Airbus Attacked By French Lawmaker For Talking To SpaceX 168
schwit1 (797399) writes A French lawmaker lashed out at Airbus for daring to consider SpaceX as a possible launch option for a European communications satellite. "The senator, Alain Gournac, who is a veteran member of the French Parliamentary Space Group, said he had written French Economy and Industry Minister Emmanuel Macron to protest Airbus' negotiations with Hawthorne, California-based Space Exploration Technologies Corp. for a late 2016 launch instead of contracting for a launch on a European Ariane 5 rocket. "The negotiations are all the more unacceptable given that, at the insistence of France, Europe has decided to adopt a policy of 'European preference' for its government launches," Gournac said. "This is called playing against your team, and it smacks of a provocation. It's an incredible situation that might lead customers to think we no longer have faith in Ariane 5 — and tomorrow, Ariane 6."
So it is official. (Score:2, Offtopic)
French Lawmakers have bigger balls than american lawmakers who encourage companies to off shore jobs
Re: (Score:2)
Even this particular French lawmaker will be singing a different tune when FHR is fully operational and puts satellites in orbit for $10 million that Ariane needs to charge $200 million just to break even.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because he gets a cut of the $200 million, and zero of the $10 million.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
quelle horreur
If you leave the money with the peasants they might use it badly for things like food and housing.
Much better to make certain it get spent for real needs by the government.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bigger balls? No more like pathetic whiners when the shoe is on the other foot. Keep in mind, France is about to deliver 2 brand new aircraft carriers to Russia, while Russia is invading a NATO-friendly country and threatening to take back Alaska. Playing against the team indeed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Europe (including large contribution from France) is a world leader in space launch. Arianespace is holding around 60% of commercial launch market. But Europeans are really worried about SpaceX grabing a large part of the market.
(Disclosure: I am French :-) )
Re:So it is official. (Score:5, Informative)
Uhhh, you realise that Ariane 5 has launched many many many missions successfully, and has a better reliability record than the US's launch vehicles, right?
SpaceX is in fact the untested upstart in this situation.
Re: So it is official. (Score:5, Informative)
so u can pretend that spacex is not a threat, but the launch world sees it correctly for what it is. More so, come next week.
Re: (Score:3)
I am a big fan of SpaceX but it is hard to compare this. You can't realistically lump in all of USA made boosters and compare them to a single rocket. But you can compare each company and rocket family individually.
Ariane 5 has been flying in various configurations since 1996, and after the first disastrous failure [wikipedia.org] due to a software error, and 4 failures in its first 14 launches, it has over a decade without a single failure for 63 launches in a row.
Falcon 9 has a perfect record for 13 launches, but is much
Re: (Score:2)
Now, what is making SpaceX very popular are 2 things. The first is that SpaceX's quality is looking pretty good.
BUT, as you say, the price is right. At this time, SpaceX is MUCH cheaper than anybody else out there. And that even includes low quality chinese systems.
BUT, if all goes well come the 19th, and the first stage lands, then by next year, SpaceX could be re-using their first stage. next year.
And being able to knock off 33% would en
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh, you realise that Ariane 5 has launched many many many missions successfully, and has a better reliability record than the US's launch vehicles, right?
That was the original quote from beelsebob. He made it Europe vs. US, not me.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I include rockets from a different company when determining quality?
Do we lump Microsoft and Apple together when discussing quality of their software, since they are both from the USA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh good point.
Then I will restate as: What is the point of comparing all European rockets to American rockets? Different people developed different rockets, so you can not make assumptions about quality by comparing rockets from different manufacturers.
Re: (Score:3)
Europe's Ariane 5 has 2 failures and 2 partial failures on 77 launches.
ULA, has Delta IV has 1 partial failure on 28 launches
ULA has Atlas V has 1 partial failure in 51 launches.
And then SpaceX HAS been 100% successful, except for a test sat by orbcomm. But, even they were satisfied with the results. But, if you like, give them 1 partial failure on 13 launches
3 partial failures on 92 launches vs. 2 major failures and 2 partial failures on 77 launches.
I will take the numbers on the Americans
Re: (Score:3)
Except the orbital rocket is useless for satellite launches. So it doesn't really count.
If you instead focus only on rockets that are launch commercial GEO payloads, then the only american product is SpaceX. Every now and then ULA does a commercial GEO launch, but its a tiny volume.
The really important factor is both ULA, Ariane and the Russians are old school space. SpaceX is silicon valley space, and so far, they model is making every competitor sweat. Like Elon Musk said in the first years of SpaceX, roc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no.
Ariane 5 has had 77 launches, including two partial failures and two complete failures.
Which, by the way, is a worse launch record than Shuttle had.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well yeah america has had more failures, we had to show the euros how to do it!
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh, you realise that Ariane 5 has launched many many many missions successfully, and has a better reliability record than the US's launch vehicles, right?
SpaceX is in fact the untested upstart in this situation.
If that was Senator Gournac's objection -- "maybe it's cheaper but it's too risky" -- it would be entirely reasonable, assuming reality backed him up. But I'm assuming Airbus was considering SpaceX based on objective cost/benefit/risk considerations, and Gournac was effectively saying "Airbus should use Ariane because it's European, even if the cold hard facts say using SpaceX is the better option." And that's crap. Airbus should do what's best for Airbus and Airbus' stockholders.
And yes, if Boeing was con
Re: (Score:2)
The only way for Ariane 5 to be profitable is by launching 2 sats at once. The smaller sat is now much cheaper to fly on the current F9. When FH comes out this summer, it will be capable of launch multiple sats in 1 launch that will costs less than what Ariane 5 charges for just 1 of the 2 sats.
Keep in mind that Ariane gets an annual subsidy to do 5-7 launches / year. And this year, because SpaceX ate into their meal, Europe had to double it. If Spac
Re: (Score:2)
When FH comes out this summer, it will be capable of launch multiple sats in 1 launch that will costs less than what Ariane 5 charges for just 1 of the 2 sats.
In the world of engineering, we call that "your PowerPoint looks better than my shipping product". Glorious claims of splendor and awesomeness, and "but you can't buy it yet" go together quite often you see.
I'm a fan of SpaceX. I think it's likely they'll deliver. But until they have a track record with a given vehicle, they have wonderful PowerPoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Falcon Heavy reuses the Merlin 1D, Merlin 1D Vac, the basic first and second stage layout, and many other things from F9R. The Falcon Heavy is more similar in design to the F9R than F9R from the first version Falcon 9.
That being said, you are right, FH is still a power point rocket.
Re: So it is official. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never type that again. Seriously - vocalizing your pauses when speaking is bad enough, but there's no excuse when writing.
Actually, it's not "bad enough", it's an important part of speech. A pause, with a confused look on your face, and an "uhhh" noise conveys information, in fact, often, more than a whole sentence. I don't see any reason why conveying that sort of information concisely in one word should not be part of written english too.
Re:So it is official. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, France (through Arianespace) actually IS the world leader in commercial space flight. At about the same level as Russia, depending on the metrics you use. The US are actually far behind.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The USA has launched more tonage and people into space. People by a massive number. Tonage is close.
The French have had many launches though.
no, Europe was number 1. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly how many SpaceX is doing for 2014.
SpaceX has shown that they continue to increase their launches year after year. OTOH, Airbus has never managed to do more than 7. Period.
Just because Ariane is incapable of doing more than 1 every 2 months, does not mean that SpaceX is that inept. In fact, they continue to show that they not only handle a production schedule, but also development with it as well. That is not something that Eu
Re: (Score:2)
It actually has to do with keeping know-how in-house. Consider Airbus, then consider Boeing. One is all EU-based. The other outsources in Asia. Wanna take a bet on who goes bust first?
Re: So it is official. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The French government wants taxpayer money to go to local companies in order to benefit its people and grow local capabilities. This is actually pretty good economic policy and while it does mean a larger budget for a project is needed, it also means that said budget directly benifits the economy rather then enriching another country`s economy at the cost of your own.
Re: (Score:2)
French politicians.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:French politicians.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, France's public transport system, for example is an example of the sort of failure that we, for instance in the UK, shudder at.
Cheap fares, efficient operation, a boon to the country and its people.
Ours in the UK, meanwhile engages in double-dipping (making shareholder profits while receiving public subsidy), has terrible roling stock and fucking high ticket prices that rise regardless of the economics of the country, all along with local monopolies(!!!!)
Those bloody French socialists and their incompetence!
Re: (Score:2)
Monaco sure. Luxembourg not really. Monaco has no income tax so a lot of rich people move there. Luxembourg is just a money hole where corporations and banks hide money in shell accounts.
Re:French politicians.... (Score:4)
Also (I know, going for the jugular a bit here) do you want me to talk about Comcast? Cos I can talk about Comcast.
Re: (Score:3)
Airbus, a corporation, can only remain profitable by making rational commercial decisions. And France, a nation, can only remain prosperous by making rational political decisions. An
Re: French politicians.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The famous flying hamburger chain...
LOL (Score:2)
That IS pretty damn funny.
Heh (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary neglects to mention that Airbus is also the prime contractor on the sameself Ariane 5 they're snubbing.
Re: (Score:3)
P.S.
What's the opposite of 'Eating your own dog food', 'Don't get high on your own supply'?
Because it seems like they're taking that adage a little to literally.
This is not news (Score:3)
All governments prop up their launch industries. Yes, this includes the US government supporting SpaceX: they wouldn't have made it through their early difficulties without NASA support. Elon Musk readily acknowledges this, its more his libertarian fanboys wanting to hold up as some paragon of the all-conquering private sector.
That said, Ariane 5 is now looking a bit subsidy heavy, despite it being a very commercially successful launcher for years. This is why they are trying to make Ariane 6 much cheaper. If this doesn't work, or rather can't be made to work without an unacceptable subsidy, ESA really needs to look towards Skylon.
Re: (Score:2)
It is really doubtful Ariane 6 will be any cheaper per kg launched considering the design specs. As for Skylon it would take a long time and lots of money to develop assuming it could be made to work at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ariane 6 sounds like it would entail a lot of pointless duplication of work that SpaceX has already done. Skylon should be funded, but there is no guarantee that it'll work.
I think the best way to get the European space launch industry back on track might be to take a hint from how the Chinese go about things and buy something like 100 Falcon 9 launches at above the normal going rate, with a special requirement that the rockets must be built in Europe.
Then SpaceX could either turn down this giant deal t
Re: (Score:2)
"US government supporting SpaceX:"
NASA may be partially supporting SpaceX through technical assistance and attempting to purchase launch services from them, but I would hardly say that the "US Government" is propping them up. In fact there have been several attempts to force NASA to abandon/limit their dealings with SpaceX in favor of several large defense contractors (Thiokol, Lockheed Martin and Boeing) and they have been excluded from several major launch contract RFPs based on questionable requirements
Re: (Score:3)
Let me guess... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Psychosis". That seems to be pretty much perfect description for condemning someone based on actions you imagined them taking.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get your panties in a knot. He's not telling what people in the EU can buy or not. e.g. Eutelsat has bought flights from US companies with no problems. This particular flight is completely different as it is for a satellite partly funded by the French government. So yes they do have a say on what they pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you say "Greenpeace" in French?
Merde verte.
Turn about is fair play... (Score:3)
apparently it is okay now to just exclude france from any contract openly.
Thanks france.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It needs to be restated every time it happens so that more people see the hypocrisy and so that when some idiots do not they are dealt with by everyone.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I am aware of it... Did you think I thought only the french did this or this was the first time something like this had ever happened in the history of the world?
The point remains... this is how it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Had the procurement officer done things correctly, then Boeing NEVER would have had a second chance at it, even had airbus won it.
This case has nothing in common with the other.
US flag on the United Launch Alliance Atlas V (Score:3, Informative)
Yea 'Merica!
Re: (Score:2)
If the one in your driveway wont run you'll have to. Or stay home.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When did America ever overthrow a King? And which nations King?
Seems so many Americans think they had a successful revolt where they marched on London, burned Parliament and hung the King when in reality they seceded from the British Empire (or whatever it was officially called) with lots of French help and even then they couldn't even beat the local French, who also helped burn down the White House a few decades longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Three times actually
Japan invaded the Aleutian islands in WWII.
Four if you count the problem with Pancho Villa.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more if you consider the Indians, Mexicans, Spanish and British to be invaders of the land that God gave to the Americans (manifest destiny and such). There's also the little wars like the pig war where strictly speaking the British partially occupied an American Island and the Union Jack still flies alongside the Stars and Stripes.
Re:Surrender to SpaceX, France (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, give another go at history. The British army was the homeland army in the US and the actual resident armed force. Yours was a secession war that effectively created your national identity (or officialized it, depends on the point of view). The only real foreign attack you had on your soil was Pearl Harbor, and that wasn't an invasion.
Re:Surrender to SpaceX, France (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, give another go at history. The British army was the homeland army in the US and the actual resident armed force. Yours was a secession war that effectively created your national identity (or officialized it, depends on the point of view). The only real foreign attack you had on your soil was Pearl Harbor, and that wasn't an invasion.
There was this war in 1812 when the British and a bunch of natives from Canada burned down the White house. During the war the US did have enemy soldiers on US soil. But that war ended in a stalemate. One of the things that did happen, though, is that the US was discouraged from further attacks on Canada and it paved the way for Canada to become an independent nation while keeping British ties.
Re: (Score:3)
There's always the War of 1812 [wikipedia.org] and the Burning of Washington [wikipedia.org]..
-R C
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I might not recall well,but didn't the US declare that war?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I don't know about the short historical memory. We are all aware of Europeans cutting each others throats for the past millennium.
Re: (Score:2)
So, where the Vichy government dropped trou, we rude Americans kicked the invaders in the nuts and sent them packing.
...which would not have been possible if the Red Army had not first exahausted Germany military force on the east front. The real defeater of Nazi Germany was USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
That's some nice revisionism you have going on there. The real defeater of Nazi Germany was Nazi Germany herself. There are many significant strategic and tactical blunders that were made by Germany which enabled the Soviets and others to capitalize. Not the least of which is the numerous never retreat or surrender orders that resulted in armies ending up encircled and lost order which were typically opposed by most of the German command structure. Writing off what amounts to basically 16-20 divisions of me
Re: (Score:2)
That's some nice revisionism you have going on there.
Revisionism? That would probably sound like an insult to russian people. USSR had by far the highest number of deaths [wikipedia.org] during WWII. 20 millions people died in USSR during the war.
Re: (Score:2)
And your point is what, precisely? Stalingrad was responsible for over a million soldier deaths between the Axis and Soviets and yet that battle ended up being nothing more than a dick waving contest between Stalin and Hitler. The real strategic importance of that city was no where close to the material and manpower Germany ended up dedicating to trying to take it. Look all across Germany's eastern front and you'll find similar strategic blunders which in almost every case was due to some order from Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
And where did Lafayette come from, and on who's side did he fight?
I fail to see Gilbert du Motier listed as a member of the Vichy Regime government.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't much matter.
Only an idiot is going to try to land an occupying force in something as large as the United States, where any given citizen can be more heavily armed than an entire company of Infantry.
Re: (Score:2)
I did it as Germany in Hearts of Iron 3. It wasn't as bad as it sounds.
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
an idiotic remark that is inconsequential to anything.
Is it? I'm really surprised that Airbus had the chutzpah (or political naivete).
You see, Airbus gets quite a bit of help from the governments of Europe -- subsidies, contracts; I wouldn't be surprised if they had a major hand in the mergers that formed the company in the first place. Most likely, the lawmaker is thinking of Airbus as being little different from some wayward administrative division in his own bureaucracy, now in need of a rebuke for not supporting the government's agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
The parent company of Airbus also manufactures the Ariane 5 rockets through Airbus Defence & Space.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Here from the US I am laughing at your question. What country are you from and who do you elect?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"the canuck part should be a clue."
Ah, so it is. I read your comment, not your name.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.... Ariane has 77 successful launches vs 0 for Falcon.
Even this rah rah go American American is not convinced.
liar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you use stats like Elon Musks does you'll compare with the track record of Ariane 5 ECA alone. That only had one launch failure in like 47 flights. Plus it was a launch failure on the first flight which was fixed since that happened.
F9 had partial failures you gloss over. Yet you seem to account for Ariane 5 partial failures just fine.
Ask an insurance company how much they want to insure an Ariane 5 vs Falcon 9 flight.
Re: (Score:2)
The Orbcom was basically a test satellite and was not to go into production. So even though the sat did not go into full orbit, it was considered at worst a partial failure. However, Orbcom did not consider it a failure. and that was the ONLY one that could be considered a partial failure.
Now, why would Musk compare to the Ariane 5 ECA alone? That vehicle is used to go to GTO, ra
Re:What happens when the government owns everythin (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that Airbus is not government owned and it's no more subsidized than any other aerospace firm.
It would be more accurate to say that a French politician is complaining that the French subsidiary [wikipedia.org] of a Dutch multinational corporation [wikipedia.org] is choosing an American launch vehicle instead of one offered by the German subsidiary [wikipedia.org] of that very same Dutch multinational corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing Airbus with Airbus Defence and Space. Airbus is not involved at all in SpaceX decision.
You are correct, my mistake.
Airbus Group is not a Dutch multinational. It is simply registered in Netherlands for corporate tax-benefits.
Sorry, but regardless of the reason for being registered in the Netherlands it still makes it a Dutch multinational corporation. But I'll compromise and call it a Dutch registered, French headquartered multinational corporation.
Airbus Defence and Space is not a German subsidiary. It consists of independent companies from France, Germany, UK and other EU mignon-states. These companies like to pretend on paper they are unified. France has the largest share of ADS, then Germany, then UK.
Yeah, no. According to ADS's own website [airbusdefe...dspace.com] those companies were consolidated into ADS as a German based division (i.e. subsidiary) of AG.
And regardless of who owns the shares, government or otherwise, AG is still a publicly traded company that owns ADS.
So
Re: Yeah, right! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Airbus is only a quasi-private company. Their entire operations are heavily subsidized by the government. It would be a bit like.. I don't know... The Airforce using a European Airbus airframe instead of a US one. Politicians will be (?justifiably?) pissed that it's tax payer dollars being diverted into an overseas corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
And Boeing has recommended Ariane at times.