Slashdot Mirror
Ariane 5 Has No Chance, Says Elon Musk
Dupple writes with some remarks by SpaceX founder Elon Musk, as reported by the BBC, on the Ariane 5 launch vehicle: Musk is anything but a disinterested party, but he has some especially harsh words for the ESA rocket: "'I don't say that with a sense of bravado but there's really no way for that vehicle to compete with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. If I were in the position of Ariane, I would really push for an Ariane 6.' Ariane's future will be a key topic this week for European Space Agency (Esa) member states. They are meeting in Naples to determine the scope and funding of the organisation's projects in the next few years, and the status of their big rocket will be central to those discussions."
Sorry, failed at reading this with a straight face.
... news at eleven.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
To paraphrase part of TFA 'We can save money by developing X with components from Y', this is why it's cheaper to now spend money on Y.
Versus a clean-sheet design.
Combine that with SpaceX's largely integrated workflow, with minimal external contractors, and you have extreme problems for traditional aerospace to meet the costs.
Contracts are granted not on the basis of what would make the overall system cheaper, but electoral politics.
And if SpaceX gets even limited reusability working - http://phys.org/news/2012-11-spacex-story-reuseable-grasshopper-rocket.html - the price crashes further.
Competition always brings out the best (or worst) in any Endeavour. Single-source-vendor vs. multiple vendors for heavy lift into LEO or Async? Hmm....
This guy is a scam artist.
He founded PayPal which has ripped off countless people.
He founded Tesla which has yet to produce a car which is
more than an expensive toy that few people can afford.
Frankly, if you are impressed by what Musk has done,
that's enough to determine that you have poor analytical skills
are are instead swayed by shiny things.
Yea, just wait until some "Regulation" comes his way. You can't compete on a level play field with Government.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
The Falcon 9 has flown four times IIRC; in two cases things went wrong -- on its first launch the orbital payload ended up rolling and yawing in the wrong orbit and on the fourth launch it lost an engine and couldn't deploy a secondary payload successfully and the mission was not a complete success. The Falcon Heavy is still to be completely assembled never mind actually flown.
The Ariane 5 in ES, GS and ECS configurations has 50 completely successful launches under its belt since the last failure back in 2002. It has a proven track record of delivering twice the payload of the Falcon 9 to LEO and twice the projected payload of the F9 v1.1 to GEO (since SpaceX has not yet attempted a launch to GEO).
Musk's comments sound like FUD to encourage sales of Falcon 9 launches, nothing more.
"Ariane 5 has no chance,"
translates to "Arian 5 is our big competitor"
"Mr Musk said that the cost of producing the current European rocket would kill it as a commercial entity."
Translates as "Give us a subsidy US military or we can't keep competing on price!"
"Not only can we sustain the prices, but the next version of Falcon 9 is actually able to go to a lower price,"
Translates as:
"We hope to get to the stock market before we burn through our $1 billion in capital, Groupon/Facebook style! Ka-chink!"
Sounds like marketing to me. Whenever I see a company focus on dissing a competitor, I immediately wonder why they're going negative campaigning.
Especially with governments who have traditionally viewed keeping this kind of know-how a matter of national security.
The king of kings of launch. Everything else is so -- so chinese !!
Wh3n I Stood for
And what government would that be?
Dilbert RSS feed
If you don't want to RTFA and Wikipedia it
Launch Cost: $60M
Payload: 13,150 kg to LEO, 4,850 kg to geostationary.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Arianespace is a private company, with private shareholders.
http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp
Hubris
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
Did you want a list? The governments of: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Happy?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Arianespace is a private company, with private shareholders.
http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp
And they are the only possible competition SpaceX could ever have, right? With no government players involved anywhere in this industry, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, the summary mentioning two private companies doesn't take away a posters' freedom to bring up other related topics. Wow! Isn't that a mind-expanding thought?
"At some point, if you're a third the cost, even if you lose one vehicle in five, you start getting a lot more business."
Companies price their products to what the market will bear, if he could price it at Arianne - 5%, he would. He's having to deep discount and that suggests he's having difficulty attracting customers with so many teething problems.
"Reliability isn't everything"
We use to send mobile phones via registered post in the UK. A lot of them were stolen, our contract meant we received the value of the phone back from their insurance. We lost those customers who didn't re-order, we got a bad reputation and eventually we had enough and ditched Royal Mail. See it only works if you ONLY count the cost of the lost satellite, not the damage it does by the failure to launch as contracted.
SpaceX need to improve their reliability, and get their heavy launcher out the door. Less hype, less fake 'reusable' claims from a rocket that gone only 2 feet off the ground. Less BS attacks on competitors, they need to iron out THEIR problems with THEIR first launcher. Discounting to keep customers is a short term fix only.
As it is, it looks like he's trying to draw attention away from his owns companies problems.
... Until one of your rockets explode while going up, or even on the launchpad.
Not to belittle SpaceX, but they have had, what? Four successful launches so far? Ariane has had 62 successful launches out of 66.
And don't get me started on Soyuz rockets - the first one flew in 1966 - with 1600+ successful launches to its credit.
Wake me up when SpaceX has had 60+ launches without a hitch. Until then, Musk is just talking P.R. for his firm.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
By doing this, he is pushing the politicians. Smart man.
Especially with governments who have traditionally viewed keeping this kind of know-how a matter of national security.
And what government would that be?
Did you want a list? The governments of: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Happy?
Not really, Space X is a US company with it's headquarters and launch sites in the USA, those countries can regulate all they want without affecting Elon Musk and Space X in any way. The only regulations Space X has to worry about are Uncle Sams's, and possibly the eventuality that the Pan Galactic Transport Authority might slam Space X with a fine for launching space trash into their hyperspace bypass.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Arianespace is a private company, with private shareholders.
http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp
And how many of these shareholders are government owned?
What more needs to be said.
Instead of developing Ariane 6 Arianspace could just buy up 51% of SpaceX after their IPO - then they can mostly do what they want with it.
Ariane 5 is and continues to be a success but the premise on which Ariane 5 was built -- heavy payloads -- is a small and shrinking market segment. Ariane 5 can launch two payloads, but matching payloads -- the right orbital configuration and mass constraints -- is not easy.
Arianespace hedged their bets by bringing this Soyuz launchers over to CSG with a new (ESA-funded) launchpad at Sinnamari. The much smaller Vega rocket is way off in the distance. The reasoning for Ariane 6 (not having to pay the Russians, as far as I can work out) is sound enough, but the politics (money for France for A6 vs money for Germany for revised A5) is getting in the way.
Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
Completely wrong.
EU legislation can make the market for Space X very limited and increase the cost per launch due to reduced launch frequency of Space X. You want a concrete example of this. For years India's ISRO had the cheapest launch vehicle for LEO. (This is distinct from their GSLV program which hasn't been very successful). PSLV has an excellent success rate and is cheap. For years they tried to get other countries to launch their satellites on the PSLV. None of the countries placed their satellites on the PSLV.
There is US legislation which prevented any satellite, even a civilian satellite which used US components being launched by countries outside the approved list of launchers, EU, US or Russia. I am not sure if China is now on the list as well. India got on the list a couple of years ago. Now they launch LEO satellites for Israel, France, SE asia and a growing list of countries. It's not just the cost it's legislation.
EU could very well just legislate for satellites with EU made components to be EU launch only. Or they could just legislate to have all government funded direct or indirect funding to be EU launch vehicles only. Or EU could legislate for all EU television channels to hire only EU launched satellite transponders and if EU television channels need to lease transponders on non EU satellites for broadcast in EU require them to get a governmental waiver which oh just takes 9 months to a year to process. This is just the tip of the ice-burg.
Don't for a minute think none of this will happen as there will be retaliation from US. So you won't let your satellites launch on our platform good for you. Think of the only two aircraft manufacturers in the world. It's the same equation here. Some countries cannot or will not be allowed to launch their satellites from US. All of them have to use EU.
Space-x is being delusional here. The market is pretty big and governments will win most of the time. It's also about diplomacy. You launch your puppy on ours we will scratch your back in the UN, WTO and in that free trade agreement.
We shall see.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
SpaceX are only entering marketplaces ESA helped create & develop.
Musk wants ESA to do all the hard work of creating a superheavy lift vehicle and seeing if there is the market demand for its services, then he can enter the market knowing there is the demand.
Energia was actually able to lift a heavier payload. Still, Saturn V was no doubt the most capable rocket the US has ever had.
Place something witty here
EU legislation can make the market for Space X very limited and increase the cost per launch due to reduced launch frequency of Space X.
ESA != EU. They still have to get non-EU players, Norway and Switzerland to go along. If that means that their space industry is precluded from using the best competitor in the field, then it's going to hurt the EU in the long term.
If we really seriously want to move from the expensive launch vehicle, expensive hardware optimization we are currently in, we probably need to do something like this.
You have no chance to survive, Ariane 5, Make your time.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
The closer you launch from the equator, you get a bigger, free boost of energy from the rotation of the earth.
Ariane launches from South America. As a result, the rockets can carry a bigger payload than if they launched from the USA.
EU can take a law restricting exportation of weapon and include satellite in it. Two of the top six satellite manufacturer are european. Such a move would reduce the SpaceX market, but would probably be a bad move.
And EU could also decide to create an ambitious space program and decide to overpaid the launcher company, which could in turn reduce the price of commercial launch. Like SpaceX and US gouvernment.
One thing you have to give credit to Tusk; he's an amazing self promoter.
He talks about these wonderful free market solutions, all the while he runs his Tesla Government Motors on Federal loan money.
His cheapo rocket has had substantial problems in 2 out of the 4 launches. But here he is trying to tell us that Ariane 5 - having 50 of it's last launches go perfect - has "no chance" with his product. And he's saying it with a straight face.
SpaceX will survive if they persuade the politicians to cut NASA budget even more and force NASA to buy from SpaceX. And that is exactly what SpaceX is lobbying for behind closed doors.
Musk is not trashing ESA tech. What he tried to silently convey is that the US gov't will soon invoke the Monroe Doctrine on equatorial French Guyana, the colonial territory where criminals-turned-mercenaries French Foreign Legionaires terrorize to aboriginal amero-indians "in defence" of the ESA space launch platforms. The political left alleges villages had been torched there. Why? Because aboriginal indians protested there that french rocket industry spews lotsa toxic waste and destroys their natural habitat, the jungle environment.
This cannot continue. Frech Guyana needs to stop being french and must become a free state, that can stay independent or freely join in another country in the Americas for mutual prosperity. European colonial powers finally need to stop oppressing and exploiting the American continents! Europe needs to find another launch spot for its Ariane rockets, maybe a floating platform at the open sea or at least offer equal terms of lease to the aboriginal guyanians, similar to how russians pay big bucks for lease of Baikonur-Tyuratam to Kazakhstan's government. Observe, how the kazakhs banned russian launches when the big Proton rockets started to fail serially, spewing extremely toxic unburnt fuel over the steppe. Kazakhs forced russians to fix their tech before continuing with the lease. Guyanian aboriginals currently have no such power, as the french legionaire mercenaries seal their mouths with rifle butts.
Mr. Musk, please ask Mr. Obama to grant the gift of freedom to the oppressed amero-indians of "French" Guyana! Kick Europe out of the new continents!
All that the EU can do to SpaceX is to impact his suppliers (which are few in number.... SpaceX makes most of their own components from raw bulk materials like sheets of aluminum, titanium, and steel) or his potential customers in the EU. Given that few of his customers are in the EU, it isn't all that big of a deal to them and increased regulations by the EU would impact all potential launchers.
It should be noted that until recently, it was the Ariane rockets that carried the bulk of commercial spaceflight vehicles. In other words, increased regulations on spaceflight (assuming they "play fair" and impose those regulations equally to all companies participating) would mainly kill European companies who are doing (and still doing currently) a very robust commercial business. Much of the reason why they have the launch rate that they do is because they have been very competitive on the world market and undercut American launch companies like Boeing (with the Delta rockets) and Lockheed-Martin (with the Atlas rockets). They worked their way to become compliant with American regulations like ITAR, but were also in a position to avoid ITAR if needed so they could launch vehicles from companies that American launch providers can't because of American regulations. There are some ESA payloads as well as satellites that have been launched by EU members.... but those will likely go to Arianespace anyway regardless of how cheap SpaceX makes their launch prices go and will never be on the table for SpaceX.
Arianespace can become an EU-only launch provider, but they will give up most of the market by doing so. Elon Musk's assertion here is that he can compete against Arianespace for contracts from countries like Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, and Qatar. None of those countries care or will even pay attention to EU regulations and will go to SpaceX if they can provide a launch for a quarter of the price that Arianespace can offer for the same payload. That should be a no-brainer, especially if SpaceX can deliver the same level of reliability that Arianespace is currently providing.
That really is the trick for SpaceX right now: to prove that their system is reliable enough that you can be 95%+ certain that the payload will make the trip into the intended orbit. A whole bunch of people are waiting to see if SpaceX can deliver on that promise, and that is the only real selling point at the moment for either Arianespace or RKK Energia for that matter. It has nothing to do with governments, but simply engineering that is well done and quality manufacturing processes.
It should be pointed out that SpaceX has figured out how to reduce the cost of its launches to the point that the subsidy needed for Arianespace to compete would be embarrassing and noticeable to EU members and their constituents. Keep in mind SpaceX is making their rockets so cheap that even the Chinese don't think they can underbid SpaceX.
If the ESA was to expand slightly and include additional EU members (ESA and EU membership... while there is considerable overlap... isn't identical), they might be able to embark in an incredibly ambitious space program like a manned European Lunar or Martian program on a level comparable to NASA but with a much larger budget. Keep in mind though that would be a financial commitment of about $100 billion USD (or equivalent)... and I don't think it would be any cheaper simply because it is a European concept instead of being an American one. Just see if something like that would fly through the EU parliament, much less national parliaments in the EU in terms of funding.
The reason why top satellite manufacturers are in the EU is in part because Arianespace has been successful at competing on the international market, and because American legal regulations have been idiotic to put it mildly. ITAR regulations alone have driven out much of the commercial spaceflight market from America, which has gone almost exclusively to Europe and a few launches to Russia via RKK Energia/Roscosmos. China has tried to enter this market too, but they've had their own set of problems.
The satellites made in the EU are often being done on a contract basis, and if the EU wants to follow in the stupid path that the American Congress has done over the past couple of decades to drive out commercial spaceflight business.... EU companies would have the same problems that American launch providers have faced over the past couple of decades but without the American military or American military budgets to prop them up.
From the page you listed:
They include companies from the Ariane industrial team and national space agencies
Yeah, that sounds like "private shareholders". Almost everything Arianespace gets involved with in terms of major decisions requires diplomats from various governments and frequently decisions are made for political and not fiscal reasons. While not unusual in the EU, you shouldn't confuse this with how SpaceX is financed, as the ownership of SpaceX is entirely from private entities (although it wouldn't surprise me if In-Q-Tel has a small stake in SpaceX already).
That entirely depends on the type of regulations involved. For example, they could make conditions on the launch vehicles used for European satellites which the Ariane fulfils, but the Falcon doesn't, and if it were modified to fulfil them, it would get just as expensive as the Ariane.
Think of the only two aircraft manufacturers in the world.
Huh?? There are literally hundreds of aircraft manufacturers in the world.
I can't find any reference for Energia lifting a bigger payload. Just references that show Saturn VB lifting more. Can you point to your source? I'm curious.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Don't forget the US itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations
It should be pointed out that SpaceX has figured out how to reduce the cost of its launches to the point that the subsidy needed for Arianespace to compete would be embarrassing and noticeable to EU members and their constituents. Keep in mind SpaceX is making their rockets so cheap that even the Chinese don't think they can underbid SpaceX.
Sources? Because India's PSLV has a flyaway cost of 17 million $ per launch and Russian launch vehicles are even cheaper. SpaceX said they were developing a reusable launch system, but until now they haven't.
It will hurt the people who want to launch satellites. It will help the people who want to build rockets. IMHO the latter industry is the more important one, thus protectionism could well end up helping the EU.
Of course this is all assuming the EU will actually bother. Right now we have no reason to think it will, aside from speculation on Slashdot.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
SpaceX is working on a TRUE SHLV that will take 150-200 tonnes to LEO that will be out before 2020.
Keep in mind that FH takes 53 tonnes to LEO, Delta IV H does 22.5 tonnes to LEO, and the Arianne 5 does 21 tonnes to LEO.
Musk and Shotwell are dropping specs and other hints on the launch vehicle over and over. However, once FH is up and flying we will see more about this. At that time, the SLS will be dead.
The Falcon Heavy is still in development.
The Falcon 9 has a 75% success rate and a 25% partial success/partial failure rate after 4 launches.
The Ariane 5 has a 94% success rate, a 3% partial success/partial failure rate, and a 3% failure rate, after 66 launches.
Everything I've read says the Falcon series is likely to be very reliable, but the proof of the success is in the launching - and the Ariane 5 has more launches under its belt. I hope Musk succeeds and lowers launch costs for everyone, but he hasn't proven anything yet.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
SpaceX has the F9 for doing monthly, if not weekly launches. In fact, they plan to have so many, that they are buying land for another base. As they drop the price of launches, they are counting on more nations and companies want to go up to LEO, the moon and Mars. The reason for the FH is that it is using the same first stage as the F9. As such, it is just like launching 3-4 F9's at once, but for less than double the price. That will allow them to put up larger and cheaper loads. The much larger launch vehicle that will come around 2020 is expected for putting loads on the moon and mars.
That entirely depends on the type of regulations involved. For example, they could make conditions on the launch vehicles used for European satellites which the Ariane fulfils, but the Falcon doesn't, and if it were modified to fulfil them, it would get just as expensive as the Ariane.
I don't possibly see how modifying the faring and coupling links on satellites as well as launch standards that the Falcon 9 currently has which aren't similarly a problem for the Ariane 5 that would end up causing the Falcon 9 to cost 2x-4x the current launch price. You are talking hypothetically here on something that simply wouldn't happen.
At best, all that the EU could do is to simply not let European manufacturers launch on non-European launchers. But that would make those European satellite manufacturers to simply lose business to American, Russian, Chinese, and Indian companies. Oh, and I suppose Brazil is getting into the business too.
This is a very competitive global market with lots of players... both in terms of customers (not all of them are even governments) and a whole lot of suppliers. Anybody treating this as a monopoly or even monopsony situation simply doesn't understand the commercial spaceflight market at all... which is the point of why this concern about European regulations is totally ludicrous. Not only is the market pretty large, but it is getting larger and there are many more players involved along with multiple governments... any one of which is more than willing to undercut the "competition" to get the business. In other words, a real competitive marketplace where launchers are now seen as commodities for commercial activity.
What is the cost per kilogram delivered into LEO? The Falcon 9 can deliver 13 metric tons to LEO for $54 million, or $4 million per metric ton. That PSLV rocket that you are quoting only puts 3 metric tons to LEO for the $17 million, or about $5 million (plus change) per metric ton. The $54 million is the quote on the SpaceX Falcon 9 web page if you want the source.
Russia has actually raised their launch prices in part because of the demand for them is outstripping their supply and they have a backlog on production at the moment. They are simply being capitalists, which is a good thing too but sort of shoots your theory out of the water. Name a specific launcher if you think it can be more competitive.
The Ariane V vehicle has a launch cost of $120 million and puts about 15 metric tons into orbit, or about $8 million per metric ton. In other words, it is literally twice the cost as the Falcon 9. It can put up a slightly heavier payload at the moment, but that is something SpaceX is trying to fix with their Falcon Heavy rocket.
If you want to find the source from Chinese space officials who toured the SpaceX plant in Hawthorne, California and said they couldn't compete, do some Google searching on the topic. I won't bother but it was widely reported at the time including a post here on Slashdot when it happened.
Just privatise the largest single government monopoly to be the largest private monopoly and still be legal.
Sweden did that with Systembolaget :) Should work for space ships too no?
The largest rocket that RKK Energia ever built was the N1. It had a higher launch pad thrust than the five F1 engines combined, but ultimately didn't put as much payload into LEO (IMHO what really counts). That is also why if you watch Saturn V launches, it seems like it takes a long time for the rocket to leave the launch pad. All of that mass with a modest set of thrusters doesn't gain as much acceleration as something a bit more powerful. The Space Shuttle, by comparison, seemed to leap off of the launch pad.
It will help the people who want to build rockets. IMHO the latter industry is the more important one
No, it isn't. The launch industry is completely irrelevant without something to launch. That's what happened with the Space Shuttle. NASA made a huge vehicle with no need for the vehicle and then spent many decades rationalizing the decision rather than do actual space development. If Arianespace and the ESA go that route, then what are they going to launch on this platform? Makework that has no value to anyone other than the people skimming off of it.
Kinda shocked no one made a "all your base" reference here.
Also kinda shocked there isn't a beowulf cluster comment considering Falcon Heavy is a cluster rocket setup...
The Saturn V stack burned through 10% of its total fuel and oxidiser load (about 200 tonnes) just clearing the tower. Despite the giant F1 motors in the first stage it was actually underpowered for its takeoff mass; at T-0 when the clamps came off its acceleration upwards was only 1.5G gross (or 0.5G net). It relied as all rockets do on burning fuel to reduce its mass fast enough that its acceleration would increase. When the first stage was just about empty it was pulling 4Gs gross since it had lost over half its takeoff mass.
The Shuttle's acceleration profile on takeoff wasn't actually much different to the Saturn V, pulling 0.5G net on liftoff but it took a lot less time to get into orbit, 510 seconds compared to the Saturn V's 680 seconds or so. It topped out at about 3Gs gross rather than the more brutal Saturn V's max of 4G gross but the longer time taken is due to the lower acceleration of the Saturn V's second and third stages. In comparison the Shuttle achieved peak Gs about a minute before the ET was empty.
What is the cost per kilogram delivered into LEO? The Falcon 9 can deliver 13 metric tons to LEO for $54 million, or $4 million per metric ton. That PSLV rocket that you are quoting only puts 3 metric tons to LEO for the $17 million, or about $5 million (plus change) per metric ton. The $54 million is the quote on the SpaceX Falcon 9 web page if you want the source.
That link is about the still non-existent Falcon 9 v1.1, that's why I'm very dubious: it's just trash talking, smoke and mirrors. They said the Falcon 1 would have been the first reusable and cheap launch system, it wasn't; then it was the time of Falcon 5, it was never built; then NASA came to the rescue and fully funded Falcon 9, neither this time it was reusable, however they say Falcon 9 v1.1 will be: I'll believe it when I see it.
Just to point out, according to the original sheets the planned launch cost for Falcon 9 was $35-55 m for 8.5-9 t (2007), in 2010 it was already $50-56 m, now it's "under $60 million".
So being generous, i.e. SpaceX 2010 prices vs. PSLV 2012 prices:
Falcon 9 v1.0 | 8.5t-9.0t | $56 million | 6.22-7 million $/t
PSLV | 3.25 t | $17 million | 5.23 million $/t
Russian and Ukrainian launches are still cheaper. I don't know about Chinese launches, but I'd bet their cheaper as well...
Yes and then the EU will never sell another jet fighter, missile system or even Airbus Jet outside of its borders as all of those contain major pieces of US tech. Airbus jets on average contain about 30% US content. The fact is that the EU won't pull such a stunt because as you point out many US products rely on a great deal of European tech and would be affected by such shenanigans. The issue in this case though relates to Ariane 5s flawed business model. The Ariane 5 is simply too big for EU government payloads so most of those are launched on Soyuz or even US rockets. Ariane 5 depends almost exclusively on commercial satellites to fund it's operations and this means they need about 6 launches a year for 12 satellites comprising about 50% of the global market, in general the Ariane 5 is only used for one EU launch a year, usually the ATV which is going away after 2 more launches anyway. With SpaceX undercutting their prices Arianespace will no longer be able to get 50% of the market thus undercutting their business model, and since the Rocket is way to big for EU science and French and British military payloads; Arianespace can't depend on government contracts to bail them out the way the US Government pays for the Atlas V and Delta IV programs. The simple fact is the puppy is going to be launched, the puppy will grow up quickly and take a lot of Arianespace business and given that it is an American Puppy there isn't anything the EU can do about it other than try to fix the flawed Ariane business model. The EU should be launching Ariane 6 ASAP instead of complaining that Musks dog hunts a lot better than theirs does.
NASA did not "fully fund" the Falcon 9. I'm not even sure where you get that notion. That NASA did subsidize the development effort I'd agree, along with some DARPA funding and a whole lot of private investor equity as well.
As for differences between originally planed specifications and what was actually delivered, I'd suggest you talk to any engineer who has worked on a project that took longer than a year and ask them if the specifications ever met what was originally planned. Customer needs change and so sometimes engineers can tweak performance.
All you are pointing out is that SpaceX is competitive with the other launchers. Is that a revelation? Launching with the Ariane 5 is currently at a premium price in part because of reliability and its ties with the ESA. More important for SpaceX, they are winning contracts.
The original thread was about how Arianespace could tweak costs of things like faring couplers and a whole sheaf of regulations from European regulators (through lobbying presumably) that would drive the Falcon 9 prices above that of Ariane launches. My contention is that even doing that Arianespace is not going to be able to cut costs that much without massive subsidizes... which even your cost numbers bear out.