Quote from: woods170 on 10/29/2017 05:04 pmHowever, 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.
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.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/29/2017 05:04 pmThis 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.
This thing is not gonna change course anymore, not even with the recent noise coming from the Prometheus/Callisto teams.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/29/2017 05:04 pmIMO 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.
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.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/29/2017 05:04 pmOnce 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.
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.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/29/2017 05:04 pmThe 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?
The only re-use capabilities we will ever see on Ariane 6, IMO, concern re-usable fairings.
Additionally: A6 being a rehash of A5 is also the result of the economic crisis hitting Europe between 2009 and 2014.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/30/2017 09:06 amAdditionally: 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: EgorBotts on 10/31/2017 06:32 amAriane 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Quote from: EgorBotts on 10/31/2017 06:32 amWell, 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.
Quote from: Star One on 10/31/2017 11:51 amQuote from: EgorBotts on 10/31/2017 06:32 amWell, 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.