Author Topic: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here  (Read 934802 times)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
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...?

You don't get it.
Development of Ariane 6 is co-funded between ESA and industry. However, operating A6 has been fully turned over to industry. In return industry asked ESA to fly a minimal number of ESA payloads on A6, per year. But those ESA payloads alone are not sufficient to make A6 a competitive vehicle. The shortfall is the responsibility of industry, not ESA.
There is no need to scramble the ESA ministers given that any un-competitiveness of A6 is the problem of Arianespace. Industry wanted a bigger say in A6 and ESA and CNES gave it to them. But with it came a nice set of disadvantages that previously befell ESA and CNES but now fall entirely on industry.

Basically: flying A6 as a competitive vehicle is now fully the problem of Arianespace and no longer the concern of ESA and CNES. ESA never held shares in Arianespace and the CNES share of Arianespace was sold to industry in 2016.
Additionally: with that minimum number of guaranteed ESA missions, per year, came a caveat: Arianespace is obliged to actually fly those missions, on Ariane 6.

So, suppose A6 becomes an un-competitive vehicle and Arianespace is losing  money on it. Normally that would result in phase-out of such a vehicle. However, they can't do that as they are forced to fly the guaranteed ESA payloads on A6.
So, there is a strong and urgent need and incentive for Arianespace to turn A6 into a successful vehicle.
« Last Edit: 11/22/2017 12:53 pm by woods170 »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
I stick with what I've wrote before. Read the previous three pages, I've explained why a reusable launcher is very unrealistic for Europe at this moment. It's nearly 2018, Ariane 6 will launch 2020 or 2021 if delayed. AFAIK:
 - some of the new CSG solid facilities are finished,
 - ELA4 is planned to be finished somewhere in 2019.
 - The Upperstage factory in Germany is finished
 - The new Avio P120C factory is nearly completed
 - The LLPM (core) factory is under construction.
 - Early next year the P120C will be testfired in CSG
 - Engine qualification tests are planed for 2018 and 2019 (Vince, Vulcain 2.1, ULPM)
 - More then half of the 3.4 10^9 euro investment have already been spent.
What woods170 wrote is true, ArianeGroup is responsible for maintaining the Ariane 6 factories. But if A6, Vega(-C) and Soyuz fly at a low rate, the CSG range isn't used enough and the ESA member-states have to pay to maintain the launch range. This is the annual payment to Arianespace. (In the US the USAF maintains the ranges)

Any change in the Ariane 6 plan means a delay. ESA/ArianeGroup doesn't have a rocket engine for a VTVL Reusable rocket. Prometheus could become this rocket engine, but it's in very early development stage. The first engine run of Prometheus is planned NET2020. (They will do component test in France in 2018 and 2019.)
It's very uncertain if Prometheus will be developed successfully. I won't expect it ready before 2022.
After the Prometheus engine has been developed, the launcher still has to be developed. This takes at least another two or three years. That's why ArianeNext can't be ready before 2025.
If the plan is changed, ESA/Europe has to rely on Vega(-C), Ariane 5 and foreign launchers until the new launcher is operational.

With the Prometheus engine and Callisto VTVL rocket demonstrators ESA/Europe is developing the technologies for a reusable launcher. I highly doubt if more funding can accelerate these technology development projects. 

I also wonder what this France politician (Bruno Le Maire) prioritices:
A) Cheap acces to space (low launch cost)
B) Maintaining the jobs related to Arianespace launch offering.
The current Ariane 6 does B) while also lowering launch cost (by ~40%) and diversifying Arianespace launch offering. A reusable ArianeNext only does A). With a reusable ArianeNext >50% of the jobs will be lost, and half the launcher factories will become obsolete. 

SpaceX isn't lowering launch price by offering a previous used first stage, they are granting earlier acces to a launch opportunity. SpaceX factory doesn't allow the launch rate with expendable Falcon 9.
With the move form Ariane 5 to Ariane 6 Arianespace can increase launch rate from <8x A5 to <14x A6. But if ELA3 is modified, and additional solid casting facilities are build they could go even higher. 

Has anyone looked at the commercial launches Arianespace got contracted this year, and compared is to the launches awareded to SpaceX and Blue Origin. And don't forget ILS (Proton & Angara), Glavcosmos (Soyuz), India, China's LongMarch.
I'm not worrying to much. ESA & ArianeGroup should continue as planned and reconsider by 2022. If ArianeNext gets developed. Industry has to pay the largest part of the development cost. I expect it will cost less then 2 10^9 Euro. (a billion is confusing)

Again far more words than this topic deserves.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
A tweet with the Ariane 6 production flow visualised.
https://twitter.com/AmazingSpace2/status/932969204113960960
I'm missing one thing: Igniters  :-X

This was a presentation at the new LLPM facility in Les Mureaux, France.
https://twitter.com/Mausonaut/status/932961518240567296

PS: This twitter ArianeGroup is in France, not in Germany.  :-X
« Last Edit: 11/22/2017 01:18 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
From the update thread

Something to read: OHB 9-month report 2017 {direct download} OHB SE website
The 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.

There is a picture of the burst test article, and there are also pictures of the test over at MPA.
Looks like the burst test blew out the fitting out of the nozzle end. Not the sidewalls. Design or luck?

I wonder how much cheaper and lighter the new winding process actually will be. Not enough in the long run. Something to scale down for use in sounding rockets?

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
Copied from the update topic:
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

I think this is half true. Indeed MT-A only is going to produce casing when the demand for P120C boosters is high enough. This might very well be in 2023.
But I expect that Avio will adopt the new (German) production proces inside their new P120C factory. I think they are currently using the Vega tooling to produce the P120C test articles.
There are two P120c qualification test planned. Probably the first is with the same production proces as with P80. And the second test could be with the new production proces. But I could be wrong on this.

Scale down = S50  8)
« Last Edit: 11/23/2017 11:32 am by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
"Shaping the Future with Ariane 6"
A talk from the 68th IAC GNF on 27th September 2017

No slides shown.


Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
I believe criticism on current Ariane 6 plan, with context, is quite appropriate and necessary for this thread. My sole interest.
Choice is either to up the game significantly or retreat from the battle to a "safe" position.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2017 05:19 pm by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
I 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.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
I 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.
Constant repetitive criticism?

Better suited for the ArianeNext thread? Strongly disagree.

However, I hadn't noticed that this was a discomfort to those here. Please let me know if there are any troubles with my commentary, especially any errors, as adding noise to this discussion is not intended.

And I'll refrain from further comments on Ariane. Its been a wonderful, storied LV family, and I wish it well for the future. As I always have.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
I have moved many of the recent posts in this thread to:

Space Intel Report - Squaring the circle: Europe wants launcher autonomy and low launch prices

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
I looked again at the Ariane 6 users day presentations. It looks like Arianespace is planning for four qualification flights.
- First a Ariane 62 with single GTO payload (two Vince burns).
- 2th A62 with two Gallileo to MEO 22k km 56 deg. (two Vince burns, with long loiter time)
- 3th A62 with long fairing, A LEO rideshare, multiple orbits launch. (three vince burns)
- 4th Ariane 64 with dual GTO payloads.
Nice launch variety to qualify Ariane 6 for multiple missions.
« Last Edit: 11/28/2017 06:05 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
Reusable 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.
« Last Edit: 11/29/2017 10:07 am by RotoSequence »

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • England
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 158
Reusable 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.

Well for a start what engine do you propose propelling it with?

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
Reusable 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.
No, it's not aversion to write off investments. I think >70% of the investments for Ariane 6 will prove to be useful for ArianeNext. (read the A to Q from Germany document, for funding details.)

ESA/Arianegroup can't develop a reusable launcher before 2025 because:
1) They don't have a restart-able first stage engine.
The development of Vince took nearly two decades, because half way the development, the funding was dropt. Vince development was continued on low funding form ESA. Then they wanted to apply it to Ariane 5ME, but political decisions preferred the development of Ariane 6, which caused a maiden launch delay from 2018 to 2021. Now the Prometheus engine development has just started. For ~100mln this engine should be developed with a maiden static test firing in 2020. After this maiden static test, the engine has to gain lots of burn-time before it is qualified for a launch vehicle. Only then Arianespace is at a point to consider developing a reusable first stage.
2) After they have the engine, Arianegroup/ESA has to develop the technology and procedures to recover, refurbish and re-certify the stage. This has already started with the Calisto demonstrator.
3) With the developed engines it takes at least two years to develop and qualify a launcher. (2020+2+2=2024)

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).

Ariane 6 will finally integrate the Vince with multiple burn capability into a european launcher. This has been hoped for for over a decade. Ariane 6 will be a fully European launch vehicle (I don't know if this is also true for VEGA-C). Ariane 6 will provide Arianespace with a capability to replace Soyuz, Ariane 5ES and Ariane 5 ECA. And in increases the maximum launch cadence while also costing >40% less.
Going directly for a reusable launcher is to risky for Europe. All it's technology still has to be developed and it would be designed for a speculated increase in launch demand.
And then we are neglecting that Ariane 6 is a jobs program in Europe.

So Ariane 6 first, at the same time developing the enabling technologies for ArianeNext. (2014-2022)
After these technologies have been proven, Arianegroup/ESA could develop a ArianeNext (reusable ??)

{I'm going to ignore Ariane 6 bashing post that don't counter what I wrote here}
« Last Edit: 11/29/2017 12:55 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
 ;D Terraserver has a sat Image of ELA-4 under construction.
Terraserver Coordinate 5.25, -52.79

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
...
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).
...

I don't understand the constraint to 'European' demand.  A competitive launcher, probably meaning a reusable launcher, should to supply whatever commercial demand that exists world-wide.  The reusable New Glenn, being built by a private company with zero orbital launch experience (and no engine yet), has already sold five launches for 400 satellites in early 2020s to OneWeb and two more launches to EutelSat.  The several (2-4?) other LEO constellations besides Starlink will have ongoing need for replacement or adding capability to their constellations.  On the other hand, all of this Buy European Act discussion, your repeated attempts to constrain the argument to your set of assumptions and boundaries, and the push beyond Ariane 6 to Ariane Next by the European community itself (before Ariane 6 is even built), seems to say that there is serious concern that Ariane 6 will not be world-market competitive when introduced in early 2020s.

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; Soyuz is winning constellation launches, too, so ArianeSpace is profiting.  If the 'lot' that Europe is investing in Ariane 6 would be used for accelerating the Ariane Next vehicle development and continuing to subsidize/increasingly subsidize European internal market launches, then maybe Europe could have a next launch system that doesn't need to be subsidized... by 2022-2024.

« Last Edit: 11/29/2017 01:55 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
Because Ariane 5 can't fulfill all institutional launch requirements. Ariane 6 can. That's why several institutional satellites launch on Soyuz, Rockot and Falcon 9. This will happen less with Ariane 6.
Ariane 5 ins't flexible enough. And the max 7/8 launch rate makes it expansive.
The decision to fund a new launcher/ develop a upgrade was made in 2012. (A5ME / A6)
« Last Edit: 11/29/2017 02:35 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • England
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 158
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.

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.


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;


 :o

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.  Ariane 5 is heavily reliant on capturing a significant fraction of the commercial market as it has no other way to stay financially afloat (past subsidies).
« Last Edit: 11/29/2017 03:08 pm by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
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.

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.

Ariane 5 could keep launching that better part of decade, wasting less money that Ariane 6 development wastes.

Quote
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.

Manufacturing technology improvements for SRBs are useless for reusable liquid-fueled rocket.

Quote

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.


Ariane 6 is neither.

Quote
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;


 :o

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? 

It's not.

Quote
This attitude is nonsensical. 

No, what is nonsensical is to waste billions to develop another non-competitive launcher. It would be cheaper to keep flying Ariane 5 until they can create a truely competitive reusable launcher than waste billions to develop Ariane 6 which is a dead-end architecture.

Vinci is practically the only part of Ariane 6 that can be used for future reusable rocket, and it could also be used in Ariane 5.

They should just finish Ariane 5 ME, skip Ariane 6 and develop a true next-generation reusable rocket with hydrocarbon first stage.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2017 03:14 pm by hkultala »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
The development of Ariane 5ME would have cost at most one billion less then Ariane 6 development.
And ESA/European institutions still had to rely on foreign launchers for their institutional payloads.

With the development of Ariane 6 Arianegroup got the responsibility to design the launcher. The geographical return principle has been droped. If a subcontractor can't reach cost targets, it could lose it's work package.
(But replacing the tooling elsewhere is an obstacle in relocating a work package)

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.
A launch of a Soyuz from CSG and Ariane 62 will cost about the same to the costumer. But Ariane 62 has 1.4x the launch capability of Soyuz. (7mT instead of 4.5mT to SSO; 4.5mT instead of 3.2mT to GTO. And I expect Ariane 6 numbers are conservative.)

Let's also add that the Soyuz launches will be replaced by both Vega-C (<2.2mT) and Ariane 62. And Vega-C is cheaper because Ariane 6 uses the same P120C booster. Because P120C is produced at a rate ~35 annually, it's so affordable.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2018 12:17 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Tags: vernovela 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1