Europe Just Lost Billions of Dollars in Rocket Business To SpaceX & Elon Musk... [9:12]

YouTube ^ | July 3, 2024 | Great SpaceX

[SunkenCiv]

Eleven years ago, at the Singapore Satellite Industry Forum 2013, Richard Bowles, the Regional Sales Director for Southeast Asia at Arianespace, dismissed SpaceX...

He described SpaceX as "mainly selling dreams" and limited their voice at the conference because he didn't want to hear what he deemed unrealistic.

At that time, SpaceX had a vision of building reusable rockets and an ambitious goal of launching 100 times a year—a target that seemed impossible for any private or government organization in the industry. This ambition was mocked heavily, and SpaceX was dismissed as a dreamer that no one wanted to wake up.

Facing government organizations, major private companies, and startups in the industry, SpaceX calmly responded that they would let their actions speak for themselves.

Now, more than a decade after that conference, we look back and analyze the current situation to see how SpaceX has surpassed all expectations, delivering a silent but resounding slap to its critics.

Let's assess the current state of Arianespace and SpaceX. Who is really asleep at the wheel?

Europe's Ariane 6 project, with a development cost of $4.4 billion—more than 11 times the development cost of SpaceX’s Falcon 9—has become a symbol of delay and inefficiency. The development of Ariane 6 started in 2014, and nearly a decade later, this rocket has yet to launch, raising serious questions about its competitiveness.

These delays are extremely concerning. Previously, the European Commission had scheduled six Ariane 6 launches to send up precious Galileo satellites—two in 2017 and another four in 2020, each carrying two satellites. According to the plan, three of these missions were supposed to launch in 2023. Naturally, this didn’t happen. The first Galileo launch won't occur until after the maiden flight of Ariane 6. And Ariane 6 still hasn’t made it.

[SunkenCiv]

Europe Just Lost Billions of Dollars in Rocket Business To SpaceX & Elon Musk... | 9:12
Great SpaceX | 131K subscribers | 30,811 views | July 3, 2024

[butlerweave]

Europe says reusable rockets is just a Fad ,LOL

[Jonty30]

Musk was right. Building rockets and letting them fail was the more efficient method. To boot, his parts are recyclable so when they fail they can be recycled and used again.

[healy61]

Arianne is still contracting to launch a clown out of a cannon at the county fair. Anytime now. LOL

[drSteve78]

Private enterprise has always figured out how to be more efficient and productive if left alone by government

[Vigilanteman]

Proving once again that private industry can smoke government bureaucracy.

[SunkenCiv]

[snip] The stated motivation for Ariane 6 (as of 2015) was to halve the cost compared to Ariane 5, and increase the capacity for the number of launches per year (from six or seven to up to eleven). [/snip] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6

Meanwhile, Falcon 9 is reusable, has made more than 250 landings on the drone barges, and thus far this year has been used 68 times, as compared with 96 launches in all of 2024. Here and there Falcon 9’s have been used in expendible mode and were intentionally not landed or recovered. I think all or most of those had been used and recovered in the past. Expendible launches don’t save fuel for landing, and are implemented for the heavier payloads.

[snip] Falcon 9 first-stage boosters landed successfully in 326 of 337 attempts (96.7%), with 301 out of 305 (98.7%) for the Falcon 9 Block 5 version. A total of 297 re-flights of first stage boosters have all successfully launched their payloads. [/snip] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_history

[SunkenCiv]

A few years back there was some Demwit success story in Congress who complained that gubmint contracts shouldn't be used to pay for "used" rockets.

Even a new Falcon 9 runs something under $70 million for a new one, and subsequent launches run a bit over $50 million, which means using a booster ten times (which has been done) makes everyone (except the Demwit broad) happier, and SpaceX a nice profit.

Even with the added complexity of (partial) reusability, the Falcon 9 cost a mere $400 million to develop. The Shuttle used to run about $500 million PER LAUNCH. :^) And that was when $500 million *was* $500 million. :^D

SpaceX hasn't had its IPO, and given the hassles Musk has endured, I doubt it will while he's still alive and well. The only way I know of to get a piece of it is indirectly, through one of the Baron Funds (I think the symbol is BFGIX).

[Jonty30]

Just shows how much of a cost of rocket is wrapped up in graft. If NASA needs $500 million for each rocket launch, but Musk’s entire cost for rockets, several launches, is $500 million for the year, that’s like 80% or better graft under NASA.

[BradyLS]

Elon to the world: “Later, haters!”

[SunkenCiv]

Much of it is redevelopment cost. Instead of iterative improvements, older aerospace companies go back to the drawing board, even on the shuttle-derived booster that uses similar SRBs and similar liquid=fueled engines. Oh, and other than possibly the SRBs, isn’t reusable.

[PIF]

SpaceX has 2 problems

Fairing on Falcon Heavy is too small for large payloads in Direct to Geo Orbit which are in high demand by the US military.

Starship is too heavy, complicated, and costly for the planned Moon or Mars missions; approximately 12-15 refueling ships are need just get to the Moon - Mars many, many more.

Starship needs to be built from a lighter material - stainless steel is a nice idea, but ends up sabotaging mission by its weight.

Direct to Geo Orbit, for the Starship with its very large fairing, would require at least one refueling, negating the whole idea.

Which is why the SLS [for Moon landings ] and Blue Horizons [ for Direct to Geo Orbit ] are still in the race, even though the first is extremely expensive and the other still has not made a flight.

[Jonty30]

Musk refines everything as he goes along. The steel ship works for what is needed, for the time being. I’m sure they are developing an appropriate ship for the moon, and later Mars, as we speak.

[joe fonebone]

And starliners failure rate is now 100%

[Mark17]

Arianne is still contracting to launch a clown out of a cannon at the county fair. Anytime now. LOL

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[NorthMountain]

To boot, his parts are recyclable so when they fail they can be recycled and used again.

Falcon and Starship failures are spectacular. And they are educational. They don't, however, leave any recyclable or reusable parts.

[NorthMountain]

using a booster ten times

Whoever wrote that should know that some Falcon-9 boosters are over TWENTY flights. At ten, they're just getting warmed up.

[butlerweave]

Starship is just a prototype for learning

[Jonty30]

So, the steel is only used once and not melted down and recast? That is my understanding of what Musk is doing to keep costs low.

That’s how I’m defining recyclable. Take the rocket, once it cannot be reused and tear it apart and recast everything.

[NorthMountain]

After a failure, the rocket is scrap. As in the little pieces left over after an explosion. Excuse me. A “rapid unscheduled disassembly”. And most of that scrap is in the ocean. So “no”, it’s not being recycled.

I don’t know what they do with Starship prototypes that are ‘obsolete’ before they even fly.