If I'm ESA and I'm looking out across the Pond, watching as BO's New Glenn infrastructure is rapidly being put into place, SX doubling their launch rate, updating to Block 5, reusing launchers, getting ready for FH, Dragon2 let alone BFR, I'd be questioning my strategy as well. Actually, I'd be waaaaay beyond questioning and more into calling an emergency Ministerial Meeting. Alas...How many ministers does it take to...?
Something to read: OHB 9-month report 2017 {direct download} OHB SE websiteThe German solid casing production proces was tested. Normal pressure is 100bar, tested at 125bar was fine. Later they did a burst test, the test casing failed at 212 bar.
This new casing will not fly before 2023 at best on Ariane 6 and Vega-C (P120c SRMs) and the Italians do their best (and have heavy influence within ESA) to avoid that any work share transfer from Avio to MT-A ever occur. So we should not read too much into this news reported by MT-A
Choice is either to up the game significantly or retreat from the battle to a "safe" position.
I believe criticism on current Ariane 6 plan, with context, is quite appropriate and necessary for this thread. My sole interest.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/25/2017 11:41 pmI believe criticism on current Ariane 6 plan, with context, is quite appropriate and necessary for this thread. My sole interest.The constant repetitive criticism of the current Ariane 6 plan really might be better suited for the ArianeNext thread.
Reusable liquid boosters can only happen past 2025 more likely 2030! That's the fact.
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 11/13/2017 07:59 amReusable liquid boosters can only happen past 2025 more likely 2030! That's the fact. Why? The reasons upthread all seem to fall under the Sunk Costs Fallacy.
...DLR has studied reusable launchers, and they concluded that with the European demand the business case doesn't work, unless the demand for launches increases a lot. SpaceX has their LEO Com-sat constellation plan that requires lots of annual launches. It's the SpaceX Leo Com-sat constellation that has to generate the funding for Musk's Mars ambitions, not their launch service. SpaceX needs a mayor cost reduction (reusable launcher) to make the LEO Comsat businesscase work. The SpaceX LEO Com-sat constellation has enough launch demand of it's own (>20 launches annually) to require continuous stage production while also reusing the first stage. EUrope/ Arianespace doesn't have this demand. So Europe has to invest a lot to develop a reusable launcher, while it's questionable if it will lower their launch cost. Don't forget that a Falcon 9 doesn't fulfill all requirements set by European institutions for their launcher. They would also require a larger launch vehicle (multi-stage or more engines on the first stage)....
Assuming this must have considerable truth to it -- since you and so many others are pointing at the same reality without naming it -- why build an intermediate rocket at all is the question.
Ariane 5 is a great launch vehicle that could continue to be as viable as it is now well into the 2020s, especially for pairs of GTO deliveries;
Quote from: AncientU on 11/29/2017 01:52 pmAssuming this must have considerable truth to it -- since you and so many others are pointing at the same reality without naming it -- why build an intermediate rocket at all is the question. Because;a) As has been pointed out numerous times the technology does not exist in Europe yet, to develop them will take the better part of a decade when changes to the launch industry need to happen now, not a few years time.
b) Part of what makes the European industry noncompetitive is industrial inefficiency. Much of the cost in developing Ariane 6 is actually not directly related to the rocket design but altering the manufacturing process to improve launch cadence and cut costs. This will be beneficial to any future launch system including Ariane Next.
c) Ariane 5 is not viable in a competitive commercial market (see below). It has only succeeded in the past because there were few reliable alternatives.
Quote from: AncientU on 11/29/2017 01:52 pmAriane 5 is a great launch vehicle that could continue to be as viable as it is now well into the 2020s, especially for pairs of GTO deliveries; If Ariane 6 with a much higher launch rate and ~45% price reduction is not competitive as you claim, how on earth is Ariane 5?
This attitude is nonsensical.
Ariane 5 is NOT a great launch vehicle, that point is why Europe has ****ed around with Soyuz trying to recapture the institutional launch market that Ariane 5 simply couldn't cater for.
The reason they need Soyuz is that they lack a launcher in the low-end of the medium launch category, Ariane V is oversized and so over-expensive for many payloads.Ariane 6 adds the 62-model which is smaller and considerably cheaper than Ariane 5 but even that is still more expensive than Soyuz.