Author Topic: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6  (Read 122324 times)

Offline Rugoz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #180 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  ;)
« Last Edit: 11/14/2012 03:12 pm by Rugoz »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #181 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.

Offline fatjohn1408

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #182 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?

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #183 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

Previously they were insisting on a new staged combustion high thrust engine and claimed multi-engine solutions would be too expensive.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline thydusk666

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • I see dead pixels in the sky!
  • Europe
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #184 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

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • England
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #185 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

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.

Offline spacejulien

  • Expert
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Europe
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #186 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.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2012 08:18 pm by spacejulien »
Posts I contribute here reflect my personal view only; they do not necessarily reflect any official position or opinion of my employer.

Offline spacejulien

  • Expert
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Europe
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #187 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!
Posts I contribute here reflect my personal view only; they do not necessarily reflect any official position or opinion of my employer.

Offline spacejulien

  • Expert
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Europe
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #188 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.
Posts I contribute here reflect my personal view only; they do not necessarily reflect any official position or opinion of my employer.

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #189 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?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Rugoz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #190 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.

Offline spacejulien

  • Expert
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Europe
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #191 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.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2012 09:00 pm by spacejulien »
Posts I contribute here reflect my personal view only; they do not necessarily reflect any official position or opinion of my employer.

Offline Rugoz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #192 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?

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #193 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?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Rugoz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #194 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.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #195 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.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2012 08:47 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Rugoz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #196 on: 11/21/2012 12:35 pm »
« Last Edit: 11/21/2012 12:39 pm by Rugoz »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #197 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.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #198 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...
« Last Edit: 11/21/2012 02:07 pm by aquanaut99 »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: ESA Begins Work On Ariane 6
« Reply #199 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.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0