Europe Turns To the Falcon 9 To Launch Its Navigation Satellites 28
The European Union has agreed to launch four Galileo navigation satellites on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket at a 30 percent premium over the standard launch price. Ars Technica reports: According to Politico, the security agreement permits staff working for the EU and European Space Agency to have access to the launch pad at all times and, should there be a mishap with the mission, the first opportunity to retrieve debris. With the agreement, final preparations can begin for two launches of two satellites each, on the Falcon 9 rocket from Florida. These Galileo missions will occur later this year. The satellites, which each weigh about 700 kg, will be launched into an orbit about 22,000 km above the planet.
The heightened security measures are due to the proprietary technology incorporated into the satellites, which cost hundreds of millions of euros to build; they perform a similar function to US-manufactured Global Positioning System satellites. The Florida launches will be the first time Galileo satellites, which are used for civilian and military purposes, have been exported outside of European territory. Due to the extra overhead related to the national security mission, the European Union agreed to pay 180 million euros for the two launches, or about $196 million. This represents about a 30 percent premium over the standard launch price of $67 million for a Falcon 9 launch. Over the past two years, the European Space Agency (ESA) had to rely on SpaceX for several launches, including significant projects like the Euclid space telescope and other ESA satellites, due to the cessation of collaborations with Roscosmos after the invasion of Ukraine and delays in the Ariane 6 rocket's development. With the Ariane 5 retired and no immediate replacement, Europe's access to space was compromised.
That said, the Ariane 6 is working towards a launch window in the coming months, promising a return to self-reliance for ESA with a packed schedule of missions ahead.
The heightened security measures are due to the proprietary technology incorporated into the satellites, which cost hundreds of millions of euros to build; they perform a similar function to US-manufactured Global Positioning System satellites. The Florida launches will be the first time Galileo satellites, which are used for civilian and military purposes, have been exported outside of European territory. Due to the extra overhead related to the national security mission, the European Union agreed to pay 180 million euros for the two launches, or about $196 million. This represents about a 30 percent premium over the standard launch price of $67 million for a Falcon 9 launch. Over the past two years, the European Space Agency (ESA) had to rely on SpaceX for several launches, including significant projects like the Euclid space telescope and other ESA satellites, due to the cessation of collaborations with Roscosmos after the invasion of Ukraine and delays in the Ariane 6 rocket's development. With the Ariane 5 retired and no immediate replacement, Europe's access to space was compromised.
That said, the Ariane 6 is working towards a launch window in the coming months, promising a return to self-reliance for ESA with a packed schedule of missions ahead.
Smart move. (Score:1)
You have to hand it to SpaceX: They know what they're doing. SpaceX is to launch-systems what Apple was to computers back in the 20-zeroes. Betting on them at this point in time is a smart move.
Re: (Score:1)
back in the 20-zeroes.
You mean the noughties?
Abandoned launch programs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Space launch is not easy. Multiple countries had satellite launch systems under development and then abandoned it: The UK
Sigh.
I fucking hate the government of my country sometimes. I know this was a long time ago, but the attitude has persisted, and the government is still staffed with the same brand of morons with absolutely no technical aptitude at all, and if anything a disdain for British industry, and therefore absolutely no understanding of what's needed for success.
Black Arrow is a failure that's bee
Re: (Score:1)
What you have to hand to SpaceX is that they managed to drain US taxpayer money and NASA expertise to build a private enterprise.
It was necessary at the time for a bunch of reasons. But to make it seem like this is a SpaceX achievement is misleading. Signficant funds and expertise was funnelled into SpaceX to make this possible. At best, it's a joint effort.
And for a variety of political reasons, it's not a great situation for Europe to be in. Ariadne 6 really does need to happen, and soon.
HAHAHA (Score:1)
They foolishly caved to emotion and doubled down on expendable launch systems because it was easy money for ESA contractors. This is the near-end result. It's amazing how much willful blindness to competition fat established players have. Remember Microsoft, Nokia, and Blackberry openly laughing at the iPhone? There's lots of other examples. Anyway, the ESA is screwed, especially when Starship comes online. According to their own roadmaps they will have no answer to Starship for at least 15 years -- and by
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are confusing ArianeGroup with ESA. ESA will be fine if they launch on cheaper craft. It's like with NASA, are they be worse off if they focus on science instead of rockets that companies can do cheaper? Let ESA focus on landers, probes, satellites, etc.
Nobody can compete with SpaceX. Not NASA, not Boeing, certainly not little Ariane. Ariane can sell their Ariane 6 launchers as fast as they can make them, they don't seem to have any issues but if they focused on reusable crafts 10 years ago, you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To answer your question, no I did not auggest Ariane was doomed to fail. It's nowhere in the post. Any other strawmen you want me to reply to?
Re: (Score:1)
Ariane’s history goes to 1973. Are you seriously suggesting that little Ariane” was doomed to fail again upstart like SpaceX?
Of course, what mere mortal can compete with the limitless intellect God Emperor Elon I. of Mars?
Apparently none, your idiotic sarcasm notwithstanding. Judging by sensible launch options, and their respective price tags, for someone interested just in orbital access, and not in making political statements, there is no alternative to God Emperor etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Ariane can in fact compete with SpaceX, if only on launch position alone. Theirs is much close to equator than Florida. The closer you are to the equator, the less energy you need to hit most relevant orbits.
But everyone is behind SpaceX in terms of launch technologies right now. So if anything, Ariane is the only one in a position to actually compete with SpaceX out of that list, because they have a launch site advantage no one else does. Including SpaceX.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason why SpaceX is launching from Florida and Texas, and why pretty much all large space launch sites in US are near its southern border. Most of what every rocket lifts by weight is fuel. The less fuel you need, the greater payload you can carry. Going to equator allows for significantly increased payloads for the same rocket, or a notably smaller rocket for the same weight.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fair, also who knows, maybe their Falcon 9 clone will actually be good. Would be cool if the EU made a starship competitor too.
Re: (Score:1)
Ariane can in fact compete with SpaceX, if only on launch position alone. Theirs is much close to equator than Florida. The closer you are to the equator, the less energy you need to hit most relevant orbits.
But everyone is behind SpaceX in terms of launch technologies right now. So if anything, Ariane is the only one in a position to actually compete with SpaceX out of that list, because they have a launch site advantage no one else does. Including SpaceX.
Delta-v to reach LEO is about 10 km/s, the difference in boost you get from Earth's spin from being on equator vs Boca Chica is about 20 m/s. Barely noticeable.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how everyone who actually has to do the orbital lifting has noticed and thinks its relevant, isn't it? Just look at location of all the launch sites, globally. Everyone tries to push them as close to equator as they can, constrained mainly by their geography and logistics.
It's also why Ariane was so cost efficient for a long time in spite of arguably being behind on actual technology.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny how everyone who actually has to do the orbital lifting has noticed and thinks its relevant, isn't it? Just look at location of all the launch sites, globally. Everyone tries to push them as close to equator as they can, constrained mainly by their geography and logistics.
It's also why Ariane was so cost efficient for a long time in spite of arguably being behind on actual technology.
Yeah, they're all liek tooootally clustered on the equator [wikipedia.org].
Slash fucking s in case it needs to be said explicitly.
Re: (Score:2)
Equatorial launch is helpful for equatorial orbits such as GEO because a "simple" launch will end up with an inclination approximately equal to the latitude of the launch site. Satellites that are not at GEO normally want inclined orbits, though, so they don't mind launch sites away from the equator. It's just that GEO was, historically, relatively common for relatively big satellites.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you are confusing ArianeGroup with ESA. ESA will be fine if they launch on cheaper craft. It's like with NASA, are they be worse off if they focus on science instead of rockets that companies can do cheaper? Let ESA focus on landers, probes, satellites, etc.
Nobody can compete with SpaceX. Not NASA, not Boeing, certainly not little Ariane. Ariane can sell their Ariane 6 launchers as fast as they can make them, they don't seem to have any issues but if they focused on reusable crafts 10 years ago, you really think they'd be competitive now? I doubt it. Ariane is owned by Airbus and Safran which are doing fine.
ESA is as much of an ego project for eurocrates, as it is a science agency. Much like one of the goals of Moon landing was very much not to put just man on Moon, but an American at that (and US flag). For scientists its a win, but I can guarantee it's a tough pill to swallow for eurocrates, that they have to buy space access from an actual first world country, much like if they were Somalia or something, instead of being self-sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Ariane's main purpose is to ensure that the EU always has its own launch capability, for security reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confusing ArianeGroup with ESA. ESA will be fine if they launch on cheaper craft. It's like with NASA, are they be worse off if they focus on science instead of rockets that companies can do cheaper? Let ESA focus on landers, probes, satellites, etc.
Nobody can compete with SpaceX. Not NASA, not Boeing, certainly not little Ariane. Ariane can sell their Ariane 6 launchers as fast as they can make them, they don't seem to have any issues but if they focused on reusable crafts 10 years ago, you really think they'd be competitive now? I doubt it. Ariane is owned by Airbus and Safran which are doing fine.
For one thing, Falcon 9 is only partially reusable, even if the Space X fan-club members like to skip over the 'partially' bit. Secondly, Ariane won't be dissolved or privatised for the same reason that military and police usually aren't privatised, even in the USA. These are capabilities governments hugely value and a self sufficiency in satellite launches is too so the EU governments will be more than happy to continue subsidising Ariane. Furthermore, Ariane and a bunch of others are working on partially
Re: (Score:2)
But French Guyana is a French territory and as such is part of the European Union.
Almost 50% premium (Score:2)
Um, $67m -> $98m is an almost 50% premium - 98/67=1.462 A 30% premium (increase) would be “only” $87m per launch
Re: (Score:2)