Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Ariane 6 is Europe’s SLS, Arianespace its ULA. Every launch requires public subsidies to float and cements SpaceX’s global advantage by denying funding to European companies who might one day compete with SpaceX.

View on HN

Arianespace ≈ ULA, yes. Ariane 6 ≈ SLS, absolutely not. There is no official figure yet, but even the most pessimistic estimates place its per-launch cost at $150m (as opposed to $2b for SLS — with a hazy goal to eventually trim it to $500m). The rumors are that Ariane 6 is already well below $100m.

Both SLS and Ariane 6 are late and over-budget, with little hope of being cost-competitive sans-subsidy. Aside from that, they’re very different rockets.

So you're saying it's like ULA's Vulkan. Got it.

> Ariane 6 ≈ SLS, absolutely not. There is no official figure yet, but even the most pessimistic estimates place its per-launch cost at $150m

Oh goody, just 2.5x the Falcon 9's cost. After a €140mm / launch subsidy [1].

> rumors are that Ariane 6 is already well below $100m

Yes, they're asking for more subsidies.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the...

The ESA and Arianespace provide hundreds of European companies with business, most of those subsidies go directly back to the knowledge economy that in turn generate tax income. It's a win-win really, and I'd rather have that than a private company that is dependent on a whim of one man. Not for something so crucial.

Arianespace is essentially assured launch leadership for SpaceX. It denies Europe economies of scale in launch. At the end of the day, if Europe is happy having a small fraction of its own launch market, whatever, Arianespace keeps people employed.

But the cost to develop falcon 9neas peanuts.

Europe can toss that money to a bunch of different groups and get the results of the talent is there while maintaining an ability to launch with Ariane 6 in the meantime.

There are European launcher startups. But they are years away from being dependable launch vehicles.

Meanwhile Ariane is strategically important. So it has to exist.

Ariane was actually born because Americans wouldn't launch European satellites if they competed with American ones.

You're missing the point that SpaceX development is (heavily) publicly subsidized.

I’m really not. Subsidies aren’t the problem. An uncompetitive rocket is. Ariane 6’s per launch costs are multiples SpaceX’s. Nothing Arianespace makes is competitive without operating—not development—subsidies.

As long as Europe is dependant on Arianespace, it’s less serious about space as a place than as a job description. And its companies will continue being reliant on foreign launch providers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com