It's still 40% lower than Ariane 5's, which is not bad for an expendable launch vehicle.
Prior to SpaceX disrupting the market by surprisingly making what was widely regarded as a bad idea actually work, this was the way to go and I would be surprised, maybe angry, if a government backed effort went with a very costly high-risk/high-return project.
A bit like the Alcubierre-White warp drive: I'm fine with a relatively small budget funding research on it, but no sane person would approve "investing" one SLS worth of money in that.
Those 40% can only be substained with the additional budget and does not include the actual cost of construction.
So really that 40% even outside of development cost isnt substainable.
> Prior to SpaceX disrupting the market by surprisingly making what was widely regarded as a bad idea actually work, this was the way to go
Well the whole point of the Arine 6 was to compete with SpaceX. Ariane 6 would never have been approved if not for the pressure of SpaceX.
This target price the targed barly even competed with non reusable SpaceX. And SpaceX was already deep in development of reuse tech whem Ariane 6 was approved.
> if a government backed effort went with a very costly high-risk/high-return project.
Instead they went with a very costly low return project.
> Well the whole point of the Arine [sic] 6 was to compete with SpaceX. Ariane 6 would never have been approved if not for...
Cynical rejoinder: The point of Ariane 6 was to give the credible impression of competing with SpaceX. For 5-or-so years. While keeping the government-funding gravy flowing, bureaucratic careers moving forward, and politicians winning elections.
> Well the whole point of the Arine 6 was to compete with SpaceX. Ariane 6 would never have been approved if not for the pressure of SpaceX.
The odds were never for SpaceX succeeding.
> Instead they went with a very costly low return project.
And while they did it, they developed new motors, new structures and new technology. Even if A6 is not at all cheaper than A5, it kept the engineers employed and sharp. That's more or less the same return NASA gets for SLS - it keeps local industry happy and lowers the likelihood of anyone with relevant knowledge defecting to North Korea.
Prior to SpaceX disrupting the market by surprisingly making what was widely regarded as a bad idea actually work, this was the way to go and I would be surprised, maybe angry, if a government backed effort went with a very costly high-risk/high-return project.
A bit like the Alcubierre-White warp drive: I'm fine with a relatively small budget funding research on it, but no sane person would approve "investing" one SLS worth of money in that.
I have no doubt Ariane 7 will be reusable.