Ariane 6 maiden launch live broadcast.

[wraper]

Should launch in less than an hour of posting this.

[Gyro]

That went surprisingly well for a new launch vehicle!

[wraper]

^I would not say surprising. It's made in old stile. Conservative design, risk aversion, testing every tiny bit on the ground. Barely anyone beside SpaceX (and none of big guys on government funding) would rather explore uncharted waters and rapidly blow up things to advance faster rather than keep doing safe mediocrity.

[Gyro]

Agreed, maybe swap surprisingly for pleasingly. It's a shame they won't have any re-usability until into the 2030s though.

[wraper]

Agreed, maybe swap surprisingly for pleasingly. It's a shame they won't have any re-usability until into the 2030s though.

I suspect they'll achieve reusability no sooner than SpaceX lands humans on Mars. TBH I'm glad Europe has a launch capability again but it's hardly exciting.

[brucehoult]

I came 3 1/2 hours after the launch and the broadcast is still going!

[tom66]

If SpaceX do succeed with Starship, it's hard to see what market this rocket will have in a few years.  But maybe I'm missing something.

[wraper]

If SpaceX do succeed with Starship, it's hard to see what market this rocket will have in a few years.  But maybe I'm missing something.

Launches from EU government agencies.

[tszaboo]

If SpaceX do succeed with Starship, it's hard to see what market this rocket will have in a few years.  But maybe I'm missing something.

This allows Europe to launch anything they want into space.
Cost is secondary consideration.

Congratulations on the successful launch.

[brucehoult]

Looked up the stats.

The €115m configuration with four solid boosters can launch 21,650 kg to LEO, a little less than Falcon 9 FT's 22,680 kg in expendable mode (apples vs apples). The €75m two booster configuration used today can launch about half of that, 10,350 kg. Falcon 9 can launch 17,690 kg to LEO if they are landing and reusing the booster.

Falcon 9 with two boosters (aka Falcon Heavy) can launch 64,000 kg to LEO if all three booster stages are expended, 50,000 kg if they are recovered for reuse.

So Ariane 6 is not a huge rocket. The payload to LEO is very similar to the later Ariane 5 ES. The main thing is that Ariane 6 costs about half as much as Ariane 5 -- but still almost twice more than an expended Falcon 9.

[brucehoult]

If SpaceX do succeed with Starship, it's hard to see what market this rocket will have in a few years.  But maybe I'm missing something.

They already succeeded. Superheavy/Starship got safely into orbit [1] on both of the last two flights. That's doing everything that anyone else's rockets do, but launching (in expendable form) TEN TIMES more payload into LEO than Falcon 9 or Ariane 6, at the same cost as Ariane 6.

If (when!) they succeed in making it reusable that's just icing.

[1] well, not *quite*, but that was deliberate.

[coppercone2]

this is great for Europe's independence. Europe is already scared that America is going down the crapper because of a trump reelection and this rocket puts them in a better negotiating position. No one can deny you space, plus you don't have intercontinental red tape to cross, and you have higher security (more local = easier to detect infiltrator without trusting something 2000 miles away.. and even if alliances are maintained, isolated systems bring confidence together). Also, wanna bet a certain possible future president might... lay down the levies on 'useless for common folk' space companies and gut NASA even more? Nothing agrees with the low income voters then getting rid of 'waste' like space development! (and when that budget NASA budget is tapped out, he will just raise taxes on space companies when the people finally wanna see the guillotine go down on corporations cuz they still don't have enough money)

Diverse platforms are good too in case it turns out that space x has boeing-esque problems in the future after they bought a fleet. They will have their own expertise on heavy rocket systems and you can better appraise a purchase or contract in the future.

 I think it increases world stability. There is less centralization of space.

A company is very strictly controlled from the top, which gives it efficiency, but it also means that it can make rapid unexpected maneuvers (i.e. musk +ukraine) , which can lead to problems

Space-x is a engineering company with a company culture. We don't know if its the right mindset in the long run. Having independently developed systems will bring more knowledge into the fold that are not subject to company specific dogma (every company has its 'thing' that gets into everything it does).

I will guess that this is a very high quality heavy rocket.


For instance, no one is happy about the quality of test equipment thats under the Danaher Corp umbrella. Its basically common opinion that quality went down, and annoying features that we do not need or want become common and dictate the direction of the market based on non technical people being involved in the purchasing process, meaning we get stuff we don't really want to work with. Space-x having a monopoly on heavy launch vehicles is similar to the problems that we see with modern test equipment. the ESA is pretty well isolated from space-x, so hopefully it allows for alternative systems development. Plus, its more free from investors (which seem to decrease quality in general). I do not have faith in the Chinese space program being particularly innovating (it might be effective however, in the short run) because of their tendency to just copy and or steal designs. I don't think India is coming to the rescue in this regard either, and the Russian space program is currently regarded more as a threat then anything, due to the Russian governments intense efforts to weaponize their space industry.

[SiliconWizard]

If SpaceX do succeed with Starship, it's hard to see what market this rocket will have in a few years.  But maybe I'm missing something.

Yes, maybe. But alternatives are good, and, it will be reliable. SpaceX does great stuff, but I doubt they'll reach the same level of reliability. Two different approaches really. And I don't see why there should be only one player in the western world, that wouldn't make sense.

[brucehoult]

Here's an interesting statistic.

SpaceX flew Falcon 9 96 times in 2023. Only three of those flights used a new booster.

Ok, that overstates the reusability a little, as they added four new boosters in 2002 (February, May, October, and November) for 60 launches. All four of those 2022 boosters are still in use with their most recent flights on May 22 or more recently.

Two new boosters were added to the fleet in 2021 and are still in use.

Three boosters first used in November 2020 are still in use (most recent flights June 8 (21 flights), June 27 (22 flights), May 14 (18 flights)).

The booster that was lost at sea on the way back to port after a successful landing on December 23 last year was first used in May 2020 and, if not lost, would be the oldest still active. Another with first flight in June 2020 was deliberately expended on its 20th flight in April 2024.

Two new boosters have had first flights (so far) in 2024.

So they have made a total of 16 Falcon 9 boosters in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. With zero launch and zero landing failures, and just the one loss in a storm at sea, and one deliberately expended to launch a heavier payload.

There have been 280 Falcon 9 flights from January 2020 until today.

(some flights in that time used older boosters but, equally, the current active fleet of still has a lot of life left in it)

[wraper]

If SpaceX do succeed with Starship, it's hard to see what market this rocket will have in a few years.  But maybe I'm missing something.

Yes, maybe. But alternatives are good, and, it will be reliable. SpaceX does great stuff, but I doubt they'll reach the same level of reliability. Two different approaches really. And I don't see why there should be only one player in the western world, that wouldn't make sense.

Reliability compared to what? SpaceX made significantly more successful Falcon 9/Heavy launches in a row than a total number of rockets ArianeSpace launched in 41 years of its existence (with a few failures).

[brucehoult]

If SpaceX do succeed with Starship, it's hard to see what market this rocket will have in a few years.  But maybe I'm missing something.

Yes, maybe. But alternatives are good, and, it will be reliable. SpaceX does great stuff, but I doubt they'll reach the same level of reliability. Two different approaches really. And I don't see why there should be only one player in the western world, that wouldn't make sense.

The last time a Falcon 9 failed to get its payload into the desired orbit was in 2015, approximately 245 flights ago.

Ariane 5 has had 117 launches in total in 28 years, with 5 partial (reached orbit but not the right one) or total failures. The most recent failure to reach the desired orbit was in 2018. There have been 20 successful flights since.

I don't think a claim that SpaceX rockets are less reliable is in any way logical.

[wraper]

If SpaceX do succeed with Starship, it's hard to see what market this rocket will have in a few years.  But maybe I'm missing something.

Yes, maybe. But alternatives are good, and, it will be reliable. SpaceX does great stuff, but I doubt they'll reach the same level of reliability. Two different approaches really. And I don't see why there should be only one player in the western world, that wouldn't make sense.

The last time a Falcon 9 failed to get its payload into the desired orbit was in 2015, approximately 245 flights ago.

Ariane 5 has had 117 launches in total in 28 years, with 5 partial (reached orbit but not the right one) or total failures. The most recent failure to reach the desired orbit was in 2018. There have been 20 successful flights since.

I don't think a claim that SpaceX rockets are less reliable is in any way logical.

The last Falcon 9 failure (out of 2 in total) was more than 330 flights ago in 2016 when it blew up on the pad during fueling. Also It was a different rocket back then (Falcon 9 FT B3, v1.1 on the first fail) that was followed by Falcon 9 B4 and current B5, neither of which ever failed. At that point of time SpaceX made just 28 Flacon 9 launches. The first failure you mentioned was a 19th launch.

[wraper]

Actually this flight was not flawless. Auxiliary power unit (APU) that pressurizes the propulsion system failed, so probably it will stay in orbit as a space junk instead of deorbiting properly.

[tom66]

If SpaceX do succeed with Starship, it's hard to see what market this rocket will have in a few years.  But maybe I'm missing something.

They already succeeded. Superheavy/Starship got safely into orbit [1] on both of the last two flights. That's doing everything that anyone else's rockets do, but launching (in expendable form) TEN TIMES more payload into LEO than Falcon 9 or Ariane 6, at the same cost as Ariane 6.

If (when!) they succeed in making it reusable that's just icing.

[1] well, not *quite*, but that was deliberate.

Agreed, they have succeeded in a test flight.  However, they haven't 'caught' the launcher yet, and have not demonstrated reuse.  They are a way off from Starship being a useful launch platform.  It is still a prototype.  It seems likely we will see some commercial launches in 2025-2026 if things go well for SpaceX.  Artemis III will be an exciting moment!

[brucehoult]

If SpaceX do succeed with Starship, it's hard to see what market this rocket will have in a few years.  But maybe I'm missing something.

They already succeeded. Superheavy/Starship got safely into orbit [1] on both of the last two flights. That's doing everything that anyone else's rockets do, but launching (in expendable form) TEN TIMES more payload into LEO than Falcon 9 or Ariane 6, at the same cost as Ariane 6.

If (when!) they succeed in making it reusable that's just icing.

[1] well, not *quite*, but that was deliberate.

Agreed, they have succeeded in a test flight.  However, they haven't 'caught' the launcher yet, and have not demonstrated reuse.

No one else even tries.

They are a way off from Starship being a useful launch platform.

Bullshit.

Read what I wrote in the message you quoted.

Right now, today, Starship in expendable mode can launch payloads at 10% of the cost per kg (10x the payload at the same cost) as Ariane 6.

That's a useful launch platform.  Even if they NEVER make landing and reuse work.

[tom66]

Agreed, they have succeeded in a test flight.  However, they haven't 'caught' the launcher yet, and have not demonstrated reuse.

No one else even tries.

They are a way off from Starship being a useful launch platform.

Bullshit.

Read what I wrote in the message you quoted.

Right now, today, Starship in expendable mode can launch payloads at 10% of the cost per kg (10x the payload at the same cost) as Ariane 6.

That's a useful launch platform.  Even if they NEVER make landing and reuse work.

Oh come on, I'm not anti-SpaceX, but exactly how many commercial payloads are actually lined up for launch on Starship?  Payloads with a date for launch?  There's nothing but prototype flights scheduled right now.  Launching successfully is great but they have a while to go before people are going to be willing to put actual hardware on their craft.  It is very much in-development.

And the 'catch' is important as Starship is too expensive to launch otherwise in expendable configuration for all but the largest payloads.  It's like 200t to LEO.  No satellites are that heavy.  Basically it can only be filled with Starlink satellites.  It's also required to fulfill the NASA contract as they need to refuel an in-orbit booster upwards of 14 times to make it practical.

[wraper]

^The only payload on the line is Starlink V3 so far. They could also do Project Kuiper, but I doubt it will happen as Amazon contracted three F9 launches only after sued by shareholders. I bet Amazon will regret them buying launches on unproven rockets (at the time, not that they are completely proven now either): Vulcan, New Glenn and Ariane 6, two of which had just flown. I would be really surprised if there won't be significant delays, and them potentially losing FCC license (under FCC license, Amazon is required to launch and operate 50% of its satellites no later than July 30, 2026, and must launch and operate the remaining satellites no later than July 30, 2029.)
Once Starship is fully developed, people will rethink how they build satellites. No mass constraint, no need for complex unfolding mechanisms, etc... Basically it will be about how to build it faster and cheaper rather than how to get it fit in the rocket. A lot more things will makes sense with cheap launches of enormous rocket.

[brucehoult]

Oh come on, I'm not anti-SpaceX, but exactly how many commercial payloads are actually lined up for launch on Starship?  Payloads with a date for launch?

Probably none. But it doesn't matter. There are warehouses full of a backlog of Starlink V2 satellites that don't fit on F9 -- they had to make a special "V2 Mini" when Starship took longer than expected to get flying.

One it does a few Starlink launches payloads will start appearing. No doubt with shared launch at first, to fill the thing up.

they have a while to go before people are going to be willing to put actual hardware on their craft.

How many successful flights did other rockets have before they put *people* on them? Zero in at least one case (Shuttle), one or two in others.

SLS launched satellites (cubesats) on its first flight, it's planned to do a crewed lunar flyby on the 2nd flight.

Ariane 6 launched cubesats the other day. It's planned to launch a $400m military satellite on its 2nd flight (program cost $1.3 billion for three satellites)

What makes you think Starship needs to have more launches under its belt than the others before it launches valuable payloads, or humans?

[coppice]

One it does a few Starlink launches payloads will start appearing. No doubt with shared launch at first, to fill the thing up.

they have a while to go before people are going to be willing to put actual hardware on their craft.

How many successful flights did other rockets have before they put *people* on them? Zero in at least one case (Shuttle), one or two in others.

SLS launched satellites (cubesats) on its first flight, it's planned to do a crewed lunar flyby on the 2nd flight.

Ariane 6 launched cubesats the other day. It's planned to launch a $400m military satellite on its 2nd flight (program cost $1.3 billion for three satellites)

What makes you think Starship needs to have more launches under its belt than the others before it launches valuable payloads, or humans?

Starship is doing radically new things, so it would be foolish to send up anything that needs to come down in one piece in the near future. However, for getting things into orbit they are pretty much there. Their big problem with Starship as a launch platform, rather than as a launch, land and fully reuse platform, is weight. Like most new aerospace systems its overweight, so its payload performance is compromised. That's true of most planes and spacecraft in their early stages of development. Any new plane on its first test flight is a completely unusable craft for commercial operation. With spacecraft the margins are usually so narrow they can't even try to fly the thing until they get the weight under control. Starship has such a large target payload capacity they seem to be OK for test flights, and even lifting some useful payload, with what they have.

[Sal Ammoniac]

you have higher security (more local = easier to detect infiltrator without trusting something 2000 miles away..

You know that ESA launches the Ariane from French Guiana, which is over 4000 miles from Europe, right?