the launch subsidies are about $200 million. Far less than Atlas or Delta.
There the market leader by far and they're increasing production. Most of their orders come from outside France, and the launch subsidies are about $200 million. Far less than Atlas or Delta.
Seer - You must be joking. First, Atlas and Delta do not use their government subsidies to compete foir commercial launches at way below cost. Second, these subsidies per launch are massive. Ariane doesn't pay for ANY development costs (probably north of $15 Billion for Ariane 5 family so far) or for any CSG operating costs. I suppose one could say thank you, European (mainly French) taxpayer for lowering prices for Maerican consumers of satellite services. Since thed vast majority of the content on comsats is English language, we can also thank the French taxpayer for subsidizing the worldwide retreat of the French language.Ed Kyle - No way is Ariane becoming "primarily a government launcher". They have about 25 commercial payloads on their manifest, about the same as proton.JimmE
As to Ariane V, I'm frankly surprised that their dual-payload mission profile and the inherent mission inflexibility hasn't hurt commercial launch services. In other words, it would seem to me that trying to meet the expectations and desires of two separate customers for each launch campaign, and the scheduling issues involved in getting two payloads prepped, integrated and ready for launch simultaneously, would dissuade customers from signing on. Obviously that hasn't happened, however.
Ed Kyle - No way is Ariane becoming "primarily a government launcher". They have about 25 commercial payloads on their manifest, about the same as proton.JimmE
Getting back to the Sea Launch Chapter 11 filing. One of the items they blame for not having a viable business and being able to compete commercially is "government-financed competition". I think we can all agree that in the current launch vehicle industry you need to have the government as an anchor customer or provide subsidies to maintain a viable launch vehicle business. Sea Launch does not, so I don't expect their business prospects to improve or for them to survive bankruptcy.
For another example, Ariane subsidies could *decrease* because they might not want too much production, because then it occupies too large a market share in a cyclical market that may have a downside trend, and they'd prefer to use the capital to participate in a different industry that has a large upside trend, so they can bring an economy back.
Quote from: nooneofconsequence on 06/26/2009 05:06 pmFor another example, Ariane subsidies could *decrease* because they might not want too much production, because then it occupies too large a market share in a cyclical market that may have a downside trend, and they'd prefer to use the capital to participate in a different industry that has a large upside trend, so they can bring an economy back.As much as this would make sense I just don't see it.Most subsidies by far go into declining rather than growing businesses for the simple reason thata) declining businesses typically decline from a higher level so have a lot of lobbying plus a large workforce to be laid offb) Gov. typically is not very good at identifying new trends, the ones that really take off often don't need subsidies, new ones that do get subsidized often only live due to the subsidies (e.g. most "green" technologies).
I believe block-buys of Arianes by ESA also have the explicit, publicly announced goal of keeping Ariane competitive. This in effect is also a subsidy.
Quote from: mmeijeri on 07/09/2009 12:08 pmI believe block-buys of Arianes by ESA also have the explicit, publicly announced goal of keeping Ariane competitive. This in effect is also a subsidy.No, it is not. This is a purchasing policy. A lot of companies do that and they don't need govs for that.
