
As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist - Tomte
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/as-the-spacex-steamroller-surges-european-rocket-industry-vows-to-resist/
======
bosdev
> Truthfully, if Europe ever did develop a reusable rocket, one that could fly
> all the missions in a year, this would be unhelpful politically. What would
> the engine and booster factories sprinkled across Europe do if they built
> one rocket and then had 11 months off? The member states value the jobs too
> much.

It feels incredibly short-term to me. How many jobs will be created by opening
up spaceflight at 1/100 the cost? How many new types of satellites,
technology, human transport will be created?

~~~
marsokod
To me this is a major reason why the reusable launchers were not developed in
Europe. The concept was being studied but never gained traction.

One of the reason might have been vanity but if you look at it with the view
point of a CEO from a European firm, reusability was a risky gamble:

1) In order to keep your manufacturing quality, one needs to produce a new
rocket every two or three months. Beyond that, the people manufacturing it
losses knowledge and unless quality assurance is increased a lot, you will
losses quality.

2) EU was doing around 12 launches a year, and that was by being very cheap.
You could plan on increasing the market share but that starts being difficult
as a lot of what remains cannot use a European launcher for political reasons.

3) For the sake of the argument, let say cheaper price double the market
share, that leaves 24 launches a year. Based on a manufacturing of 6 launchers
a year, this leaves 4 launches per rocket. And that is with very optimistic
numbers (doubling of marketshare, no issue with reusability).

4) If you look at the numbers from SpaceX, 4 launches per rocket is where the
reusability starts making sense. But ideally, you want more. 5) The Airbus
people have shareholders to account to, not a CEO who does not care risking
going banqueroute while pursuing a dream to go on Mars.

So yeah, doable but much more difficult than in a market with better access to
investment and to huge cash cows named NASA and DoD

~~~
jlmorton
Alain Charmeau spelled this out explicitly to Der Spiegel:

> Charmeau said the Ariane rocket does not launch often enough to justify the
> investment into reusability. (It would need about 30 launches a year to
> justify these costs, he said). And then Charmeau said something telling
> about why reusability doesn't make sense to a government-backed rocket
> company—jobs.

> "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!'"

[http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-
di...](http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-die-
amerikaner-wollen-europa-aus-dem-weltraum-kicken-a-1207322.html)

~~~
1996
What will make even more sense is when he says to his teams: "Farewell, it was
really nice working with you all, too bad the foreign competition slashed
prices and bankrupted us"

~~~
WJW
The solution is therefore pretty simple: taxes will subsidize "industries of
national interest". It is for the same reason as the US would never buy
Swedish fighter jets, Israeli ICBMs or German submarines. This has been true
since the beginning of the nation state.

~~~
1996
Great idea - note however the lack of existance of Swedish fighter jets, the
low quality of Israeli ICBM, and the rarity of German submarines.

A government can subsidize with taxes an industry as much as it wants, and
force its products down its citizens throat as much as it can: it will not be
able to create quality, which is essential to get a large market demand.

Unless the industry is very hard to replicate for whatever reason like large
capital requirements given the available technology (ex: a computer in the
1940s, sending a human to the moon in the 1960s) this create a market
opportunity.

Natural market forces such as competition ensure the end result.

EDIT: My bad, I forgot about the Swedish Gripen. It exists, which is no small
feat by itself! It is just low quality and rare.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen)

"Gripen has achieved moderate success in sales to nations in Central Europe,
South Africa and Southeast Asia; bribery has been suspected in some of these
procurements, but authorities closed the investigation in 2009"

Thanks to bribery, this wonderful piece of technology could be sold to major
world powers like South Africa and Hungary.

~~~
WJW
It is a great idea indeed, but note:

\- The Gripen fighter jets (designed and built in Sweden) listing no less than
17 (!) current and confirmed future customers here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational_history).
The list of nations considering buying those jets is even longer.

\- You are either incredibly well informed or not informed at all about the
quality of Israeli ICBMs, but since they are ordering submarines capable of
launching ICBMs and are capable of launching satellites into orbit, the
general state of Israeli ballistic capability is definitely high enough to
deliver warheads anywhere on the planet.

\- Allegedly, the latest generation of German submarines is good enough to
penetrate the defenses of a US navy carrier group
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine#Operations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine#Operations)).
They are in service with both the German and Italian navies with four more
ordered by the Norwegians.

Quality helps with generating demand but it is not enough, especially when
selling to governments. If you don't believe this, please consider if SpaceX
had still gotten the NSA launch contracts if SpaceX had been a Chinese or
Russian company.

~~~
1996
I fully agree that, when selling to friendly governments, quality is not much
of a factor

------
paul
The denial is strong. Reminds me of how cell phone makers responded to the
iPhone:

“The development of mobile phones will be similar in PCs. Even with the Mac,
Apple has attracted much attention at first, but they have still remained a
niche manufacturer. That will be in mobile phones as well,” Nokia chief
strategist Anssi Vanjoki told a German newspaper at the time.

Back in the day, smartphones were pretty much defined by devices like the Palm
Treo, and Palm CEO Ed Colligan doubted some computer maker was going to just
waltz in and eat his lunch.

“We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a
decent phone,” Colligan said. “PC guys are not going to just figure this out.
They're not going to just walk in.”

------
rdtsc
> Even, so, Charmeau rejects comparisons to SpaceX, because he maintains that
> the company is heavily subsidized by the US government.

Isn't ESA subsidized by the member governments? I'd understand if the
criticism was coming from a private entity and they'd be complaining about
SpaceX getting preferential treatment, but coming from a state sponsored
agency it seems odd.

~~~
greglindahl
Ariane 5's commercial launches are directly subsidized by the EU. But it's a
muddled story all around: if SpaceX rents an unused launch pad from NASA
instead of spending $1 billion to build a new one, is that a subsidy? Was
NASA's competition for commercial cargo to the ISS a subsidy?

~~~
marsokod
Agreed, if one could take into account all the subsidies, I am sure we would
be at similar levels. The commercial cargo contract was on par with the ATV
program, but the prospect is much bigger, with better financial stability.

And where should we stop counting subsidies? Are the government funded studies
made by research institutes counted? They benefit a lot to the companies.

~~~
greglindahl
You can look at the Boeing vs Airbus trade case to see how far folks are
willing to go when adding up "subsidies" \-- into the weeds.

------
drcode
I'm encouraged to see that their "vow to resist" seems to mainly involve
trying to outperform SpaceX, as opposed to asking for legislation/regulation
to give their rocket program special status.

EDIT: At least that was the gist of this article, it seems like other sources
suggest they may pursue legislative avenues as well.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _their "vow to resist" seems to mainly involve trying to outperform SpaceX_

The planned Ariane 6 is cost uncompetitive with the Falcon 9 and variable cost
and mass uncompetitive with the Falcon Heavy. There are no plans for a
European reusable. The “our mission is different...our culture is different”
comment implies a regulatory, not technological, solution.

~~~
rory096
>The planned Ariane 6 is cost uncompetitive with the Falcon 9

This isn't really true. Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes
to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5
tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable).

Because Ariane uses a "dual-berth" conops, it (generally) flies two payloads
per launch, whereas Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused. The two
rockets are thus of comparable cost to a satellite customer, with pros and
cons for each — Ariane is more reliable, but you have to work around the other
customer's schedule.

The worry is that Ariane 6 won't be competitive with _future_ rockets, like
New Glenn or BFR.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90
> million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO
> (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable)_

Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6
when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the
Falcon 9?

Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne.
Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally
worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections,
your numbers don't paint the Arianes favorably.

> _Falcon 9 's excess capacity is usually left unused_

Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even
then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a
number of companies ( _e.g._ Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them.

[1] [http://spaceflight.com](http://spaceflight.com)

~~~
rory096
>Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6
when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the
Falcon 9?

Because their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the
upper berth for €45 million while another customer pays the rest in the lower
berth. Capability isn't useful if your payload doesn't use it.

>Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne.
Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally
worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, I
think you made your counterargument.

These prices are within 20%, which I'd call competitive given non-price
factors. The claim was not that Ariane was _cheaper_.

>Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even
then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a
number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them.

Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously
hard to coordinate. Spaceflight's SHERPA mission was supposed to fly secondary
to the (tiny) Formosat-5 payload, but was pulled due to delays.[0] SFI now
plans to stick with "dedicated rideshare" on rockets booked by them entirely
for their customers. Their first flight will be SSO-A on a dedicated Falcon 9
later this year.

Historically, Falcon has flown few secondary payloads. An OG-2 prototype flew
as a secondary on CRS-1, but was lost due to the engine-out on ascent.
Iridium-6 shared with NASA's Grace-FO, after both missions dropped off Dnepr
due to the Ukraine crisis.[1] Hispasat-30W carried a small hosted (then
released) secondary as part of an experimental deployment system.[2] I can't
think of any other notable secondary payloads.

[0] [https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-
fin...](https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-find-
alternative-launches/)

[1] [https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch-
sh...](https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch-shares-with-
earth-science-mission/)

[2] [https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent-
la...](https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent-launch-
carried-a-secret-military-funded-experiment/)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper
> berth for €45 million_

€45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper
and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10
million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity.

> _Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously
> hard to coordinate_

It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform.
Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency.

Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't
unreasonable ten years ago. I agree there will be niches where someone will be
forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from
SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, _et cetera_ \--that niche
will narrow.

~~~
rory096
>€45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper
and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10
million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity.

F9 reusable is about the same. For Falcon 9, you'll need that secondary
payload provider to also pay for a custom payload adapter and deployment
mechanism, since berths aren't standardized as on Ariane.

>It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform.
Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency.

Certainly, but it's not one that has been solved. I suspect moving forward
we'll see it mostly solved for _very_ small sats on dedicated rideshare
missions, while excess payload for larger commercial sats remains unused.

>Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't
unreasonable ten years ago.

Certainly. But it's important to note that designing for first stage
reusability wouldn't necessarily be profitable _either_. SpaceX is already
cheaper without it and is quickly taking market share away. As launch cadence
drops, financial returns on reusability fall quickly. If you're second fiddle
already, you may very well lose money by investing in reusability.

>I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for
scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue
Origin, RocketLab, India, et cetera--that niche will narrow.

I'd argue Ariane's niche remains _reliability_ , not scheduling (which it has
problems with because of the dual berth conops[0]). SpaceX will soon own
schedule reliability as its backlog dissipates and boosters are rapidly
reused. But there's a reason JWST is going on Ariane 5.

[0] [https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/27/concerns-with-
indian-p...](https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/27/concerns-with-indian-
payload-postpone-next-ariane-5-launch/)

------
quotemstr
My first instinct was amusement, seeing ESA's blatant denial and sour-grape-
ization of SpaceX. But then I remembered that we all work on projects which
someday will be similarly obsolete, and I can only hope we handle the
situation a bit more gracefully and effectivity.

------
Quinner
I'm always stunned by the degree to which "resisting" consists of haughty
dismissiveness of SpaceX and whining about subsidies (which Arianespace itself
receives in spades). I wonder if these people will be able to swallow their
pride when SpaceX eats their lunch and they have to go work for the Americans.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _if Europe ever did develop a reusable rocket, one that could fly all the
> missions in a year, this would be unhelpful politically. What would the
> engine and booster factories sprinkled across Europe do if they built one
> rocket and then had 11 months off?_

~~~
mschuster91
This problem will also bite the US launch industry. Hard.

Once SpaceX has proven they can do safe crewed flights and Blue Origin goes
beyond testing flights, why is there a reason to pay the _huge_ ULA markup any
more?

ULA, as well as Airbus, has a problem: they're constantly being meddled with
by politicians without any idea what they're doing and decide stuff that's
totally unreasonable from an economical point but helpful for their (or their
party's) reelections. Airbus employs 130k people, Boeing 140k and Lockheed
100k, and in addition there are a lot of people in the supplier companies.
That's a _lot_ of voters, and the companies are often enough big employers on
a regional/local level.

Which means: SpaceX and Blue Origin will conquer the entire commercial sector
plus an enormous amount of US government work. EU-founded projects will
(politically mandated) stick to Airbus, but the political inability of Airbus
to innovate will lead everything else go to SpaceX/BO. And the taxpayer will
have to "save" them... or have to deal with hundreds of thousands people out
of jobs.

~~~
pocketstar
ULA has 100% mission success. The Atlas family has 100% mission sucess since
1957. The ULA markup is justified for a high value mission. BO and spaceX have
big shoes to fill when it comea to building industry and insurer trust. The
Amos 8 failure was an expensive lesson for spacex.

~~~
rory096
>The Atlas family has 100% mission sucess since 1957.

Huh? Atlas I had failures in 1991, 1992, and 1993. Atlas G failed in 1984 and
1987.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_I)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_G](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_G)

[http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html](http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html)

------
PunchTornado
My God this makes me ashamed at being European.

Who are these guys and in which century do they think they are? Innovate and
compete or resign and make room for others who can do it. I'm sure there are
enough European engineers who can build reusable rockets.

~~~
marsokod
Oh yes there are enough of them. But to compete you need fair rules and open
access to your competitors market, and that is not the case currently. What
they are asking for is only the same protections as the US companies currently
enjoy.

~~~
HeadsUpHigh
I'm sorry, what? What protections are you talking about? Nasa has booked
flights on non-USA rockets many times in the past. SpaceX has received no
subsidies( i.e. free money) but only contracts from the government which
Ariane is now asking to be locked by law( and let's not even talk about
subsidies).

------
syntaxing
I recommend to read the book "Why Nations fail" if you're interested in how
some countries become rich or stay in poverty. One of the key ideas is
something called creative destruction. There is always something destroyed
when something new is created (there are always losers and winners). When
there is uncertainty, there is an opportunity. The fear of losing is what
makes certain companies (and countries) not adopt a new technology since it
challenges their current standing and this circle tends to lead to the
collapse of a company's ecnonomy.

------
solarkraft
This article is honest, but holds back a bit about how incredibly lost the
european space industry is now.

------
greglindahl
If you'd like to read some more progressive thinking by a European, here's an
interview with the CNES (French space agency) Director of Launchers:

[https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director-
of...](https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director-of-launchers-
talks-reusable-rockets/)

In which he talks about about a realistic path to a reusable rocket that could
compete with Falcon 9. But it wouldn't launch until 2028-2030.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _a realistic path to a reusable rocket_

Technologically realistic. Politically unfeasible. ArianeGroup's factories
provide high-paying jobs across Europe. Re-tooling them will not be possible
for another generation.

Source: I worked with launch start-ups. Their dismissal by EU politicos was
resounding, particularly in contrast to the American and other countries'
responses.

~~~
greglindahl
I figure that the opinion of the CNES Director of Launchers is pretty good
when it comes to understanding European rocket politics, but if you want to
claim you're a bigger expert, ok.

------
swatkat
_> >> “Are you buying a Mercedes because it is cheap?”

>>> Ranzo, sitting nearby, chimed in and referenced the India-based maker of
the world’s least expensive car. As he put it, “We don’t sell a Tata.”_

Not with that attitude ;) There's nothing wrong with cheap spaceflight, as
long as they're human-rated for crewed missions. I hope they also know that
Tata owns Jaguar Land Rover.

------
yellowcherry
I have no idea what this headline is supposed to mean.

"Vows to resist"

Resist what, exactly?

~~~
AimForTheBushes
SpaceX and other low cost space companies. If I read the article correctly,
they plan on doing this by not innovating.

~~~
simion314
Isn't the article mentioning that they are working on 2 new rockets and that
the plan is to not compete in SpaceX niche?

I assume that we do not know that much about the innovation due to much
smaller PR budgets.

~~~
sbov
AFAIK they don't have any capabilities SpaceX won't have, so SpaceX's "niche"
is to just charge less for the same service.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _they don 't have any capabilities SpaceX won't have_

Correct. Falcon 9 is cheaper than Ariane 6 and the Falcon Heavy can launch
more mass than Arian 5 or 6 for less. Given the piggyback market, where unused
launch mass can be sold to third parties, the only reason to pay up for this
platform is for political or scheduling reasons.

------
narrator
What I love about space is it is a great example of peaceful competition
between nations. We need more of that.

------
hinkley
Every team has a couple people who want to do better, but they can’t get
budget for the work from management. When a threat comes the cost benefit
analysis shifts, and now those people find a sympathetic ear.

------
xoa
This was an interesting article on an area I'd long meant to read about but
never had, and there is some great history there. However, I got a very real
feeling of "skating to where the puck is not where it is going" sense the
farther I read. In particular, the article spends a certain amount of time on
the under-development Ariane 6 series and Vega-C. But the comparisons were all
to the existing Falcon 9. I wish Mr Berger had asked them at all about the BFR
and the implications of a functional high performance methalox engine, because
I think that has the potential to be a much bigger leap forward then seems to
be generally discussed yet. Methane doesn't give quite the thrust of kerosene
or the ISP of hydrogen, but from an economic and chemical-rockets-in-space
perspective its got a lot going for it, not all of it immediately obvious. It
doesn't coke at rocket temperatures, yet another bonus for more reusability.
My understanding is that it's much easier to store then LH2 and the conditions
are a closer match for LOX which potentially simplifies a number of steps. It
can potentially be harvested or synthesized elsewhere in the solar system more
easily. And even the cost factor shouldn't be ignored once the context is
reusability, RP-1 isn't actually cheap (it's highly refined, I saw estimates
north of $16/gallon). Fuel may be the least expensive part of an expendable
rocket to the point it's not generally worried about, but for a reusable
rocket a couple of million dollars extra per launch is real additional margin
over time.

I'm certainly no expert by any means, but organizations like ArianeGroup
comparing under development rockets to existing ones feels as though really
sums up some of the issues with Old Space in a nutshell. It seems like they're
thinking in terms of building a rocket where that one design might then be
used essentially unchanged for 30-50 years despite there being clear
theoretical improvements to be had. But that's not how the fully private
enterprises seem likely to operate. SpaceX put a fair amount of effort into
the Falcon Heavy for example, and it was spectacular. Except now apparently
they've decided that it's effectively already obsolete, that BFR is going
better then expected which mean FH will serve as a limited use minor stopgap
and then be scrapped as a design. Even now I don't know if that sort of
aggressiveness has really gotten into the consciousness of older style
organizations yet.

I guess if they're comfortable with basically becoming a jobs program and
massively subsidized strategic fallback for the EU that is in fact potentially
sustainable a long time. Polities can have different levels of very long term
priorities that are different from the faster pace of industry, there's
nothing wrong with that. But it's a position that has risks too if the gap
opens up too far, because it takes a very long time to make up that ground (if
ever).

------
sqdbps
It's hard not to make the connection between this example of a clueless self
entitled tantrum and the naked resentment towards a US rival by a euro bigwig
complete with the instinct to seek government subsidizes and assistance
against said US rival with the scrutiny US technology companies are receiving
in the region.

