Quote from: Alpha_Centauri on 11/29/2017 02:53 pmIf Ariane 6 with a much higher launch rate and ~45% price reduction is not competitive as you claim, how on earth is Ariane 5? It's not.QuoteThis attitude is nonsensical. No, what is nonsensical is to waste billions to develop another non-competitive launcher. It would be cheaper to keep flying Ariane 5 until they can create a truely competitive reusable launcher than waste billions to develop Ariane 6 which is a dead-end architecture.
If Ariane 6 with a much higher launch rate and ~45% price reduction is not competitive as you claim, how on earth is Ariane 5?
This attitude is nonsensical.
At 6 flights per year, and assuming that it takes 3 years to develop and start flying A64 exclusively over A5 (which seems unlikely, as there's a phase-in period), it'll take a full decade before ESA can say A64 has saved them any money.
Quote from: hkultala on 11/30/2017 03:10 pmQuote from: Alpha_Centauri on 11/29/2017 02:53 pmIf Ariane 6 with a much higher launch rate and ~45% price reduction is not competitive as you claim, how on earth is Ariane 5? It's not.QuoteThis attitude is nonsensical. No, what is nonsensical is to waste billions to develop another non-competitive launcher. It would be cheaper to keep flying Ariane 5 until they can create a truely competitive reusable launcher than waste billions to develop Ariane 6 which is a dead-end architecture.At the risk of bringing math into it, the way that I look at it, A6 will take €2815M, €400M from industry and the rest from government to develop (figures from Wikipedia). There's also the €200M CNES contract for the new ELA-4 launch site, so say the total A6 development costs are €3000M.If A64 is half the cost of A5 per launch, and A5 costs €150M to launch, then €75M is saved per A64 flight.It will thus take €3000M / €75M = ~40 A64 flights before A6 has paid back its development costs in savings over A5 flights.(I'm ignoring A62 flights because it's apparently a Soyuz replacement that doesn't save money over flying Soyuz -- flying it ultimately just helps bring down the cost of A64 flights.)At 6 flights per year, and assuming that it takes 3 years to develop and start flying A64 exclusively over A5 (which seems unlikely, as there's a phase-in period), it'll take a full decade before ESA can say A64 has saved them any money.But LM5/6/7, H3 and GSLV Mk3/ULV will all be wanting their own piece of the commercial spaceflight pie (as will, of course, the new American companies) so that decade is potentially longer if ESA can't round up 12 launch contracts per year to fill their 6 dual-launch A64s in the face of renewed world-wide competition -- and possibly never if A64 is retired before accumulating 40-odd launches.
Indeed the investment in Ariane 6 will most likely never return by savings on launch services.
These investments give Europe independent acces to space
...beter control over launch cost and schedule.
The (sub-)contractors for Ariane 6 create high tech jobs in the member-states that have invested in Ariane 6. The employees will spend their money in the countries they live in, stimulating that economy (multiplier effect).
Governments have very different funding costs than companies. Several European nations have negative intrest rates on short term state loans.
I forgot to and 'institutional' to my statement that the investments won't be earned back with launch cost.The ~€1 billion additionally invested in development of A6 instead of A5ME will be earned back, by lower launch cost for institutional launches. This will take about a decade (Check the Q2A document).Arianespace is able to offer it's services at ~40% lower prices with A6 than in could with A5. But the largest benefit is the fact that Ariane 6 can insert payloads into different orbits.
Again read the Answers to Questions of Germany document. Indeed the investment in Ariane 6 will most likely never return by savings on launch services.Governments have other motivations and methods to justify the investments made for Ariane 6.These investments give Europe independent acces to space, and beter control over launch cost and schedule.The (sub-)contractors for Ariane 6 create high tech jobs in the member-states that have invested in Ariane 6. The employees will spend their money in the countries they live in, stimulating that economy (multiplier effect). It's the increase in tax incomes that are the second justification for the investment in Ariane 6, next to the guaranteed European acces to space. (again: Expert, PAZ, Sentinel 5P, Sentinel 3B, QB-50, ...)Governments have very different funding costs than companies. Several European nations have negative intrest rates on short term state loans.
Lengthy interview by brest.malville.com with Stephane Isreal The topics discussed - SpaceX, constellations, buy European, etc... - have been raised before, but it's an interesting read nonetheless. Ariane reste "confiant" devant les ambitions de SpaceXMy attempt at translation is here: https://twitter.com/AuerSusan/status/951750445592121344
I saw one thing that intrigued me: the interview subject described SpaceX as having an order book "two thirds institutional and one third commercial", and thus that Ariane with it's order book being 2/3 commercial and 1/3 institutional is "infinitely more engaged" in commercial launch. If that's translated correctly, it's a whopper of a misrepresentation by the subject: for instance, last year, SpaceX launched 18 payloads, of which 12 were commercial bid-and-won contracts. That's exactly the "2/3 commercial" ratio the subject is trying to claim SpaceX doesn't have.
Quote from: e of pi on 01/12/2018 01:17 pmI saw one thing that intrigued me: the interview subject described SpaceX as having an order book "two thirds institutional and one third commercial", and thus that Ariane with it's order book being 2/3 commercial and 1/3 institutional is "infinitely more engaged" in commercial launch. If that's translated correctly, it's a whopper of a misrepresentation by the subject: for instance, last year, SpaceX launched 18 payloads, of which 12 were commercial bid-and-won contracts. That's exactly the "2/3 commercial" ratio the subject is trying to claim SpaceX doesn't have.To be fair, he did say "by value" and SpaceX's government launches tend to cost significantly more than their commercial ones. He might be counting the cost of dragons against Spacex in order to pad out the numbers. He is obviously trying to put a good spin on things. Also, did you notice his suggestion that Arianespace should get a monopoly on European institutional payloads, as well as block buys? Seeking shelter rather than trying to survive in the real market.
First about the behavior in the Ariane 6 Update topic:I find the comments about Update only way more annoying that a relevant counter question or comment. Please stop posting this these types of comments. Just reply on it on the discussion topic and let moderators (re)move the non-update posts. Each page of the Ariane 6 update topic contains several of these (non-update) comments).
Nothing goes above Lego!twitter ArianeGroupI had a very good laugh.
QuoteAriane 6 could use reusable Prometheus engine, designer saysLES MUREAUX, France and WASHINGTON — Europe’s upcoming Ariane 6 rocket, though designed to be expendable, could one day sport a reusable engine, according to Patrick Bonguet, head of the Ariane 6 program at ArianeGroup.Whether or not the rocket would ever use that engine, called Prometheus, depends on whether Ariane 6 manufacturer ArianeGroup, formerly Airbus Safran Launchers, finds enough benefit for the European launch sector. So far, the merits of reusable rockets to ArianeGroup are unclear at best, Bonguet said, but the company is researching the technology to be ready for implementation should it prove worthwhile.“We could replace Vulcain 2.1 by Prometheus,” Bonguet told SpaceNews. “Or Prometheus can be the first break to build the next generation. We will see where we are in 2025 or 2030, and then decide on the right time whether to go one way or the other.”http://spacenews.com/ariane-6-could-use-reusable-prometheus-engine-designer-says/
Ariane 6 could use reusable Prometheus engine, designer saysLES MUREAUX, France and WASHINGTON — Europe’s upcoming Ariane 6 rocket, though designed to be expendable, could one day sport a reusable engine, according to Patrick Bonguet, head of the Ariane 6 program at ArianeGroup.Whether or not the rocket would ever use that engine, called Prometheus, depends on whether Ariane 6 manufacturer ArianeGroup, formerly Airbus Safran Launchers, finds enough benefit for the European launch sector. So far, the merits of reusable rockets to ArianeGroup are unclear at best, Bonguet said, but the company is researching the technology to be ready for implementation should it prove worthwhile.“We could replace Vulcain 2.1 by Prometheus,” Bonguet told SpaceNews. “Or Prometheus can be the first break to build the next generation. We will see where we are in 2025 or 2030, and then decide on the right time whether to go one way or the other.”