Late this year, European governments will have the opportunity to pay up or shut up.
See full article...
See full article...
ESA finally has a commercial launch strategy, but will member states pay?
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I would hope the EU is aggressively pursuing modernizing its space program. Despite how costly they are, having a strong, capable space program is also critical to economic independence, because so many elements of the modern world are built around space access in one capacity or another. But the ESA also needs to demonstrate a solid, achievable future-proof strategy worth investing in. And thus far, that's not really been the case, which is further complicated by how far behind the curve they are compared to the current leader in the field (that I desperately want to see knocked down a peg or two with strong, effective competition).
Upvote
56
(61
/
-5)
Norway has the cash today.
I don't see why were bothering with all this talk but I've never considered the Europeans serious about funding space related stuff.
This isn't a lot of money if you consider NASA thought they'd do Falcon 9 without reuse for the same amount. Although the extra per launch subsidies make A6 a financial joke.
Musk wasn't a billionaire by the time SpaceX was founded. Aerospace isn't historically a field that rarely makes individuals wealthy.
Ancient Greece had liturgies a system where the wealthy were expected to contribute to big projects. I don't see why Europe's billionaires can't be prodded into spending. Especially the quietly wealthy ones who have liquid wealth. Not the bubbly valuation wealth of the US. But as I mentioned, Norway has the money anyway.
A point about Europe not being serious.
There's been big noise about moving from Starlink in Ukraine to some other provider (by people who don't understand what edge Starlink in particular gives Ukraine or what capabilities it brings) but the talk is Europe has alternatives. It's been over two weeks. We've estimated the equipment alone will cost $200 to $400 million and despite the claims the sky is falling and money existing somewhere we haven't seen any spending talk in public (I hope something is happening behind closed doors).
BTW Poland isn't spending $50 million year on Starlink in Ukraine. That's the cumulative spend so far since March 2022. I just found this out.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/1057340.html
I don't see why were bothering with all this talk but I've never considered the Europeans serious about funding space related stuff.
This isn't a lot of money if you consider NASA thought they'd do Falcon 9 without reuse for the same amount. Although the extra per launch subsidies make A6 a financial joke.
Musk wasn't a billionaire by the time SpaceX was founded. Aerospace isn't historically a field that rarely makes individuals wealthy.
Ancient Greece had liturgies a system where the wealthy were expected to contribute to big projects. I don't see why Europe's billionaires can't be prodded into spending. Especially the quietly wealthy ones who have liquid wealth. Not the bubbly valuation wealth of the US. But as I mentioned, Norway has the money anyway.
A point about Europe not being serious.
There's been big noise about moving from Starlink in Ukraine to some other provider (by people who don't understand what edge Starlink in particular gives Ukraine or what capabilities it brings) but the talk is Europe has alternatives. It's been over two weeks. We've estimated the equipment alone will cost $200 to $400 million and despite the claims the sky is falling and money existing somewhere we haven't seen any spending talk in public (I hope something is happening behind closed doors).
BTW Poland isn't spending $50 million year on Starlink in Ukraine. That's the cumulative spend so far since March 2022. I just found this out.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/1057340.html
Last edited:
Upvote
25
(34
/
-9)
I agree 4 billion for a new medium lift launcher isn't very much, but I thought Ariana 6 was based to some degree on legacy hardware so was supposed to be cheap to build out. Similar to SLS. Lol
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
Being able to launch satellites seems to be another thing that it'd be best for Europe not to rely on the US for - given US foreign policy, leading to the realisation that Europe now needs its own communications and positioning systems ahead of the day when the US denies access to GPS and Starlink as leverage in some dispute or other.
Upvote
13
(23
/
-10)
Behind the curve how?
I'm fairly pleased that space access is a national priority, rather than a playing field for a European Elon Musk. We have those too, like Richard Branson and Michael O'Leary. I'd rather space was a part of the national security infrastructure, with a side-loading of commercial activity.
We're only behind the curve if we accept that European Elon Musks deserve a place at the decision desk.
Upvote
-5
(21
/
-26)
Not that I want to see a picture of Carlos Mazón (unless it's a photo of him resigning), but at least for me that picture seems to have been swapped for a Napster promo image.
Upvote
17
(19
/
-2)
Bill Swallow
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Well, this seems like it might be a first tentative step in the right direction - if they can follow through on it.
Assuming Europe can muster the political will, establish a workable framework for the necessary legal and political environment, get adequate funding put together, put people in charge who understand the job and know what they're doing, hire the right folks - and then, most importantly, stay out of their way, then this could work. It will NOT be easy. Or cheap. Or fast.
Just as a first wild-assed guess, I'd say if they start now and follow through, maybe they'll have something useful in, what, twenty years or so? That's a long time to fend off all the things that can kneecap an effort like this.
Me, I'd love to see this happen. (I probably won't live that long, though.) It would be interesting to see if building a commercial space infrastructure running more or less in parallel with what they have now would let them do an end-run around the whole 'geo-return' issue and the issues of too many political cooks spoiling the space industry broth.
Assuming Europe can muster the political will, establish a workable framework for the necessary legal and political environment, get adequate funding put together, put people in charge who understand the job and know what they're doing, hire the right folks - and then, most importantly, stay out of their way, then this could work. It will NOT be easy. Or cheap. Or fast.
Just as a first wild-assed guess, I'd say if they start now and follow through, maybe they'll have something useful in, what, twenty years or so? That's a long time to fend off all the things that can kneecap an effort like this.
Me, I'd love to see this happen. (I probably won't live that long, though.) It would be interesting to see if building a commercial space infrastructure running more or less in parallel with what they have now would let them do an end-run around the whole 'geo-return' issue and the issues of too many political cooks spoiling the space industry broth.
Upvote
8
(10
/
-2)
By being literally behind the curve. ESA's launch capabilities can't even match Falcon-9 or Falcon Heavy. And Starship is going through its teething phase of development, after which, NOTHING is remotely comparable. The ESA has a lot of ground to cover before it catches up to the state of the art. And the best plan they've got so far is from Arianespace which is to reuse some existing tech from its fully disposable rockets to build...another fully disposable rocket. Because that worked out so well for SLS....
Upvote
6
(29
/
-23)
What about launchpad infrastructure? US have full advantage here. Each launchpad inside territory, with mature personel, infrastructure and full national wide logistics support.
I can't imagine how much cost of each European state must support for their own launchpad and all logistics support while less likely each pad will have many rocket launch like US pads to make economically scale.
I can't imagine how much cost of each European state must support for their own launchpad and all logistics support while less likely each pad will have many rocket launch like US pads to make economically scale.
Upvote
-11
(4
/
-15)
European countries don't need a launchpad each....
.... and it's not necessarily down to a need to be commercially competitive with the US alternative (that would likely be sold at a "good price" to make non-US competitors go bust due to lack of business with price rises to follow) - just low enough cost to be viable while at the same time independent of the potential for US Governmental veto....
Upvote
23
(25
/
-2)
The problem is that it will create lots of small launchers each favored by one country with not enough payloads to throw. The situation is fundamentally different from the US, there is no Californian rocket or Texan rocket.
Geo-return is a pain, but it's the way to convince Germans and Frenchs to work together. Arianespace problem is that of competence, they were once a leader in commercial launch without ever designing a rocket.
Geo-return is a pain, but it's the way to convince Germans and Frenchs to work together. Arianespace problem is that of competence, they were once a leader in commercial launch without ever designing a rocket.
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
This advantage cannot be overstated. Between being huge in IT with its enormous profit margins, and the economic soft power established since WW2 making european and global investors move capital to the US, there's an incredible (over)availability of money.
The European economy is larger and stronger than paper numbers makes it seem.
The US has gargantuan companies enabled by a large population sharing (more or less) the same language and culture (and rarely enforced antitrust) creating low barriers for growth, whereas EU/Europe is 27/30+ countries with separate languages, cultures and laws, impeding international growth. Alleviating those issues are in no small part a reason for EUs continued existence.
The crazy revenue/profit and valuation of startups and gargantuan IT-companies increases the US economy far more than other industries would. In 2024 the "magnificent seven" alone (Alphabet, Tesla, Nvidia, etc.), represent ~35% of the S&P 500. Those inflated valuations then become venture capital.
This in turn creates billionaires whose pocket money equates to entire countries' space budgets.
From the New Deal and Marshall Plan up until the past decade or so, the US has done so many things right. How sad that the giant now seems intent on succumbing to its own success.
EDIT(s): My literary skills leaves a lot to be desired.
Last edited:
Upvote
50
(52
/
-2)
i think they need something like DARPA challenges or googles lunar xprize.
this idea does not induce innovation, but leveleing out the funding mechanism.
this idea does not induce innovation, but leveleing out the funding mechanism.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
Not sure that's necessary - as the "what do we do as and when the US stops letting us launch using US systems" question will spur on the decision making process - it's innovation through necessity, which has been proven by time to be a massive motivator.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
I'm fairly sure that american billionaires on average get better ROI and impact for their investments than similar levels of governments spending. Even slow Blue Origin is delivering value compared to what NASA & Boeing achieve with Artemis funding.
So in many ways efficiency gains from private investment is probably favouring US. These investments are just not directed by democratic processes at all, so it is hit and miss if you end up getting stronger yacht maintenance service industry or reusable launch vehicles...
I don't think EU / ESA as an insitution can compete with billionaire investors ever. Money is just too tainted by bureacratic processes. Only way to compete would be to have more private investments. European old money just doesn't seem to be interested in such literal "moonshot" projects and we have way less new money thanks to the reasons you mentioned above.
Upvote
-3
(12
/
-15)
Theoretically, the EU does have that as well with French Guyana, where for example the JWST was launched (flawlessly one might add). But yes, we probably need something closer to home. At least, money no longer is the limiting issues
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
The ESA is not the EU. The ESA includes non-EU countries Norway, Canada, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom and does not include EU countries Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, and Malta.
Unless I totally botched my quick spreadsheet, the ESA has a GDP of just over $24 trillion, vs. the US GDP of $27 trillion.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Space_Agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway
Upvote
54
(56
/
-2)
Also, what's up with the image that is captioned as "Carlos Mazón, president of autonomous community of Valencia in Spain, visits the facilities of PLD Space in January. PLD Space is one of the European launch startups that might contend in the European Launcher Challenge."?? It seems to be a bunch of Apple products.
Above critiques aside and getting to the substance (or at least the question in the headline, which appears to be an exception to Betteridge) of the article:
I think ESA member countries will be more than happy to throw money at this. The distrust and outright hate for the current ownership of SpaceX is strong, and the costs of this program are pretty trivial in comparison to national budgets--especially when viewed in light of the correct ESA GDP. Both strategic and commercial interests will very much prefer "domestic" (or whatever term is appropriate for an entity like ESA) launch capacity going forward, just as they will prefer non-US cloud services.
I also think that the approach now being taken is going to be a boon to the ESA and that combined with the strong anti-US/anti-SpaceX sentiment among the population, they will catch up a hell of a lot faster than they would have with Ariane alone.
Above critiques aside and getting to the substance (or at least the question in the headline, which appears to be an exception to Betteridge) of the article:
I think ESA member countries will be more than happy to throw money at this. The distrust and outright hate for the current ownership of SpaceX is strong, and the costs of this program are pretty trivial in comparison to national budgets--especially when viewed in light of the correct ESA GDP. Both strategic and commercial interests will very much prefer "domestic" (or whatever term is appropriate for an entity like ESA) launch capacity going forward, just as they will prefer non-US cloud services.
I also think that the approach now being taken is going to be a boon to the ESA and that combined with the strong anti-US/anti-SpaceX sentiment among the population, they will catch up a hell of a lot faster than they would have with Ariane alone.
Last edited:
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Europe has a reusable rocket already? The OP was talking about capabilities, not policy or control to get there. It's extremely possible that Starship will be completed before the EU does. I'm not enthusiastic about Elon Musk holding the keys to orbit, but hiding your head in the sand won't make SpaceX's cost per flight advantage go away.
Upvote
14
(17
/
-3)
ok, but this is reverse engineering of sorts. eu is not innovation friendly, it is money spending friendly. they say we have $$$ money for something like: space, the new frontier and we are accepting projects. guess what 95% of the projets will contain web page, video of the proccess, fancy words connected to the project and the real thing will be 3 sensors from alibaba, connected with a carton blackbox, measuring the light distribution at the corners, when hit by a laser from different angles. project name: exploring edge cases in tight space illumination...
Upvote
-19
(2
/
-21)
You are mistaken. Ariane 4 absolutely dominated the market for GEO launch, which pretty much was the entire commercial launch market at the time
Upvote
41
(41
/
0)
I'm just trying to figure out which one of the young ladies in the image is Carlos Mazón.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
The biggest problem of the EU is that it's a set of countries that have it's own priorities and don't agree about things, and the existence of anty EU right wing political parties making things worse by criticizing EU joint ventures.
It's way easier to accomplish things being a one large country with a common language, and one internal and external policy.
It's way easier to accomplish things being a one large country with a common language, and one internal and external policy.
Last edited:
Upvote
6
(10
/
-4)
Europe (and China, Russia, and everyone else including ULA, Blue Origin and even Rocket Lab) are all way behind SpaceX in terms of technical capabilities. No one else in the world can launch a rocket, land the booster and then launch it again. Much less 25 times. Much less with a two week turnaround. No one.
Thats what we mean here, that the rest of the world is behind SpaceX.
Upvote
19
(23
/
-4)
So my one objection to this article is calling "Blue Origin" a major player. It's not. It's launched New Glenn once. ULA has launched Vulcan twice. Those are not "major player" numbers.
Now maybe Bezos has lit a fire under the BO ass to get them moving more quickly, but until they can launch at least once a month, they're not a major player. Same with Ariane 6.
It gives Europe some (!) self sufficiency and a backup, but not alot considering the flight rate it has.
Then we get to Starship. They've landed the 1st stage three times on the chopsticks. No one else has ever landed a first stage ONCE and reused it, much less at that size. SpaceX is blazing a trail and showing everyone what is possible. Now in 20 years I expect there to be more changes, but ... who knows what? SpaceX will probably still be a leader, but hopefully some others will be viable competitors.
Now maybe Bezos has lit a fire under the BO ass to get them moving more quickly, but until they can launch at least once a month, they're not a major player. Same with Ariane 6.
It gives Europe some (!) self sufficiency and a backup, but not alot considering the flight rate it has.
Then we get to Starship. They've landed the 1st stage three times on the chopsticks. No one else has ever landed a first stage ONCE and reused it, much less at that size. SpaceX is blazing a trail and showing everyone what is possible. Now in 20 years I expect there to be more changes, but ... who knows what? SpaceX will probably still be a leader, but hopefully some others will be viable competitors.
Upvote
3
(7
/
-4)
I've been skeptical about upper stage starship reuse for a while (worth noting it was considered for F9) and encouraging putting it into operation today as a Starlink launcher.
But even if upper stage reusability is a complete failure, I don't see how it isn't going to make financial sense regardless compared to the competition.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
There is a strong pitch within ESA for the idea that if everyone agrees to pay the higher price for Ariane 6, and stick their fingers in their ears and shout “LA LA LA”, the unfair extra capabilities* of SpaceX somehow won’t matter.
Source: friend who was fired for advocating Themis be speeded up/prioritised.
*Mass, cheap launch, with very short lead times and schedule flexibility.
Upvote
3
(10
/
-7)
Europe is at least 8 to 10 years away from being able to replicate the military capabilities that Starlink currently enables. Ariane 6 would need (at least) significant ramping to handle the launch requirements, and satellite manufacturing would also need to be ramped up.
Upvote
0
(10
/
-10)
thelongdarkteatimeof
Ars Praetorian
The EU already has Galileo and IRIS2... Moving off of US systems is already in progress.
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
thelongdarkteatimeof
Ars Praetorian
Upvote
-6
(4
/
-10)
IRIS2 IOC is NET 2030, and it will have serious operational weaknesses compared to Starlink because it only plans 3% as many satellites as Starlink currently operates.
Upvote
4
(12
/
-8)
The first CRS award to SpaceX was $1.9B ($2.4B in 2025 dollars), in the form of a 12 mission purchase comitment.
I think you can just stop right there, and say that ESA members, sadly, remain unserious about developing commercial launch in Europe.
Upvote
12
(16
/
-4)
Indeed. Hopefully the Joint Expeditionary Force (hopefully expanded to include all but a few of the rest of NATO) will update its equipment so as not to rely on any US systems. While interoperability with the US may suffer, that would be on them as a consequence of their recent muscle flexing foreign policy decision making.
Upvote
6
(9
/
-3)