> what prevents ESA from launching 90% of their payloads on SpaceX for reduced cost

You only have to look at what happened with Starlink and Ukraine.

Last thing EU wants is to put their vital strategic interests in the hands of Elon Musk and his erratic whims.

Especially given they are planning to fine X 6% of their revenue which may end up bankrupting the company given its perilous financial state.

Well, that seems to have been a one-off episode. Since then modern versions of at least maritime drones & possible bigger aerial drones in Ukraine are almost certainly Starlink guided, possibly via the military version of it called Starshield.

> what happens when your peer denies your launches on their platform

Strongly agree—Europe needs an indigenous launch option. Ariane 6 is not it, and I’m sceptical ArianeSpace can ever deliver it.

What do you mean, can deliver it? This article is specifically about the maiden flight of Ariane 6, which was successful. It's already delivered.

> can deliver it? This article is specifically about the maiden flight of Ariane 6, which was successful. It's already delivered.

It's not commercially viable. That means it has no room to organically drive economies of scale and thus learning curves, which has downstream effects on evertyhing from recruiting to supplier negotiations. Europe has a launch vehicile. It does not have a platform. Virtually everything in Ariane 6 will have to be thrown out to be relevant in a modern, reusable design.

Put another way, SLS didn't prepare Boeing and Lockheed Martin one iota for the modern launch industry. If anything, it drove ambitious people away from them.

There are no economies of scale required. This is not a commercial venture, and it's not required to be commercially viable. This is a strategic and political program, and as a jobs program it is wonderfully executed - the more to throw away, the more jobs will be required for the next iteration.

> is a strategic and political program, and as a jobs program

Jobs, yes, strategic, no. Being able to put ten birds up in a year means an adversary can blind your space capabilities, if we’re taking the argument to absurd ends.

We Americans would be defensive about ULA, probably, if it weren’t for SpaceX. The problem is the EU has no plan B. If SpaceX cuts them off, Ariana or not, they’re crippled as a spacefaring enterprise.

You're still thinking about capitalisation and the scalability of space. EU doesn't think that's a viable expansion route - already expressed my view that EU thinks 10 launches a year is more then enough to cover all bases.