This engine development for example, is something that in the US startups who don't get much government money are doing. And there are like 10+ companies working on comparable technology.
Yes ESA budget is small compared to NASA but they also do far less things.
And when they do things its not efficient. Ariane 6 for example is a minor upgrade over Ariane 5 with mostly parts that were developed for Ariane 5 ME. And yet somehow it cost will easily pass 5 billion $ and that doesn't include even e new engine. And a lot of cost is also hidden on other balance sheet, a full accounting would be likely more.
That might be about 2x as much as the complete Falcon 9 (+ Falcon Heavy) + Merlin + Re-usability program cost.
So yes, a comparative small budget, but that doesn't actually explain many of the issues.
But it is a geopolitical issue.. The goal is not to have the cheapest or most efficient rocket. It is to have independent launch capabilities. If the EU wanted cheap, they'd just eat the shit sandwich of using Russian launch vehicles.
> The goal is not to have the cheapest or most efficient rocket.
Well I point out in other places. That's exactly what they said they wanted when they started building it.
Only now where they know they are way off they say 'oh that's never what we actually wanted'.
Europe was successful in getting commercial payloads on their rockets and that helped them finance everything. So a primary goal and justification for Ariane 6 in favor of Ariane ME was exactly this commercial market.
> If the EU wanted cheap, they'd just eat the shit sandwich of using Russian launch vehicles.
That literally exactly what they did. Arianespace launched more Soyuz then anything else.
But that simply wasn't tenable anymore.
So the reality is ESA was eating shit sandwiches until Russia tried to eat Ukraine and got diary. Now they can't handle it anymore.
> This engine development for example, is something that in the US startups who don't get much government money are doing. And there are like 10+ companies working on comparable technology.
"working on" is not good enough, most start-ups never succeed. Very few have a fully-tested reusable engine. And the engine has to be in the same class - most start-ups work on miniature rockets, only good to launch a couple tons into space.
Bottomn line is, Europe does not have the intense private investment for this sort of thing, but the work still needs to be done.
Well many are further along then Europe is with their engine. Some are much further along.
> And the engine has to be in the same class - most start-ups work on miniature rockets, only good to launch a couple tons into space.
Read my to level comment, I have a whole list. And I didn't even include smaller engines.
> Bottomn line is, Europe does not have the intense private investment for this sort of thing, but the work still needs to be done.
I didn't say they should do any investing or building engine. What I said is that you can't just say ESA has a smaller budget and that's why they don't have these things.
Yes ESA budget is small compared to NASA but they also do far less things.
And when they do things its not efficient. Ariane 6 for example is a minor upgrade over Ariane 5 with mostly parts that were developed for Ariane 5 ME. And yet somehow it cost will easily pass 5 billion $ and that doesn't include even e new engine. And a lot of cost is also hidden on other balance sheet, a full accounting would be likely more.
That might be about 2x as much as the complete Falcon 9 (+ Falcon Heavy) + Merlin + Re-usability program cost.
So yes, a comparative small budget, but that doesn't actually explain many of the issues.