-
Interview with Alain Charmeau (CEO of Ariane Group) by Semmel on 18 May, 2018 07:39
-
I found this article today morning:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-die-amerikaner-wollen-europa-aus-dem-weltraum-kicken-a-1207322.html
I ran it through google translate:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwissenschaft%2Ftechnik%2Falain-charmeau-die-amerikaner-wollen-europa-aus-dem-weltraum-kicken-a-1207322.html&edit-text=
In case that doesnt work for you, there is not much in it.
* Ariane Group is testing Vulcain 2.1 engine
* Ariane 6 should launch in 2 years, second contract uncertain, is on schedule
* Needs new contract until end of June, otherwise has to send workers home
* Alain Charmeau claims about 3-4 times that SpaceX is cheaper because it sells overprised launches to US government for more than $100M, which subsidizes commercial launches
* Alain Charmeau claims that Ariane Group cant suppoert reusability with 10 launches a year, which would mean for a launcher that can launch 10 times, it would build only 1 per year, not sustainable with workforce. Needs at least 30 launches a year
* Babling about why do rocket launches in the first place in Europe
Well, I am not surprised. Being European, I would hope they come to their senses.. but its painful to read the CEO of Europas (only ?) launch provider being so full of denial. But maybe he isnt really, and he has to say this in public. I dont have much hope for Ariane Group without major realizations and changes to attitude. -
#1 by SimonFD on 18 May, 2018 08:18
-
Inertia occurs in all areas, not just physics.
Arianespace have had many years doing things their way and are very successful at it.
To change their operations so dramatically to support re-usability (a completely re-designed rocket) just because a foreign company is trying this out, is unthinkable in their minds.
Also, like some people on here, they're possibly waiting to see if re-usability is actually worth the effort. The above referenced foreign company re-usability programme is not for profitability but for technology development to enable interplanetary transport. Making some money along the way helps the programme and not necessarily the shareholders.
Plus, perhaps they think there'll be customers out there who don't want to use US launchers.
My 2p -
#2 by deruch on 18 May, 2018 08:20
-
Well, I am not surprised. Being European, I would hope they come to their senses.. but its painful to read the CEO of Europas (only ?) launch provider being so full of denial. But maybe he isnt really, and he has to say this in public. I dont have much hope for Ariane Group without major realizations and changes to attitude.
When reading such interviews/articles/statements/etc., it's always important to try to think about who the audience is. Ariane is in the middle of a concerted campaign to get European government guarantee/requirement to use the A6 for future launches. Not surprising that their talking points are so focused. -
#3 by Mark Lattimer on 18 May, 2018 16:45
-
Quite pathetic, actually.
-- Charmeau suggests multiple times that SpaceX can only compete with Ariane due to government contracts.
-- Has his head firmly in the sand on the benefits of reusability: "The reason SpaceX is cheaper on the commercial market has nothing to do with reusability. The only thing that matters is that they charge their own government $ 100 million per launch. And I'm ready to do that too."
-- Makes the case for Ariane by focusing strongly on it being a jobs program.
Rather shocking to read this from such a senior executive in European space. Sounds as though Ariane's 'vision' for the future can be summarized as "Launching yesterday's rockets using the taxpayer monies of tomorrow." -
#4 by deruch on 18 May, 2018 19:36
-
Quite pathetic, actually.
-- Charmeau suggests multiple times that SpaceX can only compete with Ariane due to government contracts.
-- Has his head firmly in the sand on the benefits of reusability: "The reason SpaceX is cheaper on the commercial market has nothing to do with reusability. The only thing that matters is that they charge their own government $ 100 million per launch. And I'm ready to do that too."
-- Makes the case for Ariane by focusing strongly on it being a jobs program.
Rather shocking to read this from such a senior executive in European space. Sounds as though Ariane's 'vision' for the future can be summarized as "Launching yesterday's rockets using the taxpayer monies of tomorrow."
No. You shouldn't read this as if it is a true reflection of anyone's deeply held ideas. This is a lobbying/PR piece because Ariane Group and others are trying very hard right now to get a "Europe, Buy European Launchers!" bill/agreement passed that would require their governments to commit to launching on Vega and Ariane 6 just like the US Govt. buys only US launchers. So, for the foreseeable future, almost all statements from Ariane or those involved in the rocket development programs in Europe will be focusing on those talking points. Within Europe, they are traditionally much more sensitive to "dumping" than in the US. And given both that the market for US Govt. bought launches is closed to Vega or A5/6 and that SpaceX charges nominally higher prices when the US Govt. is their customer, it's a perfectly predictable argument. I largely disagree (though maybe that's only because I'm American;
), but I can certainly see why some might not quite see it the way I do. But regardless, you should expect to keep hearing the same over and over until they get their Level Playing Field(tm) rule.
-
#5 by Bynaus on 18 May, 2018 19:56
-
The funny thing is, Ariane 6 is of course heavily subsidized. Most of the development costs are directly covered by ESA (without ESA getting anything directly in return, as opposed to NASA with COTS). How many 100M USD launches by SpaceX does it take to offset that effect?
I am European and I am deeply disappointed by ESA and Arianespace. They had/have their head in the sand, and now that things are getting more difficult and it becomes obvious that Ariane 6 is stillborn, they call for (even more) government subsidies. -
#6 by Coastal Ron on 18 May, 2018 20:05
-
* Alain Charmeau claims that Ariane Group cant suppoert reusability with 10 launches a year, which would mean for a launcher that can launch 10 times, it would build only 1 per year, not sustainable with workforce.
Perhaps they should talk with NASA, because NASA only plans to build one SLS per year. Oh wait, maybe that's not a good example to follow...
QuoteNeeds at least 30 launches a year
An entrepreneur looks at lower customer prices and thinks about how that will expand the market.
A government looks at lower prices as less money going to constituents.
What Ariane Group et al. miss is that the market is already changing, and clinging to the past is not going to prepare them for the future. SpaceX is already reusing rockets, and has just launched the first of more reusable version (i.e. Block 5). And Blue Origin is on pace to start reusable rocket launches in a few years too.
The customers of Ariane Group are also not isolated from their decisions, since they have to compete with competitors that will be enjoying lower launch prices, which means EU companies could be less competitive unless they use reusable launch providers.Quote* Babling about why do rocket launches in the first place in Europe
I can understand why a government would want a domestic capability for an important function. But they can't ignore global economic realities, and that's what Ariane Group et al. seem to be doing. And that could hurt them in the long run, not help them.
If I were them I would be talking with SpaceX and Blue Origin about licensing their launch systems... -
#7 by johnfwhitesell on 18 May, 2018 20:08
-
No. You shouldn't read this as if it is a true reflection of anyone's deeply held ideas.
But if you want to convince the government to subsidize you, you dont do that by saying you are already competitive. You do it by saying that with a little bit of subsidies you will become competitive and make many more jobs in the future. I think the problem is that what is best for the man might not be what is best for the company. To do a complete about face on your PR you need to get a new CEO like ULA did.If I were them I would be talking with SpaceX and Blue Origin about licensing their launch systems...
Well the first is never going to happen and the second doesn't have anything to license (unless you go the ULA route and switch fuels on your next rocket). -
#8 by rcoppola on 18 May, 2018 20:44
-
"How am I supposed to respond to a dream?"
"They're not supermen, whatever they can do, we can do."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ-7nNw-04Q&feature=youtu.be&t=3m27s
"We've already launched 301 commercial satellites and they haven't launched a single one, so let us wait."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JEWwHOMhsM&feature=youtu.be&t=2m18s -
#9 by ChrisWilson68 on 18 May, 2018 20:49
-
Ariane sees that reuse would mean they would only need a fraction of the people working in their factory that they would need without it, so they think the choice is no reuse or massive layoffs. SpaceX has a different answer: put all those people freed up by reuse to work colonizing Mars!
-
#10 by Darkseraph on 18 May, 2018 20:52
-
He actually has valid points. SpaceX massively benefits from about half its business coming from the U.S government which it charges at a higher rate than its commercial launches. Europe lacks such a large military and civil space program to provide that volume of demand. Reuse will pay off only if launch rates are high but high launch rates are not a given and it could be business disaster if these higher rates of launch don't materialize.
Lower launch costs have so far not stimulated more demand for satellite launches and demand for birds to GEO has slowed dramatically in recent years. Some believe constellations will create the demand but those may not pan out. Historical example, Boeing and Lockheed Martin developing their own EELVs on the expectation of a boom in commercial demand for launch that evaporated. ULA was formed to protect access to space for the government. Particularly internet constellation fizzled and were out competed by terrestrial competitors. That could easily happen again and suggesting it can't is wishful thinking at best.
Expendable Ariane won out in commercial launches against The Shuttle, which was reusable. It isn't a given a reusable launch vehicle will be successful just because it is reusable. As the CEO of the Ariane Group, Mr Charmeau has a responsibility to the stakeholders (especially those writing the checks) not to commit to speculative risky decisions that could be a disaster for all.
European institutions cannot be sure re-usability will be a successful business model in the near future. I do think they should plan for both cases and make a more vigorous effort to develop some of the technology for re-usability in case it does work out. Some efforts are being made (Space Rider, Prometheus, Callisto) right now. The other thing that could be done to help the economics of future Ariane vehicles is simply Europe engaging in a more robust civil space program and therefore increasing domestic demand for launches, particularly human spaceflight. The European nations collectively have resources to engage in such an effort but whatever reason have not chosen to be as active as USA, Russia and China. Europe could have its own crewed spacecraft, space stations and a lunar base if it wanted.
-
#11 by Chasm on 18 May, 2018 21:21
-
Yay! Another subsidy and US vs EU discussion.
One subsidizes here, the other there.
The markets are skewed, as is the perception of them.
I would love to see what happens if the USG demanded to pay significantly less than commercial rate for launches. Or else!
At the end of the day it's the job of the CEO to get results, not to make the CEO look good. Getting rid of launches in the US (and Russia!) of EU payloads would help Ariane a lot.
Heck, monopolies suck and I like reciprocal rules.
Who launches governmental sats on Ariane rockets? And not just one or two or six but well over a dozen? ISRO does. First search result says 21 to date. By all means open the door for them. Compete Ariane against ISRO offerings. That should concentrate the mind of the Ariane leadership nicely on cost competitiveness.
(I'd open the competition for future EU launches to any government that has launched as least as many sats on EU rockets as the EU has launched sats on their rockets. Looking for an all time equilibrium. Perhaps count mass too because of cubesats. )
-
#12 by Rik ISS-fan on 18 May, 2018 22:48
-
I only want to add one term: "Symphonie (satellites)"
Read trough my previous posts, I 90% agree with the ArianeGrop CEO. I disagree a bit on statement that SpaceX can sell launches so low because of several annual launches for ~100mln. The other point I found odd was the requirement for four Gallileo launches (I hope this means satellites, not launches. The later is totally unrealistic).
Darkseraph wrote a very good post.
Arianegroup owns ~70% of Arianespace and the main contractor for Ariane 5 and 6. The main contractor for Vega(-C) is Avio (Italian).
Let's add several statistics. Spaceflight101.com
During 2017 a total amount of 90 orbital launch attempts were made, of these 29 (+1) were from the US, 9(+2) were from Europe (CSG). In previous years: 85 (2016); 87 (2015); 92 (2014), 81 (2013), 77 (2012) launch attempts were made [wiki].
AFAIK the demand for orbital launches is hardly influenced by launch cost, Orbital launch is a very price insensitive market. Launch is mostly far less then 50% of a satellite project cost, most likely 30% is a more realistic value.
SpX isn't going to fund it's Mars colonization program with the Falcon launchers, It's the starlink constellation that has to bring enough profit to SpX.
I'm very skeptical about human spaceflight, what reaches the news is forgetting to insert a SD into a Gopro.
ArianeGroup and ESA/Europe don't have plans for mega constellations. With Ariane 6 and Vega-C/E Arianespace (Europe) could reach 16 to 18 annual launches. That's a increase of 1.5x - 2x.
I'm sorry but I don't expect a doubling of annual launch attempts is realistic. (SpX 19 => 60
)
Edit to add some math:
Let's compare a 60mln SpX Falcon 9 Launch with a 90mln Ariane 62 launch for a German institutional satellite.
Germany has hardly any involvement in the industry behind a Falcon9 launch. So those 60mln are gone for Germany (their tax payers).
On the other hand Germany has a work stake of over 25% in Ariane 6. So 15mln of the 90mln are spent in Germany. It's known that investments in launchers have a multiplier effect of >2, so the German GDP will grow by (2x15=)30mln for a Ariane 62 launch. When I assume taxes are 33% of GDP in Germany, the 90mln spent on the launch will bring 10mln of tax income. So realistically the Ariane 6 launch costs 80mln to the German taxpayer, but it also increases the German GDP by 30mln. When I assume a aerospace salary of 150k/y that's 200 aerospace jobs. By one launch.
So to sumarize: for Germany two launch choises:
1) SpX Falcon 9 for ~60mln.
2) Ariane 62 for ~90mln, with 30mln GDP increase, 10mln direct tax return and creation of 200 aerospace grade jobs. -
#13 by johnfwhitesell on 18 May, 2018 22:59
-
I would love to see what happens if the USG demanded to pay significantly less than commercial rate for launches. Or else!
SpaceX would stop selling them launches. It's not like they are short of customers and the NASA launches come with extra costs (like the capsule). The Air Force ones dont have as many extra costs but the Air Force ones are also cheaper. -
#14 by Rik ISS-fan on 18 May, 2018 23:24
-
It's the Air Force / DoD/ NOAA launches that cost 100mln on average. Just so you know.I would love to see what happens if the USG demanded to pay significantly less than commercial rate for launches. Or else!
SpaceX would stop selling them launches. It's not like they are short of customers and the NASA launches come with extra costs (like the capsule). The Air Force ones dont have as many extra costs but the Air Force ones are also cheaper.
I agree with Chasm, benchmark the launch cost of Arianespace with ISRO (PSLV & GSLV) and JAXA (H2, H3 and Epsilon). Possibly ULA (Atlas V, Delta IV, Vulcan) and Orbital ATK (Pegasus, Minotaur, Antares & OmegA) could also be used to compare launch cost. -
#15 by johnfwhitesell on 19 May, 2018 01:52
-
It's the Air Force / DoD/ NOAA launches that cost 100mln on average. Just so you know.I would love to see what happens if the USG demanded to pay significantly less than commercial rate for launches. Or else!
SpaceX would stop selling them launches. It's not like they are short of customers and the NASA launches come with extra costs (like the capsule). The Air Force ones dont have as many extra costs but the Air Force ones are also cheaper.
As I noted "The Air Force ones dont have as many extra costs but the Air Force ones are also cheaper." 100 million, while more expensive then a commercial payload because it requires additional services that traditional commercial customers do not want, is less expensive then a ISS supply mission. -
#16 by noogie on 19 May, 2018 05:00
-
This is a lobbying/PR piece because Ariane Group and others are trying very hard right now to get a "Europe, Buy European Launchers!" bill/agreement passed that would require their governments to commit to launching on Vega and Ariane 6 just like the US Govt. buys only US launchers ..... I can certainly see why some might not quite see it the way I do. But regardless, you should expect to keep hearing the same over and over until they get their Level Playing Field(tm) rule.
I don't think the Europeans have had proper discussions of the opportunity costs of this course of action.
We've seen it play out in the 90s when the US government agencies (both civilian and military) were stuck with overpriced options for heavy lift launch (shuttle and Titan).
It meant that worthwhile projects where killed off or never got off the drawing board due to the high cost and low cadence of heavy launches.
You also can never get back the time that was wasted with opportunity costs. -
#17 by su27k on 19 May, 2018 05:05
-
Edit to add some math:
Let's compare a 60mln SpX Falcon 9 Launch with a 90mln Ariane 62 launch for a German institutional satellite.
Germany has hardly any involvement in the industry behind a Falcon9 launch. So those 60mln are gone for Germany (their tax payers).
On the other hand Germany has a work stake of over 25% in Ariane 6. So 15mln of the 90mln are spent in Germany. It's known that investments in launchers have a multiplier effect of >2, so the German GDP will grow by (2x15=)30mln for a Ariane 62 launch. When I assume taxes are 33% of GDP in Germany, the 90mln spent on the launch will bring 10mln of tax income. So realistically the Ariane 6 launch costs 80mln to the German taxpayer, but it also increases the German GDP by 30mln. When I assume a aerospace salary of 150k/y that's 200 aerospace jobs. By one launch.
So to sumarize: for Germany two launch choises:
1) SpX Falcon 9 for ~60mln.
2) Ariane 62 for ~90mln, with 30mln GDP increase, 10mln direct tax return and creation of 200 aerospace grade jobs.
You're ignoring the opportunity cost. Germany can buy F9 for $60M, then invest the $30M saving on some other project with >2 multiplier effect, which result in $60M GDP increase, $20M direct tax return and creation of a bunch more jobs.
This is the same fallacy in Charmeau's argument that if they only need 1 booster per year, then the workers wont' have anything to do. The answer is obvious: You put them to work on something else, this something else would become the benefit you get from reusability's cost savings. -
#18 by noogie on 19 May, 2018 05:40
-
You're ignoring the opportunity cost.
It looks like the entire European launch industry is doing so. It is as if they have wilfully put the blinders on in this regard.
I wonder if future generations will look at these decisions the same way that many now look at NASA's approach to the shuttle. Could we have used all that money and time for something more worthwhile? -
#19 by GWR64 on 19 May, 2018 08:06
-
remember 2012 :
http://www.eurockot.com/2012/02/esa-contracts-eurockot-for-two-sentinel-launches/Quote...
Bremen, 09 February 2012: The Earth Observation Programme Directorate of the European Space Agency (ESA) and Eurockot Launch Services GmbH today signed two new Satellite Launch Service Contracts in support of the European GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) Sentinels programme. These contracts cover the launch of the Sentinel-2A and Sentinel-3A satellites. ...
The contract signing by Volker Liebig, Director Earth Observation Programmes, ESA and Matthias Oehm, Chief Executive Officer, Eurockot Launch Services GmbH, was witnessed by the Senator for Economics, Labour and Ports of the Free and Hanseatic City of Bremen, Mr. Martin Günthner and by Mr. Alain Charmeau, Chief Executive Officer of Astrium Space Transportation, and was conducted during a ceremony at the historic Chamber of Commerce of Bremen.
...
Eurockot Launch Services GmbH is the joint venture of EADS Astrium (holding 51%) and Space Center Khrunichev (holding 49%) and performs Low Earth Orbit (LEO) launch services to operators of Earth observation, remote sensing and scientific satellites form dedicated satellite preparation, launch and customer facilities at Plesetsk Cosmodrome in Northern Russia. Eurockot is based in Bremen, Germany.
only 4 days before the successful maiden flight of Vega
), but I can certainly see why some might not quite see it the way I do. But regardless, you should expect to keep hearing the same over and over until they get their Level Playing Field(tm) rule.
)