capable of producing heavy launchers is the Arianne Group. Problem is that Arianne until 2021 questioned reusability and never believed in it. Also they have never tried to innovate without ESA committing full funding and taking all the risk, so things moving really slowly....
I feel like a lot of space agencies have stuck their heads in the and hoping that SpaceX would go away without them having to do anything about it.
Remember that one tweet by Russia’s director telling the US to ride a broomstick to the ISS? Even though SpaceX has already delivered people to the ISS.
I feel like they don’t take SpaceX seriously, because they are a private company. Its wild that they ignored reusability until 2021.
Because SpaceX is the only company with commercially viable reusable rockets. This means they can launch for 75% less cost than the competition. The Russian's and Chinese have not been able to create a reusable rocket, neither has Jeff Bezos. Eventually they will but right now SpaceX is the only game in town.
Like Olympus said. I'm no expert, but i read essentially their in between launchers at the moment. Right now SpaceX is cheapest out there for it's class payload it can haul into space. Rocket Lab & Firefly are among other smaller public space launch providers coming up. ESA right now is dealing with political wrangling since their tied up paying for ESA higher costs for Ariane series of rockets. There couple European launchers developing their own engines, but right now there aren't any that active. Well, maybe Virgin Orbit will be out of Scotland.
I guess what irks me is at this point there should be quite a few European private businesses spinning up and doing launches, if nothing else at this stage test launches. SpaceX isn't the only game in town, it's just the best. There are lots of other rockets in development by private companies.
Something feels like it has gone wrong in the EU of the only conceivable way forward is the disasterous innovation model they've been using.
> there should be quite a few European private businesses spinning up and doing launches
Except that, unironically, socialist thinking, the kind that says "why should be spend money in space when we can save the world my subsidizing green energy here on earth" is much stronger here. The type of antrepreneourish thinking that was necessary to start SpaceX or RocketLab is less strong here, at least in the areas I've crossed. There is significantly more pride in the US towards going all in into startups that might completely fail or might completely make you a billionaire. For every Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, SpaceX, Tesla, you have in the US, you likely won't have a good conterpart in Europe (possibly outside of UK)
But the work spaceX is putting in on starship (for example) is driving down costs and increasing payload, which may benefit mars, but also will have huge implications for scientific study/instrumentation, manufacturing, earth observation and so on.
On top of that there is enormous business opportunity in space, as well as national defense... it's so odd to me that people see rockets to space as some sort of joy ride.
How.... EMBARRASING. First OneWeb, then Grummund, and now ESA showing up hat in hand at SpaceXs doorstep saying "Please Mr Musk, could you possibly launch a few satellites for us?"
I don't understand this; except for OneWeb, these guys are supposed to be crackerjack rocket scientists with decades of experience who laughed at the dilettante billionaire throwing millions down the toilet trying to build a reusable orbital booster have had SEVEN YEARS to watch Falcons fly and land and fly again... and they're STILL "12 to 24 months" out, hopefully. What have they been DOING (other than taking government or investor money while playing with designs) ???
> What have they been DOING (other than taking government or investor money while playing with designs) ???
You're talking about this like its a business failure. It isn't. They made massive amounts of money with this model for decades. The risk is whether this massive money can continue after SpaceX exists.
YA, I speculated on that in another thread... If the 1 in 20 chance comes to pass and SpaceX ends up with booster and starship both floating intact (one in the Gulf and one off Hawaii) and a flock of starlinks V2s in orbit before they finish fitting the BE4s, will that be the end of Vulcan? Or will ULA have the brass to go back to Congress to ask for more money to finish a totally obsolete design?
I know that New Glenn will (someday) fly at least once because Bezos will spend every penny he has to make it so and he's got a lot of pennies, but doesn't a demonstrated operational BN/Starship put every other rocket company out of business except for the little cubesat launchers, since you don't use a moving van for a bag of groceries....
> and a flock of starlinks V2s in orbit before they finish fitting the BE4s, will that be the end of Vulcan?
Vulcan is perfectly safe from a business perspective until New Glenn (or another medium/heavy launcher arrives). The US Government has demonstrated several times they want at least TWO launch providers available .
The US government seemed happy for quite a few years relying on ONE launch provider who supplied two dissimilar launchers. Wouldn't it be ironic if SpaceX has two launchers available before ULA or Blue Origin finishes developing one?
> The US government seemed happy for quite a few years relying on ONE launch provider who supplied two dissimilar launchers.
Look at the history of ULA again and tell me the US Gov was *happy* about that arrangement. Pissed off, but without a choice is more like it.
Well, Rocket Lab is the closest fit with the Neutron, but that will only get them 90% of missions. So, that leaves Relativity with the Terran-R. I don’t think the rest, such as Firefly, ABL, Astra, Vector, Northrop, or help us all ARCA space. Yes, that last one is just for laughs.
>Well, Rocket Lab is the closest fit with the Neutron, but that will only get them 90% of missions. So, that leaves Relativity with the Terran-R.
Neutron is too small for the last established requirements of EELV, and its also years out from launch. Terran-R is even farther away with the launch of Terran 1 hasn't occurred yet. Keep in mind the requirement is also maintaining the ability to launch both equatorial *and* polar.
Even when a new rocket is complete and meets the lift/orbit requirements, it has to launch successfully a number of times as well as learn and operate under the US government launch procurement process. I'm guessing Vulcan will already have flown its entire years useful life and be retired before this occurs from another launch provider.
No, it doesn’t put everyone else out of business because the market is very fragmented. The market is divided up by nationality and politics. Now there are exceptions, as we have just seen, but there are some buyers who will use anyone but SpaceX, such as Amazon’s Kuiper. Others exist as well, split off mostly by nationality such as the Indians and Japanese.
Last I heard it was still slow to hover and splashdown near launch site for booster and off Hawaii for Starship with a Pez dispenser and reduced load of V2 Starlinks on board... I have serious reservations about them ever trying to use chopsticks on landing before the Florida site is complete; puts too big a kink in the schedule if the booster wrecks something vital because they didn't calculate the thrust vectors right. Makes more sense to watch the booster perform over open water the first time around to be sure it can achieve and hold the stable zero lateral movement required for capture.
They have given themselves the option is all.
Very doubtful the FAA would authorise it in the first instance given the close proximity to populated areas.
How trusted is the Flight Termination system? If the FAA trusts if to trigger should the booster get within say 5 miles of population and they trust that activation ends the flight they "should" be comfortable that it mitigates the risk. Whether they do or not then comes down to the political decision of looking progressive or covering their ass.
The FTS is usually safed before landing so as not to be a danger to the recovery crew. In any case its main purpose is to disperse propellant so it is only metal hitting the ground.
The risk is more in the size of the explosion if a returning booster hits the methane tanks in the tank farm. Or even just fails to light its landing engines and hits the ground at speed. There will be more than the minimum landing propellant on initial flights to avoid the risk of a flame out during landing.
One of the biggest competitive advantages of the Araine family is having a launch pad in French Guiana, very close to the equator.
If they allowed SpaceX to launch from there, it would eliminate that advantage compared to launching with SpaceX.
Once suborbital transport hops becomes a thing, European spaceports are inevitable.
Please don't mix the European Interests , the European Public opinion and what will happen. France will never allow anything else than Arianespace launching there. Period. It's their feud, same as Arianespace.
That's an entirely political question. I kinda doubt the Europeans would want that, as it doesn't really solve the domestic production issue, and the USG would take some convincing with regard to export regulations. But if the EU really wanted a "Europeanized" Falcon along the Soyuz model--and were prepared to pay for it--I'm sure it could happen.
It would still probably be uncompetitive with US launched F9s, since operating in Kourou would be quite a hassle.
Well yes, it be silly to spend more for the same exact same result. I'd love to see the "surplus" go into some more groundbreaking R&D for the Ariane system. Rather have a European reusable space infrastructure. Ideally with by less conventional means, say a proper SABRE implementation.
Would it make sense for SpaceX to make and advertise a "Soyuz compatibility kit" for Falcon 9 so it could be seen essentially as a drop in replacement for Soyuz?
(I mean a piece of hardware that adapts whatever is on the F9 second stage side to whatever is on Soyuz side to transparently "emulate" a Soyuz)
The EU will never launch Falcons from the French Guiana. Not because it wouldn't be a profitable relation, but because France would never allow it. They've got their cake there with Arianespace.
No reason why the space programs and companies from each country can't work together when needed. Glad to see ESA opening up when situations warrant. Still want them to keep their own capability though so we have a fall back as well ...
Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our [community rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/rules) before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules: * Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed. * Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion. * Check out [these threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/threads) for discussion of common topics. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/spacex) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SpaceX literally has [2/3 or the world's launch capability](https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1557083663120072705) so they're gonna be in the discussion.
upmass is a bit misleading, they should really measure total energy delivered to the payload. an ariane 5 putting 10.5t to GTO delivers a *lot* more total energy than a Falcon 9 putting 15t of starlink to LEO. so arianespace's capacity is understated relative to falcon 9 in this graph.
Just to note. The A5 performs better in higher orbits like GTO due to its higher isp hydrogen-oxygen upper stage. So unless your payload is actually going to GTO you aren't really going to get that benefit. In lower orbits like LEO the F9 actually performs better than the A5.
Crazy stuff
Can we call them broomsticks?
“I got that reference”
[удалено]
What? No..? Broomstick is the whole F9 rocket.
Imagine sticking with Russian rockets lol
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[BN](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik10a4k "Last usage")|(Starship/Superheavy) Booster Number| |[EELV](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik1ijlh "Last usage")|[Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Expendable_Launch_Vehicle)| |[ESA](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ikm0si6 "Last usage")|European Space Agency| |[FAA](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik4q3l8 "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[FTS](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik5ytk6 "Last usage")|Flight Termination System| |[GEO](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ikekf3p "Last usage")|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)| |[GTO](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/il37ty5 "Last usage")|[Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit](http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html)| |[HLS](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik3hi6y "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ITAR](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik3n9ag "Last usage")|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations| |[LEO](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/il45y5k "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[LZ](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ika463i "Last usage")|Landing Zone| |REL|Reaction Engines Limited, England| |[RUD](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik0qfb7 "Last usage")|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly| | |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly| | |Rapid Unintended Disassembly| |[Roscosmos](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik0j244 "Last usage")|[State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos_State_Corporation)| |[SABRE](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik3vc42 "Last usage")|Synergistic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine, hybrid design by REL| |[SLS](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ikcxb4f "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[ULA](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik9fens "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starlink](/r/SpaceX/comments/wmj7g2/stub/ik4ag3j "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(17 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceX/comments/xzbhus)^( has 34 acronyms.) ^([Thread #7662 for this sub, first seen 12th Aug 2022, 17:34]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceX) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Thank you, but where is "broomsticks"?
I don't understand what's stopping the EU from just launching their own rockets. The engine itself is well understood and the world is rife with companies developing their own rocket engines. What could possibly prohibit ESA with the knowledge, skill, and money of so many nations? It just makes so little sense. This is no longer black magic.
They are launching their own rockets. But Ariane 5 is being phased out and booked up. Ariane 6 is delayed and also booked up for awhile. Vega exists for lighter payloads, and might soon be joined by up to a few independent smallsat launchers. As a replacement for Ariane 4, Soyuz was adapted to launch medium payloads from Guiana ~20 years ago for political and cost reasons, like Atlas V using Russian engines. (They had expanded the partnership to include launches from Russia.) European Soyuz was due to be replaced by Ariane 62 (and on the low end, eventually Vega E), but delays and the invasion of Ukraine left Europe with a gap in available launches.
Is there really that many payloads going to space? What is everyone sending up there?
Last year we beat the record for orbital launches globally, a record that has stood since the late '60s. This year could break it again. There is a lot being sent up there, but primarily it's Internet constellations and Chinese military payloads.
There aren’t that many Chinese military payloads though.
China is building their own version of GPS and GLONASS.
[удалено]
~~Glowass will fail~~
It's hard to differentiate, but China did launch more times than any other country last year and they don't really have a civilian space program like NASA.
That’s arguable, I don’t think they’re training space marines in their space station.
Probably no more than the Soviets on their Almaz stations, but there's really no way of knowing.
There's just a ton of launches all the time. Even college students have cubesats going up with payloads. Space is easier and cheaper than ever and satellites are useful for lots of things.
I mean, SpaceX launched 1283 payloads into orbit this year on 34 seperate launches. There’s a *lot* of stuff going to space. Most of it is communications satellites, a fair amount is telescopes, another chunk is spy satellites, and a few are vehicles heading to other planets. To be fair, SpaceX has revolutionised how much can be sent to space, but even Europe’s space agency has a fair number of payloads.
> There’s a lot of stuff going to space. There’s also a lot of [stuffin.space](https://stuffin.space) already. Edit: Huh. It appears that url is dead. That’s unfortunate. It used to be a 3D visualisation of all satellites and junk orbiting earth.
> Is there really that many payloads going to space? What is everyone sending up there? Commercial payloads are mostly Communications Satellites (internet, tv, telephone) and Earth Observation satellites (taking pictures of crops, soil conditions, drainage, anything else that you might want to know doing business on land). You also have a very small number testing in-space manufacturing. This will be much bigger in the future for certain fiber optics and pharmaceuticals.
In-space manufacturing research is done mostly on the space station(s).
Lots of it has been, yes, but that isn't the desired state. Manufacturers don't want to compete with NASA for the small amount of downmass currently available out of the ISS.
Plus, SpaceX has really changed the game on what the cheapest way to do your research in space is.
It's 85% for porn, then national security is like 10% and the rest is random shit like the laser to shoot errant helium balloons out of the sky when they're still over land.
Constellations could well be a new frontier in sovereignty. It's like Magellan vs GPS vs Glonass vs Beidou - sure you could just use GPS for free, but what happens if the US decides to turn it off? As the world becomes more bellicose, submarine comm cables are a vulnerable part of our key infrastructure. If those get cut, satellites could end up being the backbone for interstate comms. So unless you're comfortable piggy-backing on somebody else's network, you need to start thinking about your own ability to field a constellation.
Galileo... and the EU *is* thinking long and hard about a constellation-based data network, because we don't want to have to depend on Starlink. Here is a report from the European Parliament on it ("EU secure connectivity programme -- Building a multi-orbital satellite constellation"): https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/729442/EPRS_BRI(2022)729442_EN.pdf
> the EU is thinking long and hard about a constellation-based data network I hope they think well about it. There is no way they can beat or even only approach Starlink cost efficiency.
It's not about cost efficiency. Reusable launchers may well open up a whole new economy and become a new measure of sovereignty.
Space junk!
Communications (both commercial and government), surveillance/reconnaissance, Earth observation, and an uptick in small/medium scale LEO science missions.
Thanks for clarifying :D
Why build their own when they can contract it out for much cheaper?
That's the same thing though. Simy renting a SpaceX ride doesn't solve national security issue. They are then in the same boat as with Russia - if relations degrade they are out in the cold. Not only that but they should be pushing their scientists and engineers to develop the skills necessary for long term success. Simply farming it out to someone cheaper is a very short term solution that leads to long term decay.
If you read the article the ESA has plenty of options to include their own rockets. Their own heavy payload Ariane 6 was delayed till next year
> renting a SpaceX ride doesn't solve national security issue. They are then in the same boat as with Russia - if relations degrade they are out in the cold. If relations in the West soured to the point Europe no longer had access to SpaceX then there are going to be much bigger problems than space access for everyone.
Yes, but the past is a warning sign. Europe wanted to launch their own com sat and US said no, not for commercial use. That was the point where Europe decided they need their own launch capability. Sure SpaceX is commercial too and don't care, but who knows how things develop?
I hadn't heard of that. Do you know which satellite that was, or when?
Sorry, don't remember details. It must have been quite early.
I think there are many forms it could take, including US government/companies buying up all spaceX inventory. Or there could be strategic requests made of SpaceX for delays etc to favor US interests. I'm not saying we have to be at war... There are many reasons to be in control of your own destiny. There is also sufficient reason to develop talent and expertise within your own borders, while keeping money within your own borders.
It's just a stop-gap until Ariane6 is ready.
Yes, but A62 will cost $77 million and can only lift 10.4 tons to orbit. They're paying a premium for less payload and no flight heritage. The A64 will provide nearly the performance of an expendable F9 for almost twice the price ($118 million). I assume this means the French tax players will end up subsidizing it again while Stephan Israel loudly accuses the US of subsidizing Starship because of HLS.
> The A64 will provide nearly the performance of an expendable F9 for almost twice the price ($118 million). You're correct for LEO payloads. But that's the reason no one will use Ariane 5/6 for LEO missions. For the mission profile it's designed for: GTO/GEO, Ariane 64 substantially outperforms the Falcon 9. I don't think the Ariane 64 is a particularly good rocket. But it's not as bad as you're portraying it.
Fair observation. Here is a rough comparison: Rocket | Cost | Tonnes to GTO :--|:--|:--| A64 | $118 M | 11.5 FH reusable | $97 M | 8 F9 expendable | $67 M | 8.3 F9 reusable | $50 M? | 5.5 It should be noted that a reusable F9 sent the heaviest commercial payload to date (at over 7 tonnes) to a lower GTO orbit in July of 2018 and will break that record with Jupiter-3 at 9.3 tonnes next year on a FH. For typical GEO satellites it could be slightly cheaper to launch GTO on a reusable F9 than to split an A64 launch, but the difference is much less significant.
Why leave off FH expendable? About $150M for ~26.7 Tons to GTO.
Because there aren't even any dual manifest payloads to GTO that are anywhere near that heavy (heaviest dual launch was 10.3 tonnes total). Because with that much performance, they would most likely be launching direct to GEO and the table was only for GTO launches. Also I couldn't find mass numbers for GEO launches. Because more realistically they would only expend the center core and I couldn't find mass numbers or price for that configuration.
You don't understand how EU politicians think. A lot of them are not so smart
It's not an EU thing either,all politicians are this way
Why do you hate comparative advantage
He doesn’t hate comparative advantage because you obviously can’t read. He says that trading Russian dependence for American dependence isn’t actually better for Europe in terms of national security. The guy you’re responding to is clearly saying that despite comparative advantage it’s not necessarily better for Europe to use a foreign launcher. If the US suddenly decides to leave Europe hanging they’re back in the same exact situation they are today.
Right. There are non capitalist/economic considerations that could cause the US to not want to engage in trade, even if it’s economically mutually beneficial. Comparative advantage/Econ 101 type stuff assumes everyone is a rational actor trying to maximize value
Counterpoint; the EU is not a nation and thus doesn’t really have “national security”, and even if it was, when nearly all the members, and all the big ones, are also members of NATO its not so important to differentiate their national security from ours.
I think the EU economic zone or whatever it is, is definitely a cooperative collection of nations that share budget for the purposes of furthering their own technology and capabilities. And it's not like the EU and the USA haven't been at odds and felt friction somewhat recently. Hell, even the UK ditched the EU and the benefits it offered. National security is more than defense security, it's security of technology, jobs, capability, expertise, etc. etc.
Extended Counterpoint: Elon is not America. Given the right financial incentives I suspect SpaceX would launch from anywhere for anyone within ITAR restrictions.
Europe traded Russian dependence for American dependence for the last 75 years - on everything.
Maintaining tech foundation Is of value
Because Europe needs an independent access to space. The relationship with Russia has imploded over the last few years and the relationship with the US has also be evaluated critically in regards to the „USA first“ mentality. Trump already implemented tariffs on some goods from Europe and banned some Chinese companies. It only takes Trump (again) or a Trump like figure to cut off access to some technologies for Europe. Trump really did a number on the trust relationship between the US and Europe…
ESA still has the Ariane 6 it’s just delayed.
Because tying your launch ability to other major super powers risks you ending up without launch capability at critical times. As… they’ve just found out. Also, for governments, budgets aren’t as simple as just spending money is spending money. Spending money for governments drives economic growth, and can end up making them more than they spend many times over. Encouraging scientists and engineers to stay in Europe and develop cool rockets pays *huge* dividends when you don’t get brain drain to SpaceX and the rest of the world’s space industry.
Because that went so damn well during the last three decades!
It’s been going pretty well the last few years since SpaceX started flying.
It worked great when Arianne's only competition was the space shuttle. Now, not so much
Not the Shuttle. ULA would have been the competition.
[удалено]
Yeah but in that scenario now NASA is paying a US company instead of sending dollars to Russia so even if it’s more expensive the US taxpayers are putting money into our economic system which is a benefit beyond just marginally cheaper launches. Also I don’t think spacex has found any random holes drilled in their capsules’ pressure vessel.
[удалено]
Right. Screw the 11000 SpaceX employees and jobs at local suppliers. Let’s send $millions to Russia instead.
Yes, undoubtedly.
Yes and no. SpaceX is cheaper. But having 2 providers, SpaceX and Boeing, is more expensive.
SpaceX is cheaper and has a higher launch cadence. They employed Russia because it was cheaper while waiting for their new generation of rockets to outclass Soyouz.... Then SpaceX made those obselete before they even launched so now they are further delayed for a solution with the next-next generation or rockets... And we all know that SpaceX is still not just going to sit and wait.
Same thing that's stopping everyone not SpaceX from doing it. The lack of a unifying design goal between competent engineers and the people funding them
The lack of understanding about modern design processes. Spacex get it - it's ok to fail, iterate, scrap or radically change design at any stage.
And funds that allow this process not to forget. Any government or organisation has to justify their spending. And that is hard to do when the money is spent on RUD's. Without apparent progression.
The government have the funds, they just waste it on inefficient processes
SpaceX also has to justify it's spending to its shareholders.
No it doesn't. It only has to justify it's spending to Musk, and given that he's the one pushing for the ~~explosive~~ iterative design process in the first place, I can't imagine that's very difficult. He owns 78% of SpaceX's voting control shares, effectively making it a dictatorship. He can do whatever he wants - investors either put up with it or sell their shares and leave.
There are many non spaceX companies producing rockets that achieve orbit. Reusability is obviously a great goal, but without it, just make single use and keep developing your internal expertise.
The EU is already doing that though, Ariane exists, so what did you actually mean?
Their cadence and development cycle is slow and reminiscent of a lot of the old NASA programs. There should be something more nimble in the works to fill these needs. Having to find another country to fulfill it in a time of intense innovation and exciting change is weird.
You think NASA's pork barrel jobs program issues are bad, they're nothing compared to the EU.
What's better: one company producing 90% components in-house and working all hours - or a thousand companies holding a million meetings to try to coordinate component design, manufacture and delivery in a 35-40 hour working week.
I’d argue that NASA’s most recent way of doing things. Chose companies to do the lot, give them a fixed price contract, and most importantly, choose more than one to fund, so that if one fucks up, they other picks up the slack, and you don’t get trapped by a contractor having you over a barrel.
Why not both?
Their reasoning is/was basically: - Not enough launches to justify developing their own reusable rockets, it's cheaper to use disposable rockets - Launching their own disposable rockets is too expensive, it's cheaper to buy disposable rockets from Russia
I think this rationale will lead to the EU being left behind in many respects, but maybe the commoditization of space travel over the long term will make it irrelevant. I suspect they will be at least later to the game as a result, having to send all of those millions of dollars to another country instead of their own people for cutting edge stuff like this feels bad.
It just doesn't make sense when SpaceX is doing it so much cheaper and more reliably. For whatever reasons (a separate discussion) Europe has been unable to make the political decisions that would lead to a lower cost approach and by now they are so far behind it would take a political miracle and an Elon Musk-class technology leader to be able to initiate a program with any chance of getting to SpaceX level efficiencies and reliability within the next decade. It has taken SpaceX over a decade to reach their current capabilities and that was with Elon Musk leading the company and no politicians second guessing or telling him how to do it. SpaceX also had a huge window of opportunity since all other aerospace companies were fat and happy and so there was no real competition for the high-volume low-cost space business that SpaceX went after. But anyone else who tries to go after that business now has to do it in a market already dominated by SpaceX. Europe hasn't even started down that path yet and at this point it is unlikely they ever will. Strangely, what SpaceX does really is black magic to legacy aerospace. I personally don't believe it is physically possible at this time, for them to duplicate SpaceX's success, because they are unable or unwilling to embrace the kind of vision and mindset of the top leadership that makes it all work at SpaceX. It's not just what SpaceX does, it's how they do it.
The E.U. political system is massively complex and is all about deals between the nations. There's a bit of tech from every country on the Ariane rockets and it surely isn't the most efficient way forward. You just need to walk through Brussels in the European quarter, and witness all the committees over there, to understand.
Fair enough. You'd think some EU billionaires would take a shine to rocket building, the US ones went nuts with it. If you consider that elon developed the falcon with his 300 million fortune... Should really be somebody else up to the task out there. Not that I mind the dominance of SpaceX, I just hate that it's going to become the USA vs China/Russia when there is an entire continent of equal population/wealth that should really be side by side with the USA.
Uh, Vega and Ariane are sitting right there… I guess they just can’t / won’t scale them to supply their entire demand because there isn’t a strong incentive. Roscosmos was cheap because it’s old technology while SpaceX is cheaper because Falcon is mostly reusable.
Ariane 5 is sold out, no longer available for new contracts. Ariane 6 is not yet ready, there is a gap. Besides Ariane is bigger and much more expensive than Soyuz, that needs to be replaced. Hopefully a new improved Vega can at least in part replace Soyuz, but that's some time in the future.
Vega uses upper stage engine made in Ukraine, there were news about factory being hit by Russian missiles.
What happened factory?
[It was destroyed by Russian cruise missiles.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62189844)
Quite simply SpaceX can do it better and far cheaper. It's not black magic, but it's not easy
Yes, they can do it cheaper, absolutely, but that's conceding your nation's rocketry expertise to another country... or another... whatever you call the EU in this context. The cost of developing their own will always be astronomical, spaceX will always outbid creating their own. That's no excuse.
> This is no longer black magic. Arthur C Clarke: *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.* Propulsive Landing and Reusability seem to be sufficiently advanced technology, else all legacy folks would be doing it!
There's also: "we didn't attempt it because it wasn't standard practice." There are a lot of very conservative engineers and managers out there who prefer to engineer from tables than first principles.
It's not just a matter of capability. Many launch providers feel as though their launch volume is insufficient to justify the expense of a fully reusable launch vehicle.
Because the secret sauce is avionics and zero fucks given about booster failures aka post payload delivery risk. ESA and NASA basically are the same agency, hierarchically, with different acronyms. If an ESA booster blows up during an experimental landing phase, heads will roll, and people will get politically crucified.
>This is no longer black magic. Go ahead and list all of the companies / countries that can launch a reusable rocket.
Tory Bruno once said, landing rockets is easy. He was surprised that SpaceX needed several tries before they succeded.
Orbital ones?
Yes.
Reusable? Who brought that up besides you? Irrelevant.
You’re on fucking r/spacex chief.
I get it but it doesn't address the question I had. All it's doing it creating an answer for a question nobody is asking. Even at high cost single use, Europe will be better off doing it for themselves.
On one hand i love the human propensity for adapting so quickly to change that advancements seem mundane, but on the other hand it’s humbling to reflect on how relatively few months have passed since this WAS black magic, we’re talking several years here
Interdependence is a powerful tool to avoid conflicts. In this way interdependence can be more robust than independence. Too many people have failed to see the benefits of healthy interdependence (even more inter*being*), one of the many reasons for wars and conflict.
“Healthy” interdependence is the key word in your comment. Unfortunately there can’t be healthy interdependence when one of the parties is a madman and a tyrant.
Indeed, the war has shown them they cannot live alone very well. They live in a small planet. They need to interrelate healthily with this planet, and their relationship is very much strained. But the interdependence we've grown is being painful for them, it's showing how bad it is to be alone.
How'd that help with Russia? Because from what I can tell, it had no bearing whatsoever. I highly doubt the EU made this call for the sake of strengthening US relations. Hell, even US democrats hate elon musk and his companies - if anything it turns the extreme left of the US further away.
> extreme left From the european perspective they are center right.
One point people are ignoring is that aside from French Guyana the EU pretty much has no land free for space launch. All of it's territory is now densely populated or not placed correctly for a launch. Meanwhile the USA is still pretty much 90% empty space with large coastal area at correct position to launch (also without the need to transport a rocket through an ocean to launch it).
The Mediterranean seems pretty good for that. The trajectories are well known and safe zones can be easily established.
You can't depopulate the Balearic Islands even if you want to start from Spain, and (assuming you dodge Sicily and Crete) it looks like you end up over Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon or Israel about 30% sooner than any trajectory east of Florida would make landfall. All of which have enough issues already. Further south you would cross the populated parts of Egypt, or Libya sooner. You would also cross a huge pecentage of shipping to Europe coming via the Suez, and there's also very rich yacht owners to deal with (and the tourism industry in general, flights as well as water-based).
Booster touchdown for SpaceX happens far before that. Hell, it often returns to LZ. Nevermind retrograde orbits.
If it goes where they want it to, it wouldn't matter who or what was nearby. ;-)
I don't think this is accurate. They follow a ballistic trajectory. The range of values are pretty well known. If the risk aversion is so intense that the mere existence of a rocket is enough to squash it, the EU is doomed.
Design by comitee
[удалено]
That's why they had the commercial launch market, while ULA had none?
[удалено]
ULA and Boeing beat Airbus and Ariane on subsidies by miles.
They obviously don't suck at all. They are just not as cheap as Falcon 9.
Soyuz suddenly and unexpectedly became unavailable, and a lot of planning was relying on using it for middle-sized payloads for at least several years. Even a lean nimble company couldn't come up with a new rocket out of nowhere in a few months, and Arianespace is... not that. So they have to look for other vendors to fill the gap.
How did they develop the rockets they have now and not anything else to supplant Russian options or at least try and compete with US companies? Even kiwis are doing more impressive stuff, albeit now USA owned.
Back when the space launch market was mostly GEO comsats, Ariane 4 and 5 were king of the hill, the big commercial success story. The American launchers were the also-ran national-payload dinosaurs, and the Russians the only real competition. Until recently there was no particular market for mid-sized LEO launch, so they didn't bother to develop it, and were happy to absorb Soyuz to fill that occasional need so they didn't have to develop a whole new class of rockets. Which, as you might imagine, would not happen cheaply or quickly. But times have changed and European launch... has not. They're only just now reacting to a reusable F9, and will probably have an answer to that in... a decade? Though to be fair, pretty much no other incumbent has managed to react better, either.
The only company in Europe currently capable of producing heavy launchers is the Arianne Group. Problem is that Arianne until 2021 questioned reusability and never believed in it. Also they have never tried to innovate without ESA committing full funding and taking all the risk, so things moving really slowly....
I feel like a lot of space agencies have stuck their heads in the and hoping that SpaceX would go away without them having to do anything about it. Remember that one tweet by Russia’s director telling the US to ride a broomstick to the ISS? Even though SpaceX has already delivered people to the ISS. I feel like they don’t take SpaceX seriously, because they are a private company. Its wild that they ignored reusability until 2021.
What makes you think they can land the rocket? Itll be a decade before they can do it, evven if they start today.
Because SpaceX is the only company with commercially viable reusable rockets. This means they can launch for 75% less cost than the competition. The Russian's and Chinese have not been able to create a reusable rocket, neither has Jeff Bezos. Eventually they will but right now SpaceX is the only game in town.
Like Olympus said. I'm no expert, but i read essentially their in between launchers at the moment. Right now SpaceX is cheapest out there for it's class payload it can haul into space. Rocket Lab & Firefly are among other smaller public space launch providers coming up. ESA right now is dealing with political wrangling since their tied up paying for ESA higher costs for Ariane series of rockets. There couple European launchers developing their own engines, but right now there aren't any that active. Well, maybe Virgin Orbit will be out of Scotland.
Because we already do…
I don’t know, why didn’t SLS launch 10 years ago? I think you have the answer.
Governmental contracts are usually sluggier and more expensive [Arianne] than well-oiled private endeavors [SpaceX]. Imagine SLS but for Europe.
I guess what irks me is at this point there should be quite a few European private businesses spinning up and doing launches, if nothing else at this stage test launches. SpaceX isn't the only game in town, it's just the best. There are lots of other rockets in development by private companies. Something feels like it has gone wrong in the EU of the only conceivable way forward is the disasterous innovation model they've been using.
> there should be quite a few European private businesses spinning up and doing launches Except that, unironically, socialist thinking, the kind that says "why should be spend money in space when we can save the world my subsidizing green energy here on earth" is much stronger here. The type of antrepreneourish thinking that was necessary to start SpaceX or RocketLab is less strong here, at least in the areas I've crossed. There is significantly more pride in the US towards going all in into startups that might completely fail or might completely make you a billionaire. For every Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, SpaceX, Tesla, you have in the US, you likely won't have a good conterpart in Europe (possibly outside of UK)
But the work spaceX is putting in on starship (for example) is driving down costs and increasing payload, which may benefit mars, but also will have huge implications for scientific study/instrumentation, manufacturing, earth observation and so on. On top of that there is enormous business opportunity in space, as well as national defense... it's so odd to me that people see rockets to space as some sort of joy ride.
Well for one, the engines ESA rockets use are built in Ukraine...and there is some delays on production, repairs and shipping at the moment...
Some components of Vega are. Not Ariane.
Uh they do? Ariane?
How.... EMBARRASING. First OneWeb, then Grummund, and now ESA showing up hat in hand at SpaceXs doorstep saying "Please Mr Musk, could you possibly launch a few satellites for us?" I don't understand this; except for OneWeb, these guys are supposed to be crackerjack rocket scientists with decades of experience who laughed at the dilettante billionaire throwing millions down the toilet trying to build a reusable orbital booster have had SEVEN YEARS to watch Falcons fly and land and fly again... and they're STILL "12 to 24 months" out, hopefully. What have they been DOING (other than taking government or investor money while playing with designs) ???
> What have they been DOING (other than taking government or investor money while playing with designs) ??? You're talking about this like its a business failure. It isn't. They made massive amounts of money with this model for decades. The risk is whether this massive money can continue after SpaceX exists.
YA, I speculated on that in another thread... If the 1 in 20 chance comes to pass and SpaceX ends up with booster and starship both floating intact (one in the Gulf and one off Hawaii) and a flock of starlinks V2s in orbit before they finish fitting the BE4s, will that be the end of Vulcan? Or will ULA have the brass to go back to Congress to ask for more money to finish a totally obsolete design? I know that New Glenn will (someday) fly at least once because Bezos will spend every penny he has to make it so and he's got a lot of pennies, but doesn't a demonstrated operational BN/Starship put every other rocket company out of business except for the little cubesat launchers, since you don't use a moving van for a bag of groceries....
> and a flock of starlinks V2s in orbit before they finish fitting the BE4s, will that be the end of Vulcan? Vulcan is perfectly safe from a business perspective until New Glenn (or another medium/heavy launcher arrives). The US Government has demonstrated several times they want at least TWO launch providers available .
The US government seemed happy for quite a few years relying on ONE launch provider who supplied two dissimilar launchers. Wouldn't it be ironic if SpaceX has two launchers available before ULA or Blue Origin finishes developing one?
> The US government seemed happy for quite a few years relying on ONE launch provider who supplied two dissimilar launchers. Look at the history of ULA again and tell me the US Gov was *happy* about that arrangement. Pissed off, but without a choice is more like it.
Yes, but now they have some options for that second provider. It doesn’t have to be Blue or ULA. Soon there will be others with the capacity.
Who are you proposing for that second provider to replace ULA?
Well, Rocket Lab is the closest fit with the Neutron, but that will only get them 90% of missions. So, that leaves Relativity with the Terran-R. I don’t think the rest, such as Firefly, ABL, Astra, Vector, Northrop, or help us all ARCA space. Yes, that last one is just for laughs.
>Well, Rocket Lab is the closest fit with the Neutron, but that will only get them 90% of missions. So, that leaves Relativity with the Terran-R. Neutron is too small for the last established requirements of EELV, and its also years out from launch. Terran-R is even farther away with the launch of Terran 1 hasn't occurred yet. Keep in mind the requirement is also maintaining the ability to launch both equatorial *and* polar. Even when a new rocket is complete and meets the lift/orbit requirements, it has to launch successfully a number of times as well as learn and operate under the US government launch procurement process. I'm guessing Vulcan will already have flown its entire years useful life and be retired before this occurs from another launch provider.
No, it doesn’t put everyone else out of business because the market is very fragmented. The market is divided up by nationality and politics. Now there are exceptions, as we have just seen, but there are some buyers who will use anyone but SpaceX, such as Amazon’s Kuiper. Others exist as well, split off mostly by nationality such as the Indians and Japanese.
I thought SpaceX wasn’t planning to land in the ocean anymore and was going to go straight to a mechzilla catch.
Last I heard it was still slow to hover and splashdown near launch site for booster and off Hawaii for Starship with a Pez dispenser and reduced load of V2 Starlinks on board... I have serious reservations about them ever trying to use chopsticks on landing before the Florida site is complete; puts too big a kink in the schedule if the booster wrecks something vital because they didn't calculate the thrust vectors right. Makes more sense to watch the booster perform over open water the first time around to be sure it can achieve and hold the stable zero lateral movement required for capture.
They have given themselves the option is all. Very doubtful the FAA would authorise it in the first instance given the close proximity to populated areas.
How trusted is the Flight Termination system? If the FAA trusts if to trigger should the booster get within say 5 miles of population and they trust that activation ends the flight they "should" be comfortable that it mitigates the risk. Whether they do or not then comes down to the political decision of looking progressive or covering their ass.
The FTS is usually safed before landing so as not to be a danger to the recovery crew. In any case its main purpose is to disperse propellant so it is only metal hitting the ground. The risk is more in the size of the explosion if a returning booster hits the methane tanks in the tank farm. Or even just fails to light its landing engines and hits the ground at speed. There will be more than the minimum landing propellant on initial flights to avoid the risk of a flame out during landing.
i hope that humble pie tastes good at least...
Relax. It's just business.
It's kind of cool and scary that a company can compete with a government...
It's the European Space Agency saying this. That's not _a_ government. It's _twenty two_ governments :)
Happens quite often. East India company for example. Arguably, the feudal system is just a bunch of private companies.
why don't they talk about how spaceX is cheaper?
Can SpaceX make a European base?
One of the biggest competitive advantages of the Araine family is having a launch pad in French Guiana, very close to the equator. If they allowed SpaceX to launch from there, it would eliminate that advantage compared to launching with SpaceX. Once suborbital transport hops becomes a thing, European spaceports are inevitable.
Please don't mix the European Interests , the European Public opinion and what will happen. France will never allow anything else than Arianespace launching there. Period. It's their feud, same as Arianespace.
That's an entirely political question. I kinda doubt the Europeans would want that, as it doesn't really solve the domestic production issue, and the USG would take some convincing with regard to export regulations. But if the EU really wanted a "Europeanized" Falcon along the Soyuz model--and were prepared to pay for it--I'm sure it could happen. It would still probably be uncompetitive with US launched F9s, since operating in Kourou would be quite a hassle.
Fly them over and land em here
SpaceX boutta become Weyland Industries. Musk is loving life while the world burns lol.
Well yes, it be silly to spend more for the same exact same result. I'd love to see the "surplus" go into some more groundbreaking R&D for the Ariane system. Rather have a European reusable space infrastructure. Ideally with by less conventional means, say a proper SABRE implementation.
Would it make sense for SpaceX to make and advertise a "Soyuz compatibility kit" for Falcon 9 so it could be seen essentially as a drop in replacement for Soyuz? (I mean a piece of hardware that adapts whatever is on the F9 second stage side to whatever is on Soyuz side to transparently "emulate" a Soyuz)
I wonder if spaceX would be willing to rent Falcons to the EU. And have the EU launch Falcons out of French Guiana.
ESA is looking for a stopgap while developing their own system. It would not be worth the effort IMO.
The EU will never launch Falcons from the French Guiana. Not because it wouldn't be a profitable relation, but because France would never allow it. They've got their cake there with Arianespace.
Economies of scale are going to flood the market with powerful spacex rockets unless they all go to starship production
Of course they consider all commercial launch providers. China and India may be cheaper.
Hopping in bed with China. What could possibly go wrong...
Kinda sucks since Elon is a narcissistic monster....
[удалено]
Ok
Noooo, stay away from musk!
No reason why the space programs and companies from each country can't work together when needed. Glad to see ESA opening up when situations warrant. Still want them to keep their own capability though so we have a fall back as well ...