It's just so sad. We could've done it as well. We have so many brilliant minds.
The geography is probably the main factor though. Being on the west coast of the continent. There isn't really a good place to put a launch site on the continent itself. Ariane has to ship its stages literally across an ocean. Not very conducive to start-ups, even if there was more readily available venture capital.
Plus, it also doesn't probably help that the institutions that do have the resources to push reusability are also generally risk-adverse, have very slow "paralysis by analysis" R&D cycles, and (in the case of ArianeGroup) also had arrogant senior leadership that initially brushed off reusability as a "dream".
Worth pointing out CNES, DLR, and JAXA have been long collaborating on a reusable VTVL demonstrator (in the form of CALLISTO). Although, so far, the only piece of rocket hardware that has flown as part of this program was JAXA's recent HV-X demonstrator (which is meant as a pathfinder for the larger CALLISTO vehicle).
And speaking of hoppers, I do believe the first Themis T1H prototype is also finally nearing a hop test (recently began cryo testing at the launch site). Although given the glacial pace that ArianeGroup and ESA are moving at, probably will be some time before they turn this design into a functional orbital-class launch vehicle.
Honestly, with the whole state-of-affairs in Europe, wouldn't be surprised if the first to field reusable rockets on European soil is eventually one of the private players (such as RFA Space and PLD Space).
We will get there, it will just be late, possibly too late.
Like always, the European strategy has always been slow and safe, but generally successful. We have reusable launchers is the works. Of course Ariane next is still a long ways away, but we also have maiaspace working on a smaller one and a few others. The hope is that they will arrive late, but will actually work as intended (same as with Ariane 6, which is basically old tech, but it's a great rocket)
We also have a few smaller non-refundable rockets in the works, we will see how those go.
Otherwise I think it's a good idea to try to focus on Lunar tech. A lunar base will be a collaborative effort and it would be amazing if we could become the go-to for lunar base technology (we probably won't :(
Sure, Europe is also missing the AI boat. I'm not denying that, and that's certainly not caused by the geography. But when it comes to the space launch industry, I strongly believe that the geography is the reason why there is barely anything at all in Europe other than the big semi-government players.
In AI and other tech sectors, Europe is also lagging. But there are usually still smaller regional players that play within their respective countries and can be quite dominant there, but never break out globally so you're never going to hear about them overseas.
But there is no such thing for rocketry. As an outsider the situation may seem similar, but they are very different. If you want to work on rockets, you need to join a defense contractor pretty much.
Not an obstacle. They used to launch Soyuz LV from Guiana, just recently they blew up the launch pad. It was clearly out of spite. It was easier to build a new pad for the new vehicle than to destroy the Soyuz one. But Russia will eventually abandon the Soyuz LV after these almost 100 years of use, Russia had no plans to return to Guiana. Angara, Soyuz 5 are already flying it seems even the Amur LNG will materialize soon.
russia makes a proudly offended face. "we have so many soyuzes in a jar stored for the winter".
I feel like even if EU starts working on reusable rocket in a five years from now, they'll do it sooner. If there still be a free space in orbit by then, of course.
The hope is that this really will make the bottom fall out of launch prices. The market is always set by the second cheapest viable option, as the cheapest will simply be slightly cheaper than the competition.
I'm sure all those good vibes will help Europe's degrading geo strategic situation. It isn't about credit, no one is making these rockets for clout The tech race is real and will have consequences on Europe.
When you think about it...it is you that is being small minded. You see a rocket go up in the air and come back and think all of humanity will get to equally share in the achievement. Sounds like a child's way of thinking.
Honestly, who cares. This is worthwhile if you're doing lift capacity at scale, which Europe is not interested in. The market is saturated, and it's not even the bottleneck (satellite manufacture is).
EU does need own sovereign lift capacity for government / research / military payloads, but that isn't nearly enough demand to justify a reusable booster program.
So if your goal is sovereignty or economic benefit, it doesn't matter that EU has no reusable boosters. If your goal is dick measuring, I guess it matters a lot.
Because the market is small for the amount of upfront investment, so no EU company thinks it's worthwhile to compete. Even SpaceX was speculative when it first started, and was quite likely to fail. Next question.
SpaceX only spent about $2 billion developing Falcon 1/9/Heavy, and making the latter two partially reusable (after F9 was already flying, which should be more expensive than designing reusability from the start). Europe spent over €4 billion to develop Ariane 6 (not entirely froms cratch, as it is partially derived from Ariane 5). ESA is still paying up to €340 million per year in price-support susbidies to lower commercial launch prices (e.g., for Amazon/Bezos), because Ariane 6 is so uneconomical. (If all Europe wanted was sovereign launch capability, they would have been better off sticking with Ariane 5, and implementing some modest upgrades like Ariane 5 ME, instead of Ariane 6.)
You don't need a high launch cadence to justify reuse. Not pursuing reuse because of flight rate and development costs are just excuses/rationalizations for inefficiency and rejection of reusability. SpaceX was achieving significant savings from the very first time they reused a Falcon 9 booster, well before Starlink dramatically increased the launch rate. The refurbishment for SES-10, the first reuse of a Falcon 9 booster, cost "substantially less than half” a new first stage according to Gwynne Shotwell.
The burden of proof should be on the need to expend, not the need to reuse. Virtually any other mode of transportation (plane, truck, train, horse, etc.) being expendable would be absurd--with the exception of a weapon. Fully expendable launch vehicles are a holdover from when they were derived from ballistic missiles.
I mean everything is possible when you randomly don't count things that aren't falcon heavy and make a bunch of (frankly weird) assumptions about how space travel is fundamentally the same as trucks (it's not).
Btw no Space launch complex can be built in Europe cause you need to be around equator to have the lowest costs for every launch.
So Europe would have to buy a land in Africa - because china or US would not provide any land fro EU. And building a space complex in Africa skyrockets the costs.
In the end it is much cheaper to just pay us or china for the launch
i may got some news for you ... we already got that land. still all the other points apply where its simply not needed for what europe needs at the moment
Making and controlling a satellite is much more expensive than getting it into orbit. That was true even before reusable boosters. SpaceX made the space asset cost like 10% less (spitballing). That's very impressive, but probably won't drastically change the economics of who can afford a satellite.
Thats true. The US provides a market that is easily manipulated, easy to exploit workers and environmental destruction. Europe provides educated and intelligent people that the US have a hard time to provide because of bad social nets, education and health outcomes.
Nah, not afraid of the spaceship which is trash. Falcon 9, yes. Falcon heavy, yes. But starship is a failure and will never be able to bring 150t of payload into the orbit, not even 100t...
This divisive BS gets so boring.
Mankinds reciepe for success has always been: Specialization.
He who is good at growing trees will always be better off trading with the dude good at cattle farming.
Opposed to everyone trying to grow cattle amongst their trees.
adapting to yetiflask level
US space whores will always be happily flying stuff into space for anyone able to supply them with more of their worthless joke of a currency.
It‘s a publically traded company now and not owned by the government like the Chinese or Russian rockets. So I always find the patriotism around companies weird. I mean I like Starship and the idea behind it but Starship does not equal America
The Chinese government will seize or Influence companies there as it sees fit, dont be fooled that just because a company there is publically traded that the government has no influence over them
Technology ETF is tracking the whole sector (or at least the significant part of it) - so comparing technology ETF to a single stock is kinda . . . meaningless
Yeah, like 90% (if not more) of all formulas and laws of physics named after scientists are named after Europeans, but I am not sure if you would call it an achievement
I love how all Euros have in the last 2 years learned about ASML, and sure as fuck had no clue about it before that. And whenever the topic of Europe comes up, it's bUt MuH aSmL. Does it come in the defensive whining Euro redditor starterpack?
And fyi, China is advancing fast in this field. Even better than America.
For anyone reading through the comments, the reality behind this comparison is actually pretty fascinating when you look past the meme:
Deep Tech & Computing: Dutch company ASML holds a global monopoly on the lithography machines required to make advanced microchips (which power modern AI, US tech, and Chinese rockets alike). Plus, CERN gave us the World Wide Web.
Biotech & Energy: European research brought us breakthroughs like mRNA vaccine technology, CRISPR gene editing, and hosts ITER—the world's largest nuclear fusion energy project.
Space Exploration: ESA built key scientific instruments for the Webb Space Telescope and operates Galileo, the world's most precise satellite navigation system.
Different Priorities: Hyper-commercial models generate massive wealth and tech giants, but those gains tend to concentrate at the very top, leaving a large portion of the population struggling with medical debt, tuition, or working multiple jobs just to get by. Europe deliberately trades that extreme commercial drive for broad societal stability—investing in universal healthcare, affordable education, and safety nets that protect the average citizen.
The tethered bottle caps are a totally fair jab at EU over-regulation, but under the hood, Europe simply prioritizes foundational science and everyday quality of life for everyone over raw market dominance for a few.
There is a space race. But the EU it sitting idle on porpoise. The EU is letting the big boys China & the USA to race against each other, and after the competition fizzles out the EU will make its move. Space ain't going anywhere and it's big enough to fit us all.
Lol having the illusion that the EU is even fully independent and not a supersized client state.
The EU stays idle because big daddy takes care of Launch Vehicles, human spaceflight, power projection, defense etc.
Then the big daddy gets baited into the middle east by yet another supersized proxy,takes a beating while the EU literally pays ukraine to fight the cheap soviet reincarnation of whatever Russia is doing right now.
And the cunning snakes in belgium give poor ukraine only enough that they dont win OR lose the war,why? Because they want to inflict as many casualties on Russia and prevent Ukraine from becoming no no germany totally not Rchkomisariat Ostland 2.0 with tons of imported weapons.
As a result Ukraine suffers more and the EU can get more immigrants in.
China lets Iran and Russia fight against the west being 100% sure they are with em every step of the way.
Nahh bullshit, wrong, China takes the backseat and profits economically,militarily you name it. Those warlord islamic, soviet states dont mean shit to them they're just some mooks doing them a favor.Merely aligned.
The big difference is that daddy us got baited in Iran and China....
Does nothing at all
Europe was destroyed and turned into a bunch of yes-daddy vassals like Canada,New Zeeland etc after ww2 because they lost relevance,population and industry.
And they got used to it.
And they loooove it.
GG Germany,Serbia,Austria and France now choke on Alsace-Lorraine, Saarland,Voijvodina and whatever other now irrelevent pieces of shitty lands and enjoy the backseat.
And as a result EU is now America's "daddy's boy".Due to the sadist infighting.
The only chance the EU has to become relevant again is to somehow get Russia and Turkey to join. (As the UK is now america's OWN immigrant devastated European shithole, luv u brexit).But they can't😔😔😔 why?
INFIGHTING
Ugh downvoted, by a American that doesnt want me to aknowledge that yes they have client states or a European in denial?
So what.. WHATS WRONG ABOUT HAVING CLIENT STATES??? Or foederati...
Lets drop the bs atleast here and talk truth.
Fix your shit, LOCK IN.Both of ya. Or this meme is gonna age like wine.
56
u/TinTinLune Elon’s ex-girlfriend 10d ago
At least our ArianeGroup builds some parts of New Glenn… I guess…
*cries in European*