As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist

[kevinof]

Long article on ARS around Ariane

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/as-the-spacex-steamroller-surges-european-rocket-industry-vows-to-resist/

[Coastal Ron]

Long article on ARS around Ariane

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/as-the-spacex-steamroller-surges-european-rocket-industry-vows-to-resist/

Just as I fear for the future of ULA, I fear for the future of ESA/ArianeGroup/Arianespace.

For a long time there was only a small percentage change in the price and performance of rockets, and it was manageable from a world competition standpoint. However SpaceX radically changed that trajectory with their efforts on reusability and a focus on cost, and Blue Origin is on a similar trajectory.

Russia's response, which was to not respond, is an indication of what is to come for anyone that is dependent on commercial customers and has not yet started down the path of having reusable rockets. Russia's commercial launch capability is moribund, and there is a good chance the commercial world will no longer consider it as a viable provider.

Luckily for Arianespace they have some degree of guaranteed customers, but will that be enough? And what of the rest of Europe's commercial payload customers that wants to stay competitive with the rest of the world? At some point they HAVE TO have launch costs comparable with their competitors, and more and more into the future that won't be able to come from Ariane 6.

Interesting times, and we'll have to see how it shakes out, but we've seen this movie before...

[dante2308]

Long article on ARS around Ariane

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/as-the-spacex-steamroller-surges-european-rocket-industry-vows-to-resist/

Just as I fear for the future of ULA, I fear for the future of ESA/ArianeGroup/Arianespace.

For a long time there was only a small percentage change in the price and performance of rockets, and it was manageable from a world competition standpoint. However SpaceX radically changed that trajectory with their efforts on reusability and a focus on cost, and Blue Origin is on a similar trajectory.

Russia's response, which was to not respond, is an indication of what is to come for anyone that is dependent on commercial customers and has not yet started down the path of having reusable rockets. Russia's commercial launch capability is moribund, and there is a good chance the commercial world will no longer consider it as a viable provider.

Luckily for Arianespace they have some degree of guaranteed customers, but will that be enough? And what of the rest of Europe's commercial payload customers that wants to stay competitive with the rest of the world? At some point they HAVE TO have launch costs comparable with their competitors, and more and more into the future that won't be able to come from Ariane 6.

Interesting times, and we'll have to see how it shakes out, but we've seen this movie before...

Isn't Arianespace reducing the price of their rocket launches by 40-50% with the Ariane 6 in the next 2 years? That's a more significant reduction than SpaceX achieved with reusability so far and the Ariane 6 has at least as good a cost per kg as the Falcon 9. Furthermore, Arianespace is working towards reusability with Ariane Next.

They're are plenty of slow-moving, high cost launch providers out there, but Arianespace has been commercially competitive throughout the entire existence of SpaceX. It's commendable.

I do think they need a better spokesperson though. The subsidy argument against SpaceX gets a little tiresome.

[Chasm]

Oh, another article by Eric Berger. 🤮
At least his Amazon Rive is on the right continent...

Actually, since the CNES presentation [Link, NSF thread] we know that the Ariane situation seems not quite as bad as most of NSF thought.

The timeline is the interesting part:
-2019 Frog & Eagle demonstrators nobody seems to know much about. [Xodiac/Xaero(ish) ?]
2020-2021 Callisto demonstrator (with JAXA)
Q3 2021, Prometheus final review after test a 2 engine test campaign
2023-2025 Themis demonstrator, flying RTLS trajectories (likely #3 variant, it is pictured as that. A 5m Ariane class first stage, 7 engines)
2025-2030 CSG NG demonstrator nobody knows nutthing about at this time.
2025-2030 Ariane 6 evolution
2028-2030 Ariane Next

Too little too late? Sure! Welcome to Europe...
Better than most here thought? Absolutely.

The big item is to get Prometheus working. No air restartable engine no reuse. Simple as that.


@dante2308
The goal of A6 was to cut A5 launch price in half. (Give or take) Looks so far as if that goal will be met, ~45% reduction IIRC. We'll find out once commercial customers talk about prices.
Is that competitive against what SpaceX and Blue Origin are expected to launch in the near future? Probably not that much.
Still, A6 will be a whole lot more competitive than continuing with A5.

[Coastal Ron]

Isn't Arianespace reducing the price of their rocket launches by 40-50% with the Ariane 6 in the next 2 years? That's a more significant reduction than SpaceX achieved with reusability so far and the Ariane 6 has at least as good a cost per kg as the Falcon 9.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

2. It doesn't matter that SpaceX has not reduced the price of their service over time, since one reason for that could be that they were more efficient from the start.

3. The more important metric to look at is what are the costs of SpaceX vs Arianespace today and going forward.

Furthermore, Arianespace is working towards reusability with Ariane Next.

Maybe that will result in some version of reusability, maybe not. It is unlikely to change the design of Ariane 6 enough to affect the basic price of the rocket to it's customers.

They're are plenty of slow-moving, high cost launch providers out there, but Arianespace has been commercially competitive throughout the entire existence of SpaceX. It's commendable.

Ariane 5 is subsidized for every launch, so no, Ariane 5 has not been commercially competitive.

I do think they need a better spokesperson though. The subsidy argument against SpaceX gets a little tiresome.

Pot calling the kettle black. Especially since SpaceX does not receive any formal subsidies like Arianespace does.

At best Arianespace can make a claim that SpaceX charges too much for the added value parts of government launch contracts, but even that is specious since SpaceX has to compete against other launch providers to win orders, so they don't have the ability to charge exorbitant prices. Ariane 5 does not have to compete with other European launch providers.

[envy887]

...
The goal of A6 was to cut A5 launch price in half. (Give or take) Looks so far as if that goal will be met, ~45% reduction IIRC. We'll find out once commercial customers talk about prices.
Is that competitive against what SpaceX and Blue Origin are expected to launch in the near future? Probably not that much.
Still, A6 will be a whole lot more competitive than continuing with A5.

The ~45% cost reduction is for A62, and is accompanied by a similar reduction in performance. A64 is actually the much better deal and is competitive, but only for double berthed GTO launches.

[dante2308]

At best Arianespace can make a claim that SpaceX charges too much for the added value parts of government launch contracts, but even that is specious since SpaceX has to compete against other launch providers to win orders, so they don't have the ability to charge exorbitant prices. Ariane 5 does not have to compete with other European launch providers.

I think the author messed up that part. SpaceX only had to compete to be eligible for guaranteed contracts for cargo and crew to the ISS. SpaceX knew there would be at least two winners from the onset of both competitions and only really had to be ahead of the third best in terms of technical readiness. That competition is over and SpaceX is getting development costs covered and is free to raise prices in subsequent flight RFPs without any real fear of losing the contract. EELV II seems to be essentially the same deal. Splitting contracts isn't exactly the same competing.

Furthermore, Ariane is guaranteed nothing since the European governments are free to choose SpaceX and Germany actually did. Europe will also be buying manned space flights from other countries for the foreseeable future. In this Ariane has a huge institutional disadvantage no matter how you slice it.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

2. It doesn't matter that SpaceX has not reduced the price of their service over time, since one reason for that could be that they were more efficient from the start.

3. The more important metric to look at is what are the costs of SpaceX vs Arianespace today and going forward.

I was specifically responding to your claim that:

For a long time there was only a small percentage change in the price and performance of rockets, and it was manageable from a world competition standpoint. However SpaceX radically changed that trajectory with their efforts on reusability and a focus on cost, and Blue Origin is on a similar trajectory.

Here I disagree with the implication that Ariane is making only small percentage changes on price or that SpaceX made larger ones due to reusability. As for efficiency, I'm not seeing how any year through 2016 could have been efficient for SpaceX. They never came close to launching their planned manifest and Dragon flights and development funds made up at least half of their revenue.

To make a table for the number of flights of the Falcon 9 for NASA versus the total

2010-2013:

5/7 flights

2014:

2/6 flights

2015:

4/7 flights

2016:

3/8 flights

Now this all changed with 2017 and this year, but I think it's fair to at least question the cost of the Falcon 9 from 2010-2016 especially given that there were RUDs in 2015 and 2016.

[edkyle99]

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

 - Ed Kyle

[Lar]

Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

[dante2308]

Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

I don't think that's a very fair analysis of Arianespace's services or prices. For example, Ariane 64 is a more powerful rocket and is capable of dual launch so that's hardly the base price, not that Arianespace would use either for TESS. I also don't think Jason 3 or TESS were the most expensive missions pencilled in for the Falcon 9.

A better example might be how GPS III launches have crept up in price for the same service on the same rocket (Falcon 9).

[envy887]

Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

I don't think that's a very fair analysis of Arianespace's services or prices. For example, Ariane 64 is a more powerful rocket and is capable of dual launch so that's hardly the base price, not that Arianespace would use either for TESS. I also don't think Jason 3 or TESS were the most expensive missions pencilled in for the Falcon 9.

A better example might be how GPS III launches have crept up in price for the same service on the same rocket (Falcon 9).

"Base" is a reference to all optional services, and performance is only once of those options. NASA and USAF missions usually require more services.

[dante2308]

Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

I don't think that's a very fair analysis of Arianespace's services or prices. For example, Ariane 64 is a more powerful rocket and is capable of dual launch so that's hardly the base price, not that Arianespace would use either for TESS. I also don't think Jason 3 or TESS were the most expensive missions pencilled in for the Falcon 9.

A better example might be how GPS III launches have crept up in price for the same service on the same rocket (Falcon 9).

"Base" is a reference to all optional services, and performance is only once of those options. NASA and USAF missions usually require more services.

Be that as it may, TESS and Jason 3 are not the most expensive Falcon 9 launches and you are able to fly a similarly-sized payload to similar orbits with Arianespace for less. To make a proper comparison, we probably would have to go apples to apples.

Maybe one of the best examples might be the LISA pathfinder mission to L1 using Vega versus TESS on Falcon 9?

The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that Falcon 9 is only really cost effective when full. It's a good size for that, but it can't compete on the small sat side or on the GEO side. Falcon Heavy seems to have the same capabilities as the Ariane 64 with core recovery, but without the dual launch. Seems like Arianeapce is going to be competitive on the lower and upper bounds of the Falcon 9 sweet spot.

[envy887]

Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

I don't think that's a very fair analysis of Arianespace's services or prices. For example, Ariane 64 is a more powerful rocket and is capable of dual launch so that's hardly the base price, not that Arianespace would use either for TESS. I also don't think Jason 3 or TESS were the most expensive missions pencilled in for the Falcon 9.

A better example might be how GPS III launches have crept up in price for the same service on the same rocket (Falcon 9).

"Base" is a reference to all optional services, and performance is only once of those options. NASA and USAF missions usually require more services.

Be that as it may, TESS and Jason 3 are not the most expensive Falcon 9 launches and you are able to fly a similarly-sized payload to similar orbits with Arianespace for less. To make a proper comparison, we probably would have to go apples to apples.

Maybe one of the best examples might be the LISA pathfinder mission to L1 using Vega versus TESS on Falcon 9?

The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that Falcon 9 is only really cost effective when full. It's a good size for that, but it can't compete on the small sat side or on the GEO side. Falcon Heavy seems to have the same capabilities as the Ariane 64 with core recovery, but without the dual launch. Seems like Arianeapce is going to be competitive on the lower and upper bounds of the Falcon 9 sweet spot.

That's not remotely apples to apples.

Launches aren't bought by the kg, you have to buy the whole vehicle. And in NASA's case, government regulations require that launch services are competitively bid, not purchased at a list price.

NASA can't buy launches on Vega, and no other vehicle than F9 that they could use was both cheaper and had the required performance.

NASA and ESA have different requirements. Even if they bought the same mission on the same vehicle (which again, they can't and don't) they would ask for different services and get different bid prices.

[dante2308]

Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

I don't think that's a very fair analysis of Arianespace's services or prices. For example, Ariane 64 is a more powerful rocket and is capable of dual launch so that's hardly the base price, not that Arianespace would use either for TESS. I also don't think Jason 3 or TESS were the most expensive missions pencilled in for the Falcon 9.

A better example might be how GPS III launches have crept up in price for the same service on the same rocket (Falcon 9).

"Base" is a reference to all optional services, and performance is only once of those options. NASA and USAF missions usually require more services.

Be that as it may, TESS and Jason 3 are not the most expensive Falcon 9 launches and you are able to fly a similarly-sized payload to similar orbits with Arianespace for less. To make a proper comparison, we probably would have to go apples to apples.

Maybe one of the best examples might be the LISA pathfinder mission to L1 using Vega versus TESS on Falcon 9?

The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that Falcon 9 is only really cost effective when full. It's a good size for that, but it can't compete on the small sat side or on the GEO side. Falcon Heavy seems to have the same capabilities as the Ariane 64 with core recovery, but without the dual launch. Seems like Arianeapce is going to be competitive on the lower and upper bounds of the Falcon 9 sweet spot.

That's not remotely apples to apples.

Launches aren't bought by the kg, you have to buy the whole vehicle.

Which is why Arianespace has the advantage of a medium and small sat launch system that beats SpaceX on price and cost. It would be interesting if SpaceX undercut Vega in the $30-35 million dollar range some day though. I'm looking forward to direct GEO FH contracts too.

[envy887]

Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

I don't think that's a very fair analysis of Arianespace's services or prices. For example, Ariane 64 is a more powerful rocket and is capable of dual launch so that's hardly the base price, not that Arianespace would use either for TESS. I also don't think Jason 3 or TESS were the most expensive missions pencilled in for the Falcon 9.

A better example might be how GPS III launches have crept up in price for the same service on the same rocket (Falcon 9).

"Base" is a reference to all optional services, and performance is only once of those options. NASA and USAF missions usually require more services.

Be that as it may, TESS and Jason 3 are not the most expensive Falcon 9 launches and you are able to fly a similarly-sized payload to similar orbits with Arianespace for less. To make a proper comparison, we probably would have to go apples to apples.

Maybe one of the best examples might be the LISA pathfinder mission to L1 using Vega versus TESS on Falcon 9?

The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that Falcon 9 is only really cost effective when full. It's a good size for that, but it can't compete on the small sat side or on the GEO side. Falcon Heavy seems to have the same capabilities as the Ariane 64 with core recovery, but without the dual launch. Seems like Arianeapce is going to be competitive on the lower and upper bounds of the Falcon 9 sweet spot.

That's not remotely apples to apples.

Launches aren't bought by the kg, you have to buy the whole vehicle.

Which is why Arianespace has the advantage of a medium and small sat launch system that beats SpaceX on price and cost. It would be interesting if SpaceX undercut Vega in the $30-35 million dollar range some day though. I'm looking forward to direct GEO FH contracts too.

Vega will probably launch more ESA science missions than F9 will, yes. But in the commsat market most of the money in that segment will be on constellations that can package into bigger payloads. Those will go on bigger vehicles.

[Archibald]

Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

And it somewhat bugs me that a forum moderator turns into a spaceX amazing people and set on his own reality distortion field.
Either you are a moderator, either you are a SpaceX amazing people, but both not possible. Just sayin' .

More precisely:

 I'm not saying that a moderator shall not have an opinion, I'm just saying that every other moderators on this forum stay out of SpaceX discussions, and for good reasons.

It is the same thing on a lot of other forums I'm a member: when moderators acknowledge a subject is SENSITIVE, they keep their personal opinions out of it.
Because they shall not become entangled into the wrong debate, since they might have to cut / delete posts if things go wrong.

As we say in French "on ne peut pas être juge et partie"

[TrevorMonty]

Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

I don't think that's a very fair analysis of Arianespace's services or prices. For example, Ariane 64 is a more powerful rocket and is capable of dual launch so that's hardly the base price, not that Arianespace would use either for TESS. I also don't think Jason 3 or TESS were the most expensive missions pencilled in for the Falcon 9.

A better example might be how GPS III launches have crept up in price for the same service on the same rocket (Falcon 9).

"Base" is a reference to all optional services, and performance is only once of those options. NASA and USAF missions usually require more services.

Be that as it may, TESS and Jason 3 are not the most expensive Falcon 9 launches and you are able to fly a similarly-sized payload to similar orbits with Arianespace for less. To make a proper comparison, we probably would have to go apples to apples.

Maybe one of the best examples might be the LISA pathfinder mission to L1 using Vega versus TESS on Falcon 9?

The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that Falcon 9 is only really cost effective when full. It's a good size for that, but it can't compete on the small sat side or on the GEO side. Falcon Heavy seems to have the same capabilities as the Ariane 64 with core recovery, but without the dual launch. Seems like Arianeapce is going to be competitive on the lower and upper bounds of the Falcon 9 sweet spot.

A shift to GEO direct launches would favour A6 and Vulcan. Only FH could compete in this market.

[Chasm]

Furthermore, Ariane is guaranteed nothing since the European governments are free to choose SpaceX and Germany actually did.

That might change. There has been quite a bit of lobbying in the EU, most of the articles we saw and laughed about were targeted at policy makers.
More importantly chances are that the US President will say and do something during his short victorious trade war.

[ulm_atms]

Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.

I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

And it somewhat bugs me that a forum moderator turns into a spaceX amazing people and set on his own reality distortion field.
Either you are a moderator, either you are a SpaceX amazing people, but both not possible. Just sayin' .  I'm not saying that a moderator shall not have an opinion, I'm just saying that every other moderators on this forum stay out of SpaceX discussions, and for good reasons.

Personally, I consider Lar quite balanced in his moderation.  He doesn't seem bent to any one company/issue.  I understand his arguments when he makes them (now if I agree that is another mater..but that is the point for a forum).  I've seen him call out a ULA bashers just as much as a SpaceX bashers...or a SLS bashers.  He gives some leeway here and takes it there....etc...

He may lean more towards the SpaceX thinking...but I would not call him a amazing people(All SpaceX all the time, everybody else sucks, no one else does it right....for example).

I personally like the moderators being interactive on the forums...I think it keeps everything balanced better.

Now...as Lar and all moderators would want...back on topic! 

[edkyle99]

You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

You missed my point, which was that Falcon 9 prices are creeping upward, and at an increasing rate.  That brings into question the assertion that Arianespace will never be able to reduce their prices enough to compete.  If SpaceX prices continue to rise, maybe Arianespace will.  And of course it will.  Arianespace has no other choice.

 - Ed Kyle