Author Topic: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here.  (Read 387075 times)

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 110
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...


Was not that the point of Cone eXpress with 75 million you can add a third satellite to Ariane 5 already seeing as the launch of a satellite is the most dangerous part of its life the more satellites on a reliable launcher the better .
Why bother bring that up? ConeXpress has been dead for a decade.

Dead or just waiting for an investor my point was that triple launch is nowhere near as costly as some people think .

Don't you think there was a reason the proposal died and people don't bring it up any more?


Yes but in space things tend to be recreated if in a souped up version Mig 105 =hl20=Dreamchaser for instance. Vinci is going to change the launch the launch market completely .If you take the three tons of propellent off the satellites and add them to the upper stage and use ion engines/hall thrusters only on the satellites you can build simpler satellites with more capability.
 

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 61
That is why I suggested triple launch 3 30 million satellite launch beats 70 million in anybodies book provided the launcher is reliable . 

The number of times there would be 3 ~3000 kg satellites needed to be launched and ready for the same launch window is so rare that developing & certifying a SYLTA (Système de Lancement Triple Ariane) isn't worth it.

Aside from that, a triple launch would be a nightmare from an insurance point of view...

A SPELTRA (Structure Porteuse Externe Lancement TRiple Ariane) has already been developed for Ariane-5, but was only used in the dual version on the first three development flights.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 2383
Dead or just waiting for an investor my point was that triple launch is nowhere near as costly as some people think .

Don't you think there was a reason the proposal died and people don't bring it up any more?


Yes but in space things tend to be recreated if in a souped up version Mig 105 =hl20=Dreamchaser for instance. Vinci is going to change the launch the launch market completely .If you take the three tons of propellent off the satellites and add them to the upper stage and use ion engines/hall thrusters only on the satellites you can build simpler satellites with more capability.

I have no doubt that if there is a market demand for triple launch, it will be implemented.

I agree that the future is all-electric satellites, but that change is already well underway, long before Vinci, so I really don't see Vinci as the agent for changing the launch market.

With Falcon 9 and New Glenn bringing reusability to launch, even with triple launch, Ariane 6 doesn't seem very compelling.  I doubt Ariane will have enough business to fill up even two slots per launch, let alone three.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3656
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2435
  • Likes Given: 797
Quote
DutchSpace‏ @DutchSpace 14m14 minutes ago

Nice #Ariane6 models are slowly appearing... @Arianespace @ASLaunchers @AirbusSpace @AirbusDS_NL

https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/872056666707165185

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7091
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2647
  • Likes Given: 787
I took the liberty of translating the information next to the model (in the image above) for all you non-German speaking folks:

Ariane 6 Launcher

Ariane A62
Liftoff mass: 530 metric tons
Thrust at liftoff: 800 metric tons

Ariane A64
Liftoff mass: 860 metric tons
Thrust at liftoff: 1500 metric tons

Height approx. 60 meters

Fairing. Length 20 meters

Dual-Start-System SYLDA. Diameter 4.5 meters

Upper Stage. Propellants: 30 metric tons of LOX-LH2.

Re-ignitable Vinci engine. Thrust: 18 metric tons.

Core Stage. Propellants: 150 metric tons of LOX-LH2.

Two (2) or four (4) solid rocket boosters. Solid propellant: 142 metric tons, per booster. Thrust: 350 metrict tons, per booster.

Vulcain 2.1 engine. Thrust: 137 metric tons.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2017 07:42 PM by woods170 »

Offline SgtPoivre

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Paris - France
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
If some of you want your own brick version of Ariane 6, you can support this project!
https://ideas.lego.com/projects/fbb6b2e9-21f2-409a-b899-91885db3a5ab
« Last Edit: 06/22/2017 06:15 AM by SgtPoivre »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 7
I doubted what the most appropriate place is for this post. Here, in the update thread or Governance Arianespace. I decided here becouse I expect discussion. I'll crosspost.

Today at the ESA pavilion at the Paris Airshow, there was a live roundtable discussion about the fixed institutional procurement of launches from Arianespace. Link to video
The participents were representatives of: the EU, ESA, France, Germany & Italy, EUMETSAT and Arianespace.

I think it's good to continue the discussion here.
EU institurions get discounted flights on Ariane 62. If they commit to 5x Ariane6 annually, A62 for 70mln and A64 for 115mln. Pricepoint 2014. Read back, paper from Israel to german government.

Also the point that some launch providers are asking very different prices for institutional and commercial launches. And is it fair that overcapacity on institutional launches will be filled up with microsatellite rideshare.

I look forward to this discussion. With is moved to a dedicated topic

« Last Edit: 06/23/2017 07:45 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 7
Quote
- 90% reduction of component parts, 40% reduction of costs and 30% reduction of production time

That's good news. Which is the share of the total Ariane 5 cost is due to the Vulcain 2 currently?

Please don't place discussions in the update topic.
It has already been known for a couple of years that this new nozzle will be integrated into the Vulcain 2.1 engine as improvement onto the Vulcain 2. I don't have a clue what share the full nozzle assembly is in the total Vulcan engine cost.
Vulcain 2.1 will not include all the improvements that are planed for the Vulcain engine. ESA / the industry found it to risky to implement 3D printed injector heads and turbines into Vulcain 2.1. If I'm not mistaken this nozzle assembly has been used on test stand since 2015. If rumors are correct, there are two further evolutions of the Vulcain engine in the pipeline, Vulcain 2.2 and 2.3.
edit: since I found it so fast: link techforspace.com

Prometheus is a totally new engine. It will most likely use a smaller combustion chamber with the same technology. 3D printed: Injector head, GasGenerator, Turbine and the LOx and LNG turbopump. It looks like they decided for a single turbine geometry instead of the dual turbine geometry on Vulcain and Vince. 
« Last Edit: 06/23/2017 03:31 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Kosmos2001

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • CAT
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 51
I move the discussion to the proper thread.

From here: https://www.ariane.group/en/commercial-launch-services/ariane-6/prometheus/

Quote
Its aim is to lower the production price of the Vulcain® engine by 90%, meaning that this future engine would cost only 1 million euros, as against just over 10 million for the Vulcain®2 engine fitted to Ariane 5

Thank you. Btw, which browser are you using? In mine it happens to be out-of-date. :\

According to the famous ULA cost chart, the engine takes up to ~60 % of the first stage total cost. Also Musk states the same thing about the engines cost vs total cost in some interviews. So reducing the ~60 % an additional 90 %, it is a substantial change. Assuming that the SRM cost will drop as well.

Please don't place discussions in the update topic.

Sorry, I just fixed it.

It has already been known for a couple of years that this new nozzle will be integrated into the Vulcain 2.1 engine as improvement onto the Vulcain 2. I don't have a clue what share the full nozzle assembly is in the total Vulcan engine cost.
Vulcain 2.1 will not include all the improvements that are planed for the Vulcain engine. ESA / the industry found it to risky to implement 3D printed injector heads and turbines into Vulcain 2.1. If I'm not mistaken this nozzle assembly has been used on test stand since 2015. If rumors are correct, there are two further evolutions of the Vulcain engine in the pipeline, Vulcain 2.2 and 2.3.
edit: since I found it so fast: link techforspace.com

Prometheus is a totally new engine. It will most likely use a smaller combustion chamber with the same technology. 3D printed: Injector head, GasGenerator, Turbine and the LOx and LNG turbopump. It looks like they decided for a single turbine geometry instead of the dual turbine geometry on Vulcain and Vince.

Thanks.

Offline DorianH

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Aachen
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Hello everybody, I am a novice to this forum, so if my post is out of place I apologize.

Alain Charmeau implied that a future version of A6 powered by the Prometheus engine might be reusable. How would that be possible? The design of Ariane 6 around strap-on boosters and a huge central stage implies a comparably small upper stage, and Vinci is actually pretty underpowered (thrust 18mT for 31mT of fuel, plus upper stage dry weight and payload). So this means the central stage would again be traveling very fast at the speed of separation, making central stage reuse very difficult. If they were to try booster reuse à la SpaceX, they would have to redevelop the entire rocket, right? And this would almost definitely mean a bigger upper stage and bigger upper stage engine, right? Or could liquid Prometheus boosters be worthwile?

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 7
@DorianH I totally agree with you. The launcher that could use the prometheus engine is called Ariane Next. In my oppinion the move from A5 to A6 is comparable with the move from A3 to A4 or A5 GS to ECA. The move from A6 to ANext will be comparable with the move from A4 to A5 (a completely new launcher).
A beter place to discuss this is the Prometheus and Callisto topic.

Now to the news that FORC was successfully tested. Very good news. This means that; when the demand for P120C casings is high enough, MT aerospace will convert the ERP (Ariane 5 booster) casing production factory into the second P120C production line. Their CFRP casing production proces doesn't require an autoclave.
During the FORC project, also multiple ~0.8m diameter casings in two lengths were produced to develop the production proces. MT Aerospace also has a contract to produce three S50 casings for S50 qualification and the first VS-50 sounding rocket. This S50 stage is developed for VLM-1, in colaboration by IAE (Brazil) and DLR.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 110
Yahoo with a hydrocarbon first stage and a cryogenic upperstage a heavy lift rocket is possible .

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 7
With the move from A5 to A6 Arianespace will stop using multi segment solids. The solid stacking facilities will become obsolete. Also the A5 launch facilities will become obsolete.
Does someone have any idea how expansive the development of a two segment derivative of P120C will be?
With this P250-P280 a third version of Ariane6 can be developed. My intuition leads me to think that this third version of Ariane 6 will be more capable then A64, because it has a smaller frontal area.
The A62 and third A6 version could be launched from ELA3 when the two launch tables are modified. This gives Arianespace two launch sites for Ariane 6.
ELA4 will be capable of supporting up to 14 launches annually. I think ELA3 can support up to ten annual launches. I don't expect up to 14 launches but having a second launch zone could be beneficial.

I think the P280 could be comparable in performance as the F9 first stage. Possibly a competitive launcher could be developed later with the P280 and a prometheus upper-stage.
The earliest point they could start working on P280 is 2020.
The double engine length geometry could possibly be scaled down to the 2.4m (Z40) diameter for a new monolitic Vega first stage or smaller booster for Ariane 6.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 7
Yahoo with a hydrocarbon first stage and a cryogenic upperstage a heavy lift rocket is possible .
Indeed they Could develop a extremely heavy launcher. If they Should is a different question.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 110
Yahoo with a hydrocarbon first stage and a cryogenic upperstage a heavy lift rocket is possible .
Indeed they Could develop a extremely heavy launcher. If they Should is a different question.

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 .

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 7
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 .

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.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2017 11:44 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Online calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 44
They are really conservative in it's launcher selection though. I remember a recent launcher panel at which the head of EUTMETSAT said (paraphrased): "We were offered a steep discount to launch on the first Ariane 5 ECA. We turned the offer down. Turns out we were right to do so."

I don't doubt they will switch to Ariane 6.2 once it has it's first 5+ flights under it's belt.

Edit: I found the quote, my summary wasn't that off:

Quote
Eumetsat: No commitment to Ariane 6 until it’s flight-proven

Now on commitment: For the reasons I have explained, we can only commit to reality. You cannot expect Eumetsat to commit to buy launchers that are not qualified, meaning flight-proven.
I can give you an example. We were offered a very good price for the first Ariane 5 ECA. We refused. And we were right. We were offered half the price and we did not want it because we wanted a qualified launcher. [Ariane 5’s inaugural flight, carrying a European science mission, failed.]

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/squaring-circle-europe-wants-launcher-autonomy-low-launch-prices/
« Last Edit: 09/13/2017 08:04 AM by calapine »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7091
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2647
  • Likes Given: 787
They are really conservative in it's launcher selection though. I remember a recent launcher panel at which the head of EUTMETSAT said (paraphrased): "We were offered a steep discount to launch on the first Ariane 5 ECA. We turned the offer down. Turns out we were right to do so."

I don't doubt they will switch to Ariane 6.2 once it has it's first 5+ flights under it's belt.

Edit: I found the quote, my summary wasn't that off:

Quote
Eumetsat: No commitment to Ariane 6 until it’s flight-proven

Now on commitment: For the reasons I have explained, we can only commit to reality. You cannot expect Eumetsat to commit to buy launchers that are not qualified, meaning flight-proven.
I can give you an example. We were offered a very good price for the first Ariane 5 ECA. We refused. And we were right. We were offered half the price and we did not want it because we wanted a qualified launcher. [Ariane 5’s inaugural flight, carrying a European science mission, failed.]

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/squaring-circle-europe-wants-launcher-autonomy-low-launch-prices/
And Eumetsat's resolve, with regards to flying only on flight-proven launchers, was further strengthened when Ariane 5 ECA also failed on it's first mission.

However, EUMETSAT's attitude has not always been this conservative. For example, Meteosat 3 flew on the very first flight of Ariane 4 (mission V22) in 1988.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2017 11:37 AM by woods170 »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 7
Wasn't there also a problem during the MetOP-A Soyuz 2.1a compane that kept the satellite on ground for several weeks!?
If I'm not mistaken, the EUMETSAT representive also talked  about this during the launchers roundtable discussion at the 2017 Paris Airshow.

I agree EUMETSAT is very conservative now. But every payload that goes to a more proven launcher, is a loss for the Ariane6 launch manifest. For the Ariane6 to be sold at the proposed prices, ESA and other European institutions need to use five launches annually. Besides this another 6 or 7 commercial launches have to be sold, to come to the required launch rate of 11 or 12 launches.
I fear these 5 institutional annual launches will not be achieved.
If the launch rate is lower, launch cost goes up, because the fixed launch site cost have to be devided over a smaller number of launches. Possibly a higher launch rate of Vega(-C) can compensate this.

Online calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 44
You have a good memory! :) Yes, it was a Russian - Kazakh standoff over money. Kazakhstan argued that polar launches over populated territory weren't part of the the Baikonur lease agreement. The delay was months, not weeks.

As for the rest: I agree with all your points.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2017 05:08 PM by calapine »

Tags: