[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…).