Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 05 2021, @12:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the good-fast-cheap;-pick...three? dept.

SpaceX snags launch contract from Arianespace after Vega rocket fails twice

In a rare victory for international launch competition, SpaceX has snagged a contract to launch an Italian Earth observation satellite from European launch monopoly and political heavyweight Arianespace.

After spending the better part of a decade with its head in the sand as SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket rapidly came to dominate the global launch market, Arianespace has become increasingly reliant on its ability to entice politicians into forcing European Union member states to launch any and all domestic satellites and spacecraft on its Ariane 5, Ariane 6, and Vega rockets. Save for a few halting, lethargic technology development programs that have yet to bear any actionable fruit, the company – heavily subsidized by European governments – has almost completely failed to approach head-on the threat posed by SpaceX by prioritizing the development of rockets that can actually compete with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy on cost and performance.

[...] A recent development offers the best look yet at what many European space agencies likely suffer through as a consequence of their governments signing away access to an increasingly competitive launch industry – often seemingly in return for Arianespace selecting contractors or (re)locating development hubs or factories in certain countries. Notably, sometime in September 2021, the Italian Space Agency (ASI) confirmed signs that it was moving the launch of its COSMO SkyMed CSG-2 Earth observation satellite from a new Arianespace rocket to SpaceX's Falcon 9.

[...] SkyMed CSG-1 debuted on an Arianespace Soyuz rocket in December 2019, while CSG-2 was originally scheduled to launch sometime in 2021 on one of the first Arianespace Vega-C rockets. However, in July 2019 and November 2020, the Vega rocket Vega-C is based on suffered two launch failures separated by just a single success. Aside from raising major questions about Arianespace's quality assurance, those near-back-to-back failures also delayed Vega's launch manifest by three years. Combined with a plodding launch cadence and jam-packed manifest for Arianespace's other non-Vega rockets, that meant that Italy would have likely had to wait 1-2 years to launch SkyMed CSG-2 on a European rocket.

Previously:
Upper Stage Issue Causes Arianespace Launch Failure, Costing 2 Satellites
Europe Starting to Freak Out About Dominance of SpaceX


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday October 05 2021, @05:58PM (4 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 05 2021, @05:58PM (#1184505) Journal

    Everything I've read or heard in recent years is that SpaceX is under pricing its competitors significantly. SpaceX also has reusable rockets.

    If you have some information to the contrary that re-usable rockets are more expensive to operate than expendable, I would love to see that.

    I did see a video, it might have been everyday astronaut, but I can't be sure. It did have some breakdown of the costs of SpaceX Falcon 9. I had already independently heard multiple times that the fairings cost about $6 Million each. The first stage booster costs $30 million. And the 2nd stage about $21 million. The estimates were that if you can capture and refurbish the booster for under $2 million, your next launch costs you significantly less. About $28 million less. Not an insignificant sum. In fact about half of the total launch cost. It's even more profitable if you can capture and refurbish the fairings.

    You seem to be suggesting something about reuseability costs that is contrary to anything I've heard or read so far.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    Now about subsidies and pork, I don't know what you're talking about. I know that some SpaceX launches cost more because of complexity and other services required for the payload. That doesn't seem like a subsidy to me.

    Maybe you can clarify what you mean?

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 05 2021, @06:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 05 2021, @06:14PM (#1184512)

    one-way rocket is only cheaper if you can add that metals-to-gold transforming device that only works in the upper atmosphere: "raining gold nuggets you'all!"

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 06 2021, @01:53AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 06 2021, @01:53AM (#1184591)

    Everything I've read or heard in recent years is that SpaceX is under pricing its competitors significantly. SpaceX also has reusable rockets.

    What I find hilarious is that these aren't directly related. SpaceX was already charging around half what their nearest competitor did before they had a reusable rocket, because their rocket was that much cheaper to start with. This means that reuse has even smaller margins to break even for SpaceX than for their competitors, and they still found it profitable* even when they offered a $12M discount for 'used' rockets.

    The double edged sword of reuse, and what knowledgeable opponents of the concept cite, is that while it can reduce your costs and will increase your launch cadence, you must increase your launch cadence by an order of magnitude or you will put yourself out of business, and there simply isn't enough demand to support that. Musk bet that demand would increase to match supply, apparently thinking that the incumbent communications companies would see the potential profits and jump at the chance to be first to market. But as his critics predicted, it didn't happen. Of course, being himself, his response to not getting his way was to make it happen anyway, while potentially adding another digit to his net wealth. At least we know who inherited Steve Jobs' reality distortion field.

    *This has more to do with SpaceX being good at cost control than reuse being cheaper. I have no doubt that Arianespace could find a way to lose money with reuse.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 06 2021, @07:09AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday October 06 2021, @07:09AM (#1184641) Homepage
      False. Unless $316M for a single launch is half of $85M.

      You're confusing prices charged with actual costs. And if you can do that, I can too, I'll just chose a different customer's price. See my post below.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 06 2021, @07:06AM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday October 06 2021, @07:06AM (#1184640) Homepage
    > under pricing

    You're confusing pricing and cost.

    The starlink missions will eventually be free? Does that mean SpaceX launches are free? It does using your broken logic.

    > Now about subsidies and pork, I don't know what you're talking about.

    Clearly. Go watch some Thunderf00t videos. Start with:
    4TxkE_oYrjU SpaceX: BUSTED!! (Part 1)
    The relevant porky bit start at 555s and 1400s. Gotta just love that overcharging Space Force by a factor of 6. No pork there at all, no, no, no, definitely not.

    > I know that some SpaceX launches cost more because of complexity and other services required for the payload. That doesn't seem like a subsidy to me.

    Addressed in the above vid at the above timestamps. Complexity: the Space Shuttle was (not just a known money sink, but also) human rated. Space X's launches in their $1.6B contract were not. That $1.6B was pure pork. $316M for one launch - more pure pork. One customer with an effectively infinite budget covering the development costs so that other customers don't have to. Call it charity, call it a subsidy, call it pork, call it creaming the taxpayer, call it what you like, it's a distortion of the price that has future distortions of the price as repurcussions. And you're only seeing those distortions.

    Or worse.

    You might have listened to the projected price promises from Musk which are basically bullshit. Skip to 750s in that vid. Musk's claims about eventual "7 times cheaper", "10 times cheaper", "20 times cheaper", or even "100 times cheaper" space launches from his re-usable rockets are absolutely unsupportable extrapolations compared with horrific money sinks in a non-competitive market, and completely overlooks things like maintenance. And whaddya make of the price increases, as shown at 865s?

    You've been sniffing the Musky KoolAid. You're not alone, but that doesn't diminish how out of whack your perspectives are compared with reality.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves