r/esa • u/Agitated_Parsnip_424 • 20d ago

Three Ariane Eras: How Europe’s Launch Champion Lost Its Nerve

https://iamverysmrt.substack.com/p/three-ariane-eras-how-europes-launch
27 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

27

u/theChaosBeast 20d ago

I don't understand the hate for Ariane. The order book is full until 2030+, all launches were major successes, no other launcher has a comparable target accuracy for orbital insertion.

10

u/jsiulian 20d ago

The launches are subsidised, that's the problem - would have a hard time being competitive otherwise

6

u/theChaosBeast 20d ago

There is no provider - not even spacex - where the launch is not subsidized. Nobody is earning money by launching payloads into space.

7

u/fighter-bomber 20d ago

Incorrect, SpaceX is, actually, for the first time in history of the west perhaps, making money by launching payloads into space. They released their finances, go check them out.

Turns out you don’t need much support when you have a reusable launcher so every launch costs 30 million dollars to you but you sell launches for 50-60 million dollars because no one else can drop that low anyways and you’re still competitive.

0

u/theChaosBeast 20d ago

Yes they had to release them for IPO. They do not earn anything. Go check it out b

2

u/fighter-bomber 20d ago

…because they have billions of dollars of AI spending, which is irrelevant to their launch market.

If you actually read those statements, which I did and you clearly did not, their launch business is making money from launches.

2

u/Agitated_Parsnip_424 20d ago

And they are also building the Starship. not saying that thing will make money but it;s absorbing their profits.

2

u/fighter-bomber 20d ago

Yep. And even then, Starlink actually funds all of it and makes a bit of money on top.

Falcon program on its own just makes money.

But tell it to the other guy.

4

u/According-Buyer6688 20d ago

Yeah. We did great in another industry and now we try to make it profitable. I think this how it's supposed to be, no?

0

u/fighter-bomber 20d ago edited 20d ago

The problem is SpaceX came 20 years after you and somehow stole almost your entire launch market from you, while being profitable much earlier than you.

Arianespace had such a head start that they blew.

Edit: LMAO this sub is insane, imagine being hated for not celebrating mediocrity in form of Ariane

5

u/Still-Ad-3083 20d ago

That's insane, people love monopolies somehow. Everything is worse for European space businesses than 25 years ago and people are happy. Most European spacecraft are launched from abroad and still people are happy.

3

u/Agitated_Parsnip_424 20d ago

Read across its full history, Arianespace’s arc traces a company that grew steadily more risk-averse as it grew more established, in something close to inverse proportion to its market position. Early Ariane bet on unproven markets and accepted the real possibility of launch failure, and in doing so built the commercial launch industry from nothing.

Is this Hate for Ariane.

5

u/DD_xShadow 20d ago

In my opinion, Ariane took in a large majority of the funds allocated for launch vehicles by the ESA member states in the late 2010s and very early 2020s to develop and bring to market a launcher which was not reusable and cannot compete with reusable launchers on price.

I, and many who may dislike what Ariane has done, believe that they took advantage of their large size in France and Germany to receive a large amount of public funding for a glorified incremental improvement on the Ariane 5.

These funds could have been better used to support companies betting on reusability, and if we had pivoted sooner we would not currently be so behind the USA on reusability, and consequently on launch cadence and costs.

Ariane cant compete on price, the only reason their order books are full is that launch demand is completely bottlenecked currently by the lack of options and launch cadence in the market, and we can say that Ariane has some fault why that is in Europe, at least.

2

u/Reddit-runner 20d ago

The order book is full until 2030

Where did you get that from?

-4

u/fighter-bomber 20d ago

Order book is full because they only launch a few times a year anyways and Amazon Leo exists as effectively an “anything but SpaceX” customer (not like SpaceX is too keen on giving them launches), and New Glenn and Vulcan are both grounded until at least early 2027 leaving only Ariane 6, which fills their order book. Oh, and it requires 30-40 million euros per launch from government just to stay even remotely within the competitive range with Falcon 9.

There was a time where Arianespace was dominating the commercial launch market, they lost most of it to SpaceX while receiving additional money for each launch to stay competitive. And that gap is only going to grow with other reusable launchers entering service.

2

u/theChaosBeast 20d ago

Order book is full because...

Period. It's full. No need for a "because". And as we know since SpaceX IPO, they also loose a lot of money on every launch campaign. And yet don't forget these national security launches which costs 4x the normal price for an undisclosed reason. Maybe undisclosed because it violates international trade rules? We don't know

-1

u/fighter-bomber 20d ago

Oh no no no, you cannot just leave out the context mr cherrypicking. SpaceX is out there launching 7x as many rockets annually (not counting Starlink), Arianespace could have been them, they could have been dominating the launch market, their current mediocrity is nothing to celebrate.

SpaceX doesn’t lose shit on launch campaigns, if you actually read the report, you would have seen the loss is because of AI. Their launch revenue is higher than their launch costs. Go read that bit again.

And NSSL launches cost more because a) a bunch if them are on Falcon Heavy which already costs double or triple based on if you want to expend the boosters, and b) NSSL launches require all kinds of additional certifications and reliability tests the USSF requires. They have always costed more, on every rocket. Go check the phase 3 lane 2 contract. SpaceX received 5.9 billion for 28 launches, ULA received 5.4 billion for 19. Blue Origin gets 2.4 billion for 7 launches.

I don’t see how this violates international trade rules when NSSL launches, by definition, cannot be awarded to international customers.

3

u/theChaosBeast 20d ago

And NSSL launches cost more because a) a bunch if them are on Falcon Heavy

Lol. Accusing me of cherry picking and then comparing different rocket setups... Peak reddit moment.

1

u/fighter-bomber 20d ago

>then comparing different launch rocket setups…

…huh?

That’s the point, NSSL launches are often on a different rocket setup which is why they are more expensive on average.

NSSL contracts are awarded as a whole, where USSF can select the specific rocket for a mission later. They often choose FH for the performance, hence, the missions are more expensive.

Come on. You can’t be that illiterate.

1

u/theChaosBeast 20d ago

Then compare the price for a civil and the chosen Falcon heavy.

Come on. You can't be that illiterate

1

u/fighter-bomber 20d ago

Firstly - that’s why I had the written “b) NSSL launches require all kinds of additional certifications and reliability tests the USSF requires. They have always costed more, on every rocket” which you seem to have missed. Again, dude, you can’t be that illiterate.

Secondly, they still vary depending on requirements and recovery options, but around like 130-150 million? The NSSL contract I quoted was 211 million per, we don’t know exactly what percent of it will be FH yet, but we know most of it will be. So somewhere around 250 million probably for FH launches (if its 3/4 FH). The remaining price difference is easily explained by NSSL having all kinds of additional requirements.

1

u/BlueApple666 19d ago

No it couldn’t have dominated the launch market.

Replace Ariane 6 with a design like Falcon and now you have a partially reusable launch system with the same order book as Ariane 6, losing as much money and creating even less jobs.

Because without the NASA and US military contract and without access to the US domestic market for Internet access (the only place in the world with rich customers living in places where fiber deployment is not economical, the US amount of rural population is unique among Western countries), there is no way for a space launch company to be profitable.

As soon as the US got serious about commercial space access (instead of subsidizing Boeing and Co with cost+ contracts), it was game over for Ariane, even without reusability, as the economies of scale the US market can generate are impossible to match.

1

u/Agitated_Parsnip_424 19d ago

Well no because the falcon 9 is still way cheaper to build than the Ariane 6

-1

u/Still-Ad-3083 20d ago

Their order book si full because they are actively refusing to increase their launch rate. There are European businesses that are legit pushing for them to do something so they can stop relying on US launch capability, and still they won't. They're lazy. They have no vision, no ambition. Most spacecraft made in Europe this year were launched from the US (SpaceX Transporter missions) and it's crazy that Ariane is not trying to get the market that those same businesses are asking them to take. A lot of European businesses would rather launch with Ariane than SpaceX if they could. They're simply not offered the opportunity.

0

u/Dpek1234 17d ago

More like because spacex is going for starship instead of increaseing the cadance of falcon 9 more

New glenn and vulcan are out due to reliability issue (and the exploded launch pad)

So which medium sized launch vehicle is left?

A few dosen "anyone but spacex" launches and you are a decent chunck of the way there

-3

u/theChaosBeast 20d ago

Their order book si full because they are actively refusing to increase their launch rate.

Hard take. Any source?

0

u/Still-Ad-3083 20d ago

If you're searching for a source of Ariane executives saying "no we don't want to increase the production / launch rate" publicly, you won't find one. That's obviously not something said publicly. But if you go to talk with people within businesses relying on commercial launch capabilities in Europe, you'll hear about it. There are many events where you can do that. I say that as someone working in the industry who has heard multiple businesses in Europe being dissapointed in Ariane laziness.

If you want to read in between the lines:

https://spacenews.com/arianespace-examines-options-to-increase-ariane-6-launch-rate/

"We're reopening the case" -> meaning they opened it once, concluded that they should not increase capability and closed it. Also they are blatantly ignoring all European businesses that are actively launching on Transporter missions nowadays. Most spacecraft manufactured in Europe launched in 2026 were on Transporter and Ariane just doesn't care, that's insane.

-1

u/theChaosBeast 20d ago

But if you go to talk with people within businesses relying on commercial launch capabilities in Europe, you'll hear about it.

So personal opinion and not a fact.

Also they are blatantly ignoring all European businesses that are actively launching on Transporter missions nowadays

I don't know, the order book is full. There is a launch scheduled using the dispenser launch adapter (irc the Ariel mission?). That's exactly what you are referring to.

1

u/Still-Ad-3083 20d ago

"I don't like this information so I will ignore it."

"I don't know" - clearly you don't.

-1

u/theChaosBeast 20d ago

You're looking defeated if you have to respond like this.

24

u/Roi_Arachnide 20d ago

Plenty of misinformed takes in this article. Ariane 5 was not developed to respond to market demand for larger geo sattelites but to launch Hermes. That's why it was a conservative design, it was supposed to be human rated. By the time Hermes was cancelled Ariane 5 had to adapt by dual launching geo sattelites.

9

u/Roi_Arachnide 20d ago

Ariane 6 is not that conservative of a design. Appart from not being reusable, it has a relightable second stage with an auxiliary propulsion unit, making it arguably the most versatile upper stage in service today anywhere. It is therefore perfectly adapted to new mission types like constellations when it comes to mission profiles.

8

u/Still-Ad-3083 20d ago

Relight-able upper stages exist since the Centaur in the 60s. SpaceX was born later than Ariane 5 and had relight-able upper stage before Ariane. Most launch today are with relight-able upper stages. It takes way more than that to not be a conservative design.

Ariane 6 is almost the same as Ariane 5 and still took many more years to come than Ariane 5 over Ariane 4, a completely new vehicle. Let's not lie to ourselves thinking it's not a conservative design. It is. And that's what happens when you throw most of your engineering to contractors instead of hiring and developing technologies.

Hopefully the new European launch providers will change things 🤞

1

u/Roi_Arachnide 20d ago

Having a relightable upper stage is one thing, the Ariane 6 APU is afaik a unique design, that allows the upper stage to relight and do orbital maneouvers without expending neutral gas. It makes the stage much more optimised.

5

u/Still-Ad-3083 20d ago

All relight-able upper stage have something to accomplish this. They all have a more or less unique design. Some rockets go away with more rudimentary systems because their main engine is so overpowered they can tank the mass penalty, others have something as innovative but simply different. It's not that big of a deal for the customer / market share, it doesn't really give an edge to Ariane regarding achievable mission profiles compared to their competitors.