-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
That video shows so many vehicles and engines, so quickly, that I could not even read all the text captions completely.
Remarkably uninformative.
Remarkably uninformative.
About all I got from it was "We're working on stuff that we think is cool." Where one of the cool things was creating rocket kerosene from waste plastic. So they're taking plastic that's sitting relatively inert somewhere and turning it into atmospheric gasses. Genius. I hope that project dies a gruesome death.
Let's get going with converting our CO2 and water into methane and oxygen for rockets. Get it working so efficiently and at such a scale that we can use it on Mars, too.
Ariane 6 inaugural launch planned for first half of July
The first launch of the Ariane 6 is expected in the first half of July as the vehicle takes shape at its French Guiana launch site.
spacenews.com
First Ariane 6 launch set for July 9
The European Space Agency and its partners have announced a July 9 launch date for the first Ariane 6 rocket.
spacenews.com
Ariane 6 completes wet dress rehearsal
Europe’s Ariane 6 rocket has completed a fueling test and countdown rehearsal that is the final major milestone before its inaugural launch in July.
spacenews.com
Complaining about a 10 year old comment (that still partially rings true--unless I missed it a SX is selling F9's at $5M) and then complaining about what Ariane 6 is (and isn't)...not exactly a fresh and compelling read.
Of course that was all word count fill to get to dunking on "SS won't be a game changer". Which would be okay...if it weren't for the fact that Ariane Dude has a strong point. Indeed, SS won't actually be a game changer, or at least anywhere near the game changer it is asserted to be on anything close to the asserted timeline.
I agree. It'll take time for the folks with money to figure out what opportunities are afforded by Starship's capabilities. If any. Fortunately, we have the Chinese government prodding the US government into more prestige projects, so that'll at least give everyone some time to consider their options.
What we need is some kind of miracle drug or material that can only be built in orbit. I saw something about 3D printing of human organs in microgravity. If replacement organs could be mass produced, then we'd certainly see a lot of demand and competition in that space. Then there's tourism, the perpetual fallback strategy, but how many hotels do we need in orbit? How many people can afford $100,000 adventure vacations - and would want to put that into a trip to orbit?
<eagerly raises hand>
I doubt there is any reliable marketing data on the size of that market, but my WAG is the number is about ten thousand globally if SpaceX can convincingly demonstrate that Starship is safe for humans.
I really hope such a trip becomes reality within the next 10 years before I get too damn old…
He started with the background of the 10 yr old article in order to make the point in the headline, they STILL dont get it based on the comments made June 24 (3 days ago), where they once again dismissed SpaceX, just like they did 10 years ago...
Given the fact that SpaceX is doing what they want to do faster/better/cheaper, I think it's pretty germane to point out that once again they may be dismissing out of hand something that could come back to bite them... again...
Ariane 6 will be what it will be. It will get enough business to justify its existence. It won't be doing a lot though.
agreed. And, in reality, the lift capability is not in the same class as Starship, so the point they made about Starship not being a competitive factor has some merit... although things like rideshare missions may compete for the same payloads somewhat.
Berger's point was more that their dismissiveness regarding their architecture and re-use is something they still seem to have a similar view on a decade later...
Interestingly, in Manley's Deep Space Update for this week, he makes essentially the same point Berger did: within the last few days the ESA folks once again dismissed the need/value of reusability...
So Berger isn't exactly on an island here...
He probably made the point because he read the article. Scott's not big on citing sources.
Yet another bad take from brx...
This how Arianespace is doing:
As European this is embarrassment how euro-space has fallen. And Eric Berger is spot on the reason. From market leader to a nothing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
