Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here

[Michel Van]

What happen in Brussels
Was desperate attempt of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to keep their decade old Monopol.
Since 1979 both build Rockets and launch satellites for ESA and Customers.

Your post seems to be a concise statement of the current situation, which appears to be dire. What you you think ESA and the European space industry should do?

First let's run the Ariane 6 like planned,

Then ending this Monopoly where they got fat and greedy and
trow ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to the Sharks in Launch Market Business !
because ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace are like Boeing or Lockheed/Martin  inflexible to change.

But that own fault they became the dinosaurs of Space Age, now surviving the Impact Elon Musk made... 

One of those Europeans start up companies will survive,
and produce first micro launcher, later cheaper reusable rocket in role of Ariane 6.
Those should  European Union support with launch site ans support for that growing aerospace industry.
 
off course ESA, ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will try everything to stop them,
like using political connection to prevent use of Kourou spaceport for Privates launch provider,
also political meddling inside ESA to protect there Aerospace industry, will intervene for AirbusSpace
Only to see the European competition take Brasil, Spain or England to launch satellites.

I think that in 2030s the faith of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will decide.
either a French subsidise dinosaur that launch French military satellite and few ESA probes.
or they goes bankrupt and bought by french HyPr-Space the manufactor of Baguette 6 rocket

[LouScheffer]

So, if ESA wants to stay relevant, with regards to launchers, they will have to go the route of full reusability. Not just some Falcon 9 redo, but a scaled-down version of Starship.

I agree with this.  Starship may be relatively cheap, but it's big - much bigger than needed for many applications.  A smaller (7 meter?) version would be big enough for most uses, and cheaper than Starship (per launch, if not $/kg).  It should be commercially viable as well as supporting Europe's needs.  It also seems likely to remain state of the art over the next few decades, barring any unforeseen advances.

[TrevorMonty]

Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?

No, because the USA is a very unreliable partner!

While USA and most of ESA members are allies doesn't mean USA policies will always be in ESA's best interests. Especially with fickle USA government which switches parties on regular basis.

As example Biden recent dealings with Australia meant France lost $60B submarine deal with Australia.

[DanClemmensen]

So, if ESA wants to stay relevant, with regards to launchers, they will have to go the route of full reusability. Not just some Falcon 9 redo, but a scaled-down version of Starship.

I agree with this.  Starship may be relatively cheap, but it's big - much bigger than needed for many applications.  A smaller (7 meter?) version would be big enough for most uses, and cheaper than Starship (per launch, if not $/kg).  It should be commercially viable as well as supporting Europe's needs.  It also seems likely to remain state of the art over the next few decades, barring any unforeseen advances.

This is the niche that BO intends to fill with New Glenn, right?

[TheKutKu]

IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

[su27k]

Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?

No, because the USA is a very unreliable partner!

While USA and most of ESA members are allies doesn't mean USA policies will always be in ESA's best interests. Especially with fickle USA government which switches parties on regular basis.

As example Biden recent dealings with Australia meant France lost $60B submarine deal with Australia.

You don't need the approval of US president to buy commercial launches from US companies.

In fact recent events shows US launch companies are very reliable, OneWeb and ESA was able to get a good spot in the launch queue in a very short time after they lost their Soyuz rides, this is despite the fact that a single US company dominates the launch market and said company is a competitor to OneWeb and ESA launchers. With more US medium and heavy launch vehicles coming to market in the near future, Europe's choice of US launchers would only widen and their access to space if relying on US launchers would become even more reliable.

[JayWee]

You don't need the approval of US president to buy commercial launches from US companies.
...
Europe's choice of US launchers would only widen and their access to space if relying on US launchers would become even more reliable.

You need FAA approval.

As we are slowly moving towards NatSec megaconstellations - there might be some friction.
Say - would the US allow launch of a foreign optical/IR megaconstellation allowing 24/7 live high-res view of the entire planet?

[woods170]

First let's run the Ariane 6 like planned,

Then ending this Monopoly where they got fat and greedy and
trow ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to the Sharks in Launch Market Business !
because ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace are like Boeing or Lockheed/Martin  inflexible to change.

But that own fault they became the dinosaurs of Space Age, now surviving the Impact Elon Musk made... 

One of those Europeans start up companies will survive,
and produce first micro launcher, later cheaper reusable rocket in role of Ariane 6.
Those should  European Union support with launch site ans support for that growing aerospace industry.
 
off course ESA, ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will try everything to stop them,
like using political connection to prevent use of Kourou spaceport for Privates launch provider,
also political meddling inside ESA to protect there Aerospace industry, will intervene for AirbusSpace
Only to see the European competition take Brasil, Spain or England to launch satellites.

I think that in 2030s the faith of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will decide.
either a French subsidise dinosaur that launch French military satellite and few ESA probes.
or they goes bankrupt and bought by french HyPr-Space the manufactor of Baguette 6 rocket

Emphasis mine.

ArianeGroup won't need political connections to prevent Kourou being used by private launch providers. CSG is wholly owned by CNES, the French national space agency. So, unless those private launch providers are fully owned by ArianeGroup (which is a French company with very strong ties to the French governement), or are partially owned by the French governement, none of them will ever get permission to launch from CSG.

[Harry Cover]

Why does Europe need independent access to space? Just for prestige?

No, because the USA is a very unreliable partner!

While USA and most of ESA members are allies doesn't mean USA policies will always be in ESA's best interests. Especially with fickle USA government which switches parties on regular basis.

As example Biden recent dealings with Australia meant France lost $60B submarine deal with Australia.

TBH
- Naval Group (the french company that got the Attack subs contract back in 2015) behaved like arrogant dickheads and alienated the australians (and I say that as french, if you wanna know)
- The Australians doesn't really know their real needs - between AIP and nuclear subs, to deal with the Chinese threat. - TBH again, it is an almost impossible choice: AIP can't assume long patrols near China, nuclear can - but brings a whole bunch of new issues.
- Australia is culturally closer from GB and USA than France, also on military matters.

A pity, because Attack was very much a non-nuclear Barracuda, and a swap could have been made: or some kind of mixed fleet. Alas, it will not happen.

Back to Arianespace...

[TheKutKu]

First let's run the Ariane 6 like planned,

Then ending this Monopoly where they got fat and greedy and
trow ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to the Sharks in Launch Market Business !
because ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace are like Boeing or Lockheed/Martin  inflexible to change.

But that own fault they became the dinosaurs of Space Age, now surviving the Impact Elon Musk made... 

One of those Europeans start up companies will survive,
and produce first micro launcher, later cheaper reusable rocket in role of Ariane 6.
Those should  European Union support with launch site ans support for that growing aerospace industry.
 
off course ESA, ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will try everything to stop them,
like using political connection to prevent use of Kourou spaceport for Privates launch provider,
also political meddling inside ESA to protect there Aerospace industry, will intervene for AirbusSpace
Only to see the European competition take Brasil, Spain or England to launch satellites.

I think that in 2030s the faith of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will decide.
either a French subsidise dinosaur that launch French military satellite and few ESA probes.
or they goes bankrupt and bought by french HyPr-Space the manufactor of Baguette 6 rocket

Emphasis mine.

ArianeGroup won't need political connections to prevent Kourou being used by private launch providers. CSG is wholly owned by CNES, the French national space agency. So, unless those private launch providers are fully owned by ArianeGroup (which is a French company with very strong ties to the French governement), or are partially owned by the French governement, none of them will ever get permission to launch from CSG.

CNES and Arianegroup have diverging interests (and some bad blood), CNES has been more than open to and promoted other european launch providers (HyImpulse, RFA, Isar, PLD all are on track to get access to Kourou's ELA-1), forbiding them from launching from Kourou won't kill them when there are so many upcoming alternatives in europe and beyond (yes none that can launch anything more than a microlauncher, but who knows in 10 years), it'll just result in less activity and revenue loss for the CSG and Guyane.

In the context of a dwindling Arianespace activity, then allowing competitors to use kourou WILL bring down AG, AS, CNES, Avio's individual ground service and maintenance cost, while pushing them away WILL bring it up. Hopefully everybody in charge realise that, hopefully.

[woods170]

First let's run the Ariane 6 like planned,

Then ending this Monopoly where they got fat and greedy and
trow ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to the Sharks in Launch Market Business !
because ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace are like Boeing or Lockheed/Martin  inflexible to change.

But that own fault they became the dinosaurs of Space Age, now surviving the Impact Elon Musk made... 

One of those Europeans start up companies will survive,
and produce first micro launcher, later cheaper reusable rocket in role of Ariane 6.
Those should  European Union support with launch site ans support for that growing aerospace industry.
 
off course ESA, ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will try everything to stop them,
like using political connection to prevent use of Kourou spaceport for Privates launch provider,
also political meddling inside ESA to protect there Aerospace industry, will intervene for AirbusSpace
Only to see the European competition take Brasil, Spain or England to launch satellites.

I think that in 2030s the faith of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will decide.
either a French subsidise dinosaur that launch French military satellite and few ESA probes.
or they goes bankrupt and bought by french HyPr-Space the manufactor of Baguette 6 rocket

Emphasis mine.

ArianeGroup won't need political connections to prevent Kourou being used by private launch providers. CSG is wholly owned by CNES, the French national space agency. So, unless those private launch providers are fully owned by ArianeGroup (which is a French company with very strong ties to the French governement), or are partially owned by the French governement, none of them will ever get permission to launch from CSG.

CNES and Arianegroup have diverging interests (and some bad blood), CNES has been more than open to and promoted other european launch providers (HyImpulse, RFA, Isar, PLD all are on track to get access to Kourou's ELA-1), forbiding them from launching from Kourou won't kill them when there are so many upcoming alternatives in europe and beyond (yes none that can launch anything more than a microlauncher, but who knows in 10 years), it'll just result in less activity and revenue loss for the CSG and Guyane.

In the context of a dwindling Arianespace activity, then allowing competitors to use kourou WILL bring down AG, AS, CNES, Avio's individual ground service and maintenance cost, while pushing them away WILL bring it up. Hopefully everybody in charge realise that, hopefully.

ELA-1 is the old Ariane 1/2/3 launch pad. It is currently being used exclusively for Vega and Vega-C. So, no, HyImpulse, RFA, Isar, PLD are NOT on track to get access to ELA-1.

Which leads me to believe that you intended to refer to the old Diamant launch site (ELD). But the CNES competition from 2022 was merely intended to get an idea how much interest there is to fly from Kourou. Actual agreements to adapt the ELD for use by another rocket only exists for Themis (the reusability demonstrator being developed by....ArianeGroup).

[TheKutKu]

First let's run the Ariane 6 like planned,

Then ending this Monopoly where they got fat and greedy and
trow ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace to the Sharks in Launch Market Business !
because ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace are like Boeing or Lockheed/Martin  inflexible to change.

But that own fault they became the dinosaurs of Space Age, now surviving the Impact Elon Musk made... 

One of those Europeans start up companies will survive,
and produce first micro launcher, later cheaper reusable rocket in role of Ariane 6.
Those should  European Union support with launch site ans support for that growing aerospace industry.
 
off course ESA, ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will try everything to stop them,
like using political connection to prevent use of Kourou spaceport for Privates launch provider,
also political meddling inside ESA to protect there Aerospace industry, will intervene for AirbusSpace
Only to see the European competition take Brasil, Spain or England to launch satellites.

I think that in 2030s the faith of ArianeGroup and AirbusSpace will decide.
either a French subsidise dinosaur that launch French military satellite and few ESA probes.
or they goes bankrupt and bought by french HyPr-Space the manufactor of Baguette 6 rocket

Emphasis mine.

ArianeGroup won't need political connections to prevent Kourou being used by private launch providers. CSG is wholly owned by CNES, the French national space agency. So, unless those private launch providers are fully owned by ArianeGroup (which is a French company with very strong ties to the French governement), or are partially owned by the French governement, none of them will ever get permission to launch from CSG.

CNES and Arianegroup have diverging interests (and some bad blood), CNES has been more than open to and promoted other european launch providers (HyImpulse, RFA, Isar, PLD all are on track to get access to Kourou's ELA-1), forbiding them from launching from Kourou won't kill them when there are so many upcoming alternatives in europe and beyond (yes none that can launch anything more than a microlauncher, but who knows in 10 years), it'll just result in less activity and revenue loss for the CSG and Guyane.

In the context of a dwindling Arianespace activity, then allowing competitors to use kourou WILL bring down AG, AS, CNES, Avio's individual ground service and maintenance cost, while pushing them away WILL bring it up. Hopefully everybody in charge realise that, hopefully.

ELA-1 is the old Ariane 1/2/3 launch pad. It is currently being used exclusively for Vega and Vega-C. So, no, HyImpulse, RFA, Isar, PLD are NOT on track to get access to ELA-1.

Which leads me to believe that you intended to refer to the old Diamant launch site (ELD). But the CNES competition from 2022 was merely intended to get an idea how much interest there is to fly from Kourou. Actual agreements to adapt the ELD for use by another rocket only exists for Themis (the reusability demonstrator being developed by....ArianeGroup).

Yes, sorry I forgot the name of the ELD

The current plan, if I remember correctly, is for CNES to hold a second round of selections to downselect, of course Maiaspace will get selected for obvious reasons, but I'm sure CNES will push to maximise the number of launches from ELD within the feasible; It's not like all 5 of the PLD/Isar/RFA/Lat/HyImpulse will equally want Kourou, since it's probably disadvantageous logistically and in term of inclination for some of them.

[TrevorMonty]

IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

[TheKutKu]

IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

In the hypothetical that Starhsip succeeds, The alternative to not building a high cadence Very-Heavy to Super-heavy launcher is accelerated information and military demotion, which probably will happen anyway, but the current political and military context make it seems likely there will be attempts at making one or several.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Each and everyone here believes there is near unlimited launch demand. I think there isn't.
The problem is launchers need dedicated production lines.
 (Additional complication in Europe, member states funding launchers demand work-packeges in return.
So the production lines are spread between the different funding member states.)
I think the study by RUAG (now beyond Gravity) in 2016 about the possibility to recover payload fairings is exemplary. (Note that this was before SpaceX started attempting to recover their Falcon 9 payload fairings.) Technically it is possible to recover the payload fairings, but economically it doesn't make sense at the launch rates of European launch vehicles. So they didn't develop this capability.
The same is true for the full stages of the launchers. SpaceX with falcon 9 has a lower break-even point for stage reuse. Because Falcon 9 uses similar engines, tank structures and avioics on the first and second stages. Both stages are manufactures on the same assembly line. First stage reuse makes production spots available for several second stages.
In Europe for Ariane 6 a factory has been set up for the first stage in France. The upperstage has a production complex in Germany and the P120C boosters are produces at Italy and France (Guiana). (Payload fairings Swiss and composite payload structures Spain) 
l believe the factories for LLPM (France) and ULPM (/Icarus) Germany can produce more than the currently planed rate of 11-12 launchers annually. The launch site ELA4 can most probably also sustain a higher launch rate. And there is the possibility to convert ELA3 (Ariane 5 launch site) for Ariane6 use.
The launch rate limiting factor for the Ariane 6 launch rate will be the P120C casting capability at France Guiana.
Solids are more polluting than liquid rocket engines, and they are technically also more risky.

Italy and Avio are developing the M10 and VUS (Vega E 3th stage).
They have a plan to develop a reusable launcher demonstrator. I believe this is a first stage with multiple SeaLevel optimized M10 engines and VUS as 2th stage. They also have a plan to develop the M60 (600kN LOx LNG/LCH4) engine.
A Ø3.4m diameter stage with 7x600kN = 4200kN has similar size and thrust as the P120C/P120C+.
Develop a vacuüm optimized M60 for use on a Ø3.4m upperstage or a Ø3.4m Vince powered upperstage and Europe has the replacement for Soyuz. I think this is Vega Next Gen.
I think the Vega Next Gen first stage, used on a soyuz replacement and as booster for Ariane 6. Has high enough use rate to require serial production (>6/year) while being reused several times.
The SUSIE concept can be used to make the Vega Next Gen. upper-stage, thus the system fully reusable.
(I guess payload capability ~2.5mT to SSO 700km, >3.5mT without reusable upper-stage).
I think this is the most realistic plan for reusable launcher development in Europe.
The propellent consumption of this launcher will be a fraction of what Starship requires. The empty weight of starship+booster is likely higher then the full liftoff mass of the Vega Next Gen. This means much lower emissions (NOx, CO2, Steam [H2O(g)], yes this is some idiotic European politics metric.
I expect ELA3 and ELA4 to be used for Ariane 6/next and ELV (converted ELA1) and converted ELV for Vega.   

The German launcher companies (ISAR and RFA) are also likely to develop stage reuse. They are likely to launch from pads at the CSG diamant site and European main land launch sites (for SSO/polar orbits).
The site to test stage landing technologies opened earlier this month. I do not expect orbital launches from this site. Even without orbital launches, the site will be used very frequently.
I think Europe requires a test campaign(s) with launchers simular to the Masten Space Systems Terrestrial landers to develop reusable stages and planetary landers. 

The path to Ariane 6 in the PHH or PPH configuration were fixed during the 2011 ESA ministerial. By not funding the development of a new liquid first stage engine (SCORE-D).
 

[ZachF]

IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

Because if Starship succeeds the definition “independent access to space” will change completely.

Will europe really functionally have independent access to space if they have well under 1% of global launch capability?

[ZachF]

IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

In the hypothetical that Starhsip succeeds, The alternative to not building a high cadence Very-Heavy to Super-heavy launcher is accelerated information and military demotion, which probably will happen anyway, but the current political and military context make it seems likely there will be attempts at making one or several.

Europe needs to start taking this stuff more seriously, as it is falling further and further behind the US and Asia technologically and economically. Europe used to have the largest economy in the world, now it’s third largest headed to distant third. The risk of Europe becoming a functional non-entity in the space sector is rising rapidly every day.

[GWR64]

I don't understand why Starship keeps getting brought in here.
The ESA/Europe/Ariane Group should focus on itself and not be distracted.
Like Jaxa and MHI are doing when developing the H3.
There is neither the time frame nor the financial scope for this.

And I come out: I don't want a rocket that burns ~4000 t of fuel to take off weekly or more often and put as much objects/mass into orbit as possible.
How long is this supposed to work?

[ZachF]

I don't understand why Starship keeps getting brought in here.
The ESA/Europe/Ariane Group should focus on itself and not be distracted.
Like Jaxa and MHI are doing when developing the H3.
There is neither the time frame nor the financial scope for this.

And I come out: I don't want a rocket that burns ~4000 t of fuel to take off weekly or more often and put as much objects/mass into orbit as possible.
How long is this supposed to work?

So you want to imitate laggards on the road to obsolescence and don’t want humanity to have the space lift capability to push space exploration  past the novelty stage?

Starship keeps getting brought up because if it’s successful it will obsolete everything else… the savings from full reusability dwarf booster reuse, and SpaceX is already launching as much tonnage as the rest of the world combined 2x with that.

[TrevorMonty]

IF starship greatly enhances access to space (As we all hope) and IF All of Europe doesn’t just give up (as they shouldn’t), then, and it’s unfortunate, Stephane Israel would be right that all German, british, french, Spanish... microlauncher are distractions (something made even more ridiculous that his parent companies also had a microlauncher project competiting with AS) , sure some of them may be able to get a small to low-medium launcher working well this decade and a Medium to low-heavy launcher working next one

But if Starship fulfils even half of its goals, then getting a Reusable super heavy launcher Is going to be a matter of national security for France and "some" other  European countries, and at this point we’re just going to have Airbus/future AG  being told to make a SH launcher, and this will be a make or break point for European Launcher industry, France won’t be able to go at it alone due to both budget and the spread of skills and companies, but getting at least Italy and Germany to agree to fund billions into it will be extremely difficult, especially when defence and geopolitical matters are taken into account. A RFA/OHB or Isar may be decently successful within their own part of the market (Maybe more so than AG/Avio) by this point, but they’ll never be able to make or get the funding to make a super heavy launcher in a reasonable timescale, and they’ll just be funding and political distraction to trying to catch up with American and Chinese National launch capabilities.

Ok that’s admittedly a lot of IF. Bottom line is that the potential Security consequences of Starship Will likely forcefully keep industrial consolidation a reality.

Why does Europe need a RLV of SS size?. They won't be colonizing Mars or deploying a constellation of Starlink size.

Because if Starship succeeds the definition “independent access to space” will change completely.

Will europe really functionally have independent access to space if they have well under 1% of global launch capability?

Still not answered the question, why does Europe need 150t RLV?. Just as importantly who will be paying for payloads to be built that need this launch capability.