According to the wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(rocket_engine) ), they're aiming for 3-5 reuses, which I believe is significantly fewer than SpaceX's Falcon 9 engine, Merlin. But maybe they'll get more in practice.
It's a methalox/methane-oxygen engine, like SpaceX's Raptor, as opposed to RP-1 kerosene, like Merlin. One nice aspect of this is that methalox doesn't deposit so much soot on the inside of the engine, so reuse should be simpler (this is one of the reasons for SpaceX's newer Raptor engines also using methalox).
It's got an open gas generator cycle, which means that it's likely less efficient than SpaceX's full-flow staged combustion Raptors, since it means it loses a few percent of its fuel to just running the turbopumps and the exhaust spitting off the side, rather than than heading down into the combustion chamber.
It sounds like it's much cheaper to build vs. their last generation of engine, but we'll see how it ends up in practice.
Getting something like this working is impressive, but who knows if it will end up being competitive, SpaceX is still iterating really quickly. Not an expert, but the design feels a little dated already, in comparison in comparison to Raptor, and Raptor is already flying.
I'd say it's pretty impressive. Building and igniting a rocket engine is hard. For more detail, I can recommend watching "Why starting a rocket engine is so hard" by Tim Dodd [0].
It's not "never been done before" impressive, they're a few years behind e.g. SpaceX's Raptor engine, which uses the same propellants, and is also reusable. But still, a new rocket engine is no small feat - the engine is probably the hardest part of a rocket. This is quite literally rocket science.
They're more than a few years behind SpaceX. SpaceX reached a similar milestone back in 2016, when they test fired a subscale Raptor engine[1] that produced 1 meganewton (~100Tf) of thrust.[2]
By 2019, they'd tested their full size Raptor at 1.5 meganewtons (172Tf) of thrust.[3] The current production version of Raptor produces 2 meganewtons (225Tf)[4]. SpaceX has successfully tested a newer version of Raptor that produced 2.4MN (269Tf) for 45 seconds.[5]
* Uses liquid methane and oxygen for fuel, which is far easier to work with than the current Vulcain hydrogen/oxygen fueled engine and burns cleaner than kerosene/oxygen engines, which is better for reusability.
* This is an engine that might work well on a small to medium reusable launcher, which ESA no longer has access to after their Vega rocket repeatedly failed and they lost access to Russia's Soyuz rockets[0].
* ESA is at least trying to do reusability after dismissing the idea for years.
Negatives:
* "100-tonne thrust class" is half the thrust of either SpaceX's Raptor or Blue Origin's BE-4 engines, which will be similarly reusable and using the same fuels.
* Additive layer manufacturing sounds cool but I'm not sure it has any real benefits over conventional engine manufacturing techniques. SpaceX is reportedly close to building one Raptor engine _per day_ without 3D printing.
* They are undecided on the fuel ("A version using liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen is also being developed."). That is an entirely different engine and ground support infrastructure, but they are presumably doing it so it could be used directly in the Ariane 6 rocket?
* Arianespace/ESA is at least a decade[1] behind SpaceX in reusability and due to rocket failures and retirements, and the delays with Ariane 6, won't have _any_ flying rockets until 2024. So they are far behind and do not have a good track record with speedy development.
The thrust of 100 tonne isn't really that important IMO. The Raptor has far less thrust than the F-1 engine used on the Apollo missions, but if you strap 33 Raptors to a rocket, they can beat five F-1s.
That's a good point, I'm guessing the bigger issue is that the chamber pressure is 1/3 of the Raptor 2's (100 bar vs 300 bar), which I assume means much lower ISP and therefore fuel efficiency, and therefore cargo lifting capacity after carrying additional necessary fuel.
What really matters at the end of the day for actual rocket building is thrust per area of nozzle size. Or how much thrust can you put under a rocket of some core size X.
Raptor is by far the best engine ever built according to that measure.
Prometheus doesn't seem that impressive but we don't have all the information on it as far as I can find.
> What really matters at the end of the day for actual rocket building is thrust per area of nozzle size.
What? I am a casual observer but I believe specific impulse is most important - how much thrust do you get per unit of fuel. The amount of fuel you have to carry has a huge impact on how much. Of course things like ion thrusters have high ISP but not enough thrust for launch - but once you get enough thrust to launch a rocket, you want a high ISP. High ISP means way less fuel required which means even with less thrust you will be okay. So thrust per nozzle area isn't strictly that important if the engine is so inefficient you need to carry twice as much fuel.
Accountants and finance people are not the almighty rulers of projects.
If you can not get enough thrust under your rocket sectional area, your capsule will simply not leave the ground and your astronauts won't make it to the Moon, independently on the accountants opinion on the matter.
ISP isn't everything, even in space, as you don't have infinite time to get places, transfer burns etc are more efficient when closer to being instantaneous (in terms of dV) and capture burns need to happen within a fixed timeframe.
Also I think what they meant is that the engine's thrust dictates the height above it that it can lift. So lots of larger low thrust engines = short and stubby rocket, which adds all sorts of limitations (construction, transportation, aerodynamics).
High Isp is actually a bad thing in a first stage. That stage is done almost immediately, so high Isp doesn't buy much, but low propellant density (which tends to go with high Isp) makes the stage larger and more expensive. This is why launchers tend to use hydrocarbons, not hydrogen, as fuel in the first stage. Low propellant density also makes the pumps larger and so reduces the thrust/mass ratio of the engines.
If you have a high ISP engine that is low thrust, your rocket will either not get of the ground or if it does get off the ground it will suffer from a very high amount of gravity loses. High ISP on the engine doesn't matter when your rocket spends a long time just fighting gravity.
High thrust to weight ratio is important for a rocket. The higher your TWR the less gravity loses your rocket suffers.
There is a reason most rockets main liftoff comes from lowers ISP RP-1 engines or solids rocket. High ISP hydrogen engines just result in losses.
SpaceX Raptor actually deliberately reduced its ISP to increase its thrust.
I considered putting it as both a positive and negative, but I consider it overall a negative until the technology is proven to be as strong and reliable as traditional manufacturing techniques - not to mention faster and less expensive.
Like normal 3D printers, they are slow, but the benefits are, that you can change the design quickly and improve it - and then in the end you can invest into optimizing production with a different manufacturing process.
(But that is of course hard, to get the same results)
Pretty hard to reproduce the exact same design coming out of a 3D printer with other methods. Unless you put real effort into making sure the part is build-able with other methods you could run into real problems.
I also wonder about durability of materials. Will the engine last shorter or longer due to being additive-layer-manufactured, all else being equal? Compared, say, to the Raptor?
Today there are lots of different metals that can be 3D printed. Some have very high capability. Are there any that compete with custom forged parts used in Raptor? I don't know, I don't think people outside of industry really have this information.
We know that SpaceX has its own material science team developing its own alloys specifically for their use case. This material doesn't seem to be designed for 3D printing (as far as we know).
What if SpaceX had instead invested that money in superior material for 3D printing instead?
Maybe somebody who is doing their PhD on material science in rocketry can comment.
I would also consider that engine likely has other places that would be more likely to put a limiting factor on durability so maybe it doesn't matter so much.
One example of additive layer manufacturing I remember reading about when it comes to engines (and I think Raptor does use it) is the ability to reduce weight and potential failure points by combing parts which would otherwise have to be separated with methods of connecting them adding to weight and failure points. IIRC the engine cooling solution also becomes much easier to engineer and manufacture with 3d printing.
When it comes to mass production, 3d printing isn't that problematic, as you can just have several printers.
Lots of space companies have different opinions on 3d printing. Relativity Space uses it a lot. Firefly doesn't as much. 3d printing is just one way of combining parts there are others.
> 3d printing isn't that problematic, as you can just have several printers.
The faster you want to manufacture the more printers you need. Its ok for most engine plant but for SpaceX Raptor manufacturing line, it would be challenging.
ESA really needs to work on how they present this kind of thing. Igniting a brand new rocket engine is a sensational event - I would have expected at least a video of the full 12 second burn, from a good viewpoint. Ideally from multiple camera angles.
But we just get one still image, taken from what looks like the worst position.
ESA is doing really cool stuff, but they're doing a bad job of convincing people that they're doing cool stuff.
this is definitely something SpaceX does right. Even the most mundane launches is a multi-hour professional production with high quality cameras in multiple angles.. even when the thing explodes it feels like it went well.
To me (european), I don't like how SpaceX shows off. The technology is cool though, but when I see their kind of communication, to me it sounds like "US marketing".
I don't think of it as showing off. I think of it as documenting for posterity.
We're at an inflection point when it comes to space exploration. Ar this rate, future generations will have days of video and documentation of the accomplishments in America, and a footnote along the lines of "Europe did some things, too. Visit the sub-basement of a library in an office building in Paris for more information."
Not sure who will spend days watching the same rocket takeoff and land :-).
Also at this rate, future generations will have to focus on surviving with much less fossil fuels (we're passed peak oil), in a world that basically wants to kill them due to global warming.
Chances are that days of video of the accomplishments of the generation that actively destroyed their world (while being fully aware of it) won't be their main concern.
Rockets are one of the things where we simply have to use fossil fuels, and its a drop in the bucket.
The resulting services and sats actually help in any reasonable climate change strategy.
> Not sure who will spend days watching the same rocket takeoff and land :-).
Here is the thing. Anytime can be the first time for somebody. If you don't make an effort to show everything you do, nobody will ever know you exists.
Yes some space obsessed people will watch everything, and that's fine also. But you never get those people if they don't see something first time.
I am European too and I like how transparent SpaceX is, and they don't even have to be. Arianespace literally tried to hide for 1 year that they had major issues with Ariane 5. When asked why it wasn't launching they were basically saying 'everything is ok'. But eventually journalist got wind off the fact that there were major issues in the fairings.
The culture of secrecy and non-transparency has done nothing but harm to European space flight.
Its not barging to show a video of a test fire or a test launch.
> Rockets are one of the things where we simply have to use fossil fuels, and its a drop in the bucket.
Well it's more than you may think (don't take only the fuel for the flight, but consider the whole construction of the thing).
But more importantly, they are making space a business. The first plane was a drop in a bucket, but it enabled modern aviation. If SpaceX hits their target of 10M per flight... rich people will go have lunch in space.
> The resulting services and sats actually help in any reasonable climate change strategy.
What? I very strongly disagree. But I won't elaborate more than you did.
> don't take only the fuel for the flight, but consider the whole construction of the thing
Making them reusable is a huge gain in efficiency.
> What? I very strongly disagree. But I won't elaborate more than you did.
Earth observation sat measure climate change. We measure the atmosphere with sats. We conduct planetary science. Sat imagery is vital when looking at ecosystems like the Amazon. Space based monitoring is valuable for all kinds of application and can increase efficiency of farming, mining, infrastructure and so on. Weather satellites are vital in many way, including preventing harm people. GPS is a vital technology for so many industries. Space based communication brings modernity to many people who don't live close to major infrastructure.
You simply can't separate modern humanity from space.
Granted space isn't anywhere close to the most important, but it does play an important role. Generally energy production, heating, transport and steel/cement are the real issues. And where the overwhelming focus should be.
> If SpaceX hits their target of 10M per flight... rich people will go have lunch in space.
Just like with aviation we need to consider what regulation we want to apply to these things. I am not against regulating these things.
Your attitude of nobody is allowed to show any pride in anything related to fossil fuels and its general bad and shouldn't be done is simply no way to go forward.
> Your attitude of nobody is allowed to show any pride in anything related to fossil fuels and its general bad and shouldn't be done is simply no way to go forward.
Not saying it should not be done at all. Reusable rockets would be nice, if they were used like the non reusable ones (i.e. rarely). But that's not how technology works: if the technology becomes cheaper, we don't use the same amount for cheaper; we use more.
Can you seriously look at SpaceX and think that they just want to send a few rockets per year, for a fraction of the cost?
> Just like with aviation we need to consider what regulation we want to apply to these things.
That's the thing: if you regulate the rockets market such that it does not start polluting orders of magnitudes more, then it is not a viable market.
> Earth observation sat measure climate change. [...] GPS is a vital technology for so many industries.
We did not need SpaceX for that. Compared to Starlink, Copernicus and all the GNSS satellites (GPS, Galileo, Glonass, ...) just don't count. GPS is something like 30 satellites. Starlink wants to send tens of thousands.
I think that globally communication sats, GPS, planetary sience planetary imaging and so on are well worth the fossil fuel we spend to launch them. I want more rockets to launch because I think these things are good. This is really the disagreement here. Don't think its worth arguing about more.
They are gone set up fiber connection into every ship and airplane? Into ever remote corner of the world? To every mining site? Along every farmers field? Is your proposal to connect Ukrainian tanks with fiber connections as well?
And what if a government doesn't make the necessary investment into fiber? You can stand around here saying what everybody should do all you want, but governments don't just magically do it because you want them to. Those people are just fucked and its their problem?
There are also advantage to using lasers as internet backbone.
In summation, if it wasn't need and it was so easy, why to millions of people want it?
Sure, life without TikTok in every ship and airplane is terrible. /s
> To every mining site? Along every farmers field?
Yeah, to me the biggest problem is really not having fiber while I'm visiting the Titanic. I hope Starlink is working on that. /s
> governments don't just magically do it because you want them to. Those people are just fucked and its their problem?
Is that a new kind of US interventionism? "We believe those people deserve to pay a subscription to our national high-speed satellite ISP. We do it to save them." The world loves US interventionism. /s
> There are also advantage to using lasers as internet backbone.
Most flights are tourism, so there's that. Then even considering a business flight, the vast majority of people are not important enough that they need an internet connection during the flight.
Then most of the Internet bandwidth is used for videos, not for corporate e-mails. So... not just TikTok, but I suppose you can make the effort to get my point.
> That people like you exists on a platform like Hacker News is actually mind blowing.
You mean software professionals who don't believe that technology will save us and that we should produce more connected crap because we can?
I like good technology, not profitable technology.
Then your judgement is wrong (source: I know what I believe): I do believe that Internet is great, mostly to share information and knowledge (not to watch TikTok or build more ChatGPT-based useless crap).
But then I do believe that most modern technology is bad: we went into this loop of building more crap on top of old crap because it is profitable, completely missing the actual problems we are facing as a species.
We don't need to send (rich) people to Mars, we need to save life on Earth. But engineers don't like this, because most of the fun and profitable projects today go in the wrong direction: they assume infinite growth, and no consequences.
But engineers seem to believe that if they don't work hard to help humanity destroy itself, then it means that they have to advocate going back to horses and no Internet. And in the meantime we are going (faster and faster) towards wars and famine - probably for us, quite certainly for our children.
Well at this point it kind of loses a bit the value of "documenting for posterity", doesn't it? At least the small children I have seen don't really seem to realize what an achievement it is to land a rocket.
I mean, it's cool to have some videos. I watched a few SpaceX launches, and I still will watch the next Starship flights. But it's not like I watch every single launch of every single rocket (does SpaceX even make such an event every time?).
ESA maybe does too little, but SpaceX does too much, at least to my taste.
Looking at SpaceX streams sometimes feel more like a sporting event than the coverage of a space mission. I mean, is it really necessary to cheer at every successful phase of the launch even though these are pretty much nailed down, that the mission is still underway, and that the hard part (like the landing when it wasn't a routine thing) is up ahead?
For me, NASA is the best. They show the things as they are, without trying to pump up the hype. I mean, rocket launches are maybe the most awe inspiring thing humanity can do, alongside nuclear explosions (imagine nuclear rockets if we ever make them). Some of the most iconic footage from NASA is technical footage, not originally intended for the public, so really, let the thing speak for itself, no need for SpaceX cheerleaders.
Another European here who is forced to mute the SpaceX streams because of a heavy feeling of cringe on behalf of the on-screen people.
But on the pro side: SpaceX was the pioneer with on-screen graphics, including the dynamic timeline displaying, where we are in the flight. I deeply appreciate that, not just for making it easier to mute the lunatics and the clapping. It’s good information design.
Perhaps, however I would expect they would understand the immense value of selling it to the European public by properly showing them what they're paying for. Getting the European public excited about space is half the battle (for funding), NASA has understood that for well over half a century. Somehow ESA is still oblivious (which helps explain their budget).
They don't need to sell it to the public because the public has less than zero say. They need to sell it to the funding agencies and that is what they are doing.
Also, the bombastic American style marketing comes off as insincere to most of us.
They're being paid by the public to build something. Showing them that it actually works is "bombastic American style marketing"? In the US we would call it accountability.
Modesty is great and all, but this comes across more like "thanks for the taxes, now fuck off".
You’re right in principle, this is indeed how it should work in theory. In practice, though, it’s all very much "thanks for the taxes, now fuck off", and US is not much better here.
There is nothing here they could hype without sounding bombastic because the only novel bit is it’s European. Europe produces great marketing when it has something worth promoting.
Nobody is asking for "hype" or "bombastic marketing". Just a video of it in operation. It's a rocket, it's cool, people like to see rockets. If you used their money to build it, that doesn't seem like too much to ask.
I'm not a European taxpayer so nobody owes me a video. I'm just perplexed by the attitude of the (I presume) Europeans in this thread. Being proud of the fact that your government doesn't care if you're happy with their use of your taxes is...I'm not sure what it is, but it isn't modesty.
And before anyone (correctly) points this out: Yes, the US government doesn't much care what we think either, though it does a better job of pretending to. But you'd be hard pressed to find an American who will brag about it. And at least NASA releases cool videos.
> perplexed by the attitude of the (I presume) Europeans in this thread
It's deflection. ESA and ArianeSpace have left a massive strategic hole in Europe's capabilities, in large part due to the arrogance of their leadership.
I haven't met a capable European (and yes, I think I can speak that broadly to this) who couldn't communicate why they'd be good at a job or why a job done was done well. When people say they're eschewing promotion out of humility, it's usually because they don't have anything promotable or are bad communicators.
Exactly .. The guy above is just unable to appreciate those people, because they don't have to boast about doing what they're paid to do well. It is super basic. People boasting are usually less qualified.
> there’s no reason to make a big deal out of it because that’s what I’m hired for
I grew up in Europe, so I understand what you’re saying. Constant self promotion is one thing. Knowing when to point out that you have the skills to help or taking credit when it’s due (and callable upon) is another. Most of the people who complained about not being able to do the latter had little more than effort to call on.
Anybody competent I know, don't go around boasting about doing their jobs well. Your job doesn't define you, and you don't make it your personality in Europe. You do the job you're asked to do and move on. It's just part of your employment, not some major success. The ones who do boast are making up for their incompetence by pointing to their few successes.
As a European from an ESA member state. Shaking my head at how ESA and Arianespace operate is just so frequent that I risking whiplash. I can't get bothered by every single instance where they do a bad job on minor things like this.
I wouldn't even mind if they sucked at things like this if they would actually have the right strategy and do the large things correct. Sadly they are really bad at the large things and the small things.
The public does not vote directly on any of this, and science in general is far down the list of priorities and thus get very little time in debates and campaigns. None of the regular citizens watching this can realistically do anything if they don’t like it.
The ESA is at its core all about cooperation and has to navigate an international landscape very far from the US government. It’s a technocratic agency; it cannot be used for communication purposes by politicians. Their job is to do the work and leave the communication bits to journalists. On one hand I’d like them to do more outreach towards the general population, because history has proven time and time again that you cannot trust journalists for vulgarisation. On the other, I don’t want this to turn into a political circus and funding to fluctuate as political parties get interested or not.
The good side of this is that science gets done reliably, on predictable budgets that span decades and not years, even the unsexy science that would not set crowds on fire. True, it reduces enthusiasm but you cannot have everything.
> Their job is to do the work and leave the communication bits to journalists.
Yeah but here is the thing. If you systematically exclude journalist. Don't give them any access. Hide everything you are doing and not even provide basic video footage of a engine test, they don't have anything to work with.
And of course that is even more true when Arianespace is flat out hiding damaging information that tax payers should know. And ESA supports them in that.
Major issues with Ariane 5 fairings were hidden from the public and it took a long time until it came out.
Lets face the facts, ESA has constructed a space monopoly and the monopolist is doing everything to hide its failures from the public, not giving journalist access so they can't talk about it. Journalist that are known to ask critical questions are routinely not invited to events.
If that is the kind of society you want to live in, be my guest. But I prefer that we actually have some accountability from our tax pair funded agency and monopolist.
> The good side of this is that science gets done reliably, on predictable budgets that span decades and not years
That's just not really true. ESA has as many project go over budget as anybody else. The Ariane 6 is a massive delayed and has a massively increased budget (and no end in sight). And we could talk about many other projects too.
The idea that ESA is some unpolitical agency that just executes perfectly is what they want you to believe and they downplay all the issues. Journalist that report on these issues have to find the details the hard way. But because space is so uninteresting in Europe there is not much good reporting on it.
Its also not true that ESA is humble and unpolitical. If they have something to brag about they do so pretty relentlessly. Go read ESA and Arianespace comments about SpaceX around 2015-2019, the were basically all over them selfes talking about how much superior they were.
And reticently they have done a lot of political lobbying to increase their budget and pushing for European space flight.
They do all these things, its just less visible to the public because the public cares less then in the US.
> That's just not really true. ESA has as many project go over budget as anybody else. The Ariane 6 is a massive delayed and has a massively increased budget (and no end in sight). And we could talk about many other projects too.
Sure, it was poorly worded. I meant from the funding providers’ side. Funding just does not get cut capriciously
for political reasons.
> The idea that ESA is some unpolitical agency that just executes perfectly is what they want you to believe and they downplay all the issues. Journalist that report on these issues have to find the details the hard way. But because space is so uninteresting in Europe there is not much good reporting on it.
Yeah, I tend to agree. But it’s not unique to space, the same is true in most fields, even technologies that affect people’s lives daily.
> Its also not true that ESA is humble and unpolitical. If they have something to brag about they do so pretty relentlessly. Go read ESA and Arianespace comments about SpaceX around 2015-2019, the were basically all over them selfes talking about how much superior they were.
Yeah, that one was quite bad. And also childish, because everyone saw what was happening and the fact that they went through so much effort to say that everything was fine was very suspicious.
ESA is a step removed from public funding when compared to NASA.
NASA is directly accountable to the US Congress, both in terms of the appointment of its director and its budget.
ESA is an IGO, and its Director-General is appointed by consensus amongst the member states, and its budget is set by them based on national contributions as well.
Not to mention that most also have their own space agencies (of varying capabilities). Even the EU has EUSPA, separate to, but collaborating with, ESA.
I like to think that ESA tries to do mostly research (even though they also like manned missions, which are mostly for fun).
SpaceX, on the other hand, is building a very polluting business, which IMHO should be forbidden in 2023. But there I would think that the people in the EU are more aware of the problem than in the US.
This engine development for example, is something that in the US startups who don't get much government money are doing. And there are like 10+ companies working on comparable technology.
Yes ESA budget is small compared to NASA but they also do far less things.
And when they do things its not efficient. Ariane 6 for example is a minor upgrade over Ariane 5 with mostly parts that were developed for Ariane 5 ME. And yet somehow it cost will easily pass 5 billion $ and that doesn't include even e new engine. And a lot of cost is also hidden on other balance sheet, a full accounting would be likely more.
That might be about 2x as much as the complete Falcon 9 (+ Falcon Heavy) + Merlin + Re-usability program cost.
So yes, a comparative small budget, but that doesn't actually explain many of the issues.
But it is a geopolitical issue.. The goal is not to have the cheapest or most efficient rocket. It is to have independent launch capabilities. If the EU wanted cheap, they'd just eat the shit sandwich of using Russian launch vehicles.
> The goal is not to have the cheapest or most efficient rocket.
Well I point out in other places. That's exactly what they said they wanted when they started building it.
Only now where they know they are way off they say 'oh that's never what we actually wanted'.
Europe was successful in getting commercial payloads on their rockets and that helped them finance everything. So a primary goal and justification for Ariane 6 in favor of Ariane ME was exactly this commercial market.
> If the EU wanted cheap, they'd just eat the shit sandwich of using Russian launch vehicles.
That literally exactly what they did. Arianespace launched more Soyuz then anything else.
But that simply wasn't tenable anymore.
So the reality is ESA was eating shit sandwiches until Russia tried to eat Ukraine and got diary. Now they can't handle it anymore.
> This engine development for example, is something that in the US startups who don't get much government money are doing. And there are like 10+ companies working on comparable technology.
"working on" is not good enough, most start-ups never succeed. Very few have a fully-tested reusable engine. And the engine has to be in the same class - most start-ups work on miniature rockets, only good to launch a couple tons into space.
Bottomn line is, Europe does not have the intense private investment for this sort of thing, but the work still needs to be done.
Well many are further along then Europe is with their engine. Some are much further along.
> And the engine has to be in the same class - most start-ups work on miniature rockets, only good to launch a couple tons into space.
Read my to level comment, I have a whole list. And I didn't even include smaller engines.
> Bottomn line is, Europe does not have the intense private investment for this sort of thing, but the work still needs to be done.
I didn't say they should do any investing or building engine. What I said is that you can't just say ESA has a smaller budget and that's why they don't have these things.
It requires quite some energy to build a rocket (you know, from extracting the matter from the Earth to having something that looks like a rocket on the launchpad), and then some more to fly.
There is no such thing as "green energy": even if SpaceX only used renewable energy, a) renewables are not zero-carbon and b) renewables are not infinite, so if you use it for SpaceX, you don't use it for something else, and that something else may well be using fossil fuels.
But let's be clear: SpaceX doesn't run 100% on renewable energy. So there's that.
Then, right now it is not launching rockets everyday, but I understand that the goal is to grow a lot. Create a whole new space industry. Just like one plane does not pollute that much on its own, if you take the entire aviation sector, that starts to make a lot.
I guess my point is generally that we are facing huge problems (peak oil, biodiversity collapsing, climate change just joining the party) that will probably destroy society as we know it. I don't think that pushing a lot more with a commercial space business is a good idea.
Reusable rockets are like the 5G for mobile comms: for the same usage, it requires less energy. But 5G will enable much more usage and hence it will use much more energy than 4G. Reusable rockets getting to 10M a launch... well rich people will be able to go have dinner in space, just for fun. That's not sustainable.
That's all just degrowth narrative. We should all go back to using coal fired trains because then we might use them less. Lets use horses instead of cars, then people will travel less.
> peak oil, biodiversity collapsing, climate change just joining the party
Peak oil isn't a thing.
Rocket launch pads actually are great for biodiversity as it requires a lot of land around it without humans. And animals turns out aren't that bothered by occasional rocket launches. See the high biodiversity around Kennedy Space Center as an example.
Climate change will mostly be decided on other playing fields.
> well rich people will be able to go have dinner in space, just for fun
How about trying not hold back the space industry when that is more then 0.0X% of the the market.
Before denying the energy problem (and I am not saying that philosophically, I think we should go back to horses because it is nicer, I am just saying that we are facing a big energy problem), I would encourage you to read this book, which was a huge success in France last year:
Written by a true expert, Jean-Marc Jancovici. Just check who he is, usually engineers like him, even if they don't like the conclusion (which is that engineers tend to be part of the problem, not the solution).
I guess that will happen, when they have a functioning system, i.e. a product. (Showing off with some in-between, not fit for purpose stage may be deemed somewhat embarassing, compare cultural differences.)
Its not cultural. Lots of European aerospace startups act not much different then American ones. In some cases they are even more over the top then American startups.
This is more about ESA culture then European culture in general.
Well, startups are not actually a mainstay of European cultural tradition… ;-)
On the other hand, more traditional enterprises, like, say, Mercedes Benz, will be quite cautious with claims about their R&D, until they have their level III autonomous car system actually approved (and even then… don't make too much of a fuzz, as it is still limited, etc…)
Or, for another Tesla comparison, take Citroën (that is, Stellantis): While Tesla keeps on going about how there will be an affordable EV someday, thus they are saving the world now (without anything like this even being in sight), Citroën actually launched the Ami (an electric 2CV equivalent at EUR 6,900.) And they didn't talk about this before the launch, either. (Then there was a short-lived publicity fuzz – and then they mostly forgot about it. That's quite a genuine example for how European enterprises think, showing off appropriately works.)
To make this a fair questions, please include, "how many cheap Teslas are there to date?"
(It somewhat boils down to, US firms have something which may be called "anticipatory marketing", which is deemed rather off-limits for European organisations. To the least, you'd paint quite a big bull's eye onto yourself.)
It matters what question one asks and if its the wrong question even the right answer doesn't actually help.
Any basic company can simply throw out some micro-car on the market. These cars are rarely profitable and their production numbers are mostly irrelevant part of the market. People for the most part don't want these cars, and car manufactures don't want to produce them either. The Citroën Ami will never replace actual ICE cars in large numbers and therefore it being affordable doesn't actually matter in the overall transition.
When Tesla talks about an affordable car, they are not talking about some low volume money losing marketing car. They are talking about something that has the capacity to cut directly into the market of a Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla. A car that can be produced in the millions, is actually profitable and most importantly has demand for millions.
That's what it actually takes to make affordable EV scale and to transition an industry where 90 million cars a year are produced to EV.
> (It somewhat boils down to, US firms have something which may be called "anticipatory marketing", which is deemed rather off-limits for European organisations. To the least, you'd paint quite a big bull's eye onto yourself.)
This is just complete nonsense. VW and others have also already talked about their future cars that are gone be cheaper. In fact they have gone much further then Tesla, even showing pictures and announcing prices and so on.
But somehow European regulators have not yet put VW leadership in front of the firing squad.
There is nothing illegal about saying 'we are gone have awesome products in the future'.
P.S: Cheap EV are already mass produced in China at large numbers. Citroën is not even remotely interesting or leading any any way in this. Ironically GM China is in the lead see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuling_Hongguang_Mini_EV
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not against these small cars. I think they are good and if anything we should encourage more use of them. But its simply not apples-to-apples comparison.
Self promotion is just way more accepted in the US vs most European countries. You notice this in ESA vs NASA. I also notice it when I read resumes. Resumes from European countries are way more subdued than ones from the US.
I have to agree with you. They're more than happy to label anything "NASA/ESA" when the ESA's project contribution was fifty Euros and a can of spray paint.
This is just overplayed. If you look at European rocket startups, they don't act much different. Some of them are even more prone to hype and exaggeration then American equivalence.
No it’s not, this even goes to things like reference letters. US letters for the same candidate are always much stronger and use very different language.
Americans are just more comfortable showing emotion in general. It’s well known among musicians that American audiences are very different to European ones, they show their appreciation and involvement much more readily (and then there’s the Japanese…). There’s also
that whole thing about clapping when the plane lands.
They do a similar thing for their launch webcasts - they barely show or talk about the rocket and focus mostly on the pan-European cooperation aspects. It might be a cultural thing but they also know who is paying their bills.
On the other hand, I was at CERN once, and they were just giving us slides like no tomorrow (and of course also a tour). If I was a billionaire (or a politician) I would have given them lots of money
The cern tour is really cool. They actually take you to see the instruments where possible. Got to see some huuuge copper busbars that they use to dump current from the electromagnets. And got to see some sections of the main tube that were in the repair area (maybe they were display units).
SpaceX keeps breaking the law left and right. They're currently being sued for contaminating a wildlife sanctuary, and they're constantly at odds with the FAA. Not to mention various state agencies.
They have a pretty good relationship with the FAA. I hate to be so blunt but you do not have enough knowledge of this topic to be overstating like such.
Is this a joke? I keep seeing this sentiment on this comment section but this is the complete opposite of my experience in Europe ( don't live there anymore though). Maybe it was just France, but every single inconsequential start up was labelled as the next Google and every city was the new SV. every tiny corporation had to have its army of "cadres" and European businesses' love for countless "initiatives" , buzzwords, blockchain, greenwashing... And so on would make American big tech look downright bullshit free in comparison.
I'm not American and even then it left me with a weird feeling of little man syndrome.
The PR part also applies to Earth Observation Satellites (ESA and EUMETSAT). (Almost) any time you see a wide area picture of the Earth from Space (particularly around a weather event), it comes from NASA's MODIS instrument [e.g. 0].
The European (approximate) equivalent, AATSR, had a lot of really nice scientific qualities, but it was missing a blue channel, meaning that the 'true-colour' images it produced always had a blue tint to the clouds. There was a similar problem with the European geostationary satellite imager (SEVIRI) [1].
Scientifically, SEVIRI was incredibly useful (and far in advance of the American equivalent at the time), but the lack of a blue channel meant that it was never really used for those shots that made it onto the news (and neither was AATSR). When you have spent multiple billions on a satellite programme, you generally want the public to see it.
I remember being told at one point that this was considered such an issue that the Europeans would 'never launch a satellite without a blue channel again' - although that might be overstating it a little.
It’s funny how well that fits in with cultural stereotypes. The US had an insane culture of self promotion and salesmanship. Europe has a culture of intense elitism. ESA designed an excellent satellite that focused on the “right” goals, and promptly forgot the dirty peasants whose money they were really spending.
It shouldn’t be surprising. Unless you’re operating outside of a regime of democracy, you have to convince the majority (i.e. very dumb people by academic standards) that it’s worth it.
Similarly, the Hubble Space Telescope has done more to raise and advance interest in space among the commons than anything else in unmanned space exploration.
I was in the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville a few weeks ago. We watched the Webb telescope presentation with a live comment in the planetary, and I could not believe how perfectly the presentation was done. Everything was absolutely flawless and I am almost sure that not a single person in Germany would be able to deliver a presentation on that level of perfection. It was not showmanship, it was just outstanding skill at doing a presentation, and I wish people in Europe would be better trained in doing this.
Might also be a case of envy and sour gapes, and not reflect all that well on the Europeans saying that.
This thread is full of people claiming Europeans are not boastful or self-promoting, which is pretty strange to me because the internet is full of Europeans boasting about how much better their countries allegedly are than the US about almost any subject you can think of. Healthcare, public transport, crime, politics, you name it. But you find one topic where US is unquestionably better than Europe (like rocketry), and all of a sudden it's a grave sin to boast about things, and the discussion turns into how much better Europe is at not being boastful.
> ESA is doing really cool stuff, but they're doing a bad job of convincing people that they're doing cool stuff.
Why does it matter?
They don't need to convince you that they're doing "cool stuff", they need to convince the people who want to put up satellites that they're going to offer cheap cost-competitive launch vehicles.
ESA is an IGO, it's not beholden to any one government, not even the EU (which has their own space agency, EUSPA).
ESA's member states might need to show their publics what they're doing with public money, and they do that, in part, by showing their collaboration with other ESA partners on projects.
The ESA is a political entity that relies on state funding and support. It absolutely neds good PR so the people feel like they're doing good work. It makes it easier for politicians to keep giving them that money and support.
They absolutely need to convince us they're doing "cool stuff".
Agree, their live launch coverage is pretty, uh, not great.
I realize that not everyone "gets" how SpaceX "sells" their product but it is super helpful when people see you as a cool, forward thinking, place to work contribute.
Long ago on Youtube, ESA had a channel with - I want to say "Dr. Dave" but its hazy - who showed a lot of the neat imagery that was coming out of Hubble.
Funny to see this and other comments like it today. I’m European, and just back from an enjoyable day at the Kennedy Space Center. NASA certainly knows how to promote their space program. Got to see the launch of 56 starlink satellites. And that Saturn 5 rocket is pretty big.
Europe has about 9000Km of High Speed Rail Lines, the US has, … umm, let me check the papers, carry the six, uh
…0 km.
The US has built relatively few metros or trams or even bicycle infrastructure, anything modern and sustainable is not done and not developed. I’d guess the EU has built about 10 times more of these infrastructures in the last 40 years, if not more.
Note that the Raptor 3 is at 269 tons thrust (vis-à-vis 100 tons) and 350 bar chamber pressure (with 100 bar for the Prometheus). The raptor is state-of-the-art full-flow staged combustion which is described as very tricky, Prometheus dated open-cycle. Raptor has been extensively tested and refined for years now and is getting very close to real flight heritage. Once Prometheus has flight models the Raptor will be at least a decade ahead, probably continuing to move rapidly. Taking a guess Raptor is probably much cheaper to produce and operate than Prometheus. It appears like a failed design by plan similar to a decision to continue expendable Arianes provided that 'there are only 10 or so launches per year' and implicitly that the system is set up to produce throw-away rockets that need lots of resources to produce each example.
Well actually their STATED GOAL was to be highly competitive in the international launch market as well. When Ariane 6 was greenlit there was much talk about that this investment needed to be made to be competitive and so on and so on.
And of course now 10 years later its all like 'all we wanted is independent space access'.
Of course if that was the case just flying Ariane 5 would have been better. Not having 3 different rockets would have been better.
And sadly they're behind even China at this point, which is a bit of a joke if we're honest.
ESA is a perfect example for what a bureaucratic monster Europe is these days. With a similar budget as CNSA but no clear vision and goals, the funds have mostly been wasted in recent years. They have the engineers, a good spaceport, the knowledge, etc... everything they'd need. But the stagnating political culture is holding them back. The US went through something similar, but at least with the private spaceflight boom the Americans seem to have snapped out of it.
After Ariane 5, ESA should probably award fixed price contracts to private European rocket startups rather than doing it together with Arianespace. But I suspect this wouldn't work well with EU funding, since those startups are only located in certain member states.
Direct funding is even worse. Why would Italy fund a German rocket startup? It seems money could only come from the respective state itself, not via ESA.
Italy and Germany pay ESA, ESA pays the contractors. But it's not like a layer of indirection means countries are magically unaware of where the money ends up
It's not like ESA raises taxes on its own to pay for stuff
I mean a more logic situation was if Italy and Germany both pay ESA, and ESA contracts the launch vehicle from Germany but maybe the space station module from Italy.
But one project often is to large a part of the budget so instead of doing it per project, the split each project into tiny pieces and hand that to each government.
However this is also changing a bit. For Ariane 6 they specifically went away from that and allow industry (Ariane Group) to ignore that to a certain extent.
It isn't at all clear yet that their open cycle engine is dated. Raptor has yet to prove reliable. Perhaps it will be, perhaps it will not. It is fundamentally harder to start the full flow staged combustion cycle, so time will tell if they can make this work as reliably as they have the merlin.
SpaceX still makes all of their money with a simple open cycle rocket engine, and it burns RP1 which is expensive to clean up. Prometheus would be better in that regard.
And of course they are raising cash, they have literally have the most advanced rocket and satellites projects in development at the same time.
I can't find when CALLISTO is supposed to fly, some information says its 2022 but yeah I don't think they will make that. Starship isn't really in a race with CALLISTO so its kind of irrelevant.
If they have the most advanced rockets and satellites, then surely they can sell those products? The profit from the sales would fund research into their next big product.
Apple didn't keep raising money to pay for the development of their next iPhone. They made sufficient cash from the sale of current generation to fund the development of the next generation.
So if SpaceX needs to continue raising cash, they're selling the product at a loss, meaning that they're not in fact significantly cheaper than the competition. They're just dishonest about their pricing.
That's not what "selling at a loss" means, it just means their costs are greater than their income. Which, again, is not what "selling at a loss" means - that's production cost per unit being greater than sales income per unit. SpaceX is just dumping a ludicrous amount of money into scaling faster. They could easily be operationally profitable.
None, they're a private company, but: if a rocket company could be profitable while throwing rockets away, there is no way that SpaceX is not wildly profitable when it's getting them back pretty much in one piece.
Which again you have no source for. Reusable rockets are more expensive than single use rockets. That's just common sense. There's no proof that SpaceX is even cash flow positive.
> There's no proof that SpaceX is even cash flow positive.
And you have no proof otherwise. You just assert it without evidence.
And you disagree with everybody that has studied this topic. Pretty much everybody that has estimated cost comes down on the side that SpaceX core launch business is very profitable.
Tons of investors who had insight into this information seem to believe it was a good investment. If the numbers showed that it didn't make sense the whole credibility of Starlink and Starship would instantly collapse.
We don't have detailed numbers but its simply not credible that they have been launching for losing money.
> If they have the most advanced rockets and satellites, then surely they can sell those products?
That's just a really strange thing to say. Before you can sell something you have to develop it, build the factory to build it (many times) and then scale up its operation. That takes years and costs many billions.
> The profit from the sales would fund research into their next big product.
The whole point of funding is that you can scale faster. This is like a really really basic thing that I expect everybody on Hacker News to understand. SpaceX did the same thing when they moved from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9.
> So if SpaceX needs to continue raising cash, they're selling the product at a loss, meaning that they're not in fact significantly cheaper than the competition. They're just dishonest about their pricing.
You falsely assume that raising cash implies that products are being sold at a loss. This simply isn't the case, and if that is your understand you are simply wrong. By all information we have from analists, journalist and investors, SpaceX core products they currently sell are very profitable for them. And the Falcon/Dragon architecture continues to see more investment like pad upgrades and other optimizations.
If SpaceX books proved that re-usability doesn't work, why would they be valued so highly in the first place. DoD and NASA have recognized this. Pretty much every other rocket company has recognized this. Even competitors ULA and Arianespace have recognized it. To claim that it is all some vast scam by SpaceX is just not a credible argument.
Arianespace has made this same accusation that you made, but unlike with the case of Boeing they have not brought this case to the WTO. This very likely is because they know they would lose horrible and expose the fact that they actually have far, far, far more direct subsidy in Ariane Group.
Since you don't seem to be moved easily I will give you some actually details of what SpaceX actually does with the raise cash. If your assertion were true, that SpaceX raises cash to finance their operation, where did they get the case for these things:
Raptor:
- Developing the full flow stage combustion engine to fly. They also developed a Raptor Vacuum.
- Raptor continues to get a lot of investment, now on the third iteration. Raptor 3 has just complete its first full test fire. It again breaks its record.
- Volume Raptor manufacturing line in Hawthorne.
- SpaceX is building a new high volume Raptor engine manufacturing facility in McGregor Texas
- They are also expanding testing capabilities there to support the high volume manufacturing.
Starship:
- Huge production facility in South Texas continues to be built up. New major Highbay currently. Additional factory buildings being added right now.
- Launch pad and testing facility are being expanded and upgraded.
- Starship evolution and development continues, with newer version already being built and even newer version are in competent testing.
- Starship heat-shield required a whole new factory, this factory is in Flordia.
- Compenents of Starship are also built in SpaceX facotry in Hawthorne
- SpaceX adding
Starlink:
- SpaceX already has the highest volume satellite factory in the world in Seattle.
- SpaceX is currently building a new even bigger satellite factory in Austin
- SpaceX also need factories to mass produce both ground stations and the terminals.
- Given that Starlink makes SpaceX into a global ISP, SpaceX has to set up offices in every country, go threw regulatory processes in every country. That takes capital as well.
- After initial Starlink sats were designed and mass produced SpaceX didn't stop, Starlink v2 is already being launched with many improvements. Starlink v2 include a complete new propulsion systems, and pioneering inter-satellite laser link.
These are all very capital intensive project and labor intensive development projects, funding these things only with the profit from it current business would be insane. And SpaceX simply could not invest in all of these things at the same time if their core business was bleeding money.
Starlink is already producing significant cash flow with 1.5 million subscribers. SpaceX announced its now cashflow positive. That is quite an achievement given how new the technology is and that the primary launch vehicle that will reduce cost isn't online yet.
Starship is of course not yet making much money. The lunar lander contract with the government is milestone based, that means it will only be paid out when goals are achieved. This means SpaceX needs to raise or lend money to do the development and production so that they can then get it back from NASA once milesstones are achieved.
What SpaceX has raised:
- 2023: 750M
- 2022: 2B
- 2021: 1.5B
- 2020: 2B
- 2019: 1.3B
- 2018: 500M
- 2017: 500M
This if for all the things mentioned above.
Now lets actually compare SpaceX to some competitors:
- Ariane 6, only a marginal upgrade over the Ariane 5 using mostly components already developed for the Ariane 5 ME. Will cost at a minimum 5 billion $ (likely more when its actually done).
- SLS rocket has cost 23 billion $ in development cost.
- All of Project Kuiper is planned to need 3,236 satellites. Just the launch alone will likely cost Amazon 10 billion $.
Given the capital intensity of aerospace projects I think the amount of money SpaceX raised to run 2 of the largest aerospace projects in the history of humanity is pretty damn reasonable.
A Elon Musk company valued higher than what makes sense.. How novel. Alternative accounting methods are another common theme with Musk.
Startups raise funds to fund production scaling, research, etc. It costs some percentage of the company. Established companies(SpaceX is from 2002) already making profits use part of the profit to fund future research and production. If it's a major capital expense, they'll take on some debt.
> A Elon Musk company valued higher than what makes sense.. How novel.
I'm sure you are multi billionaire if you always know how companies should be valued.
> Alternative accounting methods are another common theme with Musk.
That's just a baseless accusation TeslaQ people used to throw around about Tesla. And for SpaceX, we don't know anything about their internal accounting.
> If it's a major capital expense, they'll take on some debt.
Companies do what its based base on a number of factors. One is not inherently better then the other.
So in summation you have any actual arguments. Good to know.
Tesla doesn't use the same accounting methods as any other car manufacturer. Tesla counts pretty much any warranty repair as good will. That means it doesn't eat into their per unit margin. So the number is not in any way comparable to competitors.
We don't know anything about SpaceX accounting, and as such there is no reason to believe anything they state about profitably when they have to continue raising cash. Get your tongue out of Musks' arse, he has a history of lying and the financials aren't public.
Tesla isn't the same as other car companies, they don't have the dealership models and their repairs are in house. Expecting it to be the exact same as other car manufactures doesn't even make sense. That doesn't make it 'Alternative accounting'.
But by this magical slight of hand, you can't actually prove anything. Its a mostly irrelevant point used by TeslaQ people to distract from the actual numbers.
Because the actual numbers are positive on Tesla they had to come up with some absurd 'its all account fraud nonsense'.
> Tesla counts pretty much any warranty repair as good will. That means it doesn't eat into their per unit margin.
Tesla has Service separated as their own business unit. That is a sensible thing to do.
And yes, Service did lose money for years, because all of Tesla cars were under warranty and they were making large investments building 100s of service centers.
In the last couple years this has already flipped, Service is now profitable, and is about to get more profitable.
So this is just utterly idiotic to accuse Tesla of 'alternative accounting' or assume any kind of deceptions.
The numbers are all their. The are subject to regulation.
And the fundamental underlying profit numbers don't change, no matter how you rearrange the service business. So its just an utterly irrelevant point people like you bring up because they have nothing real to talk about.
> Get your tongue out of Musks' arse
And the true motivation shows itself. You are so hell bent on proving Musk is bad that you threw out your brain.
If simple black and white numbers say one thing, you have to invent some 'accounting fraud' nonsense that every single expert and the SEC disagrees with. And that is utterly irrelevant to boot. Even in the most charitable possible case, your argument means that per unit margin reported compared to other car companies should by the slightest bit different. Wow, truly the whole Tesla leadership should thrown into the gulag.
If you don't have the numbers black and white, you just make the worst possible assumptions. No matter how many expects, journalist, annalists and investors disagree with your assessment. And you clearly don't even know anything about space business, you are in it to prove Musk and SpaceX is bad, not driven by an actual analysis of SpaceX other then 'they raise money'.
As cool as Raptor is, I feel that ESA, as a government organization, making any effort towards a truly reusable engine is very good when over here in the US, NASA is still forced to pour billions into resuscitating the RS-25 while Boeing continues to embarass itself with Starliner and ULA rushes full speed into using reusable engines in the least effective ways.
NASA doesn't need to invest in its own engines. RS-25 is just something congress forced on them. In reality the private companies are developing lots of engine, Raptor is just one example. I have documented this in my top level post.
NASA and DoD are both committed to buying rockets on commercial rockets, and all of the competitors view engine development as a majorly important.
There are at least 10 major reusable engines in development in the US. And of course Merlin is already flying and Prometheus has a very, very long way to go until to reach it.
> while Boeing continues to embarass itself with Starliner
True but that's a fixed price contract. Boeing is spending its own money to finish that program.
NASA actually has crewed spaceflight, something Europe never even came close to.
> ULA rushes full speed into using reusable engines in the least effective ways
Not sure what you mean? ULA is adopting a pretty modern engine. That engine took a while to develop but that isn't so surprising. And it isn't ULAs fault.
>NASA doesn't need to invest in its own engines. RS-25 is just something congress forced on them. In reality the private companies are developing lots of engine, Raptor is just one example. I have documented this in my top level post.
NASA and DoD are both committed to buying rockets on commercial rockets, and all of the competitors view engine development as a majorly important.
I was trying to convey that NASA hasn't been able to systematically embrace efficient reusability. Put differently, in the US, reusability is a thing *despite* the 'old guard' (NASA hasn't pushed the development of reusable vehicles itself, it has merely accepted them when private individuals got frustrated enough to do it themselves), while in Europe, it's promising that the ESA itself is invested in reusable rocketry.
>Not sure what you mean? ULA is adopting a pretty modern engine. That engine took a while to develop but that isn't so surprising. And it isn't ULAs fault.
I'm not taking a shot at BE-4, it's a modern engine, it's reusable and development delays are in the past now. What I'm saying is that ULA, for its so-called next-gen rocket, plans something as 'dumb' as 'SMART' reuse for those engines, which is a waste given their capabilities.
Overall, my argument was that NASA and the contractors it has been mostly associated with, are far less invested in truly reusable rocketry (ie not the Shuttle) than Europe is right now.
As far as Europe's crewed spaceflight capability goes, they do have experience building space station modules. So I wouldn't go as far as saying that they have never even "come close to" crewed spaceflight, but I agree that by my own argument, Europe is not as invested in crewed spaceflight than the US.
To explain why this bothers me, as part of Artemis, NASA has repeatedly used the phrase "sustainable presence", yet the way they behave as an organization does not correspond with wanting to be sustainable. To me it's seeming increasingly more likely that Artemis too will fade out after a few landings.
> But differently, in the US, reusability is a thing despite the 'old guard' (NASA hasn't pushed the development of reusable vehicles itself, it has merely accepted them when private individuals got frustrated enough to do it themselves), while in Europe, it's promising that the ESA itself is invested in reusable rocketry.
That is totally wrong. What NASA did do is create a platform for private competition with the hope that some kind of innovation would come out of it his. The policy foundation for this was set up in the 90s and this allowed companies like SpaceX to come up and have the chance to innovate without direct government control.
This innovation was then quickly adopted by NASA and DoD who saw that it was useful. NASA and DoD have a much stronger adoption of reusability then anything we see from ESA.
Yes, SLS is not reusable unfortunately, but NASA by now can't really change that from happening anyway.
NASA itself doesn't have to be involved in re-usability development because its already solved for them.
> while in Europe, it's promising that the ESA itself is invested in reusable rocketry.
So they are invested in re-usability and yet the first real rocket planned with it might happen in the late 2030s?
The reality is that ESA was actively hostile to re-usability literally up to the point of self delusion and then begrudgingly started to do some minor investments in it.
> What I'm saying is that ULA, for its so-called next-gen rocket, plans something as 'dumb' as 'SMART' reuse for those engines, which is a waste given their capabilities.
ULA is a political creation and its lobbying power depends on using parts from different large companies and that includes solids. Solids make full stack re-usability hard.
Now while 'SMART' re-usability might be 'dumb' is a whole heck of a lot better then no re-usability of Ariane 6.
> NASA and the contractors it has been mostly associated with
SpaceX is NASA largest contractor outside of SLS/Orion program, and those were adopted before SpaceX was relevant. In recent years SpaceX has won the waste majority of contracts. Blue has one some, and the are in on re-usability. The contractors you mention that are not focused on re-usability have consistently not been winning many contracts.
> To explain why this bothers me, as part of Artemis, NASA has repeatedly used the phrase "sustainable presence", yet the way they behave as an organization does not correspond with wanting to be sustainable. To me it's seeming increasingly more likely that Artemis too will fade out after a few landings.
I agree that the SLS/Orion program is not 'substainable' or embraces re-usability. But those programs are 15-25 years old and once they started its politics that substain them.
If NASA could go back and redo those things today, it would look very different. Politics has force NASA into situation where SLS/Orion is politically unkillable and NASA is doing its best to use the rest of their budget to actually make progress.
Using the moon lander funding and giving it to Starship is a fantastic move to break SLS only (if fake) claim to relevance.
That thrust sounds low. That's around the capacity of the Vikas engine that the PSLV and GSLV use.
The reusability is very cool. I just somehow assumed that with the state power of Europe and the established history of Ariane, they'd do better than Blue Origin and SpaceX.
There are only so many basic engine cycles, Soviets did many the first time. That does not mean anybody using the same cycle is copying the design.
The Raptor is FFSC, the Soviets once build an engine of that cycle, but it was very different, using non cryo hypergolic fuel.
Also to my knowlage that engine was never sold to the West and analyized like the Nk-33 and very few were ever produced. Other then vague knowlage that a FFSC engine was once tested in the Soviet Union we don't know much more. So they can actually be copied in a meaningful way.
If Merlin is copying anything it would be the Ameican H-1.
Of course one you look below the very very abstract surface level, these engines are all very different.
Saying SpaceX is copying 1960 Soviet designs is just wrong.
Its certainty an interesting engine but for a very advanced space program, as they Europeans want to be, it isn't anything ground breaking. If some US startup would announce something like this everybody would shrug and call it par for the course and not particularly innovative.
Europe has never developed first stage close cycle engine. The Soviets have mastered close cycle engines as far back as the 60s and even today (at least until the Ukraine war) great Russian/Ukrainian engine were for sale. And today many even startups are working on close cycle engines.
This engine is another open cycle engine while the world for real competitive launch vehicles is moving to more advanced engines. And those that do not, are not doing it because they want their next generation rocket to be there as soon as possible. While a European rocket with this engine is at least a decade or more out.
It is targeted at being reusable and that is good of course but pretty much every modern engine program is gone be restartable and reusable. We don't have much information how many times it will be reusable, what its startup mechanism and we just generally don't have that much information.
So the thing that's kind of stunning here is that Esa/Arianespace is developing this one next generation engine and keep hyping it and building it up as this next generation engine for Europe. But its really nothing special, there are many engines in development (some much further along) in the US that are just gone be as advanced or more advanced. ESA here looks more like a random startup, rather being a leader in technology:
So Europe hear is more like a small fish in a big pond. And compared to efforts like Raptor, this is many generations behind.
This is not big ambition from Europe, but doing the bare minimum to have something that is somewhat modern. But by the time they will get it into a launch vehicle it will look old compare to the competition.
The problem is that engine development in Europe is just very slow, and integrating engines to rockets is even slower. Consider the fancy new Vinci Upper Stage engine. It has been in development for over 20 years now, and will likely be 25 year of total time from start of development to first flight.
And the worst of it is, the Ariane 6 Upper Stage mass is so heavy that Vinci amazing performance is held back by a terrible structural design. So even as they have this advanced engine, they resulting rocket isn't really great.
ESA has a very, very long way ahead if they want their rocket to be more then just launcher military launches from its member states.
Props to Elon and SpaceX for lighting a fire under an entire industry; I don’t think there’d be much work in reusable rockets without their work. As I understand it the industry wrote them off. But SpaceX proved it was doable or at least made it sexy.
Same with electric cars. For whatever reason the Tesla marque was so strong and the cars marketed so well and were decent enough it gave all the incumbents the gumption to make even larger more bet-the-company investments in EVs.
Say what you will about Elon as a person and his running of Twitter (horrible) but he sure knows how to be a marketer and to stick-to-his-guns.
reply