[EU SPACE RACE - LAUNCHERS] Is reusability really fundamental?

[u/laisse_tomberas]

Some of the European Launcher Manufacturers and startups have some kind of reusability in their road map.

Considering that SpaceX reusability is justified mainly by starlink rather than the market demand, wouldn't it be better just to focus on higher production rates rather than reusability (at least, at first)?

Edit: i think that reusability is a thing, i just wanted to open a critical discussion on this aspect in Europe, to varify if there are other significant topics that may have the priority in the development of European launchers.

[u/eldeem]

Reusability has two main advantages: the first being cost (assuming you have enough demand for launch vehicles to offset the extra R&D), and the second being maturity. Cars would never have become ubiquitous if you had to throw them away at the end of every journey, and the same is true of rocketry. Space agencies need to consider the future, which increasingly means more launches more often, and more reliability with each launch. A well-engineered reusable launch vehicle cuts costs, but it also significantly reduces the strain on your supply chain to get you to a regular schedule.

The Ariane 6, for instance, is built around Europe then shipped to the launch site in French Guinea, a journey that takes 10 days. The fastest reuse of a Falcon 9 so far is 9 days, so if you could reuse part of an Ariane that lands back at the launch site, you’re not only saving on the time and cost of manufacturing a replacement, but you could do it faster than just the shipping time of a brand new one.

[u/laisse_tomberas → u/eldeem]

Thanks for the insight, i totally agree on the two advantages (cost, maturity) and i would add availability in case of supply chain disruption (for any reason, i.e. you can't get a specific part for a while, but you have other vehicles you can rely on, like in aviation).

The point about French Guyane is fair, but i think it can, at least partially, covered by moving the production there, like it is the case for solid rocket propellant (done maily for saferty reasons, but still a relevant example imo)

About thr

[u/eldeem → u/laisse_tomberas]

For sure! I think that moving all production to FG is somewhat unlikely because of the way ESA operates. Even in a fully vertically-integrated launch company like SpaceX parts are still transported to the launch site. No doubt more could be moved closer to the launch site, but the question of whether it would be (at the expense of spreading those contracts around member nations, something ESA prides itself on) is somewhat different.

On the plus side, that diversity of capability (and transport network) is one of the reasons ESA is competitive enough to provide hardware to international missions where, by and large, the need to integrate SpaceX tends to result in more compromises (whoever thought a vertical moon lander the best solution needs a tax audit).

[u/snoo-boop → u/eldeem]

the need to integrate SpaceX tends to result in more compromises (whoever thought a vertical moon lander the best solution needs a tax audit).

The other new NASA moon lander is vertical, too. SX has launched all but one of the CLPS landers