> This article is written as if the delays are some kind of gotcha, but is it really that bitter a pill to swallow? The goal was never to outcompete SpaceX on price.

Sort of.

It's easy to forget, since SpaceX has such dominance over the space industry currently, but commercial space was mostly split between Europe and Russia before SpaceX. The goal of Ariane 6 was to help ArianeGroup maintain its marketshare - particularly of GEO/GTO launches - in the face of aggressive pricing by SpaceX.

> Shopping around for launches now that the Ariane 6 has been delayed isn't some kind of epic defeat in the battle for spaceflight, it's just an inconvenience necessary to keep other projects on track.

I think there may be some missing context here.

There has been a somewhat strong movement to limit European institutional launches to European launches, in the same way that the NASA does with US launchers.

In the Netherlands every single project goes vastly over budget. It's never been a bitter pill. There's always more money to throw at things and people forget.

The entire European space program is but a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.

I agree, pointing that something is running over budget, when it is done by public company. That might be surprising only for people outside of Europe.

Keeping the legacy Ariane 5 launch platform alive is fine. But Ariane 6 effort and funding should have been directed into a highest-priority ESA project to create SpaceX-style reusable heavy-lift launch vehicles. Europe cannot let an increasingly unstable Elon Musk be the de facto gatekeeper to space.

I know Ariane 6 development goes way back but it doesn't make sense to invest more in the development of single-use heavy-lift launch vehicle.

Edit: The initial concept art for Ariane 7 suggests it is a SpaceX-style reusable rocket.

>Europe cannot let an increasingly unstable Elon Musk be the de facto gatekeeper to space.

unstable according to who, the media who are mad at him over Twitter? I keep seeing people make claims like this but if he was such a lunatic it seems like Blue Origin, Lockheed/Boeing, or the entirety of Europe should be able to beat SpaceX pretty easy if it's being run by a lunatic or just wait for it to collapse. Occam's razor would be that Musk isn't really as crazy as his public persona

According to his Tweets.

Occam's razor would be that the real work at SpaceX isn't done by Musk but it's engineers.

and yet there are competitors with far bigger budgets who can't seem to poach those engineers doing the work. Or for some reason refuse to hire the engineers that are kicking their ass. So Musk is either a better manager(getting more done with equal talent) or better at finding talent that Boeing and Blue Origin reject. If Musk is actively impeding SpaceX, why can't these companies seem to beat him? SpaceX engineers should be jumping at the chance to take their knowledge to Boeing/Lockheed/Blue Origin/Europe and work for people who are better than Musk(according to the media)

Who has far bigger budgets nowadays?

>So Musk is either a better manager(getting more done with equal talent) or better at finding talent that Boeing and Blue Origin reject.

Or his choices turned out to be better out of poor luck. Survivorship bias.

Maybe would talk the same about Bezos if some engineers would have chosen Blue Origin over SpaceX or if NASA had chosen Blue Origin over SpaceX

BlueOrigin is spending 1-2 billion a year easly on New Glenn. That is probably as much or more then SpaceX spends on Starship. And there is really no question what the better program.

> Or his choices turned out to be better out of poor luck. Survivorship bias.

If you start out with 1000 and 1 is successful claiming survivor bias might be valid, if its a tiny number of companies this explanation doesn't really work. Specially in a field where before SpaceX most starups just outright failed with no survivors at all.

Hard for me to judge spacex, but I know Tesla is second to last in reliability (at place 27, only better than Lincoln). Let me quote from the report:

    "Model Y still has body hardware issues with the tailgate and door alignment, paint defects, and multiple other problems. The Model X and Model S have body hardware, climate system, and in-car electronics problems. All three models are well below average."

Maybe, an unstable slave driver who just wasted 44B because he couldn't keep his mouth shut is not the best leader for anything that requires long term care??

There is an all electric Lincoln?

If you invoke a report, how about actually providing the report? Because I think this wasn't a report about reliability at all. Paint defects have nothing to do with reliability for example.

If its the report I'm thinking about, the difference between Tesla and their competitors isn't actually all that great. Not to mention this report is already a few years on.

Also, this report only evaluated Model Y from California, China, Berlin and Austin have better reputation for quality.

Model Y is the most sold car in the world both by volume and revenue in Q1 2023. I don't know about you but if I can choose between some 'report' and being car that makes the most money of any car on the planet, I know what I would choice.

Its a bit ridiculous to say 'haha you loser your 27 in some random report' and ignore that Tesla is both growing very fast an is highly profitable. Call me crazy but I thought those things were important.

Musk really is the only person where people have to make up these ridiculous arguments to somehow justify that he is an insane madman, despite his companies being incredibly successful.

> not the best leader for anything that requires long term care??

He is the longest serving CEO in the car and the space industry. He is literally known for having a long term view and both of his major companies have seen incredibly growth for 20+ years. Like 2 decades isn't long term enough for you?

I get that people dislike Musk, he isn't very likeable, but some basic logic needs to be applied when criticizing.

Consumer Report is paywalled, how about an extract (1) and another from a previous survey (2). What about a video from a new customer (3).

Are those enough sources for you?

(1) https://insideevs.com/news/549130/consumerreports-tesla-reli...

(2) https://insideevs.com/news/489178/tesla-bombs-jd-powers-depe...

(3) https://www.reddit.com/r/Wellthatsucks/comments/zni97u/140k_...

I have seen these reports, I just ask that you provide sources on principle and so other people can see them.

Of course there are other studies:

https://insideevs.com/features/481518/tesla-wins-jd-power-ev...

or

https://insideevs.com/news/626814/tesla-nissan-consumer-repo...

or

https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2023-us-vehi...

In this study Tesla is better then Audi and Ford, on level with Mercedes Benz.

I think pretty much most companies on the plant would be happy with a CEO that produces:

https://www.statista.com/chart/26705/yearly-net-income-and-r...

Seems to me, pretty successfully in the long term, from 2008 to 2023 is literally longer then any other automotive CEO.

But I guess they were 27th in some study so he must be an incompetent idiot incapable of planning. Tesla just magically grew by 100x.

Wow.

What do you think about the video I linked to?

I think most engineers at SpaceX are glad Musk is wasting his time with Twitter instead of at Starbase

This is such an strange line of argument. Nobody would ever use such an insane line of argument for anybody other then Musk.

Of course in a company of 10k+ the real work is not done by the CEO. Like this is an absurd standard.

But since when does company leadership not matter anymore? SpaceX has been consistently successful for 25 years and somehow the founder, CEO and chief engineer had nothing to do with it?

I am not the media. I am not mad at him for buying twitter but mad at how horrible he was to it's employees and how he manages it now.. I am a person who bought a Tesla, and follows every SpaceX launch. A big fan! Until about 3 years ago when he started getting increasingly unhinged, or perhaps, no longer hiding that he has always been mean, petty, and often stupid outside the realm of newtonian mechanics.

Free speech absolutionist! Then de-platforms NPR and reinstates misogynists, racists, and insurrectionists. ok.

I'm confused, when has NPR been deplatformed?

I'm neither the media nor am I mad at him.

Musk is an irresponsible chief executive. My understanding is that he's pretty hands-off with SpaceX; that might be why it's doing well.

Wouldn’t that signal competence? He has set up an amazing organization furthering his ultimate goal(colonizing space). Now he can waste his free time on Twitter, just like everybody else

> He has set up an amazing organization

I agree; he's chosen good people, and he's set an ethos. It's not just luck.

But "wasting his time on Twitter" cost him $44Bn, and landed him with serious problems he can do without. People who control that much money don't discuss their financial plans on Twitter for lulz, because it's irresponsible.

This is just such nonsense. Musk is the literally the longest serving CEO in the car and space industry. And he is well known for being the opposite of hands-off.

You can read interviews with lots of former engineers, journalist who cover SpaceX and pretty much every other source, Musk is incredibly hands on, he leads engineering meeting that can sometimes be 4h long going into the night.

What is your source for this 'hands-off' attitude? Because its the opposite of what every source who actually works or observes SpaceX professionally.

The reality is many people just hate Musk and feel the need to not just dislike him personal but try to discredit everything he has ever done. Giving credit to somebody who you personally dislike as a person is just not something many people are willing to accept.

Ariane 7 is due for launch in the 2030s ...

Ariane 7 is not due for anything. Its just some agencies playing around with ideas. There is no real plan for Ariane 7 and no authorization for anything.

Also, people need to understand that most of the Ariane 6 is just Ariane 5 ME. Lots of parts of the Ariane 6 had been in development long before the Ariane 6.

The new upper stage engine took 20+ years to develop.

It was very hard for ESA to even get funding for Ariane 6, many nations wanted to stick to Ariane 5 ME. It will be a long while until the authorize another 4 billion $ for a new rocket.

Ariane 6 also had the goal of being a competitive commercial launch platform, not just a strategic European launch platform.

Its a nice bit of rewriting history.

When Ariane 6 was first discuss politically it was all about how it would beat SpaceX in the market, how competitive it would be and so on and so on. Endlessly talking about how Arianespace was so superior to SpaceX in terms of launch cadence and reliability and so on.

And now 10 years later its 'well we need to launch sats ourself, of course we can't compete with SpaceX on the open market'.

If their goal had actually been assured independent access to space, doing the Ariane 5 ME was a better plan. Because the reality is, the cost for Ariane 6 is far greater then the money saved by going from Ariane 5 ME to Ariane 6. It will take a decade or more of flying Ariane 6 before this actual saves money. And by then the better have their next rocket in planning.