
Ariane chief seems frustrated with SpaceX for driving down launch costs - valiant-comma
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/ariane-chief-seems-frustrated-with-spacex-for-driving-down-launch-costs/
======
sqdbps
The author does a good job of pointing out the hypocrisy in complaining about
government subsidies yet refusing to make his company more competitive because
that would jeopardise the government subsidies his company gets.

The last is noteworthy:

"It is about future business," Charmeau said. "Why do all the billionaires
invest in space? Why does Jeff Bezos come to Germany and declare that the
country should not go to space? He makes money with your personal data. Today
he knows your Amazon orders, tomorrow he drives your car."

Goes to show you where much of the EU's animosity towards US tech firms comes
from: local firms and powerful business people with access to politicians
lobbying for protectionism.

~~~
hrktb
It’s a cat and dog relation, US firms also tend to see EU in an adversorial
way, so it seems logical it’s reciprocated by EU players.

The fact that Google and Amazon have an US heavy consumer focus (new product
will be developped and validated for the US first) doesn’t help that
perception either.

------
api_or_ipa
It sounds like Charmeau is willing to blame anything and everything to avoid
the reality that SpaceX is bringing a new economy to the space launch
industry. Instead of marketing Ariane as a boutique, reliable launch vehicle
for valuable payloads like JWT, it seem like Charmeau wants to blame everyone
but himself for Ariane's financial uncertainty.

If I were on the board, I'd ask for his resignation and start looking for a
more visionary leader to guide Ariane.

------
gnode
Going into an era of launch vehicle re-usability with SpaceX seemingly so
technologically far ahead (still the only party to retro-propulsively land an
orbital launch vehicle), part of me feels that this dominance is entirely
deserved for having the vision and taking the risk to develop cost effective
reusability, and Ariane has enjoyed a cushy position for too long. Another
part of me feels that Europe needs a serious competitor to American space-
launch to retain independent capability.

~~~
baq
I'm a SpaceX fanboy but let's not get too enthusiastic. Arianne has had no
vehicle loss since their first flights and is considered reliable enough to
launch the James Webb. Nobody in their right mind would put that on a Falcon 9
even if they paid them.

~~~
rhcom2
Is that due to the larger history of success of the Arianne family of rockets?

~~~
Symmetry
Rockets tend to get more reliable as they get older because designers find all
the various failure modes and fix them. It's normal to have a couple of rapid
unplanned disassemblies in your first ten or twenty flights. Ariane 5 did.
Falcon 9 did. Basically everyone but ULA does. The only difference between the
Ariane 5 and Falcon 9 is that the Ariane 5 has a lot more flights under its
belt.

~~~
danpalmer
I was interested in your comment about Ariane 5 having a lot more flights
under its belt, as it has seemed like SpaceX has ramped up their launches
considerably, and the article talks about 5-10 launches per year for the new
Ariane 6. So I went and looked up the details...

For anyone interested, Ariane 5 has had 98 launches (93 successful) and Falcon
9 has had 54 launches (52 successful).

However, Falcon 9 has 18 launches in 2017, and is on track for 28 this year (8
completed so far), whereas Ariane 5 had just 6 in 2017 and is on track for 10
this year.

It’s definitely true that Ariane 5 has more experience under its belt so far,
but that seems to be changing quickly, and with Ariane 6 resetting some of
that experience, I think SpaceX are at a significant advantage here.

~~~
valuearb
Another way to look at it is that the Ariane 5 has 5 failures across less than
200 rocket engine uses (ignoring solids), while SpaceX has 2 failures across
540 rocket engine uses.

~~~
baq
spacex also had a total vehicle and payload loss while standing on the pad
with engines off, so your metric should be more like 1/540... but then you
want to count test firings at mcgregor and every wet dress rehearsals/static
fires.

------
widowlark
Charmeau is taking the approach of complaining about 'unfair competition' from
other businesses rather than addressing the potential for his own company to
start differentiating itself and actually competing with SpaceX. Good luck
with that terrible viewpoint.

------
londons_explore
The claim that higher priced government contracts are a subsidy seems valid...
But to pretend that spaceflight in any nation isn't government subsidised
seems tenuous.

~~~
valuearb
The claim is entirely invalid. Government contracts require far higher levels
of service and support than commercial satellite launches. SpaceX may be
charging $100M for a $60M launch because of these costly extra requirements,
but more importantly, competitors we e charging the government $200M for the
exact same launch services.

~~~
londons_explore
Is it possible governments require much higher levels of service as a _way_ to
justify higher prices?

It's very hard to value the cost of certifications, making them the ideal way
to subsidise a deal.

~~~
valuearb
Again, SpaceX government contract pricing is less than half of every other
bidders price, so there clearly isn’t any subsidy.

~~~
greglindahl
SpaceX did get all 3 launch pads for cheap, thanks to them being stranded
assets.

------
woodandsteel
>"Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a
rocket which we can use ten times—we would build exactly one rocket per year,"
he said. "That makes no sense. I cannot tell my teams: 'Goodbye, see you next
year!'"

But reusability makes perfect sense if your long-term goal is to set up a
gigantic Mars colony.

------
solarkraft
I want to be patriotic, but damn it, this guy is full of shit. Close that
company down until they at least have the intention of competing with SpaceX.

------
John_KZ
Arstechnica seems to have taken a 180° turn on Telsa lately. I suspect their
expanded their PR budged even more. Ariane has nothing to fear from Telsa.
Even their launch costs are still higher than conventional launch systems, if
you care enough to dive into technical documents, the "driving down launch
costs" argument quickly unravels to unsubstantiated PR garbage. Tesla and
Spacex sell nothing more than false hopes. They "will" drive down launch
costs, they "will" make Tesla profitable and sustainable, they "will" make
sure their car breaks consistently through OTA updates... I don't believe them
anymore, it looks like a ponzi scheme.

