Author Topic: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here  (Read 934822 times)

Offline EgorBotts

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • France
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 146
As I pointed out in Twitter, this kind of poll is not really relevant until we know the actual number of participants...

As far as I know, a total of 3 people could have answered...

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Moved this from the Prometheus / Callisto thread:

However, the current PHH configuration of Ariane 6 is now well over a year beyond PDR and CDR is looming around the corner. Metal is being bent on the core stage. SRB's are being cast. Vulcain 2.1 has been constructed and the launchpad and HIF are being constructed as we speak. All for the PHH configuration.
Indeed.

But CHH is just one letter different. Yes a marginal improvement, but one that does not impact schedules, gives true operational insight return, gradually factors in the "C" while letting the "P" gracefully phase out. All of this is very European.
On the contrary. There have been no INTENTIONAL gradual phase-ins and phase-outs in the Ariane programme:

- The switch from Ariane 2/3 to Ariane 4 had a one-year period with both flying. But that was to fly out the (small) stockpile of A2/A3 vehicles. ESA and Arianespace were lucky to have payloads available for those remaining A2/A3 vehicles.

- The switch from Ariane 4 to Ariane 5 had a six (6) year period of overlap. But that was unintentional. Arianespace was forced to keep flying Ariane 4 while the bugs were being ironed out of Ariane 5. Remember: in it's first 10 missions, Ariane 5 suffered 3 (partial) failures. Had those not happened than Ariane 4 would have stopped flying less than two (2) years after the initial A5 launch. That was the plan back in 1996. But because of A501 one more batch of A4 vehicles had to be ordered to prevent Arianespace from going out of business.

- The growth-path for Ariane 5, as originally intended, had Ariane 5 G, Ariane 5 ECA and Ariane 5 ES. However, courtesy of Ariane 517 (the first ECA launch) ESA and Arianespace ended up with a bunch of ECA hardware but no available core-stage engine. The result was two cludges: Ariane 5 G+ and Ariane 5 GS. Those were unintended and were the result of working around a (big) problem. They also were not gradually phased in, nor gradually phased-out. They were simply fitted into the manifest where the fit was best to get rid of the stockpile.


This thing is not gonna change course anymore, not even with the recent noise coming from the Prometheus/Callisto teams.
Understood.

It doesn't have to. But there's nothing that keeps it from being enhanced. Like the prior Ariane 4/5.
I don't agree. A growth-path for Ariane 1 was part of the development of vehicle development from day 1. The result was Ariane 2/3. And when Ariane 4 went into development a growth-path for A4 was identified as well. A growth-path for Ariane 5 was part of development from day 1 forward as well.
Not so for Ariane 6. The launcher is approaching CDR and no clear evolution path has been identified. This is a clear break with Ariane tradition. The reason is that both the original PPH and the current PHH configurations of A6 are dead-ends. Even CNES agrees on this. The future lies not with the current architecture, but with a completely new one. One that sees the vehicle switching from solids-supported, H2-driven main stages to an all-liquids (methane) vehicle. Unfortunately, the A6 architecture does not allow this switch to occur within that architecture.

IMO Ariane 6 will have a short life once the absolute necessity of having a reusable booster stage sinks in hard. That, however, is still some time away.
Perhaps the development coat and the desire to ride out the vehicle life cycle might limit the desire/scope for Anext as well?

Agree that the necessity will/is sinking in slow.
Prometheus/Callisto was officially made part of FFPL-NEO in december 2016. If anything, the scope of AriaNEXT/FLPP efforts has been extended in recent years, not limited.

Once it does sink in however the Ariane 6 basic design will serve, IMO, as the starting point for an AriaNEXT. The result, with reusability capabilities will not be an Ariane 6 re-hash but basically an almost all-new rocket: Ariane 7.
Sorry, too hopeful.

Ariane 6 IS A REHASH of Ariane 5. The internal politics make it far easier to do a rehash.
I disagree. Internal ESA (and EU) politics never prevented the switch from A4 to A5. The latter was an all-new vehicle, with new core-stage propulsion and propellants. Big solids were new for ESA as well (A4 solids were much, much smaller).
The switch from the A4 architecture, to the completely different A5 architecture, was driven by the fact that the A4 architecture had become a dead-end and was inable to satify future needs.
IMO the same is happening with A6. I absolutely agree with you that A6 is a re-hash of A5. But it is also a technological dead-end. Reusability is happening and eventually ESA and Arianespace will be forced to follow suit. That requires a very different architecture. One that is now being explored by CNES and DLR. It is very different from A6 indeed. Note that most of the projects within the scope of FLPP-NEO do NOT explicitly look at enhancing A6. They are exploring all-new technology because to ESA it is already clear that the distant future of ESA launchers does not lie with A6.
Additionally: A6 being a rehash of A5 is also the result of the economic crisis hitting Europe between 2009 and 2014.

The only re-use capabilities we will ever see on Ariane 6, IMO, concern re-usable fairings.
And no magic fairy's carrying the used Vulcain back to land? 
I see you have sense of humor.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2017 09:08 am by woods170 »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
I'm in between the opinion of Woods170 and Space Ghost.
I think Space Ghost refereed to the use of both solid and liquid strap-on's on Ariane 4. Arianegroup could also do this on Ariane 6.
But the implementation of C (could be Methane or Propane) means implementation of a new type of cryogenic fuel at CSG. This would require another fuel stowage / production facility, and the launch pad('s) need to be modified to accommodate the additional fuel. It can be done but requires considerable investments (>0.5 billion).

Woods170 stated that there was a growth path for Ariane 5 (A5G => A5 ECA => A5 ECB) but this didn't work, thus Ariane 6. (Is in my opinion nearly equal to the plans for A5 ECB, the only difference is 2 or 4 single segment solids instead of 2 multiple segment solids.

Now lets assume both the Prometheus engine and Callisto demonstrators are successful. I think the first thing ESA/Arianegroup will develop is a small launcher. They could implement two or three new versions of Vega at once, namely:  {and Vega-L ?}
 - Vega-E (P120c Z40c VUS);
 - Vega-F (P120c Prometheus Upper Stage);
 - ? Prometheus Callisto first stage (Adeline?) VUS
For this; LCH4 facilities need to be developed at CSG and ELV needs to be modified to accommodate LOx & LCH4 loading.

What also can be done is using the new first stage (single Prometheus engine) as booster for Ariane 6.
I estimate that the Core and Upper-stage with a 5mT payload and fairing weight ~200mT. With the minimal T/W-ratio of 1.2 the minimal initial thrust level should be 2400kN. Vulcain 2.1 has a sea level thrust of 1000kN, thus 1400kN short of the minimum required. Now I'm adding Prometheus (1000kN SL) powered stages, but those also add weight. If I assume a propallent mass of 55mT and ~10% structural weight this stage weights 60mT, and with the T/W rule 720kN is required to take this off the ground. There is 280kN more thrust, thus five of these liquid boosters are required. I don't think that's any improvement at all.
So multi engine boosters are required to make a A6 with liquid boosters. They could go expendable (3; 4) or reusable [5; 7; 9] or more. But than we are in the rang of ArianeNext. Personally I think a expendable Ariane 4 / Zenith type; aka 4x Prometheus - 1x Prometheus is more likely then a reusable 7x/9x - 1x ... because of the <20 launch rate (and then I'm optimistic).
ESA/Arianegroup could also still develop two segment P240-P280 (2xP120c) solid stages. A P120c 1x prometheus is comparable to a Ariane 4 type; P280 1x... is comparable to a 7/9x type.

But this only comes on the tabel past 2020, after Prometheus and Callisto were successful.

Then I want to clear something up. Ariane 6 wasn't developed because of falcon 9. In around 2010 ESA/Arianespace saw multiple new launchers coming onto the market in the future, aka:
Angara, Antares, GSLV (Mk.III), H2 (H3), Long March 5/6/7; and Falcon 9.
Only Falcon has become a treat, but Proton and Zenit have decreased launching, thus Ariane 5 has the same market share as a couple of years back.
Also the satellite mass didn't match with launch performance, thus it was very difficult to pair launches. Now with more electric satellites, and the higher performance of A5 ECA PB+/PC and A64 this is less a problem.
Most of the above listed launchers still have to come to market, Blue Origin's new Glenn is another threat as is Vulcan. But Ariane 6 is a big improvement in my opinion compared to Ariane 5. The new factories in Europe and the launch sites in France Guiana (ELA3; ELA4 & ELV) could also be used for for future launchers.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
Compare Vulcan 1 ; 2 and 2.1.
I think Vulcain 2.1 goes back to Vulcan 1, only with newer materials, and different production technologies.
let's add this older article and GKN Aerospace

Concerning Italian parts: Avio produces the LOx turbopumps for both Vince and Vulcain.
And possibly also the combined turbo-pump for Prometheus.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2017 05:13 pm by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
The move to Ariane 6 is not wrong, even with Falcon 9 reuse becoming an operational thing.
Finally a restartable cyrogenic upper stage. Consolidating supply chain and processes. Rebalancing cost vs. performance choices. (esp in the 1st stage. Separate tanks, simpler engine, no helium, ...) The synergies with Vega are also a good.

Its just mighty expensive for my taste. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
With a price-tag of 2 billion this discussion would be much different, at 1 billion there would be no discussion.  :)
The geo return policy helps to lessen the blow, the nations that want the money had to put it in in the first place.


As I understand Vulcain 2.1 is much about cost. Both in design features and manufacturing methods. Performance, not that much of a priority. The GG exhaust routing into the nozzle was complex (=costly) to manufacture so it has been removed. As we now know external ignition makes the engine simpler and adding autogenous pressurization of the O2 tank removes the helium system. (I wonder if they basically repurposed the liquid helium heatexchanger.) Reliability however is important, additive manufacturing seems to be much more prevalent in Prometheus.


Since the idea comes up so often has someone done the actual numbers for Prometheus on A6? Looks like DLR worked with 17.5% less ISP than Vulcain in the recently discussed reuseability study.  Even if the engineering was free it still has to make sense.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 211
How do you mean do the numbers of Prometheus on A6. that just doesn't work.
If you fill the Ariane 6 core with LOx and LCH4, you carry far to much LCH4. Because 1 LOx-LH2 has a higher mixture  ratio than LOx-LCH4 and LH2 is much less dense then LCH4. The stage also becomes much heavier.
Thus they basically start with a new design. I think they could use the 5.4m diameter and 7 or 9 Prometheus engines. With 7 engines take off thrust is 7000kN, so with T/W=1.2 gives ~583mT take off weight. ?? C460 C100 I don't know. won't get 7mT to GTO -1500m/s, possibly 5mT.
For me it's to late now to run a (very) basic ISP & volume calculation, possibly I'll do that tomorrow.
In the paper Calpine posted inside the Prometheus & Callisto topic, about the TSTO Reusable launchers, they studied multi engine launcher configurations, but they assumed more powerful engines.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Additionally: A6 being a rehash of A5 is also the result of the economic crisis hitting Europe between 2009 and 2014.
Which forced them to waste a huge pile of money on a useless dead-end launcher that will be already mostly obsolete on arrival instead of keeping A5 flying a few more years (with increased subsidies, if required) until the technology for a new architecture is there (and everybody sees more clearly WRT how well reuse works)?

How soon after A6 starts flying can they come back now with yet another 5bn€ program to develop an all new booster to stay competitive?

A6 might actually be what puts them out of business.

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
Additionally: A6 being a rehash of A5 is also the result of the economic crisis hitting Europe between 2009 and 2014.
Which forced them to waste a huge pile of money on a useless dead-end launcher that will be already mostly obsolete on arrival instead of keeping A5 flying a few more years (with increased subsidies, if required) until the technology for a new architecture is there (and everybody sees more clearly WRT how well reuse works)?

How soon after A6 starts flying can they come back now with yet another 5bn€ program to develop an all new booster to stay competitive?

A6 might actually be what puts them out of business.
Elon Musk was the one that pressured them to abandon A5, saying that it had "no chance."

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Well, of course it had a chance. It’s a question of cost, reliability is pretty good now for A5.
They are spending 4 or 5 bn€ on the A6 development, even if it had cost a billion to do a minor modernization they would have saved enough money to be able to subsidize the sheep out of A5 to keep it competitive until they do something new.
Now would have been the right time to start a new development, maybe stretching out somewhat longer to include some fundamental research but now they are in the middle of a horrendously expensive development program for a launcher that will likely be uncompetitive upon arrival.

So what they got was that they spend billions only to then have to sink subsidies into the operations instead of just sinking subsidies into the operations.

And all of that just because CNES wanted to play the big rocket developer game again.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2017 03:37 am by pippin »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Additionally: A6 being a rehash of A5 is also the result of the economic crisis hitting Europe between 2009 and 2014.
Which forced them to waste a huge pile of money on a useless dead-end launcher that will be already mostly obsolete on arrival instead of keeping A5 flying a few more years (with increased subsidies, if required) until the technology for a new architecture is there (and everybody sees more clearly WRT how well reuse works)?

How soon after A6 starts flying can they come back now with yet another 5bn€ program to develop an all new booster to stay competitive?

A6 might actually be what puts them out of business.
What? You actually think that "pork barrel" is an all-USA invention?
CNES and DLR will never allow the European French/German space industries to go out of business for lack of new work. That's how we got A6. And it is also how we will get Ariane 7. CNES and DLR are already taking the first baby-steps towards A7, as we speak.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2017 05:57 am by woods170 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Well, of course it had a chance. It’s a question of cost, reliability is pretty good now for A5.
They are spending 4 or 5 bn€ on the A6 development, even if it had cost a billion to do a minor modernization they would have saved enough money to be able to subsidize the sheep out of A5 to keep it competitive until they do something new.
Now would have been the right time to start a new development, maybe stretching out somewhat longer to include some fundamental research but now they are in the middle of a horrendously expensive development program for a launcher that will likely be uncompetitive upon arrival.

So what they got was that they spend billions only to then have to sink subsidies into the operations instead of just sinking subsidies into the operations.

And all of that just because CNES wanted to play the big rocket developer game again.
Don't lay all the blame on CNES. The Germans and Italians are just as "guilty". The only difference is that Germany initially wanted to upgrade A5 first (to A5 ME) before switching to an all-new launcher. That scenario would eventually have cost even more money, not less.

Offline EgorBotts

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • France
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 146
Well, sure, Ariane 6 will suffer a lot from the comparison with a reusable and optimised Falcon 9 in terms of costs, Falcon Heavy performance-wise. That is almost certain.
But please keep in mind that the communication operators want diversification and reliable options. Ariane 6 might offer them that, moreover in an environment where nothing has changed except SpaceX. In 2020, Proton will presumably continue to fly, Vulcan and H3 won't be ready and Ariane 6 will be really concurrential with those established players. It won't compete against SpaceX, sure. But that's not the point: a solid second place will assure them enough momentum to research and build the next gen, which will be reusable.
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.
ILS, ULA, MHI, even China Great Wall are probably more at risk...

Offline tobi453

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 15
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.

The problem is what did Ariane not win. The next big launch market are the internet constellations. The two internet constellations are OneWeb and Starlink. SpaceX will launch all Starlink satellites and at the moment Soyuz is scheduled to launch most of the OneWeb satellites. So far there are only 2 OneWeb missions manifested on Ariane 6.  There are more OneWeb missions scheduled to launch on NewGlenn than on Ariane 6.

Ariane 6 doesn't seem to be very competitive for constellation launches. This gets even more funny once you realize that Airbus is the prime contractor for OneWeb.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2017 10:52 am by tobi453 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.

The problem is what did Ariane not win. The next big launch market are the internet constellations. The two internet constellations are OneWeb and Starlink. SpaceX will launch all Starlink satellites and at the moment Soyuz is scheduled to launch most of the OneWeb satellites. So far there are only 2 OneWeb missions manifested on Ariane 6.  There are more OneWeb missions scheduled to launch on NewGlenn than on Ariane 6.

Ariane 6 doesn't seem to be very competitive for constellation launches. This gets even more funny once you realize that Airbus is the prime contractor for OneWeb.
In case you had not noticed: the deal to launch the OneWeb on Soyuz is in fact an Arianespace deal: https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/01/oneweb-launch-deal-called-largest-commercial-rocket-buy-in-history/

Quote from: Stephen Clark
OneWeb’s deal with Arianespace covers 21 launch orders for the Russian-made Soyuz rocket, most of which will blast off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Arianespace’s agreement with OneWeb also includes options for five more Soyuz flights and three launches of the next-generation Ariane 6 rocket.

Arianespace has a subsidiary named Starsem for commercial Soyuz launches. Arianespace is more than just Ariane 5 and Ariane 6. Vega and commercial Soyuz are their other launchers.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
What? You actually think that "pork barrel" is an all-USA invention?
CNES and DLR will never allow the European French/German space industries to go out of business for lack of new work. That's how we got A6. And it is also how we will get Ariane 7. CNES and DLR are already taking the first baby-steps towards A7, as we speak.
You seriously believe they will just get the next 5bn program in 2021?
Baby steps, sure, but if they don’t want to end up with a launcher program like Japan had it in the early 2000s they will need a full-scale A6 replacement really soon, can’t wait for it to come online in 2035.
Or they will have to throw heavy operational subsidies at A6 for a long time, 15 years or so, I don’t see that happen the same way as in the past in the current political climate.

So my guess is 10 years from now we’re going to see a few A62 launches for European governments per year and that’s it.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Don't lay all the blame on CNES. The Germans and Italians are just as "guilty". The only difference is that Germany initially wanted to upgrade A5 first (to A5 ME) before switching to an all-new launcher. That scenario would eventually have cost even more money, not less.
The others are not without blame but A5ME - while still overblown at that time IMHO - would have been a much more sensible use of resources. Less work on the core, no new boosters, no new pad, would have saved a lot of money and - more importantly - since it acknowledged it would be just an intermediate step it would have allowed a serious replacement effort for a sensible A6 architecture right now, even partially in parallel with A5 ME.

It was CNES and you know who in particular who could not wait until the foundation was ready for a sensible new development program and pushed for a completely useless one instead.

But I agree, with hindsight even ME was too much to be done then, they should have done whatever was needed to,fix parts obsolescence on A5 and just kept it flying a few more years until you know how reuse works out and you can learn from what SpaceX are doing now.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2017 11:47 am by pippin »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Well, sure, Ariane 6 will suffer a lot from the comparison with a reusable and optimised Falcon 9 in terms of costs, Falcon Heavy performance-wise. That is almost certain.
But please keep in mind that the communication operators want diversification and reliable options. Ariane 6 might offer them that, moreover in an environment where nothing has changed except SpaceX. In 2020, Proton will presumably continue to fly, Vulcan and H3 won't be ready and Ariane 6 will be really concurrential with those established players. It won't compete against SpaceX, sure. But that's not the point: a solid second place will assure them enough momentum to research and build the next gen, which will be reusable.
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.
ILS, ULA, MHI, even China Great Wall are probably more at risk...

How’d you manage to forget Blue Origin who should start flying the New Glenn by 2020.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2017 11:52 am by Star One »

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Well, sure, Ariane 6 will suffer a lot from the comparison with a reusable and optimised Falcon 9 in terms of costs, Falcon Heavy performance-wise. That is almost certain.
But please keep in mind that the communication operators want diversification and reliable options. Ariane 6 might offer them that, moreover in an environment where nothing has changed except SpaceX. In 2020, Proton will presumably continue to fly, Vulcan and H3 won't be ready and Ariane 6 will be really concurrential with those established players. It won't compete against SpaceX, sure. But that's not the point: a solid second place will assure them enough momentum to research and build the next gen, which will be reusable.
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.
ILS, ULA, MHI, even China Great Wall are probably more at risk...

You know, i suspect that’s the big gamble they did. They thought that reuse stuff would never work out and if they start early they will be in a good position with an optimized traditional architecture.
But it didn’t go off. Reuse seems to work and now they are developing something that’s already obsolete on arrival.
Others like BO will get ready while they start flying and they won’t find an environment where they will ever be competitive.

Plus: their traditional GEO Comsat business is going away, too. If the big LEO constellations come online there’s little use left for those, too (of course still an „if“, though)

Offline EgorBotts

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • France
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 146
Well, sure, Ariane 6 will suffer a lot from the comparison with a reusable and optimised Falcon 9 in terms of costs, Falcon Heavy performance-wise. That is almost certain.
But please keep in mind that the communication operators want diversification and reliable options. Ariane 6 might offer them that, moreover in an environment where nothing has changed except SpaceX. In 2020, Proton will presumably continue to fly, Vulcan and H3 won't be ready and Ariane 6 will be really concurrential with those established players. It won't compete against SpaceX, sure. But that's not the point: a solid second place will assure them enough momentum to research and build the next gen, which will be reusable.
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.
ILS, ULA, MHI, even China Great Wall are probably more at risk...

How’d you manage to forget Blue Origin who should start flying the New Glenn by 2020.

You are right I did not mention BO, because it is much so a new player in the field. I'm not saying it's not competitive, it's fresh and sexy but we don't know either prices or performances of the rocket, so it makes it hard to compare. Also I'll beleive in a New Glenn in 2020 when I'll see it, it will most certainly be delayed as this is their first orbital experience (and new pad, and new motor, and new assembly, etc).
To stay on Ariane 6, maybe the launcher will end up being the most efficient and low cost of the non-reusable launchers of the next decade. Depending on how the market orients itself, it might not be such a bad bargain if the europeans are researching better ways to reuse rockets on the background.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Well, sure, Ariane 6 will suffer a lot from the comparison with a reusable and optimised Falcon 9 in terms of costs, Falcon Heavy performance-wise. That is almost certain.
But please keep in mind that the communication operators want diversification and reliable options. Ariane 6 might offer them that, moreover in an environment where nothing has changed except SpaceX. In 2020, Proton will presumably continue to fly, Vulcan and H3 won't be ready and Ariane 6 will be really concurrential with those established players. It won't compete against SpaceX, sure. But that's not the point: a solid second place will assure them enough momentum to research and build the next gen, which will be reusable.
Ariane 5 is not economically relevant in front of Falcon 9, yet the european has won a pretty share of commercial contracts this year. SpaceX won't be the only player on the scene, europeans will stay on the market.
ILS, ULA, MHI, even China Great Wall are probably more at risk...

How’d you manage to forget Blue Origin who should start flying the New Glenn by 2020.

You are right I did not mention BO, because it is much so a new player in the field. I'm not saying it's not competitive, it's fresh and sexy but we don't know either prices or performances of the rocket, so it makes it hard to compare. Also I'll beleive in a New Glenn in 2020 when I'll see it, it will most certainly be delayed as this is their first orbital experience (and new pad, and new motor, and new assembly, etc).
To stay on Ariane 6, maybe the launcher will end up being the most efficient and low cost of the non-reusable launchers of the next decade. Depending on how the market orients itself, it might not be such a bad bargain if the europeans are researching better ways to reuse rockets on the background.

When talking of a company like Blue Origin and the backing it has from its founder to speak as if you’ll only believe in New Glenn when you see it does seem a little curious.

Anyway not as curious as Ariane 6 which seems to be a launcher developed in a vacuum as if the launcher market around it isn’t changing rapidly. I suppose that’s why we get this curious talk of literally trying to retrofit reusability to it at a later stage.

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