As a European, I´m happy we will finaly regain independent launch capability, but let´s not kid ourselves. Ariane 6 is not here to win anything, it´s our ticket to participate. Each launch is subsidized by around 80-100 milion Euro and you can imagine how happy I´m to donate my taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos to launch his satelites. Calling that a win for Europe is ... to be polite ... misguided. Also, I don´t see how Ariane 6 offers reliability and schedule assurance. It was supposed to launch in 2020. It has no track record of success. Ariane 5 was a great and reliable launcher,A6 hasn´t launched once and will have to prove itself. The recent history of Vega C rockets shows that success of previous versions says nothing about the reliability of the new rocket.
@@RaySqw785 If the actual costs were less than 60million, A6 wouldn´t need 340 million a year of subsidies, on top of the 4 billion they got for development. The fact that SpaceX launches mostly to LEO is completely irrelevant, they can launch to higher orbits when needed.
@@michalfaraday8135 made my day, Spacex received $25Billions since the first launch from public taxes payers, they just acheived the first stage reusable after 10 years, the 340m are to launch ESA sats cheaper between 2026-2030 and fill 6 launchs from ESA each year! F9 is soon dead as the price just growing from $52m to $70m in 6 years where they were supposed to decrease to $40m
@@RaySqw785 ? f9 can lift 1/2 ton more to GEO and still land (A64 5t F9 5.5t). You would need to use the more expensive A64 to get to GEO at 115000000 euros as well vs $65000000 (61000000 euros) for the F9. Ariane have a backlog of 30 flights and should the A6 prove to be unreliable I can see Ariane being in a bad place. Eumetsat has already switched to F9.
@@geesehoward700 F9 to Geo isn't reusable and as the numbers aren't public costs can't be trusted, 12 launch foor US gov are 3.3 billions, it could gives you an idea about the hidden cost of GEO, eumetsat sats are sent through arianespace since 40 years, if A64 isn't ready on time they could use a F9 instead, as spacex didn't launch the most important mission of NASA since 20 years JWST, F9 is Co2 pollution exhauster, failed to reduce cost alway growing as what theya nnonoucing, no one know real cost, and all financing comes from US gov, nothing really private comercially as the market isn't growing for GEO since 30 years! Spacex isn't safe commercialy
We need more private launch companies to compete with Ariane-6, and Vega-C taxpaid money. Let's commercialized the space launch market for the best of Europe.
That's stupid. Because commercialisation in itself is stupid (before you cite F9 please consider other programs in the US that try to commercialise things and have had many, many issues), and Europe does not have the launch market for many different providers even if we had a (much needed) mandate.
Bla bla bla .. bottom line there is nothing the Ariana 6 can go that that Falcon 9 can’t do was well and for less So if I have a payload why would I want to pay more?
You're probably right, Spacer Sullivan. That might be why Ariane Next (the reusable Ariane rocket) is not a priority yet. They're waiting for someone to do reusable rockets well first.
@@The-SpaceTechnician😂 a very dangerous gamble , they will never catch up if they do it like that because spaceX will absorb all the applications making their efforts useless
starship is already safer than Apollo and space shuttle and even dragon by the sheer amount of flight tests it's doing . It's doing what Russia and nasa took decades in mere months . And it's doing the tests properly while nasa literally risked human lives on unproven vehicles You can be assured that nasa already considers starship human rated may b not for a hundred people at once but starship will carry people in less than 5 years
@@cedriceric9730 only morons think that SpaceX will "absorb all" even if Starshit was to actually work (hint, it will be way less capable and way more expensive that what you think). Simply because a market monopoly is a bad thing and various forces will never let that happen. Europe is perfectly capable to create something like F9 or even attempt full reuse if they wanted, but morons cannot understand that there is no need for that given the existing and realistic future flight rates.
Ariane 6 is not reusable. It’s a great 2010s rocket. Reliance on SRBs is a big obstacle to reusability. The booster needs 5+ deep throttling engines to enable propulsive landings.
F9 isn't reusable, and reusable stage only for out dated starlink stats at low LEO, 70 millions for a LEO rocket, A6 is cheaper on both LEO GEO to launch
@@joaquimbarbosa896 F9 kerolox produce about like 400 transatlantic flighs of CO2 per launch, as they launch 100 its like 40k transatlantic airliners fligh od Co2 , the dirtiest rocket of the planet
@RaySqw785 Not really, any liquid rocket is far better for the ecology than solid boosters. That is the reason I am happy liquid boosters for Ariane are in development.
Great video, defenitly deserved more attention
Thank you, Spacer! 🧑🚀
As a European, I´m happy we will finaly regain independent launch capability, but let´s not kid ourselves. Ariane 6 is not here to win anything, it´s our ticket to participate. Each launch is subsidized by around 80-100 milion Euro and you can imagine how happy I´m to donate my taxpayer money to Jeff Bezos to launch his satelites. Calling that a win for Europe is ... to be polite ... misguided. Also, I don´t see how Ariane 6 offers reliability and schedule assurance. It was supposed to launch in 2020. It has no track record of success. Ariane 5 was a great and reliable launcher,A6 hasn´t launched once and will have to prove itself. The recent history of Vega C rockets shows that success of previous versions says nothing about the reliability of the new rocket.
launch is 50% of the 115millions of A5, its GEO rocket the market need it, as most spacex are LEO (frog jumps)
@@RaySqw785 If the actual costs were less than 60million, A6 wouldn´t need 340 million a year of subsidies, on top of the 4 billion they got for development. The fact that SpaceX launches mostly to LEO is completely irrelevant, they can launch to higher orbits when needed.
@@michalfaraday8135 made my day, Spacex received $25Billions since the first launch from public taxes payers, they just acheived the first stage reusable after 10 years, the 340m are to launch ESA sats cheaper between 2026-2030 and fill 6 launchs from ESA each year! F9 is soon dead as the price just growing from $52m to $70m in 6 years where they were supposed to decrease to $40m
@@RaySqw785 ? f9 can lift 1/2 ton more to GEO and still land (A64 5t F9 5.5t). You would need to use the more expensive A64 to get to GEO at 115000000 euros as well vs $65000000 (61000000 euros) for the F9. Ariane have a backlog of 30 flights and should the A6 prove to be unreliable I can see Ariane being in a bad place. Eumetsat has already switched to F9.
@@geesehoward700 F9 to Geo isn't reusable and as the numbers aren't public costs can't be trusted, 12 launch foor US gov are 3.3 billions, it could gives you an idea about the hidden cost of GEO, eumetsat sats are sent through arianespace since 40 years, if A64 isn't ready on time they could use a F9 instead, as spacex didn't launch the most important mission of NASA since 20 years JWST, F9 is Co2 pollution exhauster, failed to reduce cost alway growing as what theya nnonoucing, no one know real cost, and all financing comes from US gov, nothing really private comercially as the market isn't growing for GEO since 30 years! Spacex isn't safe commercialy
Merlin Vacuum version has demonstrated multiple reignitions...
This Standard
Technically already obsolete, even before its first flight. A result of scared old man.
At its best Ariane 5 never achieved more than seven launches a year. Ariane 6 might achieve eleven. That's not much more than a side show.
Look like proton m
Think when price is discussed, often China is not mentioned? Looking at what they can produce, to their prices, why is this?
Does Europe really want to pay to China to launch their rockets? How would that look?
We need more private launch companies to compete with Ariane-6, and Vega-C taxpaid money. Let's commercialized the space launch market for the best of Europe.
I agree, Spacer 🧑🚀 Europe should have at least a good a market as the US but right now it seems a bit behind. Let's hope the situation improves.
We actually have, we just have to start giving them deserved attention and contracts. We have prety promissing companies
That's stupid. Because commercialisation in itself is stupid (before you cite F9 please consider other programs in the US that try to commercialise things and have had many, many issues), and Europe does not have the launch market for many different providers even if we had a (much needed) mandate.
Bla bla bla .. bottom line there is nothing the Ariana 6 can go that that Falcon 9 can’t do was well and for less So if I have a payload why would I want to pay more?
I kind of think that Elon Musk's Starship has a very long way to go before becoming truly successful and even longer to get human rating approval.
You're probably right, Spacer Sullivan. That might be why Ariane Next (the reusable Ariane rocket) is not a priority yet. They're waiting for someone to do reusable rockets well first.
@@The-SpaceTechnician😂 a very dangerous gamble , they will never catch up if they do it like that because spaceX will absorb all the applications making their efforts useless
starship is already safer than Apollo and space shuttle and even dragon by the sheer amount of flight tests it's doing .
It's doing what Russia and nasa took decades in mere months .
And it's doing the tests properly while nasa literally risked human lives on unproven vehicles
You can be assured that nasa already considers starship human rated may b not for a hundred people at once but starship will carry people in less than 5 years
@@cedriceric9730 only morons think that SpaceX will "absorb all" even if Starshit was to actually work (hint, it will be way less capable and way more expensive that what you think). Simply because a market monopoly is a bad thing and various forces will never let that happen. Europe is perfectly capable to create something like F9 or even attempt full reuse if they wanted, but morons cannot understand that there is no need for that given the existing and realistic future flight rates.
They lax lil bit goin to the moon first while us alpha longtime ago
Basically the same factors and characteristics of the other new, non-SpaceX launchers, like the ULA Vulcan and the Mitsubishi H3.
Correct, Spacer 🧑🚀
Ariane 6 is not reusable. It’s a great 2010s rocket. Reliance on SRBs is a big obstacle to reusability. The booster needs 5+ deep throttling engines to enable propulsive landings.
Very true, Spacer 🧑🚀 The rocket that Ariane is working on to be reusable is Ariane Next (or SALTO).
F9 isn't reusable, and reusable stage only for out dated starlink stats at low LEO, 70 millions for a LEO rocket, A6 is cheaper on both LEO GEO to launch
But has a lot more cargo capacity then SpaceX rivals, for exemple
@@joaquimbarbosa896 F9 kerolox produce about like 400 transatlantic flighs of CO2 per launch, as they launch 100 its like 40k transatlantic airliners fligh od Co2 , the dirtiest rocket of the planet
@RaySqw785 Not really, any liquid rocket is far better for the ecology than solid boosters.
That is the reason I am happy liquid boosters for Ariane are in development.
Firstttttttttttttttttt