Why did they do this?
Probably because Ariane 6 is a new rocket, and new rockets haven’t had the bugs worked out and have a disproportionately high failure rate.
But now, on the eve of restoring European access to space, Eumetsat has effectively stabbed this industry in the back.
That is not too strong of language, either. In its release, Eumetsat described its new Meteosat Third Generation-Sounder 1 satellite as a “unique masterpiece of European technology.”
Good grief.
NASA flew the James Webb Space Telescope on Ariane 5 for exactly the same reason – because it was an extremely-expensive payload, and when they expected to launch the thing, Falcon was immature, and Ariane 5 was mature. I didn’t hear people running around saying that the US had “stabbed American rocketry in the back” by launching something on France’s baby. Hell, we spent a long time launching stuff on Russian rockets, which I think probably has a lot more potential for controversy.
When you can get a mature and reliable rocket faster for less money, the value proposition for Ariane 6 starts looking pretty weak.
I think the value proposition is more about national pride and security, so they can keep launching things if they have a falling out with other countries. Like when Russia decided to start a war and take Oneweb satellites hostage. Imagine a world where the US elected a crazy nationalist who wanted out of NATO…
Absolutely, and for a national security type payload that’s both a requirement and enough to make a decision.
That’s a limited market though. I won’t eat my hat, but I will be surprised if for example Viasat would choose to go on Ariane.
