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....
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.
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
He founded Tesla which has yet to produce a car which is more than an expensive toy that few people can afford.
How is that a scam? Who's forcing you to buy a Tesla?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
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.
So, an Apple customer?
"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.
I being forced to pay for it though taxes in the form of government loans and tax breaks to those that purchase these vehicles.
Here's a hint for you -- the $7500 tax credit is just that -- a credit on taxes. The car costs $100k.
Odds are the buyers are paying more in taxes than most people on Slashdot make, so guess what? Its *their* taxes that are paying for those vehicles, not yours.
As someone who pays well into the six figures in just federal income tax, let me be the first to say "fuck you". *My* taxes are paying for those discounts. *My* taxes are paying for your schools. *My* taxes are more than an order of magnitude higher than any benefits *I* get from the government.
And guess what? *I* am not so fucking shortsighted as to complain that my taxes are going to things that help the country, and help the environment.
... 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)
It's a scam in the same way that all heavyweight electric vehicles are in the real world. Half a billion dollars of Federal "loans" has produced resource intensive toys with poorer than advertised range and performance, that catch fire, the batteries brick themselves, and even even if everything worked, the majority of the electricity used to charge them is still coming from fossil sources and will continue to do so until well after the extant Teslas are being shoved into landfills.
If they worked, and if we had enough grid capacity to charge them and if a lot (a lot) more electricity came from renewable sources and if those renewable sources weren't themselves a financially and fossil-energy subsidised techno-welfare scam... then they'd be just dandy.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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
Thank you. You are a good citizen and a patriot.
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.
Yeah because it's a negative sum economy and that money would have went directly to the poor people that need it. How is life in the Hollywood movie you live in?
Here's a hint for you -- the $7500 tax credit is just that -- a credit on taxes. The car costs $100k.
Yes, people who buy $100,000 toys really need the tax break.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That money was going to the poor people until the government stole it to give to the 1%.
If you want to talk about economic theft, who do you think the government "stole" that money from in the first place? Who do you think pays most of the taxes? Who do you think provides the jobs? Who do you think invests their money back into the economy? The great thing about having your simplistic view of class warfare is the so-called "1 percent" will always be here for you to villainize no matter how prosperous everybody else is. Even in the most socialist and centrally planned economies there is a top 1 percent.
I honestly don't know how anyone can support taking money from someone working on a low wage to give to some finance fat-cat to go towards buying a new car they can show off to their coworkers for a few days.
I see you peeing yourself in spasmodic glee over your populist misinterpretation of my arguments. Enjoy.
So I'm not surprised you're posting anonymously.
Using a computer at an actual place of work without sending credentials over the wire. Not that you would know anything about that I'm sure.
*My* taxes are more than an order of magnitude higher than any benefits *I* get from the government.
So move to Somalia.
Oh, wait - maybe you are getting something for your money.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you want to talk about economic theft, who do you think the government "stole" that money from in the first place? Who do you think pays most of the taxes? Who do you think provides the jobs? Who do you think invests their money back into the economy? The great thing about having your simplistic view of class warfare is the so-called "1 percent" will always be here for you to villainize no matter how prosperous everybody else is. Even in the most socialist and centrally planned economies there is a top 1 percent.
C'mon, Mitt. I know you're out of work, but surely you've got better things to do than post on Slashdot.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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!"
Yes, that's exactly what he said in his closing sentence.
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.
As a result, the rockets can carry a bigger payload than if they launched from the USA.
A bigger payload is irrelevant if it costs 2x as much per pound launched. And the difference in launch velocity between Florida and French Guiana is probably less than 200 m/s, which saves you a few thousand dollars in fuel.
How exactly does reducing the cost of a Tesla by $7500 do any good for the country?
Or is "Fuck You" your actual argument and no further information is needed?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
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.
I don't know about you, but my commute is only about 20 miles round-trip daily. If an electric gets only 50 miles on a charge I can still run some errands on the way home even if work doesn't install a charging station for me. If it weren't for the speed limits I could get away with a GEM neighborhood electric vehicle. I choose not to afford a $60K electric car, but if I really, really wanted one I could probably save up for two or three years for the bulk of the purchase price and could finance the rest.
I like the progressive tax system and I think that either a new upper tier needs to be defined for a higher tax rate or else the rates in general could stand to increase at the top level, but I'm okay with a few tax subsidies at those levels as well. An electric car is one that I agree with at this point in time, because if the wealthy start to accept electric cars, then that might help drag the market for middle income new-car buyers with it when car manufacturers see that there is indeed interest.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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).
While PayPal may have evolved into a ripoff, when it first came out it was a godsend. Remember paying for things on eBay using money orders? Musk then turned his attention to big, serious engineering challenges that nobody else had the vision or cojones to tackle. Which is much more than can be said for you, Anonymous Coward.
Kourou vs Canaveral gains typically about 2% payload. For a $100 million dollar launch that is worth nearly $2million. Not a big deal if you are a US company, but given Europe's lack of alternatives it is definitely the place to be for Arianespace
If you don't agree with those tax breaks, vote for people who will get them repealed. These tax breaks are not just for Tesla vehicles either, but for any electric automobile made by any company... including Toyota, General Motors, or Fisker. If you think it is such a good deal, why don't you dismantle a few golf carts and make your own electric automobile company?
The government isn't spending a dime here. It is just not collecting federal excise taxes that otherwise would be collected if the person purchasing the automobile had purchased something else instead.
Besides, the federal government isn't exactly losing money either,as Tesla still is paying federal income tax on earnings as well as on salaries for its employees. Telsa is also paying property taxes for its factories and dozens of other taxes are being paid to state and local government authorities. You shouldn't be crying too hard about "government spending" here that isn't even happening in the first place. If nobody buys a Tesla Model S, the tax would never have been collected in the first place.
On top of that, the Model S has a starting price of about $50k, and Tesla is looking to eventually develop a high volume-low cost consumer vehicle once they get enough working capital from hopefully robust sales of their other products. The next generation vehicle is anticipated to cost about $30k... while still expensive is definitely something more affordable for a non-millionaire. That sounds like an excellent reason to even encourage this kind of business and marketing behavior to have the wealthy help finance the development of a low-cost consumer vehicle by offering luxury vehicles that also do something useful for the environment.
The government isn't spending a dime here. It is just not collecting federal excise taxes that otherwise would be collected if the person purchasing the automobile had purchased something else instead.
That loss in federal revenue has to be made up some wear either though reduced services, increased taxes, or increased borrowing.
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.
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 brings it from the price range of "ultra-rich only" to the price range of "very well off", and that's important. Every additional person who can afford to purchase such a vehicle is simultaneously a reduction in fuel consumption, a reduction in emissions, and (this is the big one) an improvement in the economies of scale necessary to reduce the cost of such cars. The mid-range Model S is about 10% cheaper thanks to the tax credit. The base model is 14% cheaper. That doesn't magically move it into the price range of a Mazda or Toyota or Ford, but it does mean that somebody who might otherwise buy a Lexus or Audi (expensive cars, but not really targeted at the 1%) may now see the Model S as being feasible. It's still more expensive, but the difference - the marginal cost - is a lot lower.
That, in turn, helps Tesla bring the price down further on current and future models, and also funds their R&D which currently looks like one of the best approaches to weaning the USA (and eventually the world) off its dependency on gasoline.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Kourou vs Canaveral gains typically about 2% payload. For a $100 million dollar launch that is worth nearly $2million.
Not if your competitor can launch it for $25,000,000.
Wikipedia claims Ariane 5 is over $10,000 per kilo to LEO, while Falcon Heavy is expected to be about $2,250. Assuming they're similarly reliable, no-one is going to pay four times as much for the same launch just because it's closer to the equator.
A good point. I hate PayPal and avoid using it whenever possible, but when Musk was focused on that project, he basically made possible the entire concept of small online payments to individuals who don't have the time or resources to set up PCI themselves, but want to conduct business or accept donations over the Internet.
I don't like what it's turned into over time, and I'd like it if Musk (or somebody) were to slap it around a bit and make it behave more properly, but I don't fault him for creating it, or for moving on to other (IMO, far more interesting) projects since.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
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.
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.
Yes, that's exactly what he said in his closing sentence.
I replied to the wrong guy, didn't I.
Oh, well. Senility starts early in my family.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That money was going to the poor people until the government stole it to give to the 1%.
If you want to talk about economic theft, who do you think the government "stole" that money from in the first place?
Stole? Since when is taxing the same as stealing?
Who do you think pays most of the taxes?
If rich people are paying more than their share, how come we keep hearing about rich people that paid a lower rate then their secretaries, or none at all? How come I paid a higher rate last year than Mitt Romney?
Who do you think provides the jobs? Who do you think invests their money back into the economy?
Whisking it away to the Cayman Islands isn't an investment in the economy... though I suppose it helps keep the Cayman bankers employed.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
The real proper solution is to let people keep their own damn money and let that "welfare recipient" be able to start their own business so they can earn the $100k after taking care of their basic needs and buy their own luxury Tesla vehicle.
I'd rather live in a society where anybody can be rich through hard work than in a society where everybody is equally poor. Buying toys and giving them away to people who didn't earn them just makes everybody poor and these kind of cars would never be made in the first place.
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.
I presume that is the Falcon XX vehicle using the Merlin 2 engine (something that will have the thrust capabilities of the F1 engine used on the Saturn V)? The Falcon XX would fly with six of those Merlin 2 engines, thus giving it in theory a larger payload capacity than even the Saturn V... or as I like to put it the capability of putting a fully loaded and fueled 747 into orbit.
That is a long-term plan at least, but at the moment development work is not happening on the Merlin 2. Elon Musk did float the idea for NASA to help fund the development of the Merlin 2, but Congress hasn't been all that receptive. I wouldn't fault the guy for at least trying.
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.
Tesla has produced cars and sold them. Sure they are expensive but what did you expect? You need vast capital expenditures to make a single high-volume factory which is a necessary investment to make a low cost car. He doesn't have the capital required to do this so he makes a lower volume of higher priced cars.
the buyers are paying more in taxes than most people on Slashdot make
Or they aren't. Try searching the web for Elon Musk's salary (hint: Wikipedia) and then compute the income tax he's paying from that. He is not an isolated case among the entrepreneur class.
I am not against the tax breaks per se. If more people use electrics pollution and oil use go down. However you are extremely nearsighted if you think the people buying these cars all pay the level of income tax you claim to be paying.
Who do you think pays most of the taxes?
Not by percentage of income.
Who do you think provides the jobs?
Who do you think does the bulk of the work which creates the wealth in the first place?
Who do you think invests their money back into the economy?
Elon Musk is one of these people. However not everyone is like him. A lot of these people are investing abroad, not in the US. At least the poor keep their money on US banks where it gets loaned and invested. The money going to the tax shelters abroad is probably not going to be invested in the US.
Do you honestly think these people work 10x more than a middle class citizen to be worth their income, let alone the 1000x or more they earn?
Even in the most socialist and centrally planned economies there is a top 1 percent.
You are being silly if you think even the top echelons of the Soviet Union had the vast differential in wealth the US upper class enjoys. They got a regular car and a summer house and that was it. Even the "nice" car belonged to the State and went back to someone else. Even Stalin himself had to share a house with other people when he was Party Secretary.
Having an educated and physically fit workforce would also be considered to be an asset by other people but I guess he doesn't get it.
And guess what? *I* am not so fucking shortsighted as to complain that my taxes are going to things that help the country, and help the environment.
I'd say the problem here is that you don't complain about things that don't help the country. What's the point of paying a lot in taxes, if they aren't to our collective benefit?
We've all done it at some point :)
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...
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.