[EveYoung]

I think it's unrealistic to expect a multi-national government funded organisation to offer a commodity service at a competitive price. With all the conflicting national interests and bureaucracy that come with this funding model, how should they compete with much leaner, commercial organisations that are only responsible to their shareholders? But does it really matter? If the main objective of the Ariane Group is to offer Europe independence by providing access to space, I think that’s worth a premium.

[panick21_]

> it's unrealistic to expect a multi-national government funded organisation

Maybe then those organizations should admit that rather then lie about it. ArianeGroup always justified Ariane 6 early on by claiming with it they would be competitve with SpaceX.

Of course they thought about competitive with SpaceX in 2014, not 2024 when Falcon 9 flies weekly and Starship is deep in development.

> If the main objective of the Ariane Group is to offer Europe independence by providing access to space, I think that’s worth a premium.

Maybe then they should have had a clear strategy around achieving this goal effectively rather then deluding themselves.

Europe having Ariane 6 and Vega rocket for example make no sense. They could have one engine, for example Merlin 'European Version' and use it as the only engine one all their rockets.

However they have an incredibly complex bespoke first stage engine, and complex bespoke second stage engine. And lots of different solid rockets and so on.

If they had planned for making the most expensive possible thing to achieve independence they certainly managed it.

[b3orn]

> Europe having Ariane 6 and Vega rocket for example make no sense. They could have one engine...

It absolutely makes sense, Vega is basically an Ariane 5 solid rocket booster that was turned into an actual rocket, both are/were made by Avio who now make the Ariane 6 boosters.

[panick21_]

And yet if you actually go and look at the cost of the Vega series of rockets its very expensive. Just using the same expensive stuff multiple times doesn't make it a good policy.

And then you keep reading and realize that Vega is not just a solid booster, but a 4 stage rocket.

[Robotbeat]

They should’ve skipped Ariane 6 and do Ariane 5ME instead and make the next vehicle a reusable one. Ariane 6 doesn’t really buy them anything more than Ariane 5ME, just buys more risk and more development cost (this latter thing may actually have been the unstated INTENT of some stakeholders…).

[nordsieck]

> I think it's unrealistic to expect a multi-national government funded organisation to offer a commodity service at a competitive price.

Except that they used to. They certainly beat the pants off of ULA (nee Boeing/Lockheed Martin) when it came to competitive GEO/GTO launches.

> But does it really matter? If the main objective of the Ariane Group is to offer Europe independence by providing access to space, I think that’s worth a premium.

It's a lot nicer to have a European rocket program that happens to make lots of money on the commercial market so that the member states basically don't have to fund it.

The current situation, where ArianeSpace doesn't win that many contracts, so it has to be heavily subsidized by member states is much more difficult. When it comes to politics, there are always more hungry mouths than there is available bread.

[panick21_]

> Except that they used to.

If everybody is a fool, and you are the best of them you can be successful. But once the race really starts and its not just US govenrment funded monopoly against European government funded monopoly, its gone be difficult.

> The current situation

Ariane 5 had some commercial success but rocket development was always funded by member states.

[TulliusCicero]

> If the main objective of the Ariane Group is to offer Europe independence by providing access to space, I think that’s worth a premium.

I mean in that case, wouldn't the superior option be having a more cost competitive private launch provider in Europe? that way you'd get both European independence and lower prices. Surely there's a way to foster that situation, since that's what the US has.

[kranke155]

Having the EU work this out would be hard since pork barrel is kind of part of the way the whole thing is done. You need to have multiple production points, factories etc in order for the EU to do anything like this.

I just don’t see how they would do this.

[brookst]

Exactly this. The diversity of interests means EU will never be as operationally efficient, and therefore as low cost, as SpaceX.

EU's strength is that diversification. They should lean into that and find a way (?) to benefit commercially. I don't know quite what that is, but someone needs to come up with something. Because the inefficiency is baked in.

[mytailorisrich]

We should demand more and should not accept subpar performance.

This is somewhat like Nokia vs Apple, only worse because of the bureaucratic EU-wide red tape involved.

Yes, Europe should have its own space industry and be independent. But we should not accept rubbish or "paying a premium". We should demand more and aim at the top. Europe deserves it and can achieve it.

SpaceX has rocked the boat and thay should be an opportunity for drastic changes, especially in view of this fiasco.