Author Topic: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here.  (Read 335314 times)

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
  • Liked: 350
  • Likes Given: 52
Quote from: woods170
Not with ESA it isn't. Development of Ariane 5 went substantially over budget. However, the development prime contractor was not held responsible for the over-runs. The additional cost was mostly coughed up by the participating ESA member states by delaying the program. Same thing happened with ATV.

Well it would be pretty stupid to do it that way again.

Quote from: woods170
No, it isn't. It's under just as much control (or better said: as little control) from CNES/Arianespace as any other contractor facility, regardless of it being situated at CSG or not.
The booster infrastructure at CSG is partly run by the contractor (Regulus) and treated as a contractor facility by CNES/Arianespace.

The question is who owns the facilities and from how many potential maintainers the owner can choose from. If you design a new rocket, you're usually stuck with one contractor (the one who knows to build the rocket) forever.
 

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 108
True damn pity it is Soyuz in Couru zenith would have been a much better partner.Imagine what Ariane 6 would have looked like if that had have happened.Not that I am knocking present plans.At present it is a very handy satellite launcher.Pity it will be such a polluting monster.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2013 10:24 PM by floss »

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
True damn pity it is Soyuz in Couru zenith would have been a much better partner.Imagine what Ariane 6 would have looked like if that had have happened.Not that I am knocking present plans.At present it is a very handy satellite launcher.Pity it will be such a polluting monster.

Ariancespace and ESA had no need for a heavy launcher they needed a medium launcher to complement Vega and Ariane therefore Soyuz was and still is the best alternative.

And I can't see what that has to do with how Ariane 6 will look?
« Last Edit: 04/04/2013 10:30 PM by arkaska »

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 942
  • Likes Given: 663
I tend to think that a major attraction of solids for ESA/CNES is their synergy with missiles.

Can't be. P135s are way too big to be missiles. No synergy.

(actually I do agree but gotta counter-argue for counter-arguing's sake. Ed, wake up!)
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline simonbp

And I can't see what that has to do with how Ariane 6 will look?

I think the implication was that Zenit (or a Europeanised version of it) would be the correct size for NGL. Ignoring politics, it would make economic sense for ESA to just buy Zenits, rather that spend billions of Euros to develop their own launcher with nearly identical performance.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
  • Liked: 350
  • Likes Given: 52
Quote from: simonbp
Ignoring politics...

I stopped there, politics is the only reason europe has a space program beyond science.

Offline simonbp

Which apparently hasn't stopped them from buying Soyuzes...
« Last Edit: 04/06/2013 07:47 AM by simonbp »

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I think the implication was that Zenit (or a Europeanised version of it) would be the correct size for NGL. Ignoring politics, it would make economic sense for ESA to just buy Zenits, rather that spend billions of Euros to develop their own launcher with nearly identical performance.

With that logic the US would by Zenit's as well instead of flying expensive Atlas V and Delta IV.

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • England
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 99
Which apparently hasn't stopped them from buying Soyuzes...

Soyuz fills a current gap in the European launch service, this has never been to the detriment of the commercially focussed Ariane 5 as it is used primarily for small science missions that could never afford the A5. Besides, remember Soyuz commercial launches are run by a 50:50 European-Russian company.

Anyway, the whole reason Ariane 6 is planned to be in the capability bracket it is is to shift the european launch market back to being able to survive on "institutional" launches and not requiring it to hold a significant portion of commercial launches.   The useful by-product being no more reliance on Soyuz for science.

ESA is pragmatic, it will use outside means to supplement its capabilities, but eventually the political objectives are to "europeanise" these.  See the eventual kicking of AVUM from Vega.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2013 01:36 PM by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4914
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 460
You're right.  If it is a mistake for Europe to abandon hydrocarbon engines, that mistake was made with Ariane 5.  The investment in segmented solids for Ariane 5 doesn't seem to be paying off either.

Sorry to have to correct you again, but hydrocarbon technology was not abandoned with the introduction of Ariane 5, simply because Ariane launchers have never used hydrocarbon technology.

Gosh, what a font of rubbish I am!  Thanks for the correction.

Let me try again.  With Ariane 6, ESA abandons the technology of large-scale propulsion based on dense liquid propellants.  The US did something similar after the Saturn V and now regrets it (it continued to fly the RS-27 on the Delta and Delta II, but it let the technology age).

And with Ariane 6, it will abandon segmented-solid technology, though there seems to be little reason to think this will be missed.

Offline simonbp

Soyuz fills a current gap in the European launch service, this has never been to the detriment of the commercially focussed Ariane 5 as it is used primarily for small science missions that could never afford the A5.

Really? Of the four Soyuz launches from Kourou, two were Galileo nav sats and two were a French spy sats. The only real science payload on the manifest is Gaia. The rest are more Galileos and commercial comm sats.

Which is the point; nearly all (if not all) European government payloads are satisfied by Soyuz + Vega. So, NGL is solely targeted at commercial launches. But by the time a newly designed rocket flies, it will have to compete against both the low cost American companies (SpaceX, BlueOrigin, Stratolaunch, etc) and the increasingly reliable (and also low-cost) Chinese and Indians. The only reason Ariane 5 can compete now is its reliability record. Replace it with a new rocket and you've lost even that.

Really, the only way to make the economics work out is do the Soyuz route, buy a foreign rocket and resell it. Then ESA can save on the development costs and get the replacement up and flying as soon as possible. Zenit is the simple option, but they could also do some sort of Antares-like mix and match.

As it is, Ariane 6 may end up as Hermes II: ESA spends huge amounts of money on a French-led political program, only to cancel it before it even flies...

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 108
True damn pity it is Soyuz in Couru zenith would have been a much better partner.Imagine what Ariane 6 would have looked like if that had have happened.Not that I am knocking present plans.At present it is a very handy satellite launcher.Pity it will be such a polluting monster.

Ariancespace and ESA had no need for a heavy launcher they needed a medium launcher to complement Vega and Ariane therefore Soyuz was and still is the best alternative.

And I can't see what that has to do with how Ariane 6 will look?

Can you imagine what the ministers would have said when they were asked for 3 billion per year for lunar missions, if esa could have ordered a super heavy launcher out of readily available launchers .Soyuz is too small for the high profit 6 ton com sats  . As satellites grow in size ariane 5 is getting too small to launch 2 at a time hence the development of ariane 6 .what is needed is a second launcher that can provide redundancy so that ariane 5 can grow to launch larger payloads.

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Can you imagine what the ministers would have said when they were asked for 3 billion per year for lunar missions, if esa could have ordered a super heavy launcher out of readily available launchers .Soyuz is too small for the high profit 6 ton com sats  . As satellites grow in size ariane 5 is getting too small to launch 2 at a time hence the development of ariane 6 .what is needed is a second launcher that can provide redundancy so that ariane 5 can grow to launch larger payloads.

Still don't understand what you're grasping at?

Before it was Zenit at CSG now you're talking about a 'super heavy rocket' and redundancy for Ariane 5?

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
  • Liked: 350
  • Likes Given: 52
Quote from: simonbp
Really, the only way to make the economics work out is do the Soyuz route, buy a foreign rocket and resell it.

There will be a european rocket anyway, for strategic reasons, either by continuing Ariane 5 or a new Ariane 6. Competing with spacex/russians may be difficult, but I guess by designing a low-cost system they can get close and the rest will be taken care of by a subsidy to achieve a reasonable launch rate.

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • England
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 99
Really? Of the four Soyuz launches from Kourou, two were Galileo nav sats and two were a French spy sats. The only real science payload on the manifest is Gaia. The rest are more Galileos and commercial comm sats.

You do realise ESA was buying Soyuz flights before it went to Kourou?  Mars Express, Venus Express, COROT, MetOp-A, MetOp-B all went on Soyuz pre-Kourou.  All future missions sized to fit on a Soyuz and too big for Vega -- Gaia, Euclid, the M3 mission and others -- will all use Soyuz.

"government" payloads, be they EU projects, ESA science missions or member state infrastructure are cost-constrained programmes that are termed in the industry as "institutional" missions, not commercial (which is predominantly telecoms).  They are market-wise all the same; while there is pressure politically to "buy European", costs ensure they will look elsewhere if there is no suitable European equivalent.  I assure you Galileo would be dead as a Dodo by now if Ariane launches were required.

Which is the point; nearly all (if not all) European government payloads are satisfied by Soyuz + Vega. So, NGL is solely targeted at commercial launches. But by the time a newly designed rocket flies, it will have to compete against both the low cost American companies (SpaceX, BlueOrigin, Stratolaunch, etc) and the increasingly reliable (and also low-cost) Chinese and Indians. The only reason Ariane 5 can compete now is its reliability record. Replace it with a new rocket and you've lost even that.

Ariane 6 is a replacement for both Soyuz and Ariane 5.  The lowest payload Ariane 6 is being sized for is approximately the same as a Soyuz, that isn't a coincidence.  This along with the planned increase in performance of Vega, and its multi-payload launch capability, will make Soyuz redundant.

It will be a launcher to capture both the European institutional market, which has pretty much been lost to foreign competitors like Soyuz, as well as competing for commercial launches.  This is much better for Europe going forward than the present where to even barely survive Ariane 5 must dominate the commercial market.  That's not realistic for the future given growing competition.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2013 08:43 AM by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
  • Liked: 350
  • Likes Given: 52
This may sound silly (and it certainly is ;)), but what about a first stage with approx. 25 vinci engines. Mass production of one engine and its an expander cycle engine, so according to wiki: Good for reusability, "tolerance", inherent safety (and cheap)!

 ;D

P.S. Vinci delivers 180kn (vac) thrust, has an isp of 465m/s (vac) and weights 160kg without nozzle (which would have to be adapted for sea-level use, non-extendable, probably cheaper).

http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/vinci-rocket-engine.html

Vulcain 2 delivers 1'340 kn (vac) thrust, isp of 431 (vac), weights 2100kg with nozzle.

P.P.S. Recurring cost of one engine would have to be in the 1-2m range to be able to compete with an expendable vulcain solution. With maybe 200-300 engines produced annually. For the expendable vulcain solution however a new engine would have to be developed, to my knowledge (Vulcain 3 with 1'500kn thrust). Vinci is reignitable for potential boost back and landing similar to spacex' solution.

Anyway, would be nice if some rocket expert could comment even if he knows its absurd (for example because so many h2 pipes from tank to engines would be prohibitively expensive) ;)


« Last Edit: 04/07/2013 05:27 AM by Oli »

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 108

Can you imagine what the ministers would have said when they were asked for 3 billion per year for lunar missions, if esa could have ordered a super heavy launcher out of readily available launchers .Soyuz is too small for the high profit 6 ton com sats  . As satellites grow in size ariane 5 is getting too small to launch 2 at a time hence the development of ariane 6 .what is needed is a second launcher that can provide redundancy so that ariane 5 can grow to launch larger payloads.

Still don't understand what you're grasping at?

Before it was Zenit at CSG now you're talking about a 'super heavy rocket' and redundancy for Ariane 5?

It is all linked Soyuz is too small to launch big satellites.
If they had have got zenith instead there would have been 2 heavy launchers in CSG ,the reason for Ariane 6 is the second heavy launcher. satellite companies dont make satellites that can only be launched on one launcher.
 
A super heavy using rd 180s  on the first stage Vulcain on the second stage and one vulcain on the third sounds very like a very nice moon rocket to me.

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It is all linked Soyuz is too small to launch big satellites.
If they had have got zenith instead there would have been 2 heavy launchers in CSG ,the reason for Ariane 6 is the second heavy launcher. satellite companies dont make satellites that can only be launched on one launcher.
 
A super heavy using rd 180s  on the first stage Vulcain on the second stage and one vulcain on the third sounds very like a very nice moon rocket to me.

Since it's clear you haven't read anything that has been written on this subject on the forum I'm not even going to take the time to respond to your 'argument'

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 108
It is all linked Soyuz is too small to launch big satellites.
If they had have got zenith instead there would have been 2 heavy launchers in CSG ,the reason for Ariane 6 is the second heavy launcher. satellite companies dont make satellites that can only be launched on one launcher.
 
A super heavy using rd 180s  on the first stage Vulcain on the second stage and one vulcain on the third sounds very like a very nice moon rocket to me.

Since it's clear you haven't read anything that has been written on this subject on the forum I'm not even going to take the time to respond to your 'argument'

Have been reading this forum for ten years at least and guess what the same thing is being discussed as ten years ago only difference is that they have stopped bashing the shuttle.
Beagle 2 would have a damn sight more chance of success had it been bigger.I dont think that Ariane 5 will be abandoned when Ariane 6 is flying it will always be cheaper to split the insurance with somebody else than pay it alone.
As I said I think Soyuz is too small .

Offline fatjohn1408

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 13
True damn pity it is Soyuz in Couru zenith would have been a much better partner.Imagine what Ariane 6 would have looked like if that had have happened.Not that I am knocking present plans.At present it is a very handy satellite launcher.Pity it will be such a polluting monster.

Could someone please elaborate on the environmental issues regarding this new launcher?

Tags: