Quote from: floss on 09/12/2017 04:08 pmThe way I see it Vega will grow to replace Ariane 6.2 and Ariane 6 .4 will be freed up to build the ESA lunar Village then Ariane 7 will be built to transfer crew .Anly after the lunar village is up and running will markets increase that reuseable craft be viable and fuel depots start to be built and flights to Mars or Venus become a reality .Can you elaborate how Vega could grow to replace Ariane 6?Vega is P80 (P88)-Z23-Z9A-AVUM, Vega C is going to be P120C (P142)-Z40-Z9A-AVUM+the largest proposed Vega version by Avio is Vega-EH 3xP120C-P120C-Z40-VUS (myra).Before the correction in 2014, the French prefered design of Ariane6 was PPH 3×P145-P145-Vince.The problem with comparing this, is that it is not clear what P120C is. In the PPH or PPPC (Vega-EH) the second stage is a different motor than the first stage motors (different: structure, grain geometry and nozzle). P120C has varied in size been a P105, P120, P135, P142 and P145. The current design of P120C (F37C) for Vega-C has most likely a different grain geometry and thrust curve than the P120C for Ariane6. Launchers aren't Lego, expecially when solids are used. (hardware instead of software change)Moon village was/is a proposal from ESA director Jan Werner. It's studied, but funding for it is far from certain. This is also the case for Space Rider it's funded until PDR in 2018, this is a paperwork study. Funding for hardware development has to be approved during the 2018 ESA ministerial. Vega-C and Ariane 6 are fully funded. Vega-E is in early study phase, the design of the VUS stage is far from fixed. If I'm not mistaken, the Myra engine is stil in development. As writen in the Callisto and Prometheus topic, to be able to use LNG/Methane on ESA launchers, large investments are needed for LNG facilities at CSG (the launch zone). I guess Vega-E development will require an investment of ~100mln in ground facilities at CSG. It is far from certain that ESA/its members will decide to use methane on launchers.There's currently no satellite planned in Europe that can't be launched by Ariane 5 or in the future A64 because it is to large and heavy. If there is a need for a very heavy mission, segmentation could be applied to launch it on multiple launches. I really don't see ESA developing a very heavy launcher any time soon. I think it's far more likely that the 'Western world' loses it's permanently manned LEO outpost, than that another human lands on the moon. And let's not talk about Mars.What ESA and it's memberstates need is a launcher family that can orbit the required satellites when needed for a affordable price. Currently getting satellits into orbit is problemetic. (Cubesats, QB-50, NorSAT-1, PAZ, Sentinel 5p, Sentinel 3B, Expert, to name several examples) I think Vega SSMS, Vega-C and both versions of Ariane 6 will improve the situation considerably. Two gaps will remain, a large one below Vega(-C) and a small gap between Vega-C and Ariane 62. (A62 will often require rideshare, thus preference for Soyuz.) The lower gap is worked upon with at leased three EU funded projects, Calisto, and at leased a half dozen EU commercial / state funded projects. I don't see a requirement for a launcher more capable then A64.I think the EUMETSAT order of two Soyuz-STB launches for METOP-SG and an option for a third is a bad sign for the Ariane6. Apparently EUMETSAT prefers the foreign, more expansive but proven Soyuz above the new European cheaper A62. Even for the third MetOp-SG satellite that is planed for NET2027, EUMETSAT is in doubt of using A62. MTG S1 and MTG I1, will both launch on A5 ECA between 2020-2023.
The way I see it Vega will grow to replace Ariane 6.2 and Ariane 6 .4 will be freed up to build the ESA lunar Village then Ariane 7 will be built to transfer crew .Anly after the lunar village is up and running will markets increase that reuseable craft be viable and fuel depots start to be built and flights to Mars or Venus become a reality .
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 09/12/2017 11:35 pmQuote from: floss on 09/12/2017 04:08 pmThe way I see it Vega will grow to replace Ariane 6.2 and Ariane 6 .4 will be freed up to build the ESA lunar Village then Ariane 7 will be built to transfer crew .Anly after the lunar village is up and running will markets increase that reuseable craft be viable and fuel depots start to be built and flights to Mars or Venus become a reality .Can you elaborate how Vega could grow to replace Ariane 6?Vega is P80 (P88)-Z23-Z9A-AVUM, Vega C is going to be P120C (P142)-Z40-Z9A-AVUM+the largest proposed Vega version by Avio is Vega-EH 3xP120C-P120C-Z40-VUS (myra).Before the correction in 2014, the French prefered design of Ariane6 was PPH 3×P145-P145-Vince.The problem with comparing this, is that it is not clear what P120C is. In the PPH or PPPC (Vega-EH) the second stage is a different motor than the first stage motors (different: structure, grain geometry and nozzle). P120C has varied in size been a P105, P120, P135, P142 and P145. The current design of P120C (F37C) for Vega-C has most likely a different grain geometry and thrust curve than the P120C for Ariane6. Launchers aren't Lego, expecially when solids are used. (hardware instead of software change)Moon village was/is a proposal from ESA director Jan Werner. It's studied, but funding for it is far from certain. This is also the case for Space Rider it's funded until PDR in 2018, this is a paperwork study. Funding for hardware development has to be approved during the 2018 ESA ministerial. Vega-C and Ariane 6 are fully funded. Vega-E is in early study phase, the design of the VUS stage is far from fixed. If I'm not mistaken, the Myra engine is stil in development. As writen in the Callisto and Prometheus topic, to be able to use LNG/Methane on ESA launchers, large investments are needed for LNG facilities at CSG (the launch zone). I guess Vega-E development will require an investment of ~100mln in ground facilities at CSG. It is far from certain that ESA/its members will decide to use methane on launchers.There's currently no satellite planned in Europe that can't be launched by Ariane 5 or in the future A64 because it is to large and heavy. If there is a need for a very heavy mission, segmentation could be applied to launch it on multiple launches. I really don't see ESA developing a very heavy launcher any time soon. I think it's far more likely that the 'Western world' loses it's permanently manned LEO outpost, than that another human lands on the moon. And let's not talk about Mars.What ESA and it's memberstates need is a launcher family that can orbit the required satellites when needed for a affordable price. Currently getting satellits into orbit is problemetic. (Cubesats, QB-50, NorSAT-1, PAZ, Sentinel 5p, Sentinel 3B, Expert, to name several examples) I think Vega SSMS, Vega-C and both versions of Ariane 6 will improve the situation considerably. Two gaps will remain, a large one below Vega(-C) and a small gap between Vega-C and Ariane 62. (A62 will often require rideshare, thus preference for Soyuz.) The lower gap is worked upon with at leased three EU funded projects, Calisto, and at leased a half dozen EU commercial / state funded projects. I don't see a requirement for a launcher more capable then A64.I think the EUMETSAT order of two Soyuz-STB launches for METOP-SG and an option for a third is a bad sign for the Ariane6. Apparently EUMETSAT prefers the foreign, more expansive but proven Soyuz above the new European cheaper A62. Even for the third MetOp-SG satellite that is planed for NET2027, EUMETSAT is in doubt of using A62. MTG S1 and MTG I1, will both launch on A5 ECA between 2020-2023.I am talking about after 2025 at least as the P 120 is complete the Research teams will go idle and the P 145 will be under development and plans for lunar exploration will be started .When lunar base is nearing completion the all liquid crew transport rocket will be launched and seeing as it costs so much they might as well go all out and build a full sized moon rocket not a SLS.
Maybe this is obvious to everyone else, but why does the Ariane 6 pad need such a huge hole to be dug? I can't think of a reason why it would need a launch pad more substantial than the ones at CCAFS. Or maybe the pictures are deceiving me about the size of it?
Does anyone know the geographic coordinates of the launch pad itself? ELA-4 looks to be west/northwest of ELA-3 somewhere. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Prettz on 09/21/2017 06:23 pmMaybe this is obvious to everyone else, but why does the Ariane 6 pad need such a huge hole to be dug? I can't think of a reason why it would need a launch pad more substantial than the ones at CCAFS. Or maybe the pictures are deceiving me about the size of it?The hole is just for the flame tunnels and deflector. Everything will be filled in after its fully constructed. It has to be this deep to have the correct deflection angle and profile to prevent pressure blowback at ignition and launch.
Ariane 6 could use reusable Prometheus engine, designer saysLES MUREAUX, France and WASHINGTON — Europe’s upcoming Ariane 6 rocket, though designed to be expendable, could one day sport a reusable engine, according to Patrick Bonguet, head of the Ariane 6 program at ArianeGroup.Whether or not the rocket would ever use that engine, called Prometheus, depends on whether Ariane 6 manufacturer ArianeGroup, formerly Airbus Safran Launchers, finds enough benefit for the European launch sector. So far, the merits of reusable rockets to ArianeGroup are unclear at best, Bonguet said, but the company is researching the technology to be ready for implementation should it prove worthwhile.“We could replace Vulcain 2.1 by Prometheus,” Bonguet told SpaceNews. “Or Prometheus can be the first break to build the next generation. We will see where we are in 2025 or 2030, and then decide on the right time whether to go one way or the other.”
Oops. Poll at #SpaceTechExpoEu asks if @ArianeGroup will meet its Ariane 6 cost/price goals. Looks like German audience needs persuading.