Comment by Kuinox
19 days ago
I don't think Ariane have a "pretty good track record".
Most expensive bug of all time that crashed a whole rocket, because of outdated and wrong software engineering practice.
They dont innovate, looked down on SpaceX, they have bet against Falcon, and lost the bet.
Now they are betting against the Starship.
> Honestly, I don’t think Starship will be a game-changer or a real competitor
-- ESA chief 2024
https://spacenews.com/europe-aims-to-end-space-access-crisis...
Meanwhile EU members are now launching their public project with SpaceX instead of ESA:
https://www.space.com/space-exploration/spacex-rocket-next-g...
https://apnews.com/article/nasa-spacex-launch-astronauts-pri...
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/IRIDE_p...
If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really.
The EU had committed to a number of deep space and scientific instrument programmes spanning decades and seen them through to success. It operates its own GNSS constellation. It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous.
I suspect the previous poster's metric of innovation was more along the lines of:
* developing the first meaningful fully-reusable first stage rocket, and continuing to develop it to the extent that no other launch systems are even in the same ballpark as regards cost, cadence, or mass to orbit
* developing, and continuing to develop, the only full-flow staged combustion rocket engine
* developing, and continuing to develop, a novel, completely-reusable, next-generation very-heavy-lift platform, before any of the competition have even caught with their previous generation
* (to your snarky point about explosions) demonstrating that moving fast, evolving designs quickly, and not being afraid to (be seen to) fail (in the short term, in the court of public opinion, etc.) in the pursuit of success is much better than the traditional conservative approach (e.g. NASA, Blue Origin, etc.)
I'm well aware that giving credit to anything related to Musk is increasingly difficult for some people at the moment, but let's give credit where it's due to SpaceX and its engineers.
The snarky point of explosions wasn't mine, the poster I replied to brought it up.
The rest of your points is really one item, launch vehicles. It's where the USA clearly has the lead (above everyone else, not just ESA in particular). The question was whether the EU can successfully manage complex projects and it clearly can, suggesting otherwise is delirious.
2 replies →
> developing the first meaningful fully-reusable first stage rocket, and continuing to develop it to the extent that no other launch systems are even in the same ballpark as regards cost, cadence, or mass to orbit.
The space shuttle solid boosters were reusable, the only part of the space shuttle program that wasn't, was the big orange tank.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_B...
2 replies →
Ariane 5 exploded with 4 satellites because they copy pasted code of the Ariane 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_flight_V88
It's the most expensive bug in history. On the other hand, you are bringing up explosions of empty rockets that are launched as test, that's bad faith.
Look at the launch history and the Falcon 9 is simply more reliable than the Ariane 5:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_outcomes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Launch_statistics
I did not said it was a failure, I said, they do not have a "pretty good track record". ESA burn through EU money, and wont care to innovate as long as EU provide them unlimited money and dont pressure them. It's an ivory tower.
> It operates its own GNSS constellation.
Only 33 years later and mostly launched on Russian rockets, behind GLONASS and BeiDou.
> It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous.
In what respect? Space? Certainly not, far behind the US and Russia and questionably competitive with China.
Economically? Behind US and China.
R&D? Behind US and China.
Manufacturing? Behind US and China.
You are refusing to recognise reality.
Russia had its last deep space mission (failed) in 1996. GLONASS did not operate until 2005.
Chinese contributions to scientific space missions had been very modest although am sure they may catch up later.
NASA has 3x the budget of ESA. The question was if the EU method of doing project works and it does in very unambiguous manner.
10 replies →
Not all satellite systems are equal:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-20/russia-s-...
>The US constellation isn’t as accurate as the newer networks, said Roberts, the Sydney-based professor. “It used to be GPS was out in front,” he said. Now, though, the EU’s Galileo is in the lead, with China’s BeiDou close behind, he said.
It's basically Galileo > BeiDou > GPS >>> GLONASS.
4 replies →
> It operates its own GNSS constellation.
Galileo did not start as an EU programme. China used to be member!
What other EU programmes did you have in mind? The EU's efforts not even seem comparable to the European Space Agency (which is not part of the EU) let alone NASA.
> most expensive bug of all time that crashed a whole rocket
being valued at $ 370 million in 1996 that bug was recently dwarved by crowd strikes multi-billion-dollar disaster in 2024