Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> seems quite reasonable considering the Ariane 6 is a non-reusable, low-volume design

It’s after subsidies [1]. Actual costs are 4 to 6x Falcon 9, and that’s comparing actual costs today for Falcon 9 to projected costs in the future for Ariane 6.

[1] https://www.space.com/europe-ariane-6-rocket-debut-launch

View on HN

You do know that this article completely forgets to mention if SpaceX got any subsidies? From a quick google search, it seems that this is not the case and I have a feeling that Falcon 9 sticker price is in fact subsidied by the USA. So - why compare apples to apples, when you can compare apples to oranges.

> this is not the case and I have a feeling that Falcon 9 sticker price is in fact subsidied by the USA

They’re both state supported. But Falcon 9 is cash-flow positive on commercial launches where the only operational subsidies are launch complex access.

It is not. The sticker price is not subsidized by the state. The state does buy a lot of launches as a consumer. These are often conflated.

Falcon 9 is 'subsidized' by the USA in the way that businesses 'subsidize' development of new products and services through profit from selling products, getting investors and completing contracts at fixed cost to the customer. Ariane is subsidized in that their development expenses are fully paid for by government coffers, and additional money is provided yearly regardless of services rendered to make the sticker price for a launch seem lower.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com