Discussion Will the SpaceX push to reusability make ArianeSpace obsolete?

[Mader Levap]

I am talking of US government directly pushing 800 million USD into SpaceX as subsidies

Yeah, because no one else does that, certainly not Ariane that get so small and insignificant (as you said) subsidies - barely ten times bigger.

You really do not have any ground for criticism when you use double standards for different space companies. I get it, you like european space companies and hate SpaceX. Good luck with running with that, though.

under various programs without any relation to a service provided by SpaceX beyond SpaceX existing.

1. Money from COTS are in fact directly related to fulfillment of CRS and future crewed contracts.
2. It fulfill one of goals of NASA - fostering technological innovation and helping start of commercial space (in NewSpace sense). Assumption is that with this kind of help, these new companies will be after some time able to survive on their own in purely theoretical case of goverment stopping any space-related spendings. Latter will never happen, of course - goverment will always be significant player on space market.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah, because no one else does that, certainly not Ariane that get so small and insignificant (as you said) subsidies - barely ten times bigger.

Hey, you seem to know much more than I do. Would you like to be so benevolent to list the Arianespace subsidies since 2002?

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

 

[Alfastar]

Yeah, because no one else does that, certainly not Ariane that get so small and insignificant (as you said) subsidies - barely ten times bigger.

First of all, would you come with numbers about the subsides?

But let me tell now something about SpaceX and especially the Falcon 9. The cost of a Falcon 9 cost around 56 million dollars, but does this also including a insurance if the Falcon 9 fails somewhere in flight what cause a lost of the spacecraft? And what would be the real price of a Falcon 9 if everything, including R&D would be totally 100% private funded?

There is a risk in asking and using government funds for a start, that risk is that it would start great and cheap, but when the government says like "Ho, we go stop funding you" then the product would likely rise in its price. Sometimes just a little, but sometimes gigantic.

Also a weak point in that is that you company become really a big risk economic if there are bad times and the government need to cut. So its economic already a risk. But on the other side, economic goes sometimes just about taking a risk.

But back to the core of this discussion. Why I should launch me GTO satellite on a brand new Falcon 9 who still got a few launch history? I can go to the Chinese to launch the satellite for a lower price. Or to Russia and ask to launch it via the Proton M who got a long launch history and got a high success rate.

What I mean basically is that SpaceX is maybe in its form now the cheapest provider of rocket launches in the US (and maybe even of the rest in the western part), but not the cheapest, there are other rockets who are less expensive then the Falcon 9, got a longer launch history, more successes and can put something into GTO with even a lower price per kilogram.

And no, go not kick on with the argument that the Falcon 9 become much cheaper because reusability. I don't see that the Falcon 9 would really become reusability now or soon. The first real test of it did failed, what was expected. Next try of testing the Falcon 9 with at least a 'soft' landing on the water would be with the CRS-3 mission.

Grasshopper is just a small test rocket for reusability, only to test just some hardware for the landing. But for the rest the Grasshopper is just miles and miles away from a real first stage of the Falcon 9. Do you even think that landing legs on the Grasshopper would even survive a supersonic flight? No.

And who would pay the R&D of it? I never did read something about the financing of those R&D projects of SpaceX.

And even when there got the landing legs and have a reusable first stage of the Falcon 9, then still we forget something. How much fuel it would need to return to the landing place on land? And how much mass it would cost a reusable Falcon 9?

So to hold it short: Arianespace would stay for at least some years, because SpaceX is still miles away to become a real competition for them. However in the long term, it would be crucial to work together with the Russians.

 

[RGClark]

And that is the fallacy again - Orbital Sciences did never claim to "cut development costs by an order of magnitude". They even reported absolutely normal R&D costs for a project of that magnitude. They did an absolutely perfect design-to-spec.

After Antares test launch, Orbital aims for space station.
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: April 26, 2013

Sunday's flight was the culmination of a six-year, $300 million effort to design, build and test the Antares booster, which can loft medium-class satellites into orbit and is contracted by NASA to launch nine more times on cargo deliveries to the space station.
http://spaceflightnow.com/antares/demo/130426cygnus/

A medium class launcher by the usual fully government-financed approach would cost in the multi-billions of dollars range. For instance the Ariane 6 is expected to cost in the range of $5 billion. And that's just the initial estimate. Quite likely just as with NASA fully government-financed projects, there will be significant cost overruns here as well.

That both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences were each able to develop their launchers at a 90% cost savings by following the commercial space approach is important. It means any industrialized nation could afford to develop their own independent orbital launch system via commercial space. There would not need to be this constant wrangling between France and Germany and Italy about which approach to take. They could each decide to take their own approach.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Why I should launch me GTO satellite on a brand new Falcon 9 who still got a few launch history?

That can be answered simply : The balance between a really low price, higher risk and good PR to be customer of a first flight. Its like trying to be the first airline flying a new aircraft. Of course its risky. But like always in real commercial economics, without risks, there are no profits and sometimes the opportunities outweight the risks by far.

If the launch fails, you will loose a satellite and a bit of the money (since usually the launch provider also compensates you).

But that is also the point where the discussion of the subsidies gets important: It is not bad to use subsidies to shape an industry. It is also not bad to take subsidies, if you just form your company. But they turn into a bad addiction, if you use them to keep products cheaper than the competition. There is no difference between SpaceX letting the tax payer reduce the launch costs by about 9-27 million USD per flight (depending on how the R&D costs are included in the price), or Germany paying insane amounts of money so German coal can be exported despite the high mining costs. Or for letting German coal powerplants run at full power to export electricity at maximal pollution.

This is what I call "Fighting the market forces at all costs". It is criminal, but legal. The taxes of many people are used for making a few companies and their shareholders a lot richer. Without such subsidies, the industries would need to adapt and change. What would sure be painful for the involved. But better for the country and its economy. Its not the boom phases and bubbles that make an economy successful, but how it emerges after going through hell.

And now, SpaceX gets such money presents as well. Additionally to the pork barrel contracts that come with COTS. Instead of restructuring towards being economic, it restructures towards being a government pet. The commercial satellite launches are just for getting certified for the government contracts.

 

[kamaz]

This lesson learned could also be applied to Ariane 6 by using multiple Vulcain engines on the Ariane 5 core. Rather than spending billions on a new large liquid fuel engine, or on a new large solid booster under the current plan, use multiple copies of engines you already have on a stage you already have.

You are operating under an assumption that the sole goal of government-funded space programmes is exploring space. This is untrue. Ariane 6 will not be built to launch satellites. It will be built to mantain European (read: French) leadership in technology X and develop European leadership in technology Y and enhance cooperation within the European aerospace industry. It will eventually launch satellites, sure, but it will be a nice bonus, not the main goal.

The main reason such programs are funded is that technology developed has further use in the economy. The market for rocket engines is limited, but the market for advanced metallurgy required for building rocket engines is much larger. For this reason, such programs are usually designed to push the technological capabilities. This is why they end up being expensive.

And contrary to common sense, it does not really matter if anything flies at the end. Consider the NERVA program. That engine never flew. However, the program needed large amounts of liquid hydrogen -- an entire industry had to be build up to support that need. Then it turned out that cheap liquified gases are useful for many other people. NERVA needed pipes made of stainless steel, but nobody knew how to weld stainless steel, the technology had to be developed. Surprise, many people out there loved being able to weld stainless steel. NERVA needed to measure temperatures in the reactor core, a thermocouple had to be invented for that purpose. Surprise, many people needed to measure temperature in furnaces and the like for process control. NERVA needed a way to effectively remove heat from reactor core, the program had to invent heat pipes. Surprise, many people need an effective way of transporting heat. Not to mention that NERVA needed a liquid hydrogen turbopump, which was later reused by people developing LH2/LOX engines.

This is the same mechanism by which the auto industry invests heavily in Formula 1 racing. On the surface it makes no sense, because winning the race provides no tangible benefit. However, the race car provides a wonderful excuse to push technology to its limits and to directly compare performance of your technology to that of your competitors.

SpaceX, on the other hand, instead of pushing envelope, chose to use mature (not to say dated) technology in order to reduce costs.

Different goals, different approaches.

 

[Urwumpe]

A medium class launcher by the usual fully government-financed approach would cost in the multi-billions of dollars range. For instance the Ariane 6 is expected to cost in the range of $5 billion. And that's just the initial estimate. Quite likely just as with NASA fully government-financed projects, there will be significant cost overruns here as well.

The Ariane 6 would be way cheaper, if the cross funding for the French force de frappe would be removed. Bad example - only because something has a price comparable to commercial ventures, this does not mean it will become a ESA program. The manned ATV would be by estimates of the same cost as making the Dragon manned, but still it is not fundable because it means 3.2 billion Euro going to the wrong countries.

France is too militarist and nationalistic for ESA, Germany too stupid (by far, when it comes to spaceflight)

But still: Developing the VEGA rocket completely from the scratch did only cost 710 million Euro. Antares lifts twice as much to LEO, but then reused many already commercially available components. Something that was not possible for the European VEGA rocket, because the history before the Antares did not happen here: No failed Kistler K-1 with NASA funded engine modification research for the Nk-33, No NASA funded Pegasus rocket program.

The only heritage hardware to build on for VEGA was the Ariane 1-4 (too old, too toxic) and the Ariane 5 EAP... and that one was used.

The 710 million Euro also included the research program for developing European filament wound SRMs, something that ATK already can and does for the Antares rocket.

So, what is a magnitude now? If you really look at the business end, a similar government funded rocket design project would be about 30% more expensive than an optimal private design.

If you include the needed technology transfer and taking much higher development risks, no private company could afford building the Ariane 6.

If I would start a spaceflight business in Europe, I would have many problems to solve because there are way less suppliers and technologies available in Europe. You would always find yourself in the hands of the French and German governments finally. That is also why I have high hopes in the USA successfully commercializing spaceflight, so Europe has to follow one day. But currently, it is a return to the bad past there - government funded spaceflight for government backed satellite programs.

 

[Mader Levap]

Hey, you seem to know much more than I do. Would you like to be so benevolent to list the Arianespace subsidies since 2002?

First of all, would you come with numbers about the subsides?

I had to search for it year by year, as - of course - I could not find any page showing subsidies for entire existence of Ariane 5. Fortunatley it wasn't that bad.
2013: 100 mln euro
2011 & 2012: 217 mln euro
2004-2010 (six year package): over 1 bilion euro

This is very rough, of course, and does not include R&D costs (another few bilion euros) and early-year losses (hundreds of milions) that was simply written off.
In fact, commercial launches are not reason of existence of Ariane business (even if they are focused on them) and I made sarcastic comment only because of one certain hilarious sentence that downplayed and excused Ariane's subsidy - in jarring contrast to complaints about SpaceX over their goverment contracts.

(arguing that SpaceX prices are as low as they are only thanks to gov subsidies)

*shrug* Show me any launcher that do not get goverment subsidies/business. I already said it, banning SpaceX from gov business would be unfair DISadvantage to SpaceX. Of course, some folks here would like exactly that.

Moving to more pleasant topic, I would argue about certain differences that could explain price difference and points to possibility of maintaining low prices even in face of reduced/terminated (not that it would happen, but for sake of argument...) goverment business.

For example, Ariane has to spread its industrial base to many countries, giving jobs in those countries, basically euro-pork. This obviously drives costs up. In contrast, SpaceX makes 70% (by value) of its vehicles in one place.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes, its the same about 100 million/p.a. that SpaceX receives - much more than Orbital Sciences for example.

Just one difference: Nobody ever claimed that Arianespace or the U.L.A are private companies.

Also: Please pick a map and take a look how large Europe actually is. Or not is. The distance between Bremen and Toulouse (1183 km) of example is only half the distance between Los Angeles and McGregor (1985 km). Getting the rocket from hawthorne to vandenberg is actually not much cheaper than transporting the Ariane 5 stages by ship once around Europe and the Atlantic to Kourou.

 

[RGClark]

SES and SpaceX: Shaking the Industry to its Roots.
By Veronica Magan | January 21, 2014 | Europe, Launch, North America, Publications, Regional, Telecom, Via Satellite

“This launch, in my opinion, is probably the most important launch in the commercial arena, certainly since 1996, no doubt about it,” Halliwell said. “There are detractors, who are hoping for a failure, but the majority of the commercial satellite world is waiting for a success because it really opens a whole bunch of opportunities.”
...
The successful SES 8 launch is likely to mark a new era for the satellite industry. “The entry of SpaceX into the commercial market is a game changer, it’s going to really shake the industry to its roots,” Halliwell said. “We think this is the way to go forward for the future.”
http://www.satellitetoday.com/publi...ans-spacex-shaking-the-industry-to-its-roots/

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Oh, the marketing speak.... if it is going to be a game changer, they could sure explain how it changes the game. But they can't. They are just stuck deep in the Elon Musk Reality Distortion Field:

And this is mainly because SpaceX is aiming to position itself as the low-cost provider within the commercial satellite launch market compared to established players such as Arianespace and ILS. “In order for the other launch companies to compete, they therefore will have to improve their designs and really strive to have next-generation rocket technology,” said Musk.

Yeah. Musk says. Especially: "have next-generation rocket technology". Compared to the Falcon 9, even the Atlas SLV-3D is modern. Looks like the next-generation means to Musk: More crappy than the last one. Back to the roots of spaceflight. And shake there.

Launch satellites Musk - and then talk. Isn't the Falcon Heavy scheduled for 2014? Or will it be 2016? Don't lecture people about what they can do better after less than 10 successful launches all together. What comes next, Musk explaining the Russians how they can make the R-7 better after 1250 launches?

How stupid has the world become.... I should also launch two geostationary satellites into space and then explain everybody that they have been doing it all wrong for decades and the future is doing it all like I do. Which is doing the same things they have done 20 years ago, but talking more to the media than talking to the engineering teams. I am not even sure that Musk knows any development roadmap and current development state of his programs after the initial kick-off press conference.

And thats all SpaceX really launches: Marketing campaigns.

For that you don't need new next-generation rockets. You only need a big next-generation mouth.

 

[AnjaZoe]

Isn't the Falcon Heavy scheduled for 2014? Or will it be 2016?

We must have missed its many flights, as according to Space-X announcements it must have made its maiden flight in 2012 and they are launching at least 12 rockets per year
Oh yeah, not to forget re-using the first stages within 9 hours or less...

Zoe

 

[RGClark]

Oh, the marketing speak.... if it is going to be a game changer, they could sure explain how it changes the game. But they can't. They are just stuck deep in the Elon Musk Reality Distortion Field:
.

I think a guy who runs a satellite company has a good idea of the expenses involved in that industry. Note Halliwell did give an idea why the SpaceX entrance in the field is important, because the costs of satellites are increasing. Then being able to cut the costs of launch significantly means they can maintain their bottom line with the more expensive satellites and perhaps even increase their number.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

I think a guy who runs a satellite company has a good idea of the expenses involved in that industry. Note Halliwell did give an idea why the SpaceX entrance in the field is important, because the costs of satellites are increasing. Then being able to cut the costs of launch significantly means they can maintain their bottom line with the more expensive satellites and perhaps even increase their number.

Read the article again please. He did not. He did state why they are happy to have the option "SpaceX" (You don't need to study decision theory to understand why this is a good thing for the satellite companies).

Why SpaceX is suddenly a "game changer" (marketing lingo) is then answered only by teh Musk himself.

And about being able to cut the costs of launch, please read the result of the simple division of "earnings by new satellite launch contracts" by "number of contracts", which gives you the "average earnings per launch contract".

Which means that per satellite, SpaceX is even more expensive ($100 million for one satellite) than Ariane 5 ECA currently ($90 million USD per satellite, $180M per launch). Not the claimed "$56 Million" that SpaceX shouts around. Maybe you pay 56 million for leaving the pad and 44 million extra for reaching orbit.


See also this article, which is a really good analysis, why the Ariane 6 concept is really a bad choice, and why the Falcon 9 doesn't matter for the commercial market (And only the Falcon Heavy being really a critical product).

http://www.nsr.com/news-resources/the-bottom-line/the-cheapest-launch-vehicle/

 

[N_Molson]

Just one difference: Nobody ever claimed that Arianespace or the U.L.A are private companies.

Yes, this is something that a lot of people seem to have difficulties to admit... :hmm:

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes, this is something that a lot of people seem to have difficulties to admit... :hmm:

Yes, public-private-partnership is a complex relationship. :lol:

 

[RGClark]

Read the article again please. He did not. He did state why they are happy to have the option "SpaceX" (You don't need to study decision theory to understand why this is a good thing for the satellite companies)..

Again, I think it's a good bet that someone who runs a satellite company knows what the expenses are in that industry. And if he says other satellite companies are also pleased with this entrance, he is not lying about that or the reason.

“Spacecraft are getting more expensive, the revenues going down, the gap is getting bigger. We have to look then where can we save money, where can we actually revert this. One of the things we were looking at is with the launch and this is really why we said ‘Ok, SpaceX is a possibility,’” Halliwell said.

Bob Clark

 

[N_Molson]

Also, don't forget that Arianespace now operates the R-7 from Kourou, which makes it a very potent launcher with extremely interesting prices... That was really a good move.

 

[Urwumpe]

Again, I think it's a good bet that someone who runs a satellite company knows what the expenses are in that industry. And if he says other satellite companies are also pleased with this entrance, he is not lying about that or the reason.

Argh. :facepalm:

A CTO does not run the company. Thats job of the CEO. The CTO supervises R&D. The CTO knows usually a lot of the technology, the goals of his company and decides how to achieve these goals by R&D.

A CTO knows many numbers regarding the economic side, especially the launch costs, since this is part of the R&D design process. He reports directly to the CEO.


And he says little about the qualities of SpaceX. Not even saying anything about it being a "game changer" or just another player in the same game. He just notes that SpaceX is a good thing to have and they are happy about the cooperation. Sure no surprise that he says that.

Guess what interest SES has regarding the launch costs of all launchers.

EDIT: Also, the threat that Falcon 9 poses to Ariane 5 ECA is actually very simple: Even if it is one day cheaper, it can currently only lift light communication satellites, slightly heavier than what the Soyuz rocket can handle. But it can make it harder to form satellite pairs for launching Ariane 5 rockets at optimal costs. If you need to order a half-empty Ariane 5 ECA for a single launch, it is expensive. And the ME upgrade comes too late to change the situation actually: The satellites will get heavier. In 10 years, 30% of all satellites will be too heavy to be launched by the Falcon 9, when the Ariane 6 is ready, about 45% of all satellites will be too heavy to get launched by it without a performance upgrade.