Ariane 5 didn't have this capability, because its hydrogen-oxygen engines weren't designed to be re-ignited in space.
The first Ariane 6 deorbit attempt (2024) did not succeed[2]—that upper stage is now space junk that will reenter in an uncontrolled manner. Not that that's particularly wrong: all rocket stages used to do that, up until very recently. (There's even dead nuclear reactors orbiting the Earth that will reenter with their spent fuel, at some random location—though that won't happen for a few centuries).
*(Their hypergolic stages used have to this capability, but they retired those 15+ years ago for performance)
[0] https://bsky.app/profile/planet4589.bsky.social/post/3ljqmxl... ("Ariane 6002 deorbit trajectory, southward over the Indian Ocean with entry around 1910 UTC")
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/planet4589.bsky.social/post/3ljqfpg... ("Thanks to those who confirmed (1) Ariane 6 did its deorbit burn and (2) deorbit location was over the Indian Ocean around 90E 35S")
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_flight_VA262#Mission ("The failure left the upper stage stranded in a 580-kilometre (360 mi) circular orbit. At this altitude, their natural orbital decay due to atmospheric drag is expected to take decades.")
It's also very toxic stuff. Though I guess up in orbit that doesn't really matter as much. The Space shuttle used to use it (Hydrazine) for the thrusters because it's so simple and controllable. But it meant that the whole thing had to be checked for traces after landing before the astronauts could disembark.
must NOT yield
Things have changed, it’s very unlikely anything of strategic importance will be given to us companies now, cost does not matter when it comes to defence anymore.
I'm slightly surprised it's only 50% more expensive than a dedicated F9 launch. I would have thought it to be much worse. Non reusable means low cadence : there are only five Ariane 6 flights scheduled for 2025. Commercially, it's not great, but the article goes on explaining the importance of having a pure EU solution.
But it's certainly a bit of a cope out to for Arianespace, while sovereignty is definitely becoming an issue, reading the article, it's pretty clear that they are pushing that PR angle a bit too hard. That allows them to shove aside the many many fumblings around reusability that happened in the previous years. They do have a new CEO since January, though.
It looks like they finally started assembly a few months ago for a "hopper" test vehicle for basically what would be a F9 class launcher (expected to be operational in the 2030s) : <https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Fu...>
ESA is also pushing for studying a heavier reusable launcher : https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Fu...
Since SpaceX seems to be aligned with russia in the forseeable future, i don't see why we should use SpaceX instead of Soyuz if sovereignty is not an issue.
Why do you think this to be the case? Or, to rephrase it, do you actually think this to be the case?
I think you're underestimating the urgency with which Western nations are trying to reduce their dependency on the US, who have over-night become isolationist and frankly hostile to other Western democracies.
