" The milestones that didn't come with an expected timeframe are a long-duration hot fire test of the Vinci engine"
To think that this thing has been in design since at least 2008, and was proposed as the Orion engine back in 2012! (And actually in the running for the Omega Upper stage in 2017)
Solely working on your descriptions, I voted for Vila over Huby, because the EUS (like everything SLS) experienced some delays too.
But I fear it does not really matter who leads ArianeGroup as long as the incentives do not change.
The EU did not care as long as there were jobs, and from the industry side the owners probably knew through Airbus that there would be a lull in GEOsat production.
From the ESA side there have been no penalties for the delays, nor for ending Ariane 5 without the replacement. If anything, they got rewarded /more/ launches, and ESA /doubled/ the funding from the original €2 billion to €4 billion as you reported. I would not be surprised if the cost share that Arianespace was expected to cover has /dropped/.
They even got the unexpected windfall of the Amazon contract, encouraging them to delay even more to optimize the vehicle for this single large customer.
For sure they, like ULA and Blue Origin, are learning that just-in-time rocketry does not work. But the circumstances have been external enough* that they probably can get away with blaming 'force majeur', while still collecting the personal bonusses that caused the delays.
Even though the original schedule should have had them ready /before/ most of these setbacks were to happen.
*Unexpected outside impacts to schedule: Oneweb bankruptcy canceling first Ariane 6, C-band satellite launch sales, Covid, Ukraine War.
" The milestones that didn't come with an expected timeframe are a long-duration hot fire test of the Vinci engine"
To think that this thing has been in design since at least 2008, and was proposed as the Orion engine back in 2012! (And actually in the running for the Omega Upper stage in 2017)
https://spacenews.com/esa-launcher-program-shifts-focus-away-reusables/
https://spacenews.com/working-group-backs-european-prop-module-orion-capsule/
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/orbital-atk-pick-upper-stage-engine-ngl
Solely working on your descriptions, I voted for Vila over Huby, because the EUS (like everything SLS) experienced some delays too.
But I fear it does not really matter who leads ArianeGroup as long as the incentives do not change.
The EU did not care as long as there were jobs, and from the industry side the owners probably knew through Airbus that there would be a lull in GEOsat production.
From the ESA side there have been no penalties for the delays, nor for ending Ariane 5 without the replacement. If anything, they got rewarded /more/ launches, and ESA /doubled/ the funding from the original €2 billion to €4 billion as you reported. I would not be surprised if the cost share that Arianespace was expected to cover has /dropped/.
They even got the unexpected windfall of the Amazon contract, encouraging them to delay even more to optimize the vehicle for this single large customer.
For sure they, like ULA and Blue Origin, are learning that just-in-time rocketry does not work. But the circumstances have been external enough* that they probably can get away with blaming 'force majeur', while still collecting the personal bonusses that caused the delays.
Even though the original schedule should have had them ready /before/ most of these setbacks were to happen.
*Unexpected outside impacts to schedule: Oneweb bankruptcy canceling first Ariane 6, C-band satellite launch sales, Covid, Ukraine War.