Discussion Will the SpaceX push to reusability make ArianeSpace obsolete?

[Evil_Onyx]

From a customer point of view, I would say that at this time that, an Arianespace launch even if more expensive is the better option to SpaceX for the following reasons that may change in the future.

1. Launch history - Arianespace less risky.
Ariane family has 213 launches 202 full successes 95% success rate.
Falcan family has 11 launches and 7 full successes 63% success rate.

2. Time in existence - Arianespace founded in 1980, SpaceX founded in 2002.
Arianespace has had time to get things right, a lot can be said for the new boys on the block (SpaceX) doing things differently but that means more risk for the customer.

3. Flight schedule - just how many times has SpaceX scrubbed out of all there launch attempts, Arianespace seems to launch on time more often than not.

It seems far too early to say if SpaceX is even going to be able to compete with Arianespace or any other launch business. Give them a decade and revisit the question to see if things have changed.

 

[jb860]

Just bad, that currently not even Elon Musk seems to know the true costs of his rockets (see interviews and media events, compared to the people who work for him) nor have any stressable numbers how much costs the reusability will actually cut - or if the effort would even in the mid-term cost SpaceX more money than it saves. (In the long term nobody actually denies that reuse could cut costs if the technology and economy are favorable)

Elon Musk more than likely knows the costs of everything he is doing, but he doesn't need to tell us specific costs on projects as the company is still private and doesn't need to disclose this information. He probably doesn't want to tell people the cost or can't due to competition fear/request from people on the inside. Also in terms of cost, Musk isn't worried as he has stated Space X is well capitalized, hence why he hasn't brought Space x public.

 

[Urwumpe]

Elon Musk more than likely knows the costs of everything he is doing, but he doesn't need to tell us specific costs on projects as the company is still private and doesn't need to disclose this information.

:facepalm: Why does he constantly say numbers than, that are NOWHERE near the values that this employees say about the Falcon rockets? He could just shut his mouth. And remind his employees to be more careful with company secrets.

In reality, they do talk about approximate numbers. Never numbers that you will read in a contract with a customer, because those are real secrets between the two companies.

But still, when it is about numbers, Musk is the typical CEO. He can maybe tell the EBIT of his company to the second digit after the decimal point, but he can't tell what his main product really costs. He can tell what his products should cost in 2018, but he can't tell, how far the company is from that goal right now - others in SpaceX on the otherhand do their homework and can tell such numbers. And even do that in public.

I have way more trust in what a SpaceX engineer says in a Livestream, than in what Musk writes on Twitter at the same time.

Also in terms of cost, Musk isn't worried as he has stated Space X is well capitalized, hence why he hasn't brought Space x public.

Well capitalized is a pretty optimistic estimate to "When something really goes wrong, I'll put some more money into it". It is a liquid company, but nobody public really can tell, how good the liquidity really is. You can be sure, SpaceX does not have much money to loose. The NASA contracts brought some important money into their pockets, also you can be sure that SpaceX also got quite many government-backed loans for their investments. But SpaceX also invested a lot of teaching money in the past 11 years and had not been as successful as they planned 11 years ago.

Its the USA afterall: What would be illegal distortion of the market in Europe, is perfectly fine in the USA. (And don't get me started on China in that context... that Europe really is still existing economically is a constant miracle)

Still, remember: 11 years ago, SpaceX wanted to have a good share of the small payload market with the Falcon 1. And got none. 11 years later, SpaceX is still only launching test payloads. Even if the customer is today SES, the satellite does not matter much to the SES strategy and is expendable. When something goes wrong with the launch, they will still be within their orbital strategy by the Arianespace launched satellites. If the launch is successful, they got a satellite launched for cheap.


As long as SpaceX is the only service provider to possibly bring serious payload down from the ISS, NASA will rescue them within all limits that the law gives NASA. Maybe SpaceX will even get more rescue from the Airforce. But once this changes and SpaceX is just one player among many, there is really a possibility that SpaceX might go bankrupt.

 

[Lucy]

3. Flight schedule - just how many times has SpaceX scrubbed out of all there launch attempts, Arianespace seems to launch on time more often than not.

I've seen the Arianes scrub quite a few times before getting underway - more than a few holds, too. It does happen.

It seems far too early to say if SpaceX is even going to be able to compete with Arianespace or any other launch business. Give them a decade and revisit the question to see if things have changed.

Well quite. Things need time to mature - look how long it took to get the STS missions launching smoothly.

SpaceX have, perhaps, a bright future. And while I take the point that they do need to actually launch their payloads from time to time, I too would prefer they do what Garyw says - take it down, check it out, put it together properly, and set it on fire.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

I've seen the Arianes scrub quite a few times before getting underway - more than a few holds, too. It does happen.

I did not mean to imply that it Arianes don't scrub, its just they don't seem to do it that often in comparison to other launch systems.

Well quite. Things need time to mature - look how long it took to get the STS missions launching smoothly.

SpaceX have, perhaps, a bright future. And while I take the point that they do need to actually launch their payloads from time to time, I too would prefer they do what Garyw says - take it down, check it out, put it together properly, and set it on fire.

I agree, its just I'm thinking what is going to happen in the long run. It is quite possible that they do get a hold on some of the market, but Arianespace is not the only competition, and all the launch systems are still evolving. Who knows what the market is going to be like in 2025 with absolute certainty.

 

[statickid]

.

We need some kind of scrubbing smiley

 

[Alfastar]

Elon Musk more than likely knows the costs of everything he is doing, but he doesn't need to tell us specific costs on projects as the company is still private and doesn't need to disclose this information. He probably doesn't want to tell people the cost or can't due to competition fear/request from people on the inside. Also in terms of cost, Musk isn't worried as he has stated Space X is well capitalized, hence why he hasn't brought Space x public.

I never, but serious never seen any real trustful, independent numbers about the cost of a Falcon 9 launch. Musk is very unclear about the costs of a Falcon 9 launch. Yes, you can wise you finger to the SpaceX site where the cost of a Falcon 9 launch stays in numbers, but still even then I don't really trust that numbers because simple one major reason, and that is this:

I never seen a clear answer how much it cost to make, transport and add the rocket fuel on the Falcon 9, and don't forget also the employees costs and other stuff like the launchpad. And even when its in total less then 56 million dollar and SpaceX makes profit of it, then still is the big question remaining: Is that also included a insurance for if the Falcon 9 fails?

If you are really sure about your company, then you not hide up the prices and be unclear about that. Or you hide something what you don't really want to tell and/or you are unsure about the company.

 

[RGClark]

Well, given the original post, don't expect to get flowers, especially from europeans that are rather proud of Arianespace performance...

Keep in mind I am not against ArianeSpace. What I am a strong proponent of is manned spaceflight. By selecting the solid-fueled Ariane 6, ESA is missing a golden opportunity to get a manned flight capable launcher in the near term.
Ironically, IF SpaceX succeeds in their next test of reusability in Feb. 2014, this might provide an incentive for ESA to at least "hedge their bets" and engage in some development research of adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core. Then they would not be years behind the other space agencies in the world IF SpaceX succeeds in cutting costs by reusability.


Bob Clark

 

[statickid]

It seems like the cost of scrubbing launches would end up costing quite a lot of money

 

[MattBaker]

Keep in mind I am not against ArianeSpace. What I am a strong proponent of is manned spaceflight. By selecting the solid-fueled Ariane 6, ESA is missing a golden opportunity to get a manned flight capable launcher in the near term.

And how exactly are manned spaceflight and satellite delievery connected? Just because you don't have a manned spaceflight program means you should fail in the satellite launching market?
You're just having a favorite thing, manned spaceflight, and support everyone providing you that thing, SpaceX, and declare everyone who doesn't as doing wrong choices and failing, Arianespace.

And I think we often enough had the discussion: Europe does neither want nor need their own manned spaceflight program. And I say that as a European and think I represent a majority there.

Ironically, IF SpaceX succeeds in their next test of reusability in Feb. 2014, this might provide an incentive for ESA to at least "hedge their bets" and engage in some development research of adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5 core.

1st: If SpaceX succeeds they haven't reused a single part of their launcher. They have, more or less, soft-landed a rocket stage in the ocean. Yes, that is a big step forward but that's not reusability. Reusability needs to be easy, fast and cost-effective to actually matter as much as you make it matter. If they are able to achieve that remains to be seen. If it's actually cheaper to just build a new stage, something SpaceX with their mass-produced engines might accomplish, reusability is worth very little.
2nd: If it succeeds we won't have reusability in a few minutes. It still takes time. Until then there's the newer version of the Ariane 5. Which cuts costs by some factor and can put satellites into much better (higher) orbits. Sounds interesting to me as a satellite provider who has to launch regularly and lose a lot of satellite fuel to just get into GEO.
3rd: This is the real world. We're (sadly) not playing Kerbal Space Program. While in KSP you often just go "Well, what if we...ADD MORE BOOSTERS!" this doesn't work in real life. I think Urwumpe was it who pointed out months ago that the g-forces on your double-engined version would be stunning. Not to mention you can't just go around and stick rocket engines to one place or another. Well, you can but it doesn't work.


Please try to use logic and cold hard data as the baseline of your post not "I would like SpaceX to play out perfectly, so what if they just eat up Arianespace." Yeah, I would like a job I like that pays better. And maybe a car. Or become a football player. Or meet the Doctor. Or become a time lord and own a TARDIS. What, none of this is realistic? Well, if I write it often enough it will work!

 

[Urwumpe]

And I think we often enough had the discussion: Europe does neither want nor need their own manned spaceflight program. And I say that as a European and think I represent a majority there.

I actually think that Europe needs its own manned expertise. Not automatically its own manned space program ASAP. But manned spaceflight is politics and we are running out of good political friends at the moment. It would pay out to have a small European manned alternative and still cooperate with everybody who has the same goals as we have. Thats maybe my own view and maybe I am really alone with it. But I believe Europe can achieve more.

But I don't see how "making the Ariane 6 liquid fueled" would give this goal any help. Ariane has ALWAYS been optimized for GTO missions, except the ill-fated Ariane 6 ES. The Ariane 6 is aiming at GTO missions. Why should we give the Ariane 6 a LEO capability and a manned capability, if we expect a fierce market at the GTO, which is our market.

We should have a cheap cheap Ariane 6, with cheap solid rocket engines. And we should have an more expensive manned launcher, that allows us to do our own manned missions. And a stripped down version of it, that is optimized for 25 tons to LEO missions.

 

[AlfalfaQc]

On the right track? What there really showed in that case successful? Only a subsonic rocket who got only one engine, can going to just max about 1-2 km, is heavy modified and got almost noting on it what would move in the real Falcon 9 (1.1).

There failed so far in history now with the real try's for recovery / re-usability.

So the arguments that SpaceX go kicking out ArianeSpace based on the re-usability points is just talking about things what SpaceX only showed that on paper, talking and a heavy modified rocket (Grasshopper).

Ok, first of all I never said it was successfull (if it is what you implied). But you don't seem to understand the process of designing something. First it takes time, second you don't go right to the finished product. Grasshopper is meant to, as I see it, to test more the software side of the thing than the hardware. You need to be able to properly land a subsonic rocket before attempting to land the real thing.

Like I said, those kind of things are not simple. Rome hasn't been built in one day. Will they be successful one day? Maybe (and I hope so). But they might fail miserably (and that would be sad).

For the "kicking Arianespace" out. I really don't think that will happen. They have been there fore quite some time now, and they are well established. And they have no interest in doing manned launch I think.

 

[N_Molson]

I actually think that Europe needs its own manned expertise. Not automatically its own manned space program ASAP. But manned spaceflight is politics and we are running out of good political friends at the moment.

Well, NASA and ESA will work together to build the Orion capsule. Seems rather a good idea to me.

 

[RGClark]

And how exactly are manned spaceflight and satellite delievery connected? Just because you don't have a manned spaceflight program means you should fail in the satellite launching market?
You're just having a favorite thing, manned spaceflight, and support everyone providing you that thing, SpaceX, and declare everyone who doesn't as doing wrong choices and failing, Arianespace.
And I think we often enough had the discussion: Europe does neither want nor need their own manned spaceflight program. And I say that as a European and think I represent a majority.

I know there are scientists who have no interest in manned spaceflight, largely because they feel it detracts from the important work that can be done by unmanned probes. But I don't believe that is the case for most space advocates.
I'd like to see a survey on the issue in Europe.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 08:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------

Here is the article in French that is the basis for that SpaceNews article I cited in the first post on this thread:

Stéphane Israël (Arianespace) : « Ne pas surestimer SpaceX »
Par Alain Ruello | 25/11 | 06:29
http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-...ianespace-ne-pas-surestimer-spacex-632090.php

This of course describes more fully Israël's opinions. For one thing he says SpaceX should not be overestimated, as well as not underestimating it. Another he thinks Ariane's experience and reliability will still give Ariane the edge even if SpaceX enters the GEO satellite market.
However, a question I would have liked to see asked is what would be Arianespace response if SpaceX succeeds in cutting costs by reusability.

Bob Clark

 

[N_Molson]

"....car chacun sait que SpaceX n’existerait pas sans le mirifique contrat d’1,6 milliards de dollars que lui a confié la NASA."

Because everybody knows that SpaceX would not exist without the fabulous agreement of 1.6 billions dollars that gave it NASA.

What he said...

 

[Urwumpe]

However, a question I would have liked to see asked is what would be Arianespace response if SpaceX succeeds in cutting costs by reusability.

The important factor is time - when will this happen? Before 2025 relative to rockets available in 2025? Then Arianespace might react with small panic, ESA might react with big panic and Airbus Space would mention that they have the technology to cut the costs much more than SpaceX can, if they would just get the contract to build a launcher.

Then, in 2030, SpaceX will have to counter that the Empire strikes back, the WTO investigates illegal funding for both SpaceX and Arianespace/Airbus Space and in the end, Germany wins by penalties.

Should SpaceX reach the break-even point with their technology around 2035, nothing will happen, because likely a reusable European launcher is already under development.

 

[N_Molson]

and in the end, Germany wins by penalties.

:rofl:

 

[statickid]

SpaceX should not be overestimated, as well as not underestimating it.

I always strive for fair and accurate estimations

 

[N_Molson]

I always strive for fair and accurate estimations

Exactly, the most important point here is to determine if the glass is half-full or half-empty :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Exactly, the most important point here is to determine if the glass is half-full or half-empty :lol:

That is not my glass! My glass was full! Garçon!