Posted on 07/04/2024 6:52:46 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The flaps burned through because they had little to no heat shielding and will be corrected in Flight 5. Other materials would have had heat shielding to begin with.
Re-usability is good, but Starship’s weight makes reusability a wash with the multiple refuelings.
NASA will not cancel the Lunar Gateway station because to do so would admit failure, IMHO, since they have no other way to go.
No, the reusability beats everything, because launches are cheaper than building a new ship each time and *then* paying for the launch.
Here’s an article you might be interested in:
Starship Faces Performance Shortfall for Lunar Missions
https://www.americaspace.com/2024/04/20/starship-faces-performance-shortfall-for-lunar-missions/
The current version of SS can only lift 40-50 tons to LEO
“The success or failure of the Human Landing System program will be decided by Starship’s payload capacity. Due to its high dry (unfueled) mass, Starship HLS cannot reach the Moon without first refueling in LEO. To complete the Artemis 3 mission, SpaceX must therefore implement orbital refueling on an unprecedented scale”
At current payload: “Even if NASA and SpaceX achieve their stated goal of a 6-day turnaround between Starship launches, it will take over half a year to stage all of the propellant in orbit”
“To extrapolate Griffin’s calculation, it would only have a 52% probability of success even if attempted” ... “ If Starship’s payload capacity does not increase, it is likely a showstopper for the Artemis program”
We’ll have to wait until StarShip 3 with 200 tons to LEO comes on line some years in the future.
Think it might be the wrong guy as the few articles he’s published does not include the one at hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.