NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

International Space Flight (ESA, Russia, China and others) => ESA Launchers - Ariane, Soyuz at CSG, Vega => Topic started by: agman25 on 01/15/2010 03:56 pm

Title: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: agman25 on 01/15/2010 03:56 pm
Important quote

"However, he says the new vehicle will almost certainly adopt the modular approach that French engineers have proposed, capable of launching three to six or seven metric tons — the upper limit of telecom satellites — to geostationary transfer orbit. This would shift the focus from dual launches, which have long been the hallmark of Arianespace, to the single launch approach followed by competing operators."




http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/01/15/01.xml&headline=ESA%20Begins%20Work%20On%20Ariane%206&channel=space
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/25/2010 10:27 pm
How does this relate to existing plans for a new Vinci upper stage engine and improved SRBs to improve the payload of the Ariane 5? Is the plan for an evolved Ariane 5 being capable of launching two larger satellites simultaneously whereas Ariane 6 would launch a single larger satellite more cheaply?

The French Wikipedia page states that the new upper stage would use Vulcain, which is currently used as the Ariane 5 first stage engine. Why invest in a new Vinci only to throw it away?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: ckiki lwai on 01/25/2010 10:50 pm
Check this document: http://www.congrex.nl/08m35/papers/IAC-08.D2.4.4.pdf

It contains the different proposed design concepts for the NGL or now a days called Ariane 6. All concepts use the Vince engine I believe.
The favored concept is basically an Ariane 5 but with an shortened first stage and a staged combustion engine of 2.5 MN, smaller solid boosters which can be added or removed according to the payload mass and an upperstage with Vinci.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/25/2010 11:54 pm
Thanks for the link. Can you say more about how this reduces costs?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: ckiki lwai on 01/26/2010 12:40 am
Thanks for the link. Can you say more about how this reduces costs?
I couldn't figure that too, it's basically the same rocket with the same infrastructure, with a more expensive first stage engine, only the boosters are cheaper because they are smaller, while it can only lift half the payload of its predecessor!
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/26/2010 01:28 am
OK, how about this hypothetical explanation:

The A5 SRBs add a lot of fixed costs and perhaps variable costs. Removing the solids will obviously reduce payload, but most payloads do not need the full payload capacity anyway. In fact most launches are dual payload launches. Using more launches will not affect the portion of fixed cost allocated to each payload.

Removing the SRBs also removes an enormous amount of thrust. In fact, according to the data on Ed Kyle's Space Launch Report (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html#components) the A5 core would have a T/W <1. By reducing the size of the stage and increasing the thrust of the engine you could get back to an acceptable T/W ratio.

The basic configuration of A6 would then satisfy European institutional needs. Heavier commercial payloads would require strapons and apparently the extra specific cost of these is lower than those of the current SRBs.

All in all the plan would seem to be to get lower fixed costs and as a consequence lower subsidies to commercial payloads while still being able to remain competitive with emerging launchers. Any cost sharing the solids had with French nuclear missiles would be taken care of with Vega, which is perhaps expected to be economically viable without too much subsidy.

The above is all conjecture, it would be interesting to get an expert opinion on all this.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: hektor on 01/26/2010 08:47 am
I guess Ariane 6 is pretty much is flux... configurations are being studied at ESA and CNES, with various combination of liquid and solid propulsion.

The most important thing is that it will aim at single launch, six or seven metric tons to GTO. With Ariane 5 phase-out, the capability of Europe to carry out missions to ISS or for exploration will be reduced.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Serafeim on 01/26/2010 11:33 am
Quote
   With Ariane 5 phase-out
Ariane 5 will not phase out....
atv,arv and future crewed vehicle need it..
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: ckiki lwai on 01/26/2010 12:14 pm
Quote
   With Ariane 5 phase-out
Ariane 5 will not phase out....
atv,arv and future crewed vehicle need it..
The document mentions that ATV, ARV or other ATV derived vehicles could be launched an a triple core version of the Ariane 6 instead of Ariane 5 (like the Delta IV heavy configuration).
Although I'm wondering if the Ariane 5 infrastructure is large enough to handle such a big rocket.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Serafeim on 01/26/2010 12:20 pm
I wonder maybe -with the cheap  falcon 9 around-is wise to build ariane 6...

Esa just make the arv and crewed on the ariane 5 and forget these plans.. ::) :'( 8)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: ckiki lwai on 01/26/2010 12:27 pm
I wonder maybe -with the cheap  falcon 9 around-is wise to build ariane 6...

Esa just make the arv and crewed on the ariane 5 and forget these plans.. ::) :'( 8)
Actually, if the Falcon 9 captures a large part of the market it would be wiser to build the Ariane 6 instead of keeping the Ariane 5, because the Ariane 6 requires less commercial satellites to keep up the same launch rate.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: clb22 on 01/26/2010 12:28 pm
I wonder maybe -with the cheap  falcon 9 around-is wise to build ariane 6...


Falcon 9 isn't around yet. And it is to be seen whether it is cheap and/or reliable at all.

Ariane 5's purpose is to provide independent access to space for European government payloads (ESA, military, other scientific ones, Galileo, ATV etc.). At the moment the costs for having Ariane 5 as a capable launcher for European government payloads is offset by being the market leader in the comsat market. If they were to lose this market leadership, then Ariane 5 would still not go away, the rational for having it stays the same, while the price per launch for government sponsored payloads increases.

Ariane 6 is aimed to a. provide jobs for the European aerospace industry, b. provide a cheaper (operations wise) launcher than Ariane 5, c. that is more flexible. The rational for it will stay the same, to provide Europe with independent access to space for government payloads.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: cheesybagel on 01/26/2010 05:59 pm
You misunderstand. This is a Soyuz replacement. Ariane 5 is too large and expensive. ESA should not have dropped the Ariane 4 class.

What happened to the staged combustion engine research done with the Russians?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/26/2010 06:01 pm
This is a Soyuz replacement.

That is what Rob Coppinger claims, but is there any hard evidence for this? Building a Soyuz launch pad at Kourou would seem to suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: cheesybagel on 01/26/2010 06:09 pm
That is what Rob Coppinger claims, but is there any hard evidence for this? Building a Soyuz launch pad at Kourou would seem to suggest otherwise.

Last time ESA built a new rocket, it took them 10 years. Notice they are claiming an entry into service of this rocket by 2025. Meanwhile they need to launch Galileo with something.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: clb22 on 01/26/2010 06:36 pm
You misunderstand. This is a Soyuz replacement. Ariane 5 is too large and expensive.

ESA's official policy says Ariane 6 is an Ariane 5 replacement. Ariane 5 will be evolved from Ariane 5ECA to Ariane 5ME by the end of this decade, thereafter Ariane 6 will be phased in by the mid 2020s followed by a phase-out of Ariane 5ME and other Ariane 5 variants until the end of the 2020s. Ariane 6 shall be a more modular and flexible while slightly less capable launcher than Ariane 5 being able to launch anywhere from 3 to 8mt to GTO.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: cheesybagel on 01/26/2010 07:40 pm
3mt to GTO is IIRC about the same payload as Soyuz 2. Soyuz 2 will be used to do dual launches of Galileo satellites, among other things. 8mt is less than the present Ariane 5 ECA payload, which is 10mt. In fact, it is less payload than even Atlas V 551, which can do almost 8.7mt.

Also, the BBPPH is very similar to the medium launcher in, The Future of European Launchers: The ESA Perspective, with the added change of optional parallel stages to boost payload further. My guess is ESA will try to sell this as an interim launcher until they can make a reusable. If ever.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: clb22 on 01/26/2010 07:41 pm
Ariane 6 is a replacement for BOTH Soyuz and Ariane 5, but primarily for Ariane 5. ESA and Arianespace will give up their tedious attempt to succeed with dual-launches. 8mt is by far sufficient for any potential satellite that will come along in the next decades.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Serafeim on 01/26/2010 08:03 pm
I think the will use the Ariane 6 mainly for satellites,and leave the Ariane 5 for science and atv.arv,crewed etc missions..

Ariane 5 will be upgraded with vinci in upper stage,,but maybe is overpowered for commercial satellites..


Its not possible to consider abandon Ariane 5 the same time they are  building the arv with plans of crewed capsule in 2020..
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: agman25 on 01/26/2010 08:13 pm
Perhaps this is a hint that are not really serious about that.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/26/2010 08:16 pm
It sounds as if the plan is to keep Ariane 5 flying until Ariane 6 is operational in 2025. Leaves plenty of time for ARV. And in a triple core configuration Ariane 6 could supposedly still carry ATV/ARV.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Serafeim on 01/27/2010 01:34 pm
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/19/337279/big-birds-and-high-flying.html

Quote
  The move to develop a single rocket capable of different missions is also perplexing for launcher experts. US National Air and Space Museum curator Roger Launius says: "The single rocket idea has never worked very well."

And ESA's launcher policy until now has been to create a family of launchers. It is still in the process of preparing to operate from French Guiana from 2011 the Ariane 5 for heavy spacecraft, the Italian-led Vega for small spacecraft and Russia's medium-class Soyuz.

Launius speculates that the 1,000kg gap mystery may be traced to unstated defence requirements - Dordain mentioned co-operation with the European Defence Agency at his press conference.

Tomorrow's Bird was to have been a two-year study finished by early 2008, but two years on ESA has released only executive summaries. Its implications for Europe's rockets mean, in retrospect, the study should probably have been called Tomorrow's Launcher.

I dont know if they will finally make that rocket...That modular style is the Angara style Russia knows more..maybe is best europe to stay with the Family launchers style

but if the future satellites are 10t ....Ariane 5 have this payload to geo..10t..why change it?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/27/2010 01:41 pm
Very good question! It does seem inconsistent. William Barton, take note.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Analyst on 01/27/2010 01:56 pm
Looks like future GEO satellites won't be in the 10 metric tons class, but way below (3 to 7 metric tons).

Analyst
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: William Barton on 01/27/2010 02:19 pm
I myself would hesitate to predict anything about future GEO satellites. There's accumulating evidence that comsats won't be part of that future.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Analyst on 01/27/2010 04:29 pm
Care to share this evidence?

Analyst
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: agman25 on 01/27/2010 04:43 pm
I don't know if this counts as evidence but I stopped being a GSO comsat customer recently. Went from satellite to cable for my TV. Cable company gave me a bundled deal for both TV and internet.

TV and phone are moving to the internet and the internet is moving to the cloud. GSO comsats can't handle cloud computing due to signal latency issues. So long term they might be in trouble.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: William Barton on 01/27/2010 04:54 pm
Care to share this evidence?

Analyst

Quick to jump on my verbal excess! More like accumulating opinions, than "evidence." Other, cheaper technologies that might do the job as well or better. Expanding landline broadband networks for telecom, in particular. Even wireless broadband via cell towers. At some point, it may well be cheaper to finish up the ground network than keep on throwing up comsats. Then comsats will be a temporary bridge between the old cable network and the new one (kind of the way metal piston-engine planes were a bridge between biplanes and jets). At some point, comsats will reach their technological limits. Especially if they're forever limited by 25mT LVs.

A couple of other opinionoids, thrown in just for fun:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR234/index.html

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22398/1/97-0885.pdf

http://www.21stcenturyairships.com/HighAlt

I don't necessarily beliew the above will come to pass, just think it's interesting.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: William Barton on 01/27/2010 04:59 pm
I don't know if this counts as evidence but I stopped being a GSO comsat customer recently. Went from satellite to cable for my TV. Cable company gave me a bundled deal for both TV and internet.

TV and phone are moving to the internet and the internet is moving to the cloud. GSO comsats can't handle cloud computing due to signal latency issues. So long term they might be in trouble.

And that's part of the essense of my question about, What could you do with bigger GEO satellites? Suppose you had a comsat with enough bandwidth to talk directly to the electronics of a cell phone? How big an antenna would that take on the satellite? (The signal latency issue is separate from that.) I will shortly be moving to an area outside T1, cable and DSL reach, and since Hughes.net can't handle Vonage, I'll be back on a landline for phone service. (Actually, I'm probably going to go all-cellular, since there's a big tower on the horizon I can point a yagi aerial at.)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2010 05:07 pm
The military/intelligence community would benefit from larger than 10 tons to GSO.
EDIT: Deleted my little off-topic shpeal.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: agman25 on 01/27/2010 05:49 pm
I don't know if this counts as evidence but I stopped being a GSO comsat customer recently. Went from satellite to cable for my TV. Cable company gave me a bundled deal for both TV and internet.

TV and phone are moving to the internet and the internet is moving to the cloud. GSO comsats can't handle cloud computing due to signal latency issues. So long term they might be in trouble.

And that's part of the essense of my question about, What could you do with bigger GEO satellites? Suppose you had a comsat with enough bandwidth to talk directly to the electronics of a cell phone? How big an antenna would that take on the satellite? (The signal latency issue is separate from that.) I will shortly be moving to an area outside T1, cable and DSL reach, and since Hughes.net can't handle Vonage, I'll be back on a landline for phone service. (Actually, I'm probably going to go all-cellular, since there's a big tower on the horizon I can point a yagi aerial at.)
I found this
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/38544.php
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Serafeim on 01/28/2010 02:33 pm
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/01/european-space-agency-planning.html#more

Quote
  European Space Agency planning its own long-range "ESAS"
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/12/2010 11:52 am
With hindsight, wouldn't it have been better for ESA to go from Ariane 4 to a kerolox version, with a three-core variant for heavy payloads? Now that Vulcain exists it may not be a good idea to throw it away and to convert Viking to kerolox. Does this mean Ariane 6 would be inferior to what it might have been had there not been an Ariane 5? Not saying this is the case, just wondering about people's opinions.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Archibald on 02/13/2010 09:19 am
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/index.htm
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 02/13/2010 01:00 pm
With hindsight, wouldn't it have been better for ESA to go from Ariane 4 to a kerolox version, with a three-core variant for heavy payloads? Now that Vulcain exists it may not be a good idea to throw it away and to convert Viking to kerolox. Does this mean Ariane 6 would be inferior to what it might have been had there not been an Ariane 5? Not saying this is the case, just wondering about people's opinions.
Why Kerolox? It translates into less energy per mass-unit of fuel. Agreed, Kerolox is a simpler technology but why would one convert Viking to Kerolox? That would translate into an entirely newly developed engine. Engine development is very expensive. I don't see the advantage of Kerolox over cryogenic.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/13/2010 01:06 pm
Why Kerolox? It translates into less energy per mass-unit of fuel. Agreed, Kerolox is a simpler technology but why would one convert Viking to Kerolox? That would translate into an entirely newly developed engine. Engine development is very expensive. I don't see the advantage of Kerolox over cryogenic.

For Ariane 5 they switched from a hypergolic Viking to a brand new cryogenic Vulcain and had to develop large SRBs too, although these had synergy with French nuclear missiles. The less drastic change of converting the Viking from toxic hypergolics to kerolox would have been an improvement. Conventional wisdom has it that kerolox is pretty close to optimal as a first stage propellant. The money spent developing Vulcain might have been better spent developing Vinci.

Again, I'm not saying this is true, just wondering.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 02/13/2010 07:56 pm
Why Kerolox? It translates into less energy per mass-unit of fuel. Agreed, Kerolox is a simpler technology but why would one convert Viking to Kerolox? That would translate into an entirely newly developed engine. Engine development is very expensive. I don't see the advantage of Kerolox over cryogenic.

Conventional wisdom has it that kerolox is pretty close to optimal as a first stage propellant. The money spent developing Vulcain might have been better spent developing Vinci.

That scenario still leaves me with no answer to the question: what engine would have run Kerolox? In your scenario that would not have been Vulcain, as it would not have been developed because the money would have been used on Vinci. And Viking does not run on Kerolox. Money diverted away from Vulcain to Vinci would create the issue of not having a Kerolox engine for the first stage. No engine, no launcher.

Also, suggesting that development money from Vulcain could have been diverted to Vinci is like comparing apples to pears. Vulcain is a first stage engine, producing roughly 1150 kN of vacuum thrust. Vinci is an upper stage engine, producing only 180 KN of vacuum thrust. Big difference.

The hypothetical switch from Viking (hypergolics) to "Engine-X" (Kerolox) still would have required the development of a completely new engine. To avoid the use of (environmentally polluting) solid boosters, "Engine-X" either would need to have been very large, or several of them should have been attached to the first stage.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/13/2010 08:00 pm
I was thinking converting Viking from hypergolic to kerolox would be a much smaller change than developing a brand new cryogenic engine. I believe such conversions have happened for US engines.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 02/14/2010 12:49 pm
I was thinking converting Viking from hypergolic to kerolox would be a much smaller change than developing a brand new cryogenic engine. I believe such conversions have happened for US engines.

Yeah, that could be done. But the primary payload for Ariane 5 was Hermes, big and heavy. You would have needed to strap a whole lot of converted Vikings together to get something with the lift capacity of the current Ariane 5 (that is, if one was not planning on using solid boosters). If solid boosters are still part of the story, then what is the use of converted Vikings? On the current Ariane 5 the solids basically ARE the first stage. Less than 10% of the thrust in the first 2 minutes comes from Vulcain. By the time the solids are dropped, most of the dense atmosphere is behind the launcher, and Kerolox is no longer the optimal solution for thrust. Cryogenic at that stage is the optimal solution, and it's also a lot more environmentally friendly than Kerolox, let alone hypergolic.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/14/2010 12:57 pm
Well, if you leave out Ariane 5 and just compare Ariane 4 to plans for Ariane 6, then it looks as if they are going back to a small core like Ariane 4, but now with a three core configuration for heavy payloads. The large solids are going away. If you forget about the propellant Ariane 6 looks closer to Ariane 4 than to Ariane 5. It would be interesting to know whether it is better to have three cryogenic cores like Delta IV Heavy or three kerolox cores like Atlas V Heavy. If the answer is kerolox, then Ariane 5 looks like a mistake in retrospect. Maybe even if you did intend to fly Hermes on it.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: ckiki lwai on 02/14/2010 02:54 pm
Well, if you leave out Ariane 5 and just compare Ariane 4 to plans for Ariane 6, then it looks as if they are going back to a small core like Ariane 4, but now with a three core configuration for heavy payloads. The large solids are going away. If you forget about the propellant Ariane 6 looks closer to Ariane 4 than to Ariane 5. It would be interesting to know whether it is better to have three cryogenic cores like Delta IV Heavy or three kerolox cores like Atlas V Heavy. If the answer is kerolox, then Ariane 5 looks like a mistake in retrospect. Maybe even if you did intend to fly Hermes on it.

The core stage Ariane 6 is basically a shorted Ariane 5 core stage, and it's upperstage is almost the same as on Ariane 5 ME. Aside from the boosters, I see very little similarity between Ariane 4 and 6.

Too bad you didn't post the question a bit earlier, I met the old chef of the Ariane 5 programme last week and could have asked him why they didn't go for kerolox :)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 02/14/2010 05:36 pm
Well, if you leave out Ariane 5 and just compare Ariane 4 to plans for Ariane 6, then it looks as if they are going back to a small core like Ariane 4, but now with a three core configuration for heavy payloads. The large solids are going away. If you forget about the propellant Ariane 6 looks closer to Ariane 4 than to Ariane 5. It would be interesting to know whether it is better to have three cryogenic cores like Delta IV Heavy or three kerolox cores like Atlas V Heavy. If the answer is kerolox, then Ariane 5 looks like a mistake in retrospect. Maybe even if you did intend to fly Hermes on it.

The core stage Ariane 6 is basically a shorted Ariane 5 core stage, and it's upperstage is almost the same as on Ariane 5 ME. Aside from the boosters, I see very little similarity between Ariane 4 and 6.

Too bad you didn't post the question a bit earlier, I met the old chef of the Ariane 5 programme last week and could have asked him why they didn't go for kerolox :)

The Ariane 6 core is shorter because the engine needs to be able to lift its own core when fully loaded with fuel. Currently, Vulcain (both 1 and 2) cannot lift their own core when it's loaded with fuel. That's why the solids are there. Compared to Delta 4 and Atlas 5, Ariane 5 holds an underpowered main engine. Even with a shortened first stage, it will still be necessary to develop a new first stage engine with a thrust of 2500 to 2750 kN of sea-level thrust. Current Vulcain will not do the job.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Archibald on 02/14/2010 06:22 pm
I was thinking converting Viking from hypergolic to kerolox would be a much smaller change than developing a brand new cryogenic engine. I believe such conversions have happened for US engines.

Aerojet did it with the Titan LR-89. Except it was the other way around (kerosene > hypergolics).
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: ckiki lwai on 02/14/2010 07:44 pm
Woods170, I knew that, I was just comparing Ariane 4, 5 and 6 :)

But I'll rephrase it a bit: Ariane 5 and 6 have the same diameter for their core stages, so they are not going back to a smaller core stage with Ariane 6.

About which rocket is better: Atlas V or Delta IV, I read that several members on this forum think Atlas V is better, but I think that's because of its staged combustion kerolox engine.
Since a staged combustion kerolox engine didn't even exist when Ariane 5 was being designed (early 80ies) and was thought to be technically impossible in the West, going for hydrogen/lox core stage was the logical choice at the time.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Serafeim on 02/15/2010 01:06 pm
from what I understand Ariane 6  will be no a Ariane 5 replacement.There will be just a ariane 5 derived modular  launcher for cheap satellite launch etc.

Ariane 5 in the same time maybe will go out of the heavy satellite launching,and used mainly for the manned and unmanned Esa vehicles,which will be built around 2020.together with upper stage Vinci...

for making the ar. 5 manned they need a new launch pad ,because the pad in use now is for  satellites.Maybe they want to build the Ariane 6 with a new pad ,and there will launch the majoirity of satellites?

That is just a thought.Maybe instead of building a new more expensive Ariane 5 pad,they have in mind to build a cheaper Ariane 6 satellite launch pad,so the today Ariane 5 pad updated be used for Crew launch etc?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 02/15/2010 07:05 pm

for making the ar. 5 manned they need a new launch pad ,because the pad in use now is for  satellites.Maybe they want to build the Ariane 6 with a new pad ,and there will launch the majoirity of satellites?

That is just a thought.Maybe instead of building a new more expensive Ariane 5 pad,they have in mind to build a cheaper Ariane 6 satellite launch pad,so the today Ariane 5 pad updated be used for Crew launch etc?

A new pad for a manned Ariane 5 is not required. A study by CNES and EADS/Astrium was performed to look at the possibility of putting Orion on top of Ariane 5. It turned out it was possible to change ELA-3 in such a way as to support a manned version of Ariane 5. Unmanned versions of Ariane 5, carrying satellites, could still launch from the same launchpad.

A new assembly building, or a major reconstruction of the current assembly building, will be required to support a manned Ariane 5 version, assuming it will carry a classic LAS layout (long thin escape rocket on top of the spacecraft). Such a combination of Ariane-5 and spacecraft is taller than the current assembly building.

However, as discussed elsewhere on this forum, a manned version of Ariane 5 is unlikely before 2020 at the earliest. With the cancellation of Orion any manned spacecraft on Ariane-5 would probably be an manned ARV derivative.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: ckiki lwai on 02/15/2010 07:57 pm

for making the ar. 5 manned they need a new launch pad ,because the pad in use now is for  satellites.Maybe they want to build the Ariane 6 with a new pad ,and there will launch the majoirity of satellites?

That is just a thought.Maybe instead of building a new more expensive Ariane 5 pad,they have in mind to build a cheaper Ariane 6 satellite launch pad,so the today Ariane 5 pad updated be used for Crew launch etc?

A new pad for a manned Ariane 5 is not required. A study by CNES and EADS/Astrium was performed to look at the possibility of putting Orion on top of Ariane 5. It turned out it was possible to change ELA-3 in such a way as to support a manned version of Ariane 5. Unmanned versions of Ariane 5, carrying satellites, could still launch from the same launchpad.

I agree, commercial flights are only there to keep up the flight rate, if a government mission has to fly, the comsats just have to wait until the launch pad and assembly building are free again.

Quote
A new assembly building, or a major reconstruction of the current assembly building, will be required to support a manned Ariane 5 version, assuming it will carry a classic LAS layout (long thin escape rocket on top of the spacecraft). Such a combination of Ariane-5 and spacecraft is taller than the current assembly building.

However, as discussed elsewhere on this forum, a manned version of Ariane 5 is unlikely before 2020 at the earliest. With the cancellation of Orion any manned spacecraft on Ariane-5 would probably be an manned ARV derivative.

Wouldn't the current assembly building be high enough for an ARV derivative? Looking at the Ariane 5 ES with ATV, I see plenty of space for an escape tower.
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Launchers_Access_to_Space/SEM20W67ESD_0.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Patchouli on 02/15/2010 10:46 pm
I don't think Ariane 5 has much room for payload upgrades.
The core can't lift it's own fully fueled mass so you can't use multiple cores.
While Ariane 6's modular design one probably could simply use more cores for a larger payload much as the Delta IV can.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deltaiv.htm

I'd expect them to use a much larger engine then Vulcain 2 or each core having two Vulcain engines or a new lox kerosene engine.

I don't expect any derivatives of viking it's just too small and you'll end up with a design like the F9 and Satrun IB.
Of course if F9 proves very cost effective and reliable they might do that.

Delta,Atlas,and Falcon 9 pretty much show what is an ideal core size is anything significantly smaller would be a waste of time and money.
 Derivatives of the Vega LV likely would be cheaper for those payloads anyway.

 I expect Araine 6 to look sorta like the illegitimate child of Delta IV and the H2B.
Lox hydrogen cores with two engines each and as many as five to seven cores.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/16/2010 09:12 am
The plan is to go with smaller (shorter) cores, augmented by small solids. Dual engines would be an option, but that option was not chosen.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Serafeim on 02/16/2010 11:16 am
If the today ariane 5 launch pad is enough ,so that is very good.I read about the need for a new launch pad in some articles,but if you surely know the studies etc,so much the better... 8)

But the obvious question about Ariane 6 is : Why they just built the Soyuz  pads,center etc,if they want to make Ariane 6 which is a replacement..

The middle rocket of Arianespace is Soyuz.Why they gave all that money ?


But if Esa wants to build a new launcher ,why not build Ariane X  50t,with six boosters,like in the Astrium plan in Esa website ?
thats something big...

Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 02/17/2010 07:28 pm
If the today ariane 5 launch pad is enough ,so that is very good.I read about the need for a new launch pad in some articles,but if you surely know the studies etc,so much the better... 8)

But the obvious question about Ariane 6 is : Why they just built the Soyuz  pads,center etc,if they want to make Ariane 6 which is a replacement..

The middle rocket of Arianespace is Soyuz.Why they gave all that money ?


But if Esa wants to build a new launcher ,why not build Ariane X  50t,with six boosters,like in the Astrium plan in Esa website ?
thats something big...


I will ask a counter-question. What does ESA need a 50 ton launcher for? ESA does not have payloads heavy enough to justify such a beast of a launcher.
You will have to realize this: Bigger is not always better. For the markets ESA and Arianespace are currently working with, 25 tons is roughly the required maximum payload capability for LEO. And that translates nicely into the current Ariane 5 ECA and the future Ariane upgrades (sporting the new Vinci engine). If anything, ESA needs a smaller (Delta-2 class) launcher. That's why they are looking at Ariane 6 as it is currently proposed.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/17/2010 08:13 pm
I will ask a counter-question. What does ESA need a 50 ton launcher for? ESA does not have payloads heavy enough to justify such a beast of a launcher.

The only possible objective would be to a launcher big enough to put an ATV-derived vehicle and a A5US-derived EDS in orbit with enough fuel for TLI.

Quote
If anything, ESA needs a smaller (Delta-2 class) launcher. That's why they are looking at Ariane 6 as it is currently proposed.

I thought that Vega was to fill the Delta-II bracket.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Patchouli on 02/18/2010 02:22 am
I will ask a counter-question. What does ESA need a 50 ton launcher for? ESA does not have payloads heavy enough to justify such a beast of a launcher.

The only possible objective would be to a launcher big enough to put an ATV-derived vehicle and a A5US-derived EDS in orbit with enough fuel for TLI.

Quote
If anything, ESA needs a smaller (Delta-2 class) launcher. That's why they are looking at Ariane 6 as it is currently proposed.

I thought that Vega was to fill the Delta-II bracket.

Agreed com sats are not going to get lighter and some exploration missions were already getting too heavy for the Delta II.
Com sats are already too heavy for the Delta II and some are to heavy too be launched in pairs on Ariane 5.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702b.html

This is why Spacex decided to skip the Delta II payload with Falcon 5 and go strait to EELV class payloads with F9.

Now the problem with Ariane 5 is it can only do medium heavy 16T to 20T payloads LEO it has no 10 T configuration nor easy options for 30 to 50T.

The only real reason I can see for a new rocket to replace Araine 5 is to get the EELV's dial a payload capacity.
10T LEO or 5T GTO for low end and 30T LEO or 15T GTO for standard heavy with options all the way to 50T LEO and the ability to put something the size of the ATV into TLI for the future.

As for delta II class payloads Soyuz already provides that.

For something newer then Soyuz it probably would be best for the ESA to leave that payload bracket to the commercial market.

Now on to LEO operations it has been found 25T LEO is too limiting for human HSF operations such as building space stations.

Though there are recent tricks that make it less limiting such as expandable modules.

But even Bigelow's plans need EELV heavy class vehicles.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 02/18/2010 11:06 am

I thought that Vega was to fill the Delta-II bracket.

No. Payload capacity of Vega to LEO is 1500 kg. Payload capacity of Delta-II ranges from 2800 kg to 6000 kg. So, Vega does not even come close to the Delta-II bracket. That is why Soyuz will start flying from CSG in the near future. It is on near equal footing to the payload capacity of Delta-II.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: cheesybagel on 02/19/2010 02:06 am
About which rocket is better: Atlas V or Delta IV, I read that several members on this forum think Atlas V is better, but I think that's because of its staged combustion kerolox engine.
Since a staged combustion kerolox engine didn't even exist when Ariane 5 was being designed (early 80ies) and was thought to be technically impossible in the West, going for hydrogen/lox core stage was the logical choice at the time.

It did exist. NK-33 is staged combustion kerolox and was designed like a decade before that. But it was probably unknown outside the USSR.
However SSME is a more advanced staged combustion hydrolox engine than Vulcain. The design was finished before the 80s. Even the Japanese used staged combustion in the H-IIA first stage (although they plan to switch to a different cycle in the future). CNES/ESA are just really conservative. I mean, they are moving to an expander cycle upper stage engine now, when even the Japanese have been using those for yonks.
I think the French made some nitric acid/kerosene rockets (Veronique) but they switched to hypergolics quickly. The Europa launcher used a kerolox powered Blue Streak first stage (manufactured in the UK). The UK also made the Black Knight rocket, which used H2O2/kerosene. Of course this is all old stuff. The UK does not even manufacture space launch vehicles anymore.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/19/2010 12:16 pm
The Europa launcher used a kerolox powered Blue Streak first stage (manufactured in the UK).

IIRC, the engines from the Blue Streak went on to be the basis of the core engines on Ariane-1.

Quote
The UK also made the Black Knight rocket, which used H2O2/kerosene. Of course this is all old stuff. The UK does not even manufacture space launch vehicles anymore.

The last, un-flown Black Knight is in the Science Museum in London.  It's incredibly small for an LV.  The payload is tiny.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: agman25 on 07/07/2010 10:49 pm
Astrium To Lead Studies of Ariane 5 Successor

"Unlike the current Ariane 5, the next-generation launcher would, under the preliminary designs being investigated, launch one satellite at a time into geostationary orbit, not two as typically is the case with the current Ariane 5.

European government officials have said the Ariane 5 successor should be able to replace both the Ariane 5 and the medium-lift Soyuz rocket, a European version of which is scheduled to operate from Europe’s Guiana Space Center starting in late 2010 or early 2011."

http://www.spacenews.com/contracts/100707-astrium-studies-ariane-successor.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 07/12/2010 07:33 pm

The future launcher

July 09 2010

Astrium and ESA to develop launch vehicle of tomorrow

Astrium has been selected by the European Space Agency (ESA) to undertake initial development studies for a next-generation launcher.

The Next Generation Launcher (NGL) project is part of ESA’s Future Launcher Preparatory Programme, which aims to prepare a proposal combining all technical and organisational aspects of the programme for presentation at ESA’s next ministerial conference.

Ariane 5 ME (Midlife Evolution), for which initial development was launched at the 2008 ESA ministerial conference, with first flight scheduled for 2016, is an essential medium-term solution for meeting the needs of the institutional and commercial heavy-lift launcher market. Afterwards, Europe will need a new launcher, to guarantee continued independent access to space, specifically for the four-tonne to SSO (sun-synchronous orbit) segment.

http://www.astrium.eads.net/en/news/the-future-launcher.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/13/2010 12:54 am
Afterwards, Europe will need a new launcher, to guarantee continued independent access to space, specifically for the four-tonne to SSO (sun-synchronous orbit) segment.

Nice marketing text, but I don't think it's actually true. Would the CNES Directorate of Launchers (DLA) still be doing most of the design or would it be done by Astrium? I'm getting the feeling DLA is Europe's MSFC.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/13/2010 12:03 pm
Europe’s Launch Infrastructure Costs Loom Large Amid Fiscal Crisis (http://www.spacenews.com/launch/100528-europe-launch-infrastructure-costs.html)

Quote
In an illustration of how the discussion is being played out, the head of the German Aerospace Center, DLR, said here that he is “totally against the idea of an Ariane 6 vehicle.” But Johann-Dietrich Woerner said Germany could, at least in principle, support co-investment in an improved Ariane 5 even as work starts on a successor rocket.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Danderman on 07/14/2010 05:17 am

"Unlike the current Ariane 5, the next-generation launcher would, under the preliminary designs being investigated, launch one satellite at a time into geostationary orbit, not two as typically is the case with the current Ariane 5.


With a little luck, the world is going to change so that the plans for Ariane 6 may be significantly altered.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/14/2010 05:30 am
With a little luck, the world is going to change so that the plans for Ariane 6 may be significantly altered.

How are you hoping plans might be changed?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: aquanaut99 on 07/14/2010 06:00 am
I doubt this "Ariane 6" will ever go beyond the Powerpoint stage. Not only because it makes little sense (better to stick with Soyuz) but because the unprecedented budget crisis and financial stagnation in Europe, coupled with a real (even though unspoken) risk of the entire European Project failing (which may ultimately lead to a dissolution of the EU) make it more likely that ESA will have to give up the launcher business entirely than ESA developping a functional new rocket.

Although Dordain doesn't dare say it, it would appear Ariane 5 / ATV are in acute fiscal jeopardy AS OF TODAY.

Consequences for the USA: We need to realize that Europe (and possibly Japan, where the debt crisis is just as bad) may soon no longer be valid/useful partners for Space Exploration. Heck, Europe is already far along on its way to total geopolitical irrelevence. It's time for the USA to seek new partners. And quickly, too, if we don't want ISS to fail because Europe no longer launches ATVs... THEN, we would really be in deep doo-doo (totally dependent on Russia...talk about single point of failure... )
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Stephan on 07/14/2010 07:16 am
What a great analysis, thanks for sharing with us your knowledge of the situation ...
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: hop on 07/14/2010 07:30 am
I doubt this "Ariane 6" will ever go beyond the Powerpoint stage. Not only because it makes little sense (better to stick with Soyuz)
The low end might be the same as Soyuz, but the upper end will be more than 2x greater. No way Soyuz is going to launch the 5-8 ton GTO payloads that would be Ariane 6 primary market.
Quote
, if we don't want ISS to fail because Europe no longer launches ATVs... THEN, we would really be in deep doo-doo (totally dependent on Russia...talk about single point of failure... )
HTV, Dragon, Cygnus. Yup, looks like a single point of failure.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/14/2010 07:46 am
What I'd like to see is competition between an Ariane 6 and a Vega derived vehicle, which could have substantial Ariane 5 legacy too since Vega is Ariane derived. The Italians want to build a LOX/CH4 upper stage for Vega, which would then be called Lyra.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: aquanaut99 on 07/14/2010 07:55 am
HTV, Dragon, Cygnus. Yup, looks like a single point of failure.

Dragon and Cygnus are Powerpoint-spacecraft (ie not yet built, not yet flown, not yet proven to work reliably). HTV has only flown once and is from a country that is no better off than Europe.

I stand by my statement.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Stephan on 07/14/2010 08:01 am
Dragon and Cygnus are Powerpoint-spacecraft (ie not yet built, not yet flown, not yet proven to work reliably). HTV has only flown once and is from a country that is no better off than Europe.

I stand by my statement.
Be serious a minute, there are a lot of differences between "powerpoint spacecraft" and spacecraft that went through PDR or CDR. It's not binary between powerpoint and flight proven.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: aquanaut99 on 07/14/2010 08:06 am
It's not binary between powerpoint and flight proven.

From my POV, it is. In case of an emergency resupply of ISS, you either have a flight-proven vehicle that can reliably reach ISS available, or you don't. The mission result is binary: Sucess or failure. Failure meaning abandonning the ISS and maybe even death for the crew. There is no middle ground.

Anyway, "Ariane 6" won't be available before 2025. For a mission for which there are already plenty of other, cheaper launchers available. In 2025, this will be even more true (probably India and China will dominate the GSO satellite market). If ESA still exists in 2025, it would be better off concentrating on a different mission, than attempting to recreate what countries with much lower production costs dominate.

Ariane 6 is definately the wrong way to go.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Stephan on 07/14/2010 08:22 am
It's not binary between powerpoint and flight proven.
From my POV, it is. In case of an emergency resupply of ISS, you either have a flight-proven vehicle that can reliably reach ISS available, or you don't. The mission result is binary: Sucess or failure. Failure meaning abandonning the ISS and maybe even death for the crew. There is no middle ground.
It's called qualification and acceptance, and that's why we have milestones to fulfil. It has nothing to do with powerpoint. There is a ton of work between a nice drawing on powerpoint and flight qualification, ignoring that is disrespectful for engineers.
Get a bit of engineering knowledge before making such uneducated statements.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2010 10:56 am
HTV, Dragon, Cygnus. Yup, looks like a single point of failure.

Dragon and Cygnus are Powerpoint-spacecraft (ie not yet built, not yet flown, not yet proven to work reliably). HTV has only flown once and is from a country that is no better off than Europe.

I stand by my statement.

And your statement is no more than a powerpoint prediction.  Which is more likely to come true? Nothing that you predict.  Dragon and Cygnus work and ATV and HTV continue to serve the ISS.

Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2010 10:57 am

From my POV, it is. In case of an emergency resupply of ISS, you either have a flight-proven vehicle that can reliably reach ISS available, or you don't. The mission result is binary: Sucess or failure. Failure meaning abandonning the ISS and maybe even death for the crew. There is no middle ground.

Which is not applicable for the next two year after which there will be plenty of backup
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 05/10/2011 04:40 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/french-prime-minister-says-european-soyuz-will-complement-not-compete-with-ariane.html

Quote
A report prepared at Fillon’s direction in May 2009 nonetheless suggested that France and Europe begin work on a post-Ariane 5 rocket that would be modular in nature and capable of launching — one at a time — satellites weighing anywhere from 3,000 kilograms to 6,000 kilograms or more.

The French government recently agreed to spend about 250 million euros ($362 million) in French public bond monies to begin design of a next-generation vehicle. Early indications are that it will follow the suggestions of the Fillon report and focus on a vehicle geared to launching a broad range of satellites as solo passengers.

Another 250 million euros in bond funds will be used to develop scientific and Earth observation satellites.

Fillon said France’s decision to invest 500 million euros in space research at time of heavy pressure on government spending “has no equivalent in Europe.”
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 05/12/2011 05:41 pm
I doubt this "Ariane 6" will ever go beyond the Powerpoint stage. Not only because it makes little sense (better to stick with Soyuz) but because the unprecedented budget crisis and financial stagnation in Europe, coupled with a real (even though unspoken) risk of the entire European Project failing (which may ultimately lead to a dissolution of the EU) make it more likely that ESA will have to give up the launcher business entirely than ESA developping a functional new rocket.

Although Dordain doesn't dare say it, it would appear Ariane 5 / ATV are in acute fiscal jeopardy AS OF TODAY.

Consequences for the USA: We need to realize that Europe (and possibly Japan, where the debt crisis is just as bad) may soon no longer be valid/useful partners for Space Exploration. Heck, Europe is already far along on its way to total geopolitical irrelevence. It's time for the USA to seek new partners. And quickly, too, if we don't want ISS to fail because Europe no longer launches ATVs... THEN, we would really be in deep doo-doo (totally dependent on Russia...talk about single point of failure... )


Wow, while I agree with the bad economical situation. I must say the states are the weak link in the western hegemony. Have you looked at your deficits? Look at it compare to europe, don't forget to take the individual state deficits into account and come back. Kinda ironic that you're worried about europe to no longer launch with the atv, while the states is about to fail launching the shuttle. Or anything whatsoever to the station. Let's hope spaceX does not fail though.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Patchouli on 05/13/2011 05:51 am
It's not binary between powerpoint and flight proven.

From my POV, it is. In case of an emergency resupply of ISS, you either have a flight-proven vehicle that can reliably reach ISS available, or you don't. The mission result is binary: Sucess or failure. Failure meaning abandonning the ISS and maybe even death for the crew. There is no middle ground.

Anyway, "Ariane 6" won't be available before 2025. For a mission for which there are already plenty of other, cheaper launchers available. In 2025, this will be even more true (probably India and China will dominate the GSO satellite market). If ESA still exists in 2025, it would be better off concentrating on a different mission, than attempting to recreate what countries with much lower production costs dominate.

Ariane 6 is definately the wrong way to go.

The real threat to Arainespace is not China and India but instead private companies like Spacex and OSC.
They are advancing much more rapidly then the government space programs in those countries.

I think by 2025 a lot of Ariane 6's payload class of 12MT will be served by reusable and semi reusable LVs such as Skylon and vehicles similar to the Russian MAKS shuttle concept.

Very large payloads will have likely moved upscale from the present size of GSO satellites.

Of course Ariane 6 is only a power point right now they could add features such as recoverable or flyback boosters etc.

They may not build it at all and decide to fund something like Skylon instead.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Phillip Clark on 05/13/2011 07:04 am
I am sure that Alan Bond would be delighted to have Skylon funded by ESA rather than anther Ariane vehicle!
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 05/29/2011 07:18 pm
Le Gall Makes Appeal for Ariane 5 Successor

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/110527-legall-appeal-ariane5-successor.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Downix on 05/29/2011 09:09 pm
Why develop a replacement when they have a good design as/is?  Their issue is more one of scalability, it does not scale down as well as other designs.  This limits the need, it does not have as many missions.  If anything for a follow up they just need a way to better scale the existing design.  If they do manage the air-start Vulcain engine, then they may have a solution.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Danderman on 05/30/2011 04:02 am
What would be really interesting in this thread would be a post indicating that ESA is beginning work on Ariane 6.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: SgtPoivre on 05/30/2011 11:24 am
What would be really interesting in this thread would be a post indicating that ESA is beginning work on Ariane 6.


Why? ESA cannot do anything regarding Ariane 6 except fund and oversee its development. ESA doesn't have much engineering capability and virtually no experience in launcher design (unlike NASA for exemple). In Europe, only Astrium (EADS), the French agency (CNES) and the Italians designing VEGA (ASI and Avio) have experience in this field.

The funding decision for the next phase of Ariane 6 development will have to wait the next ESA ministerial council.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/30/2011 11:43 am
What would be really interesting in this thread would be a post indicating that ESA is beginning work on Ariane 6.


Why? ESA cannot do anything regarding Ariane 6 except fund and oversee its development. ESA doesn't have much engineering capability and virtually no experience in launcher design (unlike NASA for exemple). In Europe, only Astrium (EADS), the French agency (CNES) and the Italians designing VEGA (ASI and Avio) have experience in this field.

The funding decision for the next phase of Ariane 6 development will have to wait the next ESA ministerial council.

Let I recall to you that ESA developed the Ariane 5 in the 90's and Vega is still under development but will launch this year. As for Nasa they tried to develop a pincel rocket (ares 1) but couldn't launch it without damaging the launch path. The latest fully new NASA launcher was the space shuttle. And only private companys are improving and designing new rockerts.

Let put the cold ware debate of witch nation is best at rest. And stop being so sarcastic towards ESA developments. Because nasa is only ahead becouse of the space race during the cold ware.

Now lets talk about ESA plans of developing a new rocket (Ariane 6) that will moost likely replace the soyuz and ariane 5 (in dual launch configuration).
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: SgtPoivre on 05/30/2011 02:24 pm
Ariane 5 development was overseen by CNES with Aerospatiale (now Astrium) as lead contractor.

Vega's development is overseen by ASI with Avio as lead contractor.

I think you misunderstood my post : I was just trying to say that ESA has no equivalent of the NASA Marshall Space Center and is just an institution coordinating the investments of the different member states. Generally speaking there seems to be a misconception among Americans on who is doing what in space business in Europe. ESA is not the same thing as NASA.
What I'm saying is valid only for launcher developments, I wouldn't say the same thing regarding scientific satellites development since ESA put up the ESTEC center which does  real technical work and satellites IT&T.

The studies currently underway at Astrium and CNES represent the real work preparing the main system choices and paving the way for Ariane 6 development.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/30/2011 03:28 pm
Ariane 5 development was overseen by CNES with Aerospatiale (now Astrium) as lead contractor.

Vega's development is overseen by ASI with Avio as lead contractor.

I think you misunderstood my post : I was just trying to say that ESA has no equivalent of the NASA Marshall Space Center and is just an institution coordinating the investments of the different member states. Generally speaking there seems to be a misconception among Americans on who is doing what in space business in Europe. ESA is not the same thing as NASA.
What I'm saying is valid only for launcher developments, I wouldn't say the same thing regarding scientific satellites development since ESA put up the ESTEC center which does  real technical work and satellites IT&T.

The studies currently underway at Astrium and CNES represent the real work preparing the main system choices and paving the way for Ariane 6 development.

Indeed I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. But you can't say that the Nasa has compleated a rocket development in many years. And Nasa is also awarding development contracts to private companys, like ESA has done for years.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Downix on 06/06/2011 09:15 pm
Doing a bit of study, combined with the announcements out of France and Germany late last year/early this year and some number crunching on the ATK Liberty has given me a thought-chain which may be correct in guessing how an Ariane 6 could be developed incrementally.

What is known right now is that there is a Vulcain 3 engine program, even if not in advanced state.  ATK needs changes to Ariane to work in the Liberty configuration, namely a re-design of support structure to enable base-lift over side-lift by the solid, as well as an air-started engine.  Vulcain 2 is not that dependent on ground for the start-process, only having one system truly mated to the ground.  That system can easily be adapted to an air-start system.

The Ariane 6 preliminary concepts I've seen seem to revolve around a more modular design, with Vega-derived solid boosters or 3-core Heavy arrangements.  For the Vega boosters (both 1.9m small and the Ariane-5 3m segmented booster) it needs a bottom-lift.  So, my thinking is, what if they are pulling a Naro-1, having a foreign firm pay for the development of this change?  The final form then gets retroactively applied to the Ariane 5, giving them a more flexible design.  Once the Vulcain 3 engine is ready, swap that in, and you now have a fully modular Ariane 6, scaling from 7 tonnes to 25 tonnes.

Just random musings.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Patchouli on 06/06/2011 10:48 pm
Why develop a replacement when they have a good design as/is?  Their issue is more one of scalability, it does not scale down as well as other designs.  This limits the need, it does not have as many missions.  If anything for a follow up they just need a way to better scale the existing design.  If they do manage the air-start Vulcain engine, then they may have a solution.

Vega may be able to scale up the handle payloads too small for Ariane 5.

It looks it could be a delta II class LV with a high energy upper stage or even a modest methane upper stage.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 06/22/2011 12:51 pm
ESA’s high-thrust engine takes next step
 
22 June 2011

The new main engine to power Europe’s successor to its Ariane 5 space launcher was brought a step closer today when ESA signed a €60 million contract with a propulsion consortium at the Paris Air & Space Show.
 
ESA is preparing the NGL Next-Generation Launcher to meet Europe’s institutional needs and safeguard its guaranteed access to space into the long term, ensuring it will continue to have effective and economic launchers at its disposal.

The work is being performed under the Agency’s Future Launchers Preparatory Programme (FLPP), which is identifying and studying new launch vehicle concepts and anticipating the technologies to make them possible. 

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMJGXZ27PG_index_0.html

-------------

Europe´s Next Generation Launcher

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ngl/pageflip.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Downix on 06/22/2011 09:45 pm
I wonder if anyone looked up the HTE project details.  Doing some digging into old articles, the program began in 2007 with a focus on a high-powered Methane engine.

Then look forward to last year, the partnership with ATK for the Liberty.  ATK bought a liquid engine co awhile back, which was working on a Methane engine.  ATK has produced a Methane engine demonstrator. 

I am seriously pondering the implications of all this.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/23/2011 04:36 am
HAve to say that I am surprised that Ariane 6 is going to go with numerous solids and a three stage configuration for the heavy version, why not go with the booster core concept that seems to be becoming universalized with ULA, SpaceX, an Russia adopting it.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: madscientist197 on 06/23/2011 11:32 am
Yes, a clustered core arrangement would allow the booster to scale much better. It is not surprising that so many companies have adopted the concept. I wonder how much of this is being driven by politics -- the necessity for there to be enough components/stages 'to go around.'
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: madscientist197 on 06/23/2011 11:37 am
Europe´s Next Generation Launcher

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ngl/pageflip.html

Are they trying to make their documentation as unreadable as possible? Horrific.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 06/23/2011 02:12 pm
Europe´s Next Generation Launcher

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ngl/pageflip.html

Are they trying to make their documentation as unreadable as possible? Horrific.

Same documentation in PDF format.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: perian on 06/23/2011 06:13 pm
Are they trying to make their documentation as unreadable as possible? Horrific.

You can download a pdf version.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: baldusi on 06/23/2011 06:36 pm
I wonder if anyone looked up the HTE project details.  Doing some digging into old articles, the program began in 2007 with a focus on a high-powered Methane engine.

Then look forward to last year, the partnership with ATK for the Liberty.  ATK bought a liquid engine co awhile back, which was working on a Methane engine.  ATK has produced a Methane engine demonstrator. 

I am seriously pondering the implications of all this.

The document says that a methane first stage is being studied. If I recall correctly, there was a paper, by a Swede scientist at ESA, where they compared an RP-1 first stage to a Methane one. They were almost exactly the same performance. The ten or so seconds of extra isp of methane offset by it's lower density.
I don't really see the point of Methane as a second stage fuel when you already have hydrogen. In particular, almost all the designs seems to use ESC derived US.
The fact that they already launch an RP-1 vehicle (Soyuz) from Korou, would make a significant argument to simplify the infrastructure. So I'm surprised RP-1 is not being studied.
Regarding the use of small solids rather than a Heavy version, is the they are looking into the commercial world. They want to be able to make small increments on payload, to accommodate a wide range of satellite payloads. A Heavy version adds too much capacity (and cost). If they had a small liquid fuel launcher, they might have thought of using that as a booster. But their small launcher strategy is based on solids, so it's quite probable that they are planning on using a P80 variation as a booster. If they can change just the the casing, some significant savings of scale can be realized.
If I were to start from zero, I might end with something similar to the Chinese strategy (2.25m, 3.3m and 5.4m RP-1 cores plus LH2 US) or the Angara. But if they already have the Vega and the EPC and EPS, you'd better find as much in common as possible.
Besides, how many Space exploration launches they make per year? They are plannings squarely at the commercial market.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bobthemonkey on 06/23/2011 07:28 pm
Yes, a clustered core arrangement would allow the booster to scale much better. It is not surprising that so many companies have adopted the concept. I wonder how much of this is being driven by politics -- the necessity for there to be enough components/stages 'to go around.'

They don't want to scale a single LV; they want economies of scale by flying the same LV (albeit with a variable number of strap ons) more frequently. There is an old articule discussing this in light of the commercial sat world, or their insurers, looking to avoid double manifests in the future.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 06/24/2011 07:06 am
Yes, a clustered core arrangement would allow the booster to scale much better. It is not surprising that so many companies have adopted the concept. I wonder how much of this is being driven by politics -- the necessity for there to be enough components/stages 'to go around.'

They don't want to scale a single LV; they want economies of scale by flying the same LV (albeit with a variable number of strap ons) more frequently. There is an old articule discussing this in light of the commercial sat world, or their insurers, looking to avoid double manifests in the future.

Yes, both ESA and CNES have made it clear that for future launchers they wish to get rid of the dual-launch concept.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: madscientist197 on 06/24/2011 09:39 am
Are they trying to make their documentation as unreadable as possible? Horrific.

You can download a pdf version.

I know, but even that seemed more awkward than necessary what with being labelled 'offline edition' and encapsulated in a zip file. At first I wondered whether I was downloading a copy of the entire webpage. Ought to say something more like 'PDF Version (for offline use)' and link directly to the PDF. Also, the 'Exit the 3D Issue' button doesn't work when linked in this manner either.

Moan, moan, moan, moan, moan... ::)

It's just lots of little irritating issues. ;)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Downix on 06/25/2011 03:49 am
I wonder if anyone looked up the HTE project details.  Doing some digging into old articles, the program began in 2007 with a focus on a high-powered Methane engine.

Then look forward to last year, the partnership with ATK for the Liberty.  ATK bought a liquid engine co awhile back, which was working on a Methane engine.  ATK has produced a Methane engine demonstrator. 

I am seriously pondering the implications of all this.

The document says that a methane first stage is being studied. If I recall correctly, there was a paper, by a Swede scientist at ESA, where they compared an RP-1 first stage to a Methane one. They were almost exactly the same performance. The ten or so seconds of extra isp of methane offset by it's lower density.
I don't really see the point of Methane as a second stage fuel when you already have hydrogen. In particular, almost all the designs seems to use ESC derived US.
I've been wondering why Methane instead of RP-1, and a paper I was reading tonight may have answered that for me, regen cooling.  The RP-1 is not cold enough to manage psia above ~2k, while Methane allows for LH2-level pressures with adequate cooling.  So you gain a dense fuel and high-pressure.

Just letting you know of a potential reason why.  Beyond that, beats me.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Blackjax on 06/25/2011 06:49 pm

BBC News Article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13911901

I love this:

Quote
"NGL is not so much about improving performance; we have the needed performance. NGL is about improvements for lowering the cost,"
he told me. 
"With NGL, we are talking about reducing the cost by 40%, with a single payload, when compared to Ariane today."

Dunno how successful they'll be, but a worldwide focus on seriously trying to drive down costs can't be a bad thing for those of us wanting to see a spacefaring future. 
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 07/09/2011 07:58 pm
Avio: Contract with ESA for New Space Propulsion System

 2011/06/22

Joint Propulsion Team Will Develop a Demonstrator Destined for Next Generation Space Launchers into Service between 2020 and 2025

Paris Air Show, Le Bourget, 22 June 2011 – Avio, international aerospace group headquartered in Italy, leader in propulsion systems, jointly signed, with the other members of the Joint Propulsion Team Consortium (Astrium and SNECMA, Safran Group), a contract with the European Space Agency (ESA) for the development of a demonstrator of a liquid-propellant space propulsion system characterised by a high thrust capacity.

The new propulsion system foresees more efficient combustion cycle which can be potentially employed for New Generation of Launchers (NGL), which will enter into service between 2020 and 2025.

In addition to oxidizer turbopump, Avio will be responsible for the design of the methane gas version of the demonstrator, coordinating the activities of the European partners involved in the design of the main components (combustion chamber, turbopump). The programme will proceed with a “Preliminary Design Review” (PDR), expected at year-end 2013, and then with the production, assembly and testing phase, until the complete qualification of the demonstrator.

The contract, with an overall value of € 60 million, is part of a larger project worth over € 100 million, whose activities were started up in 2007, and involves 14 companies from nine European countries.

http://www.aviogroup.com/en/media_room/press_release/2011/avio_contract_with_esa_for_new_space_propulsion_system
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Patchouli on 07/09/2011 10:20 pm
I wonder if anyone looked up the HTE project details.  Doing some digging into old articles, the program began in 2007 with a focus on a high-powered Methane engine.

Then look forward to last year, the partnership with ATK for the Liberty.  ATK bought a liquid engine co awhile back, which was working on a Methane engine.  ATK has produced a Methane engine demonstrator. 

I am seriously pondering the implications of all this.

The document says that a methane first stage is being studied. If I recall correctly, there was a paper, by a Swede scientist at ESA, where they compared an RP-1 first stage to a Methane one. They were almost exactly the same performance. The ten or so seconds of extra isp of methane offset by it's lower density.
I don't really see the point of Methane as a second stage fuel when you already have hydrogen. In particular, almost all the designs seems to use ESC derived US.
I've been wondering why Methane instead of RP-1, and a paper I was reading tonight may have answered that for me, regen cooling.  The RP-1 is not cold enough to manage psia above ~2k, while Methane allows for LH2-level pressures with adequate cooling.  So you gain a dense fuel and high-pressure.

Just letting you know of a potential reason why.  Beyond that, beats me.

What about avoiding coking issues?
 It seems easier to make a reusable methane engine then a reusable kerolox engine because methane is less likely to coke?

The Russians seemed to have addressed the coking problem by running O2 rich.
 I have no idea how Spacex solved it.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: kraisee on 07/10/2011 01:08 am
They designed the engine to operate with slight coking expected.   Exactly as F-1 and many other RP-1 engines do it.

Ross.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6 (NGL)
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/02/2011 12:51 am
I added (NGL) to the subject title because that's the official name ESA uses for the program this post refers to. The NGL program is a part of the FLPP program.

Today I visited the ESA FLPP site, and I was horrified by what I found. The information is presented in such a strange manner, that is's very difficult to figure out the structure behind this program. I checked wikipedia to, but that's even worse becouse it hasn't been updated 2008.

I'm going to update Wikipedia, and I wanted to share this chart (I made) wiht you. It contains all the subprograms of the FLPP program. I used abriviations in the chart so it's readable.

following is the explanation of the abriviations:
FLPP           Future Launchers Preparatory Programme
IXV             Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle
NGL            Next Generation Launcher
SCORE-D     Staged Combustion Rocket Engine - Demonstrator
POD-X         Pressure Oscillation Demondtrator - eXperimental
CUST           Cryogenic Upper Stage Technologies
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 10/29/2011 04:30 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/111028-germany-reaffirms-commitment-ariane.html

Quote
PARIS — The head of the German space agency said Oct. 28 Germany remains committed to financing a $2 billion upgrade to Europe’s Ariane 5 rocket instead of proceeding directly to a new launcher design when European governments meet in late 2012 to set midterm space policy.

Quote
The 19 member governments of the European Space Agency (ESA) are scheduled to meet in late 2012 to set their own multiyear budget and spending priorities. Germany and France had agreed that a new restartable upper stage for Ariane 5, using the Vinci engine now in development, would be a top priority. Completing the stage is expected to cost about 1.5 billion euros.

The so-called Ariane 5 Mid-life Evolution (Ariane 5 ME) vehicle, which would increase Ariane 5’s payload-carrying performance to 10,500 kilograms from today’s 9,300 to 9,500 kilograms into geostationary transfer orbit, would debut in 2018.

France in the meantime has invested 250 million euros in a public bond to finance early development work on a successor to the Ariane 5 vehicle, which would be modular in design and lift satellites weighing 3,000 to 8,000 kilograms, one at a time, into the same geostationary transfer orbit. Geostationary transfer orbit is the drop-off point for satellites ultimately bound for geostationary orbit, where most telecommunications satellites operate.

French Research Minister Laurent Wauquiez, in an Oct. 18 interview in the French financial daily La Tribune, said it will not be before 2012 that France determines whether Ariane 5 ME or an Ariane 5 successor should be given priority.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: vasilis89 on 10/29/2011 08:00 pm
will the restartable engine help to put double pailaods in differnt potitions? because this is the main problem of the ariane 5 they can not find suiting pairs, right?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/29/2011 08:38 pm
No, the restart ability would be mainly useful for MEO satellites (of which I gather there aren't going to be many) or for LEO payloads like ATV. Or eventually for exploration. It would likely mean the end of EPS, something I have mixed feelings about.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: pippin on 10/29/2011 08:57 pm
will the restartable engine help to put double pailaods in differnt potitions? because this is the main problem of the ariane 5 they can not find suiting pairs, right?

Actually the problem to find matching pairs is more one of matching the satellite sizes. Since more or less every commercial payload Ariane launches is a GSO sat and all GTOs are alike orbital position doesn't matter.

For LEO or MEO sats Ariane 5 will almost always be too big, even if you could launch several of them at a time as we see with Galileo.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 12/09/2011 03:54 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/111208-france-undecided-ariane5.html

Quote
France is undecided about whether European Space Agency (ESA) governments should invest 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion) in an upgraded Ariane 5 rocket when they meet in 11 months or put this investment into an Ariane 5 successor vehicle instead, a senior French space agency official said Dec. 6.

The comments by Thierry Duquesne, deputy director for strategy and programs at the French space agency, CNES, echo  statements made in October by French Research Minister Laurent Wauquiez (http://www.spacenews.com/civil/111028-germany-reaffirms-commitment-ariane.html).

They suggest that despite continued German government pressure that the Ariane 5 upgrade be supported, French officials are not certain that at a time of enormous pressure on public budgets, the upgrade — called the Ariane 5 Mid-life Evolution, or Ariane 5 ME — is the way to go.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 03/31/2012 11:54 am
http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120330-ses-chief-prefers-modular-ariane6.html

Quote
The 19-nation ESA is canvassing European commercial and government satellite owners to determine what kind of vehicle to propose to the agency’s member governments when they meet in November. One vehicle would provide more power to the current Ariane 5, while another option would develop the modular vehicle.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 03/31/2012 06:08 pm
Aviation Week - ESA to Compete Next-Gen Launcher Ahead of Budget Talks (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post:1f0d9861-e203-4fa9-8df8-cd8f5c24f90e)

More information about the next stages.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 05/05/2012 12:53 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120504-affordability-not-geographic-return.html

Quote
The European Space Agency (ESA) will select two competing proposals by late June to design a next-generation rocket that, if accepted by European governments in November, could succeed the current Ariane 5 heavy-lift vehicle within 15 years, ESA officials said.

Quote
The teams will be selected in June and will be asked to submit initial proposals by the end of September, in time for ESA delegations to digest the results before a meeting of ESA government ministers in late November.

At that meeting, ESA governments will be asked to fund an upgrade to the current Ariane 5 rocket. They will also be asked to consider whether ESA should start work right now on an Ariane 5 successor vehicle.

France, which has long led most launcher-related work in Europe, has invested more than 200 million euros in proceeds from a special government bond into a next-generation vehicle, which in France is called Ariane 6.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Piotr on 05/05/2012 02:10 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120504-affordability-not-geographic-return.html

Quote
The European Space Agency (ESA) will select two competing proposals by late June to design a next-generation rocket that, if accepted by European governments in November, could succeed the current Ariane 5 heavy-lift vehicle within 15 years, ESA officials said.

Quote
The teams will be selected in June and will be asked to submit initial proposals by the end of September, in time for ESA delegations to digest the results before a meeting of ESA government ministers in late November.

At that meeting, ESA governments will be asked to fund an upgrade to the current Ariane 5 rocket. They will also be asked to consider whether ESA should start work right now on an Ariane 5 successor vehicle.

France, which has long led most launcher-related work in Europe, has invested more than 200 million euros in proceeds from a special government bond into a next-generation vehicle, which in France is called Ariane 6.

A great initative - especially the alternative to ESA Geo-return policy. Now lets hope that the study will produce something more economically viable than the usuall HH and PPH concepts that we have been seeing for the past 10 years. Would be a shame if Ariane were to loose its current high commercial market-share.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Proponent on 05/08/2012 02:59 am
HH?  PPH?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: baldusi on 05/08/2012 02:00 pm
HH?  PPH?
HH: Hydrogen two stage.
PPH: Solid/Solid/Hydrogen three stage.

Apparently the French use Poudre (powder) for Solids.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/25/2012 11:55 pm
Sorry, I know this isn't completely relevant to Ariane 6, but it an idea for developing a new ESA launch system. So I i think this is the most appropriated place.

ESA has a problem, that´s for sure! The Ariane 5 is a reliable launcher, but it isn´t flexible enougth. Because of that ESA and the European launcher industry makes loses on the Ariane 5 although is gets more than half of the GTO launch market.

To overcom this problem the ESA has two plans:
1) Evolve the Ariane 5 into the ACB version that will have a restart-able second stage.
2) Develop a new launcher that will replace the Ariane 5 and soyuz (which  production will most likely stop after the introduction of the Angara rocket family).
The two main contributors to ESA, Germany and France, have completely different opinions in this manner. Germany wants the first, and France wants the second.

There also have been some other developments:

ESA has launch the new small rocket Vega, Germany didn't participate to this program and wants to join. Germany has shown some interest in developing a new liquid (4e) upper stage. This will replace the Ukraine (Non ESA member) produced upper stage. They are also looking an changing the design into a 3 segment launcher.

The German private space company MT Aerospace, has presented an alternative new rocket proposal. In my opinion this proposal contains some really smart ideas.
 
Now to get to my point:
ESA needs to redesign it's launch system. I think i've come up with an smart development program.

Lets combine all of these programs and combine it into an step wise development program for a new launch family.

Let Germany develop a new upper stage for Vega (so Vega becomes 100% ESA) and also make it a 3 stage rocket.
The new 40mton first stage should have to be designed in such a fashion, that it can serve as solid booster for the new rocket family. (with some small modifications)
Use the Vince engine for a new Ariane 5 upper-stage. This new upper-stage (with some small modifications) shall be the baseline for the upper stage for the new rocket.
This is the program for the short term. (To about 2020)

For the long term goal, we first need to mature some technology.
ESA needs to develop an first stage liquid engine that's powerful enough to lift of a medium sized rocket without boosters. This development is covered in the FLPP program (SCORE-D).

Now my basic outline for the new rocket family.
My idea is to develop a modular rocket design with the capacity from 8 to 40 or more mton to LEO, and 3 to12 to GTO.
It will use the following three components:
- A new liquid first stage that can be used as both core and booster. This stage should use the engine form the SCORE-D program. And the modular structure (interstage adapter proposal) design form MT Aerospace. (Only with 4 or more panel types.)
- A restart-able liquid upper stage much alike the A5 ACB upperstage
- and the 40 mton solid rocket first stage of the vega, but used as booster.
The New Vega will provide capability for satallites up to 2 mton to LEO (I thought 800km polar was the exact specification).

I think this proposal has the flowing strengths:
- It will please both the solid and the liquid rocket stage providers. Because there are 2 solid rocket stages, and three liquid rocket stages.
- There are only  5 different stages necessary to serve the complete launch market (from small launchers to  super heavy). Istead of the current 12 stages for Vega, Soyuz and Ariane5.
- Three stages will be in mass production which will make them cheaper.

I've also thought about the vehicle assembly process, at France Guiana. I think it will be cheaper to switch to vertical assembly. I propose to make a new vertical assembly building near the A5 assembly buildings. With different launch mounts for the different rocket types, multiple launchers can be assembled simultaneously. After the assembly the launchers will be moved to one of the A5 buildings, where the launcher will we moved horizontal. 
The satellites will be processed an integrated with the payload shroud (nose cone)in the S5 facility, and than transported to the A5 assembly buildings, were they will be placed on top off the launcher.

Last the complete system will be moved to ZL3 or a new pad nearby to be launched.

Sorry for the extreme long post.
   


 
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 05/31/2012 08:19 pm
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM8BNZWD2H_index_0.html

From ESA Bulletin 150 (Page 87)

Quote
Next Generation Launcher (NGL)

In System studies, after the first milestone (KP1), the second phase is now close to completion, with the analysis of six configurations (HHSC, HBHSC, HHGG, HBHGG, PPH, CH). The next milestone, KP2, is split into 2 steps: (i) a review of the design of this second loop which started mid-December and has been pursued up to early April, and (ii) a review of the concurrent activities. After the collocation session, the KP2 is now completed.

The Phase-B of SCORE-D (Stage COmbustion Rocket Engine Demonstrator) is progressing to PDR, in particular with actions associated with the development Key Point. The different sub-systems’ Feasibility Reviews are starting. The valves Feasibility Review took place in March.

In Cryogenic Upper Stage Technologies (CUST), the industrial activities are progressing with, in particular, the Final Presentation of the MT-A activities on the Sandwich Common Bulkhead, and the Test Readiness Review for the Propellant Pre-Conditioning/Propellant Management Device concept developed by Air Liquide.

In avionics and photonics, the negotiation for a set of activities in Data Handling sub-systems/photonics is now completed, to begin in April.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: sdsds on 06/01/2012 01:08 am
I don't know anything about the site, but:
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/West_Europe/Ariane-NGL/Gallery/NGL.htm

has some interesting renditions of PPH, HHSC, HHGG, and CH configurations.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 06/01/2012 02:59 am
What's wrong with the Ariane 5 ME? According to le Gall (spacereview interview) arianespace does not have problems finding matching satellite pairs for dual launch. Can they achieve ~40% cost reduction with Ariane 6?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/03/2012 09:20 am
Well, as so often with these things, I don't think we're hearing the real reasons. It probably has to do with who gets money to work on spaceflight and in which country it is spent.

I for one wonder why they don't simply go with a dual Vulcain, reduced payload Ariane 5 core + Vinci upper stage without the solids. I guess CNES really wants to do engine development.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 06/03/2012 10:57 am
What's wrong with the Ariane 5 ME? According to le Gall (spacereview interview) arianespace does not have problems finding matching satellite pairs for dual launch. Can they achieve ~40% cost reduction with Ariane 6?

Complexity, cost. Yeah, they can (eventually) find them but the waiting list can be long, which isn't going to pass muster when new competitors come along (e.g SpaceX) offering higher flight rates.  The problem is also the inflexibility of the Ariane 5 design, matching the available payload mass is often not going to happen and so increasing the cost per kg to the customer.  With Ariane 6 (which I take to be the preferred HHSC) you can simply add or remove boosters, matching the rocket to the payload.

Well, as so often with these things, I don't think we're hearing the real reasons. It probably has to do with who gets money to work on spaceflight and in which country it is spent.

I for one wonder why they don't simply go with a dual Vulcain, reduced payload Ariane 5 core + Vinci upper stage without the solids. I guess CNES really wants to do engine development.

ESA doesn't favour multiple engine per stage designs, it increases complexity on what is supposed to be a cheaper and higher flight-rate vehicle.  With that philosophy in mind you're going to need a more powerful main engine, hence the SCORE-D programme which is aiming for a reusable RS-25 -class design. Funnily enough about twice the thrust of the Vulcain...

There is also the issue that there is a clear desire for a possible CCB option for larger payloads, no secret this is why the murmurings have favoured the HHSC concept which they see as a more feasible CCB.  They are leaving their options open for this for example using flyback boosters, which would need a reusable main engine, again hence SCORE-D.  So in all their strategies to simplify launch operations and reduce costs require a new engine.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/03/2012 11:10 am
ESA doesn't favour multiple engine per stage designs, it increases complexity on what is supposed to be a cheaper and higher flight-rate vehicle.

True, but it does allow you to drop the solids and it eliminates the need for a new engine. And it might allow better utilisation of the Vulcain infrastructure.

Quote
With that philosophy in mind you're going to need a more powerful main engine, hence the SCORE-D programme which is aiming for a reusable RS-25 -class design. Funnily enough about twice the thrust of the Vulcain...

Amazing, isn't it?  ;) That's why I think this is about money and politics.

The multiple engine argument was also used to rule CH out of court. I presume that is because the Vulcain supply chain would then no longer be locked in for development of that new HC engine. I think CH would be an excellent solution, and a dual-Vulcain vehicle could be a useful stepping stone. Not that I think there is much hope for a commercially viable Ariane without subsidies.

Quote
There is also the issue that there is a clear desire for a possible CCB option for larger payloads, no secret this is why the murmurings have favoured the HHSC concept which they see as a more feasible CCB.

That is still compatible with a dual Vulcain core.

Quote
They are leaving their options open for this for example using flyback boosters, which would need a reusable main engine, again hence SCORE-D.

In the long run, that could be a good idea, but even that can be done with two engines. And there is no need for staged combustion per se.

Quote
So in all their strategies to simplify launch operations and reduce costs require a new engine.

Which suggests it isn't really about reducing costs...
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 06/03/2012 12:51 pm
Quote

The multiple engine argument was also used to rule CH out of court. I presume that is because the Vulcain supply chain would then no longer be locked in for development of that new HC engine. I think CH would be an excellent solution, and a dual-Vulcain vehicle could be a useful stepping stone. Not that I think there is much hope for a commercially viable Ariane without subsidies.

I doubt that's true, it was French companies (including Snecma) who began studying preliminary HC demonstrators with the Russians, see the Volga engine.  Why is CH an excellent solution?  It only adds the complexity of different propellants and you still have cryogenic fuel and so there is no gain in launch operations. Not sure how a dual Vulcain is a stepping stone to CH, and you'd still be developing a new engine. Increased loads are also going to impact core stage design and lead to a long development time.

Actually the premise behind Ariane 6 is to rely less on the commercial sector.  If you read the market studies that have been done in prep for the FLPP programme you'll see they predict more competition on commercial side while the institutional market is staunchly 'patriotic' and not open.   The principle behind Ariane 6 is to make European launch options more viable for European institutions while the commercial business is a bonus.

Quote
That is still compatible with a dual Vulcain core.

Which also gives you double the amount of engines to worry about.

Quote
In the long run, that could be a good idea, but even that can be done with two engines. And there is no need for staged combustion per se.

But the Vulcain is not reusable, and that's the majority of cost reduction a flyback booster gives. Again you'd also then have six engines at liftoff.  On the contrary, if you don't want to pay a reduced payload cost then SC on a flyback is more desirable to compensate.

Quote
Which suggests it isn't really about reducing costs...

To reduce overhead costs often you must first invest further.  Considering how much development and private money has already gone into many of the underlying technologies (for example Vulcain-X), that much of the technology development can be subsidised by others (i.e. the EU), and that over the lifetime of a launch vehicle new engine development cost is small, it's not at all hard to grasp that it can be worthwhile.

In reality it's not solely about reducing costs though, the key capabilities of the proposed engine offer ESA huge flexibility going forward in what is a turbulent time in the launch market.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/03/2012 01:06 pm
I'm not sure such a configuration would actually meet the payload baseline in the FLPP.

Neither am I of course, but it would eliminate the problem Ariane currently has with its underpowered core stage once the solids have burnt out. And Vinci (or dual HM7b  ;)) would give the upper stage more thrust.

Quote

I doubt that's true, it was French companies (including Snecma) who began studying preliminary HC demonstrators with the Russians, see the Volga engine.

I recall a study that used the multiple-engine argument against CH, and argued strongly for a staged combustion engine. I thought they might be worried that whoever gets to work on a future HC stage for Vega could turn into a competitor.

Quote
Why is CH an excellent solution?  It only adds the complexity of different propellants and you still have cryogenic fuel and so there is no gain in launch operations.

Conventional wisdom is that thrust and density are more important for first stages, Isp more for upper stages. Given the size of the Ariane core methane is probably more logical than kerosene.

Quote
Not sure how a dual Vulcain is a stepping stone to CH, and you'd still be developing a new engine. Increased loads are also going to impact core stage design and lead to a long development time.

I don't think there is any way around redesigning the core stage, and using dual Vulcains would at least avoid the pointless cost of a new SC engine if you were going to develop a HC engine next. But changing the core stage and dropping the solids need not come first. Starting with Ariane 5 ME would allow the new Vinci upper stage to come first, so you would only be changing one component at a time.

Quote
Actually the premise behind Ariane 6 is to rely less on the commercial sector.  If you read the market studies that have been done in prep for the FLPP programme you'll see they predict more competition on commercial side while the institutional market is staunchly 'patriotic' and not open.   The principle behind Ariane 6 is to make European launch options more viable for European institutions while the commercial business is a bonus.

I know, but I don't see how that argues against dual Vulcains or in favour of a new SC engine.

Quote
Which also gives you double the amount of engines to worry about.

Sounds like a minor consideration. See Shuttle, Saturn, Falcon, Soyuz.

Quote
But the Vulcain is not reusable, and that's the majority of cost reduction a flyback booster gives. Again you'd also then have six engines at liftoff.  On the contrary, if you don't want to pay a reduced payload cost then SC on a flyback is more desirable to compensate.

But that has to do with reusability, not SC. Also, reuse is only important for economics, and the whole idea is that Ariane will never be economical and is only maintained for strategic reasons (or political ones if you're cynical).

Quote
To reduce overhead costs often you must first invest further.  Considering how much development and private money has already gone into many of the underlying technologies (for example Vulcain-X), that much of the technology development can be subsidised by others (i.e. the EU), and that over the lifetime of a launch vehicle new engine development cost is small, it's not at all hard to grasp that it can be worthwhile.

If that were true Ariane wouldn't need government money.

Quote
In reality it's not solely about reducing costs though, the key capabilities of the proposed engine offer ESA huge flexibility going forward in what is a turbulent time in the launch market.

That suggests it's about keeping the European launch industry afloat.
Title: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6 (FLPP, NGL)
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 06/03/2012 08:25 pm
I think adding 'FLPP' and 'NGL' to the subject title will clarify the topic of this  specific thread.
The reason for this is that this discussion is about the development of a new ESA rocket, that will (most likely) replace the Ariane 5. The ESA program that works on this is the Future Launchers Preparatory Programme (FLPP). The specific program that evaluates new launcher concepts and develops necessary technologies is named Next-Generation Launcher (NGL) program.
I hope every one agrees with me, so a moderator can modify this. Because this is the second  time I try to modify this.

By the way, I'm modifying the wiki on this subject. And because (of course) this is the most up to date source of information, I've added an external link to this topic. (I know the ESA site and the ESA Bulletins are the official ESA data sources)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: alexw on 06/04/2012 03:57 am
Well, as so often with these things, I don't think we're hearing the real reasons. It probably has to do with who gets money to work on spaceflight and in which country it is spent.
I for one wonder why they don't simply go with a dual Vulcain, reduced payload Ariane 5 core + Vinci upper stage without the solids. I guess CNES really wants to do engine development.
    Aren't the solids key for maintaining the French SLBM industrial base, ie M51?
        -Alex
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/04/2012 05:24 pm
Aren't the solids key for maintaining the French SLBM industrial base, ie M51?

I've wondered about that too, but there appears to be zero French lobbying for them. Maybe the people in the solids industrial base reckon they are safe because of the SLBMs, even without Ariane?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 06/04/2012 06:11 pm
Quote
I don't think there is any way around redesigning the core stage, and using dual Vulcains would at least avoid the pointless cost of a new SC engine if you were going to develop a HC engine next. But changing the core stage and dropping the solids need not come first. Starting with Ariane 5 ME would allow the new Vinci upper stage to come first, so you would only be changing one component at a time.

I guess if they continue to use lox/h2 it makes sense to attach a few solids even with a more powerful vulcain 3 engine (I don't think multiple vulcains is an option, too costly). Do you think a new HC engine is a must for reducing costs?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 07/05/2012 04:01 pm
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/070512-working-group-backs-european-prop-module-for-orion.html

Quote
The second working group — the one reviewing future heavy-lift launcher options — is taking longer than scheduled to produce its report, Woerner said. By sometime in July it should be completed, a date that fits with d’Escatha’s forecast that France’s new government, in office since May, will not have settled on a space policy before midsummer.

As described by Woerner and d’Escatha, this second working group is reviewing four options. A key component is a demand by ESA governments that whatever vehicle is build should be able to live without the approximately 120 million euros in annual support payments that the current Ariane 5 vehicle needs despite its commercial and technical maturity.

The first option would be to pursue the already started investment in an Ariane 5 Midlife Evolution (Ariane 5 ME) upgrade to enable the vehicle to carry 20 percent more satellite payload with a new, cryogenic upper stage. The cost of completing this upgrade is estimated at around 1.5 billion euros. Operating this vehicle, industry officials say, will be no more expensive than the current Ariane 5.

A second option would be to scrap the upgrade — while keeping its key Vinci engine — and proceed with development of an Ariane 6 rocket designed to carry one commercial satellite at a time into geostationary-transfer orbit. The current and upgraded Ariane 5 versions are designed to lift two satellites at a time.

A third option would continue work on Ariane 5 ME while funding initial designs of Ariane 6. The fourth option, likely the least costly in the short term, would fund Ariane 5 ME and wait a few years before starting Ariane 6.

Woerner said an early assessment of Ariane 6 is that it would cost between 3 billion and 4 billion euros over 10 years.

Ariane 5 ME would cost 1.5 billion over six years and would be accompanied by a guarantee from prime contractor Astrium Space Transportation that, absent a dramatic event — in currency exchange rates, or a decision by a government to flood the market with subsidized rockets — the 120 million in annual support costs would reduce to zero over a specific period.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Lars_J on 07/11/2012 06:47 am
I for one wonder why they don't simply go with a dual Vulcain, reduced payload Ariane 5 core + Vinci upper stage without the solids. I guess CNES really wants to do engine development.

How could a dual Vulcain lift it off the pad? Unless my math is off, it seems like it would need to be a smaller core to lift off - and that is not even taking into account that the propellant in the core would be consumed twice as fast.

Or am I wrong? Is this some enhanced version of the Vulcain 2 that is being considered?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 07/11/2012 11:04 am
I for one wonder why they don't simply go with a dual Vulcain, reduced payload Ariane 5 core + Vinci upper stage without the solids. I guess CNES really wants to do engine development.

How could a dual Vulcain lift it off the pad? Unless my math is off, it seems like it would need to be a smaller core to lift off - and that is not even taking into account that the propellant in the core would be consumed twice as fast.

Or am I wrong? Is this some enhanced version of the Vulcain 2 that is being considered?

You're not wrong. An enhanced version of Vulcain 2 does not exist currently. However, Vulcain 2 is under continues development within the boundaries of the ARTA program. Future upgrades could include modified or new turbopumps, extendible nozzle-extensions (a la Vinci) and dual film-wall cooling. But all of those are in the development stage, and none are currently guaranteed to be incorporated in future versions of Vulcain 2.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 07/13/2012 07:41 pm
Europe’s Next-gen Rocket Design Competition Included Surprise Finalist

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120713-europe-rocket-design-finalist.html

Quote
Astrium Space Transportation and OHB AG will lead two consortia to perform a design of a new heavy-lift launch vehicle for the European Space Agency (ESA) following a bidding competition that included a surprise third bidder in Reaction Engines Ltd. of Britain, ESA Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain said here July 10.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 07/25/2012 08:36 pm
ESA studies future of Europe’s launch services
 
25 July 2012

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launchers_Home/SEM5BSPXV4H_0.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 09/21/2012 05:20 pm
ESA Chief Urges Immediate Investment in Next-gen Ariane Rocket

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120921-esa-chief-next-gen-ariane.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/21/2012 05:31 pm
I guess if they continue to use lox/h2 it makes sense to attach a few solids even with a more powerful vulcain 3 engine (I don't think multiple vulcains is an option, too costly).

Why would using two engines be more expensive than designing a new and more powerful SC engine? Fixed costs would likely remain the same and I think they dominate total costs.

Quote
Do you think a new HC engine is a must for reducing costs?

No, it's just that HC is conventionally thought of as superior for first stages, so if you are going to develop a new engine it might as well be a HC one.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/21/2012 05:37 pm
How could a dual Vulcain lift it off the pad? Unless my math is off, it seems like it would need to be a smaller core to lift off

According to the numbers on Ed Kyle's site (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html#components) it should work.

Quote
- and that is not even taking into account that the propellant in the core would be consumed twice as fast.

What do you mean by that? Doesn't that actually help, at least once the vehicle is off the ground? Currently the Ariane 5 core suffers from relatively low thrust.

Quote
Or am I wrong? Is this some enhanced version of the Vulcain 2 that is being considered?

The French preference is for a SC successor to Vulcain 2 that needs only a single engine, albeit with a smaller core.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/22/2012 04:00 pm
Maybe go for a 'best of both worlds' and use Vulcain-2 on the core with HCs on sidemount boosters?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 09/22/2012 04:59 pm
First my opinion about the previously posted article.
ESA Chief Urges Immediate Investment in Next-gen Ariane Rocket

http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120921-esa-chief-next-gen-ariane.html
I think it analyses the current situation very well, but it neglects future developments in the launcher market. In my opinion the urgency to develop a new launcher is even higher than stated in this article. In the coming years Russia and China will enter the launch market with there new rockets (Angara and Long March 5 respectively). These two launcher (families) will also going to compete with the Ariane 5 for the commercial launches.

Next I want to reply to Mmeijeri
According to the numbers on Ed Kyle's site (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html#components) it should work.
You state it correctly here, according to those numbers a dual Vulcain 2 engine launcher can work. But only half the numbers are shown here.
Here all the figures from the Ariane 5 User manual (from arianespace):

Vulcain2
                 thrust:      Isp
Vacuum  :   1390 kN     432 s
Sea level :    960 kN     310 sec

Ed Kyle's site states the Vacuum numbers, with these it will work. But in reality you need to use the Sea level numbers to estimate if a launcher can lift off the ground.

With the Sea lvl numbers you'll need three Vulcain 2 engines to get a T/W (trust over weight ratio) of more then 1,2.

To conclude,
The problem ESA has is that they need a more flexible launcher as soon as possible. But for Ariane 6 (NGL) they still need to develop a higher trust engine (HTE/SCORE-D). And the only thing that will be done when A5ME is chosen is the development of a (more powerful) restart-able cryogenic upper stage.  I think the following solution is optimal.

- At the Ministerial conference, the ministers have to chose one NGL design. And they chose to merge the A5ME and A6 development programs.
- Next ESA develops a new restart-able cryogenic (Vince) upper stage both for the A5ME and A6. And they develop the HTE. (And maybe also develop the boosters for the NGL.) As soon as the HTE development is finished, ESA will start the development off the new (NGL) first stage.

I think this will be feasible, and I think the cost will be acceptable. Especially when you take in account that this is a solution for both the short and the long term.
 
I also really hope, that they will design the NGL first stage as both a first stage and a booster. (alike Atlas5, Delta IV, Falcon9, Angara, enz.) This will preserve the heavy (20+ton LEO) launch capability without the Ariane 5.   

 
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/22/2012 06:15 pm
Ed Kyle's site states the Vacuum numbers, with these it will work. But in reality you need to use the Sea level numbers to estimate if a launcher can lift off the ground.

Good catch!

Quote
With the Sea lvl numbers you'll need three Vulcain 2 engines to get a T/W (trust over weight ratio) of more then 1,2.

Or a smaller rocket.

Quote
But for Ariane 6 (NGL) they still need to develop a higher trust engine (HTE/SCORE-D).

That still isn't obvious to me. Why couldn't you have three engines? Falcon 9 has nine, Saturn V had five as does Soyuz and Saturn Ib had eight.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: hektor on 10/27/2012 03:07 pm
The French Minister is so famous that Space News had to take her picture from wikipedia.  ;D
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/09/2012 04:09 am
Ariane 6 likely gonna be a solid-rocket design

http://astrowatchblog.blogspot.ch/2012/10/cnes-asi-favor-solid-rocket-design-for.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 11/09/2012 04:22 am

Ariane 6 likely gonna a solid-rocket design

http://astrowatchblog.blogspot.ch/2012/10/cnes-asi-favor-solid-rocket-design-for.html

Here's the original article from Aviation Week: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_15_2012_p26-505016.xml&p=3 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_15_2012_p26-505016.xml&p=3)

Basically the only thing I could say is yuck, for they reminds me of a mixed-child of an "Ares-I lite" and the Indian PSLV/GSLV, complete with a super-Centaur on top!  :P

The irony is that I would had an easier time to accept the two solid-powered proposals had it been an ATK design......
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/09/2012 09:10 am
One thing is obvious about these articles and another thing is new to me.

First the obvious one! If you know where the rocket components are build in Europe, you'll understand the opinions of these space agencies.

France (Ariane 5) and Italy (Vega) build the solid rocket engines in Europe, Germany (2e) and France (1e) are building the liquid stages. This makes it obvious that ASI (Italian space agency) and CNES (France space agency) prefer the solid A6 variants. But Germany (DLR) prefers the liquid concept(s). 

Then the new thing to me!
In these articles they talk about two solid concepts and one liquid rocket concept. I've only found concepts back from 2008, and then there were 3 liquid and one solid concepts. I know two new concepts have been developed at the mean time. But were are the other three liquid concepts.
On the ESA site they talk about three concepts two of them are liquid. The other strange thing is thet the liquid veriants were favourd in a presentation from 2011. See slide 63 in the linked document.
1) http://w3.uniroma1.it/summerschool2011/Materiali/ESA_LSanchezDelaRosa_CVA%20Rome%204%20Jul%202011%20v1.pdf

I've found the third concept in a DLR document form 2011:
2) http://elib.dlr.de/71134/1/IAC11-D2.4.8.pdf

I think that all the concepts were some technology isn't mature enough, (i.a. new first stage engine) were left out of the evaluations. I think this proves to much of a short term vision.

In the ESA presentation (first link), you can see that the liquid SC (Staged Combustion) concept is favored because it can be it's growth potential is high. In the articles they also talk about configurations with three first stages, but I don't think ESA will approve launching a human with such a system. I think ESA will with a liquid stage rocket. (I know this is future talk, but I think it's an important aspect to consider.)
 
The chosen concept NGL / A6 will replace the A5 (edit: and Soyuz). So the A5 capabilities will have to be replaced by the A6/NGL. The main market for A5/A6 are GTO (3-8 mTon) satelites and ESA Science experiments, so the concept are optimized for these purposes.
But ESA also wants to do Human spaceflight and Space Exploration. I think a 20+ mton to LEO launcher is needed for this. I favor using the same launcher (components) for both purposes, because I think launchers become more reliable with flight experience.         
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 11/09/2012 11:03 am
If you know where the rocket components are build in Europe, you'll understand the opinions of these space agencies.

France (Ariane 5) and Italy (Vega) build the solid rocket engines in Europe, Germany (2e) and France (1e) are building the liquid stages. This makes it obvious that ASI (Italian space agency) and CNES (France space agency) prefer the solid A6 variants. But Germany (DLR) prefers the liquid concept(s). 

I find a weak spot in your reasoning. French companies build both the solids for Ariane 5, as well as the majority of the main cryogenic stage components for Ariane 5, as well as the Vulcain 2 engine and the HM-7B engine for the ESC-A cryogenic upper stage. It eludes me how you come to the conclusion that CNES would therefore favor solids. The French stakes in liquid propulsion are just as important.

The chosen concept NGL / A6 will replace the A5 (edit: and Soyuz). So the A5 capabilities will have to be replaced by the A6/NGL. The main market for A5/A6 are GTO (3-8 mTon) satelites and ESA Science experiments, so the concept are optimized for these purposes.
But ESA also wants to do Human spaceflight and Space Exploration.
Officially: Yes. Unofficially: No. It's a fact that one of the top-level requirements for both FLPP and NGL is that the future launch system must be able to carried crewed vehicles. However, ESA currently employs no programme for developing a crewed vehicle. The last attempt, to steer into the direction of such a programme, failed when the member states refused to pay for such a programme. (crewed ARV via cargo ARV).
So, the requirement for expanding the launcher up to the 20+ mT capacity, to support crewed vehicles, is 'soft', particularly as several member states have stated in the past that they do not support ESA crewed vehicles on vehicles with solid stages. (something that I personally refer to as 'the Challenger syndrome')
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/09/2012 11:15 am
It seems the focus is very much on cost reduction, not only for production and operation, but also development. Maybe they bet on skylon to take over in 20 years, so no need to waste money on old rocket technology ;D.

I found that part interesting:

Quote
For the P1B, the first set of P39 boosters would be ignited at lift-off and then jettisoned, while the second set, depending on the configuration, could be ignited in flight and not jettisoned.

Igniting strap ons in flight? Is that sensible?

Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 11/09/2012 11:21 am
It seems the focus is very much on cost reduction, not only for production and operation, but also development. Maybe they bet on skylon to take over in 20 years, so no need to waste money on old rocket technology ;D.

I found that part interesting:

Quote
For the P1B, the first set of P39 boosters would be ignited at lift-off and then jettisoned, while the second set, depending on the configuration, could be ignited in flight and not jettisoned.

Igniting strap ons in flight? Is that sensible?



It can increase the acceleration at a point later in ascent. As for being "sensible", well the American Delta rockets have done this for many years already...
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 11/09/2012 07:26 pm
It seems the focus is very much on cost reduction, not only for production and operation, but also development. Maybe they bet on skylon to take over in 20 years, so no need to waste money on old rocket technology ;D.

I found that part interesting:

Quote
For the P1B, the first set of P39 boosters would be ignited at lift-off and then jettisoned, while the second set, depending on the configuration, could be ignited in flight and not jettisoned.

Igniting strap ons in flight? Is that sensible?



It can increase the acceleration at a point later in ascent. As for being "sensible", well the American Delta rockets have done this for many years already...
As well as Ariane 3. The two solids attached to Ariane 3 did not ignite until several seconds after lift-off
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/09/2012 07:33 pm
I've always wondered what the virtual storm of metallic panels or 'debris' that shed from the Ariane 4 were? You can see examples of that from 40 seconds onwards in this Ariane history video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpKB4V53VMY
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacediver on 11/09/2012 09:31 pm
I've always wondered what the virtual storm of metallic panels or 'debris' that shed from the Ariane 4 were? You can see examples of that from 40 seconds onwards in this Ariane history video:

The second stage was protected by insulation panels to avoid heating of the fuels when the launcher is standing in the tropical sun for longer time. These panels are not necessary for flight, so they were designed to fall off at liftoff. This principle was also applied for the french Diamond launchers during the 1960's.

Spacediver
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/10/2012 06:20 am
Thanks for that!
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spaceStalker on 11/10/2012 08:13 am
China have some small rocket (not sure about the name) that have similar looking falling panels at liftoff. Are those for same purpose - heat protection while on pad?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/10/2012 09:40 am

But ESA also wants to do Human spaceflight and Space Exploration.
Officially: Yes. Unofficially: No. It's a fact that one of the top-level requirements for both FLPP and NGL is that the future launch system must be able to carried crewed vehicles. However, ESA currently employs no programme for developing a crewed vehicle. The last attempt, to steer into the direction of such a programme, failed when the member states refused to pay for such a programme. (crewed ARV via cargo ARV).
So, the requirement for expanding the launcher up to the 20+ mT capacity, to support crewed vehicles, is 'soft', particularly as several member states have stated in the past that they do not support ESA crewed vehicles on vehicles with solid stages. (something that I personally refer to as 'the Challenger syndrome')
You might call it the "Von Braun" syndrome as well.
He did not like them for crewed vehicles either.
The key question for crewed solid vehicles is thrust termination. Can it be done safely. The problem seems to get worse with size until it's impossible to manage. I think some (but not all) the solid variants are small enough to be viable for thrust termination but persuading ESA member states that is so may be hard.

I'm pretty skeptical on the claimed  cost benefits of solids. The 2008 ESA report seemed to suggest a lot depended on wheather the strap on SRB's had TVC or not. This looked like something that was TBC rather than a certainty. That said Arianespace seem to cost most segments in French Guiana so the transport issues are limited. 

Scout had a long successful history with NASA (and IIRC some with the Italians) but is *anyone* else looking at solids for their core launch capability (excepts for nuclear warheads) anywhere in the world today?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacejulien on 11/10/2012 03:00 pm
I'm pretty skeptical on the claimed  cost benefits of solids. The 2008 ESA report seemed to suggest a lot depended on wheather the strap on SRB's had TVC or not. This looked like something that was TBC rather than a certainty. That said Arianespace seem to cost most segments in French Guiana so the transport issues are limited. 

Personally, I'm pretty skeptical, too. I think that kerosene core stages and/or boosters would offer the same cost/performance ratio.

But Europe has no experience with kerosene engines. So the options are to proceed with Hydrogen core stages or to do an all-solid design. The upper stage is of course cryogenic in any case. In order to reduce cost a consensus between ESA, CNES and the participating nations (most notably France and Germany) has emerged over the last 1 to 1.5 years, that an all-solid system would probably be more cost-competitive.

But that's not assured. And you'll know for sure only afterwards...
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacediver on 11/10/2012 03:39 pm
Personally, I'm pretty skeptical, too. I think that kerosene core stages and/or boosters would offer the same cost/performance ratio.

But Europe has no experience with kerosene engines. So the options are to proceed with Hydrogen core stages or to do an all-solid design. The upper stage is of course cryogenic in any case. In order to reduce cost a consensus between ESA, CNES and the participating nations (most notably France and Germany) has emerged over the last 1 to 1.5 years, that an all-solid system would probably be more cost-competitive.

But that's not assured. And you'll know for sure only afterwards...

I'm working on studies for a european NGL since more than a year now and all the cost calculations we made did not show any real cost avantage of launch vehicles with solid stages vs. all liquid launchers.

In fact you can reach GTO with only two liquid stages, either kerosene or hydrogen in the first stage and hydrogen in the upper stage.
For all solid configurations that we calculated we always needed three stages to reach GTO. And, simple as that, two solid stages are not cheaper than one liquid stage...

Unfortunately kerosene is a total no go in europe for political reasons (depending on russian / ukrainian sources etc...) so the only viable way in my eyes is an all hydrogen two stage launcher without strap on boosters!

From a strategic point of view an all solid launcher (except cryogenic upper stage) would be a dead end. We would loose our technology for large liquid engines and this is an essential technology for all future launchers, especially for reusable stages!

Spacediver

Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/10/2012 07:21 pm
I'm not sure I understand the P1B design concept.  I'm visualising a cryogenic upper stage sitting at the middle and top of a square-arranged group of four SRBs, two of which are ignited at launch and two are ignited (as Delta-II demonstrated time and again) in flight.  Am I right?

Less a Son-of-Liberty and more a kind of inline-stacked Stumpy.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/11/2012 03:47 am
Quote from: spacediver
And, simple as that, two solid stages are not cheaper than one liquid stage...

What if you include development costs and assume a relatively low launch rate (i.e. 8/year)? Also the liquid design seems to be based on two enhanced Vulcain 2 engines, I guess one is already expensive enough.

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit
I'm not sure I understand the P1B design concept.

I think the P1B design is this one:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Pe21g8a2T6g/TgRvD4S1CtI/AAAAAAAAeSo/-OepzBkJZoY/s320/IM+2011-06-24+a+las+11.23.28.png)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacediver on 11/11/2012 10:54 am
What if you include development costs and assume a relatively low launch rate (i.e. 8/year)? Also the liquid design seems to be based on two enhanced Vulcain 2 engines, I guess one is already expensive enough.


Rugoz

The development costs are already included.
The full cryogenic launcher would have 3 Vulcain-3 engines (a cost optimized version of the Vulcain 2 and with reduced expansion ratio) in the first stage and a single Vinci in the upper stage.

For low flight rates (e.g. 6 per year) you are right, the cost advantage is then slightly on the side of the solid launcher, but for flight rates >8 the cryogenic version would be cheaper.

Spacediver
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/11/2012 12:20 pm
From a strategic point of view an all solid launcher (except cryogenic upper stage) would be a dead end. We would loose our technology for large liquid engines and this is an essential technology for all future launchers, especially for reusable stages!

Indeed. I understand to some extent ASI favouring the all solid, but not so much CNES.  I suspect these comments are more political and designed to influence the upcoming discussions on A5/A6 rather than a genuine plan, we'll see after the C-Min.

Btw, what happened to the High Thrust Engine/Score-D, too little development time?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/11/2012 12:51 pm
Quote from: spacediver
The full cryogenic launcher would have 3 Vulcain-3 engines (a cost optimized version of the Vulcain 2 and with reduced expansion ratio) in the first stage and a single Vinci in the upper stage.

So we'd end up with a design similar to the Delta IV, but with 3 main engines instead of one. Begs the question, how could that possibly be cheaper per kg than an Ariane 5 with dual launch?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacejulien on 11/11/2012 01:17 pm
I understand to some extent ASI favouring the all solid, but not so much CNES.  I suspect these comments are more political and designed to influence the upcoming discussions on A5/A6 rather than a genuine plan, we'll see after the C-Min.
Its a French preference, they made up their mind in 2009 that they need to take the lead again (as in the 70ies), see http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/094000223/0000.pdf . Since then they have down-selected from an initially huge matrix of potential configurations and ended up at a firm preference for solid-solid-cryogenic staging.

Germany doesn't agree with the result. Italy has a preference for solid stages, due to Vega, but doesn't really participate to the discussions, which are mainly between France and Germany.

Quote
Btw, what happened to the High Thrust Engine/Score-D, too little development time?

SCORE-D is at PDR-level, has still a long way ahead (if it is further funded).
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/11/2012 01:44 pm
Quote from: Alpha_Centauri
Germany doesn't agree with the result.

One could expect experts from both countries coming to the same conclusion  ::)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/11/2012 02:08 pm
Its a French preference, they made up their mind in 2009 that they need to take the lead again (as in the 70ies), see http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/094000223/0000.pdf . Since then they have down-selected from an initially huge matrix of potential configurations and ended up at a firm preference for solid-solid-cryogenic staging.

I wasn't questioning France taking the lead on A6, this is what I'm not convinced about.  It wasn't very long ago the all-cryogenic was by far the most favoured strategically and the solid options were simply making up the numbers.  Yes Germany does have a big strategic interest in cryogenics, but so does France.  I can't see them cutting off their nose to spite their face re: high thrust reusable engines for RLVs, a keen interest of theirs.

As I said I'm not sure how serious these comments are, but we'll see soon.

Quote
SCORE-D is at PDR-level, has still a long way ahead (if it is further funded).

Yes, but then realistically so is A6. HTE was the baseline for the HHSC option.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: kch on 11/11/2012 02:24 pm
Quote from: Alpha_Centauri
Germany doesn't agree with the result.

One could expect experts from both countries coming to the same conclusion  ::)

One could, with equal reasonableness, expect a lead weight dropped just above the surface of the earth to fall upward.  Remember, these *are* humans we're talking about ...  ;)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacejulien on 11/11/2012 02:37 pm
Its a French preference, they made up their mind in 2009 that they need to take the lead again (as in the 70ies), see http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/094000223/0000.pdf . Since then they have down-selected from an initially huge matrix of potential configurations and ended up at a firm preference for solid-solid-cryogenic staging.

I wasn't questioning France taking the lead on A6, this is what I'm not convinced about.  It wasn't very long ago the all-cryogenic was by far the most favoured strategically and the solid options were simply making up the numbers.  Yes Germany does have a big strategic interest in cryogenics, but so does France.  I can't see them cutting off their nose to spite their face re: high thrust reusable engines for RLVs, a keen interest of theirs.

As I said I'm not sure how serious these comments are, but we'll see soon.

Quote
SCORE-D is at PDR-level, has still a long way ahead (if it is further funded).

Yes, but then realistically so is A6. HTE was the baseline for the HHSC option.

Personally, I completely share your point.

You need to understand that there are/were several studies about the next launch system design running in parallel. The most known one is the FLPP (Future Launchers Preparatory Program, [1]), with SCORE-D being a part of that program and favoring the two-stage cryogenic design (with optional solid boosters).

But the studies the French CNES has made yield a different result, with the solid-solid-cryo-launcher being the most favored one. Even if they would therewith hurt their own industries, too. And now France is shoving the other member states to begin development of such a launcher.

[1] http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launchers_Home/SEMHLAUTLKG_0.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: pippin on 11/11/2012 05:07 pm
Quote from: Alpha_Centauri
Germany doesn't agree with the result.

One could expect experts from both countries coming to the same conclusion  ::)

There most important engineering principle off all in both Germany and France is to under no circumstances ever agree with the other side.
I could name plenty of examples where clearly superior solutions have been stubbornly rejected in both countries for years or even decades just because they were first proposed/used on the other side of the border.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/12/2012 11:34 am
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit
I'm not sure I understand the P1B design concept.

I think the P1B design is this one:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Pe21g8a2T6g/TgRvD4S1CtI/AAAAAAAAeSo/-OepzBkJZoY/s320/IM+2011-06-24+a+las+11.23.28.png)


So, a solid core and solid second stage with Delta-style wrap-arounds.  Interesting and potentially quite a major step forward in terms of ELVs.  Success could reflect considerably on the Athena series too.

Maybe they are trying to leverage their work on Liberty after all.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 11/12/2012 11:58 am
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit
I'm not sure I understand the P1B design concept.

I think the P1B design is this one:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Pe21g8a2T6g/TgRvD4S1CtI/AAAAAAAAeSo/-OepzBkJZoY/s320/IM+2011-06-24+a+las+11.23.28.png)


So, a solid core and solid second stage with Delta-style wrap-arounds.  Interesting and potentially quite a major step forward in terms of ELVs.  Success could reflect considerably on the Athena series too.

Maybe they are trying to leverage their work on Liberty after all.
Hardly. EADS Astrium was working on the liquid stage of Liberty and were not involved in the solid first stage (that one is all ATK remember). And their work on the liquid stage was basically an Ariane-5 EPC re-hash. Quite different from the proposed cryogenic upper stage for the NGL in size and engine.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: baldusi on 11/12/2012 06:25 pm
That's four production lines: boosters, first stage, second stage and H2 stage. I simply don't see how that would get cheaper.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: bolun on 11/12/2012 08:44 pm
Quote from: Alpha_Centauri
Germany doesn't agree with the result.

One could expect experts from both countries coming to the same conclusion  ::)

There most important engineering principle off all in both Germany and France is to under no circumstances ever agree with the other side.
I could name plenty of examples where clearly superior solutions have been stubbornly rejected in both countries for years or even decades just because they were first proposed/used on the other side of the border.

It looks like that there is a third country ...

http://www.ansa.it/scienza/notizie/rubriche/spazioastro/2012/10/20/Ariane-6-gigante-spalle-Vega_7664626.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: simonbp on 11/13/2012 12:07 am
There most important engineering principle off all in both Germany and France is to under no circumstances ever agree with the other side.
I could name plenty of examples where clearly superior solutions have been stubbornly rejected in both countries for years or even decades just because they were first proposed/used on the other side of the border.

Like a recent merger with a certain UK company...

There are definitely two very different agendas here, the nationalists and the bookkeepers. Even if SpaceX were to suddenly up and die, I doubt the bookkeepers are ever going to win, and so Ariane 6 will be a Euro-Delta: a theoretically commercial vehicle exclusively used for government payloads.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 11/13/2012 07:32 am
That's four production lines: boosters, first stage, second stage and H2 stage. I simply don't see how that would get cheaper.

Not really different from what they have for Ariane-5 today:
- production line for the EAP (boosters)
- production line for the EPC (cryogenic core stage)
- production line for the EPS (storable propellant upper stage, for Ariane 5 ES)
- production line for the ESC-A (cryogenic upper stage, for Ariane 5 ECA)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: pippin on 11/13/2012 07:58 am
There are definitely two very different agendas here, the nationalists and the bookkeepers. Even if SpaceX were to suddenly up and die, I doubt the bookkeepers are ever going to win, and so Ariane 6 will be a Euro-Delta: a theoretically commercial vehicle exclusively used for government payloads.
What I don't understand about all this: Sheer size and large boosters aside I don't think Ariane 5 has a very expensive architecture.
They use a single engine per stage, two main stage ans they keep the configuration now more or less the same for all flights.

If they are having issues with dual launches, why not just scale down? A smaller EPC, smaller boosters (maybe derived from the Vega program) and there you go with a single-launch architecture for which I don't really see why it can't be cost-competitive with SpaceX.
Arianespace has a very good track records in reliability, performance and they know their processing chain and customers very well, something SpaceX will have to learn and where they will add cost. The launcher itself is much better suited for GEO launches than the Falcons, sizing-wise, I don't see that they can't stay competitive if they have a smaller launcher while SpaceX will have to use a heavy for most of their single payloads.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: baldusi on 11/13/2012 03:49 pm
That's four production lines: boosters, first stage, second stage and H2 stage. I simply don't see how that would get cheaper.

Not really different from what they have for Ariane-5 today:
- production line for the EAP (boosters)
- production line for the EPC (cryogenic core stage)
- production line for the EPS (storable propellant upper stage, for Ariane 5 ES)
- production line for the ESC-A (cryogenic upper stage, for Ariane 5 ECA)

I was not stating it would be more expensive. In fact, it might get slightly cheaper, due to the solid's cost. But not significantly cheaper. Ariane 5 has an amazing 50% share of the market. And yet they struggle to break even. Let's see the ITAR clean GTO launchers:
Established LV for commercial GTO:
-Arianespace (Ariane 5)
-ILS (Proton-M)
-Sea Launch (Zenit-3SLB)
-H-IIA/B
-Delta IV
-Atlas V

Prospective:
-Falcon 9/Heavy
-Angara
-GSLV MkIII

So, for the time when Ariane 6 would enter the market they will also have to compete with Falcon, Angara, GSLV MkIII and may be dual manifested Atlas V or H-IIB. It's mighty difficult to get 50% of the market, specially since Ariane 5 is the reliability/capability leader, which Ariane 5 won't be until they get the necessary track record. What's worst, with that structural cost, I find it mighty difficult to compete with their own Soyuz-ST for small GTO and SSO, which is what would give them some much needed extra scale.
In fact, it reminds me so much of the EELV program that seems almost on purpose. Same trades, same politics, same result.
Ironically, I do think that they could just license an RD-181 or, better yet, an RD-162 and get it built in Europe. I don't see what's so terrible of a new fuel when you're talking about RP-1 or CH4 and actually buying the engine certified.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: zaitcev on 11/13/2012 11:42 pm
They say at Russian forums that RD-162 is not excellent for methane and that the lack of coxing permits about the same performance in a cheaper fuel-rich architecture. The main source is a recently retired designer of KBHM, who wrote a tell-it-all book about various engines, so it's no wonder he's not entirely onboard with RKKE's oxidizer-rich engines. Still, there's that.

Europe has some kind of joint methane project with KBHA, coincidentially. It had chances to power both Ariane 6 and MRKS-1, but I really cannot tell who's doing what anymore. Too many actors, projects, and politics.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spectre9 on 11/14/2012 12:47 am
I would like to see them go with the Methane engine.

If not they're pretty much just building Atlas V.

That's like me building my own jumbo jet rather than buy one from Boeing.

It costs billions to develop? Why would I?

Jobs?  ::)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spectre9 on 11/14/2012 12:52 am
That post is a little obfuscatory, sorry guys  :-[

What I really mean to say is that pushing new developments gives you the reward with new technology.

Push the design to the limits of 2012 not 1990.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/14/2012 09:03 am
Quote from: pippin
What I don't understand about all this: Sheer size and large boosters aside I don't think Ariane 5 has a very expensive architecture

Right, the Ariane 5 architecture looks very simple, one main engine and 2 large boosters. I don't know whether that has any influence on reliability, but it sure makes for a nice looking rocket.  ;)

Quote from: pippin
If they are having issues with dual launches, why not just scale down? A smaller EPC, smaller boosters (maybe derived from the Vega program) and there you go with a single-launch architecture for which I don't really see why it can't be cost-competitive with SpaceX.

Actually I thought about this too. "Just" reduce the size of core stage and boosters. I read that the Ariane 5 performance could be increased to 14-15t to GTO with filament casing for boosters, an improved Vulcain and the Ariane ME enhancements.

So an 8t to GTO Ariane 6 with one stronger Vulcain and two smaller boosters (but still providing most of thrust and TVC) seems like a possible solution to me. You could dual launch smaller payloads. I'm not sure whether saving a few boosters for smaller payloads in more flexible designs is gonna have a big impact on costs. I read that even the big Ariane 5 boosters with TVC only make up 20-25% of the costs (is that correct?).

Regarding the strategic value of liquid engines, I don't think from a military point of view having liquid engine know-how is a must. The all solid launcher would probably be of more strategic value.

Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/14/2012 10:21 am
This is an interesting thread about an interesting subject. While I think of it; does anyone know of a page or thread that deals with future Ariane V upgrades? I'm mainly talking about Mid-Life upgrade and a little beyond; not (at this point) virtually Sci-Fi grade 100 metric ton HLVs.

EDIT: Well, a quick search has gleaned a LEO payload increase of 6 metric tons via the new Vinci LOX/LH2 upper stage engine, increased propellant loads and new lighter and more powerful SRMs - I suppose the only way to go from there without major redesign is a still more powerful version of the Vulcain corestage engine and even bigger SRMs. The Ariane 6 seems to fill the niche that Ariane 4 variants used to.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: baldusi on 11/14/2012 12:03 pm
Ariane 5 is not cheap nos scalable. What's worse, sin the ECA lacks restar capability, for coast and restart missions you need the ES. Which means that's very inflexible and expensive. Quite reliable, though. But please remember, dual manifest is not a feature, is a defect.
Think how many european payloads fly on Soyuz or other medium sized LV. European launches, don't usually have the weight the the US DoD needs. And Kourou has a nice advantage for equatorial launches, Thus, they should start with an architecture that in Heavy configuration does 8tonnes to GTO. The single core would do something like 3tonnes, (right where the Soyuz-ST) is. And be able to augment the single core version for in between.
If they copied EELV, it would be something like a 70% of an EELV.
Please note that you can do it like the EELV do it, with liquid cores plus solids for augmentation. Or do it like the MT proposal, with a vehicle the can fly with 1, 2, 3 or 4 cores. Thas, a very nice proposal because you'd have jus two core lines. And lots of flexibility. But you need to think in terms of cost. Don't do a 1.5MN stage combustion engine, do a 2MN GG and have a bigger core. Don't look for. 95% pmf, do ir 92% but make them truly universal as core and booster. Don't offer 4m and 5m fairing, just offer 5m in medium configuration. Go with horizontal vehicle integration, and leave just an integration tower.  Etc.
The problem with true cost reductions is that very implementation dependent. No matter how many trades you do, its an attitude. That and cheap would definetely mean a lot less money going into de industrial partners. But you can't keep currend expenditure levels and be cheaper.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 11/14/2012 01:23 pm
Ariane 5 is not cheap nos scalable. What's worse, sin the ECA lacks restar capability, for coast and restart missions you need the ES. Which means that's very inflexible and expensive. Quite reliable, though. But please remember, dual manifest is not a feature, is a defect.
Wrong. It's a feature. Ariane 5 was designed primarily for launching manned spacecraft. Hermes specifically. But right from the start the secondary design feature was lifting unmanned payloads such as comsats and science payloads. ESA was well aware that the primary requirement (lifting Hermes) would put Ariane 5 in the position that it would be WAY overpowered for launching single unmanned payloads. That was not regarded as a problem because the dual-launch concept already existed for quite some time. ESA figured the secondary role of Ariane 5 could be executed just fine by flying two payloads at the same time.
With the demise of the Hermes project, the secondary role of Ariane 5 became the primary role.

And here is another pointer to think about. The primary reason for ending the Ariane 4 was the fact that it's primary payloads (Comsats) were becoming so heavy that Ariane 4 was no longer capable of performing dual launches. Many of the later Ariane 4 launches carried single payloads, and as such, the cost of a single launch was no longer split between two customers, but came down on a single customer. Ariane 4 was becoming financially unattractive as a launcher because it was primarily becoming a single-payload launcher.

And guess what: now CNES comes up and says dual-launch (on Ariane 5) is too expensive and Ariane 5 will loose it's competitiveness. And guess what: the replacement vehicle they come up with is a single-payload launcher.
But that won't work, unless CNES manages to bring down the cost for such a launcher well below the Ariane 4 cost-level. And that will be one h*ll of a feat to accomplish.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 11/14/2012 01:26 pm
Ariane 5 is not cheap nos scalable. What's worse, sin the ECA lacks restar capability, for coast and restart missions you need the ES. Which means that's very inflexible and expensive.
Yes, a problem that was recognized as such many years ago and led to the proposition of the Ariane 5 ECB, with a re-startable cryogenic upper stage. We now know this as the Ariane 5 ME. This november the ESA ministerial conference will decide if Ariane 5 ME will become reality.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: pippin on 11/14/2012 02:16 pm
@baldusi:
But I still don't see how all there variants with multiple strapons etc. save cost.
You can't have less than one engine. If that one engine is too expensive, find a way to make it cheaper but I strongly doubt that having a bit less power will save a lot. Using three of them will not really help, too. A core is a a core but it's pretty dumb stuff.

The large, segmented solids certainly are a cost driver, especially for processing so getting rid of them may make sense but the core stages really don't look expensive to me.

Going to horizontal processing: I don't believe that's going to save a lot of money. It will cause duplication of launch infrastructure and processes because there will always be payloads that require vertical integration so I'd guess going all-vertical as it is now is already cost effective.

My strong guess is that the cost structure for Ariane 5 is as it is right now because at that very level it's what makes all partners get as much out of it as possible, after all, they are still the market leader for comsat launches. Nobody is interested in Arianespace as an organization making money.

And CNES as it is is not interested in a sustained use of existing systems, they want to develop new stuff because otherwise they have almost no role in this anymore so whatever they propose must be as different from the status quo as possible.

SpaceX is a good thread to hold up for political agendas. They still have to launch their first comsat and then they'll have to get a track record and while they do all this, they'll have to see where they end up, cost wise. THAT will then be the time to think about what's coming next. I don't yet see where SpaceX is fundamentally cheaper. No matter how efficient your production line is, using 28 engines, three cores and four stages overall to launch a single large comsat is a lot of stuff to handle and produce.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/14/2012 02:43 pm
Quote from: woods170
And guess what: now CNES comes up and says dual-launch (on Ariane 5) is too expensive and Ariane 5 will loose it's competitiveness. And guess what: the replacement vehicle they come up with is a single-payload launcher.

Yeah, that is weird. I mean there is no shortage of single-launch vehicles out there. The proposed liquid design is pretty much a delta IV, but somehow CNES think they can make it significantly cheaper.

Well, they have all the data and knowledge, I'm only a layman talking out of my ass. But its fun :).

Quote from: pippin
The large, segmented solids certainly are a cost driver, especially for processing so getting rid of them may make sense but the core stages really don't look expensive to me.

Maybe because the solids do all the work  ;)
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: baldusi on 11/14/2012 07:58 pm
@baldusi:
But I still don't see how all there variants with multiple strapons etc. save cost.
You can't have less than one engine. If that one engine is too expensive, find a way to make it cheaper but I strongly doubt that having a bit less power will save a lot. Using three of them will not really help, too. A core is a a core but it's pretty dumb stuff.
I said, that saving are in the details. If you look at the Atlas V, it uses exactly the same core from a 401 to a 552 and the idea was that it would be even be used for the Heavy. Thus, one core would allow for all your needs. The small solids, like the GEM-60 or the Atlas V SRB are relatively cheap, and allow to increase the throw of the single core without going into the Heavy expense. Please note that each stage is about the same price, thus a single core plus upper stage costs roughly half of what a heavy would cost. The small solids allow for small increments for the single core.
But you'd be sacrificing performance in all the cases against and optimized version. The single core would have less performance because its core would also have to tolerate the strains of being a booster, and have to be reinforced to tolerate the extra thrust of the SRB. Ditto for every case. So you slightly increase the size of the vehicle. Say you make it 20% bigger and eat the performance hit. But now you're only producing cores, uppers tages and the significantly cheaper SRB. For example, for the NWO mission, an Atlas 501 started at 140M, and each additional SRB was just 10M. Thus you could almost double the payload (was a high energy mission) for an additional cost of 35%.
Another saving is that comm sat operators like to launch their sats in 24month, even though 30 months is the standard lead time for LV. In the Delta IV case, is more like 36 months. And since we are talking about the Delta IV, an M core can't be used as an M+(5,2), for example, and the Heavy boosters are completely custom. So you can't really put some cores on the pipeline and hope that you'll sell them, because you don't know your demand in advance. If you had a true common core, you wouldn't care, so you'd have a competitive advantage that you can deliver on less time than the competence (Proton has a single model, ditto for Sea Launch). And you'd have less logistic and stock problems. All that means less cost. But that also means that you have less production lines and models. So you have better efficiencies and economies of scale.
A similar case is made with the engine. A 1.5MN SC engine is more expensive than a 2.0MN GG. Go with the cheaper and make the core a little bigger.
If you looked at the MT proposal, it would have exactly the same cor be used as core or booster, and the boosters could be added one at a time due to the skirt design. So they proposed that with four cores and an upper stage at Kourou permanently they could take any rush job and have a lower manufacturing cost.

Quote
Going to horizontal processing: I don't believe that's going to save a lot of money. It will cause duplication of launch infrastructure and processes because there will always be payloads that require vertical integration so I'd guess going all-vertical as it is now is already cost effective.
The vertical integration facility is much more expensive than an horizontal integration facility plus a "simple" integration tower. Again, this is all in the details. If you let them over design both, it will be more expensive, if you keep it simple and cheap, it is not only cheaper, but allows to process a new vehicle while you integrate and launch the next one. It can be done Atlas V style, but a HIF is cheaper to have space for two vehicles.
The true issue here is that solids have such strict alignment requirements that you can't integrate them horizontally. Delta IV integrates them at the pad, Atlas V in the VIF. So if they went the route of SRB augmentation, it would be cheaper to have a VIF. But if they went the route of the MT design or like Angara does, then an HIF would be cheaper. Look how is the Angara processing, or the Falcon Heavy at Vandemberg.
Of course, to actually get the cost saving, they would have to raze the ELS and ELA-3 with all their support buildings (save the payload processing facilities which are top notch). I mean that they would have to down size the GSC to lower costs. Could probably have a wide vehicle integration facility for two vehicles, and have no more than one week of pad time to allow some serious launch schedule.

Quote
My strong guess is that the cost structure for Ariane 5 is as it is right now because at that very level it's what makes all partners get as much out of it as possible, after all, they are still the market leader for comsat launches. Nobody is interested in Arianespace as an organization making money.
I don't think so. Ariane 5 was designed to launch the Hermes. If you look at it, that means they did a great job of keeping costs down enough to be commercially competitive (with some healp from the EELV). The fact, is that they can't tolerate less than a 50% share or they'll start losing money. Since Europe has a policy that they have to have an indigenous LV, that means that it will require quite a bit of subsidies. Which no European government wants right now.

Quote
And CNES as it is is not interested in a sustained use of existing systems, they want to develop new stuff because otherwise they have almost no role in this anymore so whatever they propose must be as different from the status quo as possible.
CNES is the owner of GSC, and one of the top supporters of ESA. They are as relevant it can be. In fact, they are more than interested in sustained use of existing systems because they have the most critical role. And the French industry takes the biggest share of the work. They want Ariane 6 because they are afraid that they won't be able to keep getting away with dual manifesting, and then the French government will have to keep sending Euros that they would rather spend somewhere else.

Quote
SpaceX is a good thread to hold up for political agendas. They still have to launch their first comsat and then they'll have to get a track record and while they do all this, they'll have to see where they end up, cost wise. THAT will then be the time to think about what's coming next. I don't yet see where SpaceX is fundamentally cheaper. No matter how efficient your production line is, using 28 engines, three cores and four stages overall to launch a single large comsat is a lot of stuff to handle and produce.
Remember Proton-M, Angara, Sea Launch, H-IIA/B and GSLV MkIII. Plus LM-5 which will not only eat some ITAR free commercial satellites, but also Thales TWT.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 11/16/2012 02:21 pm
In between the current discussion, does anyone know which companies perform these new launcher studies?

Astrium and OHB (through MT Aerospace) obviously but there must be others. I think I read that as many as 14 companies participated with the FLPP program.
Anyone able to give a list of companies that do these studies?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/16/2012 02:44 pm
According to this Aviation Week article, CNES has dropped its opposition to a multi-engine LOX/LH2 core stage and to a solid first and second stage:

CNES, ASI Favor Solid-Rocket Design For Ariane 6 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_15_2012_p26-505016.xml)

Previously they were insisting on a new staged combustion high thrust engine and claimed multi-engine solutions would be too expensive.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: thydusk666 on 11/19/2012 10:57 am
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk: 'Europe's rocket has no chance'

Quote
"I don't say that with a sense of bravado but there's really no way for that vehicle to compete with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. If I were in the position of Ariane, I would really push for an Ariane 6."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20389148
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 11/19/2012 03:31 pm
According to this Aviation Week article, CNES has dropped its opposition to a multi-engine LOX/LH2 core stage and to a solid first and second stage:

CNES, ASI Favor Solid-Rocket Design For Ariane 6 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_15_2012_p26-505016.xml)

Previously they were insisting on a new staged combustion high thrust engine and claimed multi-engine solutions would be too expensive.

I doubt they have changed their mind on the matter though, just with a new SC engine apparently out of the picture there is no single engine powerful enough for the job.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacejulien on 11/19/2012 08:17 pm

Quote from: pippin
If they are having issues with dual launches, why not just scale down? A smaller EPC, smaller boosters (maybe derived from the Vega program) and there you go with a single-launch architecture for which I don't really see why it can't be cost-competitive with SpaceX.

Actually I thought about this too. "Just" reduce the size of core stage and boosters. I read that the Ariane 5 performance could be increased to 14-15t to GTO with filament casing for boosters, an improved Vulcain and the Ariane ME enhancements.

So an 8t to GTO Ariane 6 with one stronger Vulcain and two smaller boosters (but still providing most of thrust and TVC) seems like a possible solution to me.
So it seemed to a lot of engineers and decisionmakeres here, too. The cryogenic core and upper stages augmented by optional solid boosters were the favored design at ESA. But for development costs this would imply that you change all stages and the main engine, so you got to re-qualify all that.

Quote
You could dual launch smaller payloads. I'm not sure whether saving a few boosters for smaller payloads in more flexible designs is gonna have a big impact on costs. I read that even the big Ariane 5 boosters with TVC only make up 20-25% of the costs (is that correct?).
per booster, so multiply by two.

Quote
Regarding the strategic value of liquid engines, I don't think from a military point of view having liquid engine know-how is a must. The all solid launcher would probably be of more strategic value.
And that is the reason for France to push for the all-solid (except upper stage) design. In the cost analyses it *seems* to be more profitable, but, well, that's just a prediction. And they usually don't take into account whether you got the industrial lay-out and the incentives (towards cost reduction) set right.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacejulien on 11/19/2012 08:29 pm
Ariane 5 was designed primarily for launching manned spacecraft. Hermes specifically. But right from the start the secondary design feature was lifting unmanned payloads such as comsats and science payloads. ESA was well aware that the primary requirement (lifting Hermes) would put Ariane 5 in the position that it would be WAY overpowered for launching single unmanned payloads. That was not regarded as a problem because the dual-launch concept already existed for quite some time. ESA figured the secondary role of Ariane 5 could be executed just fine by flying two payloads at the same time.
With the demise of the Hermes project, the secondary role of Ariane 5 became the primary role.

And here is another pointer to think about. The primary reason for ending the Ariane 4 was the fact that it's primary payloads (Comsats) were becoming so heavy that Ariane 4 was no longer capable of performing dual launches. Many of the later Ariane 4 launches carried single payloads, and as such, the cost of a single launch was no longer split between two customers, but came down on a single customer. Ariane 4 was becoming financially unattractive as a launcher because it was primarily becoming a single-payload launcher.

And guess what: now CNES comes up and says dual-launch (on Ariane 5) is too expensive and Ariane 5 will loose it's competitiveness. And guess what: the replacement vehicle they come up with is a single-payload launcher.
But that won't work, unless CNES manages to bring down the cost for such a launcher well below the Ariane 4 cost-level. And that will be one h*ll of a feat to accomplish.

A 100% correct assessment! Fully concur!
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacejulien on 11/19/2012 08:30 pm
And CNES as it is is not interested in a sustained use of existing systems, they want to develop new stuff because otherwise they have almost no role in this anymore so whatever they propose must be as different from the status quo as possible.

SpaceX is a good thread to hold up for political agendas. They still have to launch their first comsat and then they'll have to get a track record and while they do all this, they'll have to see where they end up, cost wise. THAT will then be the time to think about what's coming next. I don't yet see where SpaceX is fundamentally cheaper. No matter how efficient your production line is, using 28 engines, three cores and four stages overall to launch a single large comsat is a lot of stuff to handle and produce.

And I think there is a lot of truth in this, too.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/19/2012 08:35 pm
And CNES as it is is not interested in a sustained use of existing systems, they want to develop new stuff because otherwise they have almost no role in this anymore so whatever they propose must be as different from the status quo as possible.

Occasionally there is talk of a merger between ONERA and CNES. Do you know if that is being considered again?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/19/2012 08:47 pm
Quote from: spacejulien
So it seemed to a lot of engineers and decisionmakeres here, too. The cryogenic core and upper stages augmented by optional solid boosters were the favored design at ESA. But for development costs this would imply that you change all stages and the main engine, so you got to re-qualify all that.

But with optional boosters you need a HTE or at least two improved vulcains. I was thinking about one "slightly" improved vulcain and 2 boosters in basic configuration.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacejulien on 11/19/2012 08:59 pm
Quote from: spacejulien
So it seemed to a lot of engineers and decisionmakeres here, too. The cryogenic core and upper stages augmented by optional solid boosters were the favored design at ESA. But for development costs this would imply that you change all stages and the main engine, so you got to re-qualify all that.

But with optional boosters you need a HTE or at least two improved vulcains. I was thinking about one "slightly" improved vulcain and 2 boosters in basic configuration.

Ok, but a) this makes your "basic" configuration already rather complex (and thus probably not cheaper than Ariane5) and b) you loose a lot of span between the smallest and larges version in the family.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/20/2012 09:23 pm

^

maybe they should go back to 4 viking engines then  ;)

Quote
per booster, so multiply by two.

really?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/20/2012 09:37 pm
maybe they should go back to 4 viking engines then  ;)

What, and admit Ariane 5 was a mistake?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/20/2012 10:03 pm

I found a nice calculation on a german site:

Ariane 5

Production cost: 114m
Launch cost: 130m

Boosters: ~25m
Vulcain: ~15m
Upper stage: ~20m
EPC (incl. vulcain), VEB, fairing: 69m

Ok lets assume 3 cheaper vulcains at 30m + 20m upper stage, that is already 50m without boosters and core. 40% cheaper sounds very difficult to achieve.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Archibald on 11/21/2012 08:43 am
Ariane 5 is not cheap nos scalable. What's worse, sin the ECA lacks restar capability, for coast and restart missions you need the ES. Which means that's very inflexible and expensive. Quite reliable, though. But please remember, dual manifest is not a feature, is a defect.
Wrong. It's a feature. Ariane 5 was designed primarily for launching manned spacecraft. Hermes specifically. But right from the start the secondary design feature was lifting unmanned payloads such as comsats and science payloads. ESA was well aware that the primary requirement (lifting Hermes) would put Ariane 5 in the position that it would be WAY overpowered for launching single unmanned payloads. That was not regarded as a problem because the dual-launch concept already existed for quite some time. ESA figured the secondary role of Ariane 5 could be executed just fine by flying two payloads at the same time.
With the demise of the Hermes project, the secondary role of Ariane 5 became the primary role.

And here is another pointer to think about. The primary reason for ending the Ariane 4 was the fact that it's primary payloads (Comsats) were becoming so heavy that Ariane 4 was no longer capable of performing dual launches. Many of the later Ariane 4 launches carried single payloads, and as such, the cost of a single launch was no longer split between two customers, but came down on a single customer. Ariane 4 was becoming financially unattractive as a launcher because it was primarily becoming a single-payload launcher.

And guess what: now CNES comes up and says dual-launch (on Ariane 5) is too expensive and Ariane 5 will loose it's competitiveness. And guess what: the replacement vehicle they come up with is a single-payload launcher.
But that won't work, unless CNES manages to bring down the cost for such a launcher well below the Ariane 4 cost-level. And that will be one h*ll of a feat to accomplish.

A very informative post. My own little addition to it:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1984/1984%20-%200608.html?search=ariane%205

Look at this: Ariane 6 in 1984 (or at least, the all LOX/LH2 variant)

There were three Ariane 5 studied at the time: the -C (cryogenique) the -R (reference) and the -P (poudre = powder = solid)

From 1979 ESA and CNES clearly prefered the -R, because it was a straightforward development of Ariane 44L (essentially a ninth Viking, and a Vulcain on stage 2)
But the -R proved unworkable - too tall, too much Vikings.
So that left the -C facing the -R.
In some way the -C was also a son of Ariane 1, in the sense the layout was exactly the same; 4+1, except the engines were Vulcains instead of Vikings.
The -P was the big beast we know today, a single Vulcain with two large solids.
It is no insult to NASA nor the shuttle to say they clearly influenced ESA picking up the -R over the -C. The Japanese did the same with the H-2.
That, and Hermès by itself, of course.
Still, i can't help thinking that picking up the -C (all cryo concept) would have resulted in Ariane 6 straight ahead, in 1995 and not 2020. A flexible booster like Ariane 4 was, more than Ariane 5 ever was.

The counter*argument may be, an all cryogenic launcher is nothing easy. Consider the fact that of the 7 Ariane 1/2/3/4 failures, 5 concerned the HM-7... we will never know.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/21/2012 12:35 pm
That seems to be the latest ariane 6 proposal:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Ministerial_Council_2012/SEMQQD72Q8H_mg_22_s_b.html

looks like 4 stages of the vega evolution:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Ministerial_Council_2012/SEMQQD72Q8H_mg_21_s_b.html
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/21/2012 01:00 pm
That seems to be the latest ariane 6 proposal:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Ministerial_Council_2012/SEMQQD72Q8H_mg_22_s_b.html

So... Outboard solids are ground-started, then centre-line and second stage solids sequentially air-started? Finally, the hydrolox upper stage kicks in for orbital insertion and (if required) transfer orbit injection.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: aquanaut99 on 11/21/2012 01:20 pm
That seems to be the latest ariane 6 proposal:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Ministerial_Council_2012/SEMQQD72Q8H_mg_22_s_b.html

So... Outboard solids are ground-started, then centre-line and second stage solids sequentially air-started? Finally, the hydrolox upper stage kicks in for orbital insertion and (if required) transfer orbit injection.

I don't know why, but I instinctively dislike this design...
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/21/2012 07:46 pm
That seems to be the latest ariane 6 proposal:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Ministerial_Council_2012/SEMQQD72Q8H_mg_22_s_b.html

So... Outboard solids are ground-started, then centre-line and second stage solids sequentially air-started? Finally, the hydrolox upper stage kicks in for orbital insertion and (if required) transfer orbit injection.

Sounds quite similar to the current Indian GSLV configuration. just switch from the Indian hypergolic strapped-on boosters for the Ariane 6 solid motor strapped-on boosters.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 11/21/2012 07:59 pm

I found a nice calculation on a german site:

Ariane 5

Production cost: 114m
Launch cost: 130m

Boosters: ~25m
Vulcain: ~15m
Upper stage: ~20m
EPC (incl. vulcain), VEB, fairing: 69m

Ok lets assume 3 cheaper vulcains at 30m + 20m upper stage, that is already 50m without boosters and core. 40% cheaper sounds very difficult to achieve.

Would you kindly provide a link to that German site? Thank you.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacejulien on 11/21/2012 08:20 pm
That seems to be the latest ariane 6 proposal:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Ministerial_Council_2012/SEMQQD72Q8H_mg_22_s_b.html

So... Outboard solids are ground-started, then centre-line and second stage solids sequentially air-started? Finally, the hydrolox upper stage kicks in for orbital insertion and (if required) transfer orbit injection.

Nope, all three ignited at the same time, then second stage, then cryo-third-stage takes over. All four solid motors of same type, only propellant burning speed might differ.

At least that's currently the plan, but in the next two years exactly such stuff will be studied and the resulting design will probably differ.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/21/2012 08:23 pm
All four solid motors of same type, only propellant burning speed might differ.

All single-segment you mean?  A slightly larger version of P80?
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: spacejulien on 11/21/2012 08:32 pm
All four solid motors of same type, only propellant burning speed might differ.

All single-segment you mean?  A slightly larger version of P80?

Definitely larger than P80, required to be single-segment, to keep costs low. But single-segment motors today max out at 120 mT loading, will have to tweak the status-quo, as foreseen loading is in the range of 120 to 150 metric tons.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: Rugoz on 11/21/2012 11:22 pm
Quote
Would you kindly provide a link to that German site? Thank you.

http://www.bernd-leitenberger.de/blog/2011/03/20/die-senkung-der-transportkosten-teil-2/

In another section of his site though he mentions that launch costs were 145m in 2010 with subsidies. In general this is a number I've also seen at other sites (spiegel.de, wiki), ~150m per launch.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 11/26/2012 10:09 pm
Can anybody name any of the companies that do the work on Ariane 6 proposals? Thank you.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 03/29/2013 09:33 am
Incoming CNES Chief Presses Case for Ariane 5 Successor

http://www.spacenews.com/incoming-cnes-chief-presses-case-for-ariane-5-successor#.UVVr15GtmHM

Quote
Le Gall said the use of Soyuz, instead of Ariane 5, to launch European government satellites is one motivating factor behind the push to develop an Ariane 5 successor, called Ariane 6.

Using Soyuz instead of Ariane “is not strictly in conformance with the doctrine of autonomy in space access,” Le Gall told the hearing. “So the first goal of Ariane 6 is to reconcile our launcher product with the size of government satellites.”
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: woods170 on 03/29/2013 09:34 am
Can anybody name any of the companies that do the work on Ariane 6 proposals? Thank you.
Astrium is prime contractor for those proposals and studies.
Title: Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
Post by: russianhalo117 on 03/29/2013 12:32 pm
I created Ariane 6 Discussion Thread for everyone so we can attempt to keep this thread on topic.
LINK: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31494.0