Author Topic: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here.  (Read 396734 times)

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 829
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?

Combustion products from solid boosters are highly corrosive, have high acidity levels and, if the propellant contains perchlorate, the combustion products contains high levels of chlorine.

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 829
Wait..... they are thinking of using the Soyuz pad for the Ariane 6!?  :o (reasonable thought, but still weird)

No, that is not what this image says. At best it suggest that CNES is thinking of using "a Soyuz-style launchpad" for Ariane 6. One cannot pull the conclusion that Ariane 6 will be launched from the current Soyuz launchpad, based on this image alone.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2013 06:05 PM by woods170 »

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Wait..... they are thinking of using the Soyuz pad for the Ariane 6!?  :o (reasonable thought, but still weird)

No, that is not what this image says. At best it suggest that CNES is thinking of using "a Soyuz-style launchpad" for Ariane 6. One cannot pull the conclusion that Ariane 6 will be launched from the current Soyuz launchpad, based on this image alone.

But why specifically design such a flame trench when most launch pads with rockets using solid motors have their flame trenches covered up? (Ariane 5, Titan series, Shuttle etc.)  ???
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
May be, after having the Soyuz experience, they discovered that it needed less refurbishment after each launch? Simplifies the sound suppression system? Digging in Kourou is not as expensive as the Cape?

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 829
May be, after having the Soyuz experience, they discovered that it needed less refurbishment after each launch? Simplifies the sound suppression system? Digging in Kourou is not as expensive as the Cape?


Why do you compare digging in Kourou with digging at the cape? Ariane 6 is not listed to launch from anywhwere but Kourou. Thus, it makes no sense to compare with the cape.
« Last Edit: 04/24/2013 07:02 AM by woods170 »

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 829
Wait..... they are thinking of using the Soyuz pad for the Ariane 6!?  :o (reasonable thought, but still weird)

No, that is not what this image says. At best it suggest that CNES is thinking of using "a Soyuz-style launchpad" for Ariane 6. One cannot pull the conclusion that Ariane 6 will be launched from the current Soyuz launchpad, based on this image alone.

But why specifically design such a flame trench when most launch pads with rockets using solid motors have their flame trenches covered up? (Ariane 5, Titan series, Shuttle etc.)  ???

STS launched from the pad 39 complex, and that does not have covered flame trenches. Vega is a solid launcher, it launches from the old ELA-1 site and that does not have covered flame trenches either. And there have been launchers using solids (either as first stage or as booster) that did not have flame trenches at all. One that comes to mind is the Delta and Delta 2 series that launch off of SLC-2W at VAFB. Or Scout launching off of SLC-5 at Vandenberg.
It is a misconception that solid motors require covered flame trenches.
« Last Edit: 04/24/2013 10:43 AM by woods170 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
May be, after having the Soyuz experience, they discovered that it needed less refurbishment after each launch? Simplifies the sound suppression system? Digging in Kourou is not as expensive as the Cape?


Why do you compare digging in Kourou with digging at the cape? Ariane 6 is not listed to launch from any where but Kourou. Thus, it makes no sense to compare with the cape.
Because they are putting KSC as examples of how trenches are made. Which being a swamp and all that would make this solution totally impractical. You forget how each country usually thinks that everywhere else is just like home. Thus, I have to remind them that different places have different condition that might dictate different solutions. As I said before, I'm not sure, I'm just saying that it's a possibility.
What I'm afraid is when Americans think that the crawler is the most advanced solution for big rockets, when the fact is that at the Cape trains like Baikonour are not possible (or ridiculously expensive) mostly due to the soil. Thus, the fact that at the cape this sort of pads is not seen, is not necessary because it's not just as good or even better from a maintenance POV, but because you simply can't build it on a swamp.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 829
Why do you compare digging in Kourou with digging at the cape? Ariane 6 is not listed to launch from any where but Kourou. Thus, it makes no sense to compare with the cape.
Because they are putting KSC as examples of how trenches are made.
<snip>

Citation please. Who and what are you referring to?

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Why do you compare digging in Kourou with digging at the cape? Ariane 6 is not listed to launch from any where but Kourou. Thus, it makes no sense to compare with the cape.
Because they are putting KSC as examples of how trenches are made.
<snip>

Citation please. Who and what are you referring to?

Calm down. I know you are defensive about the "Ariane 6", but there is no need to react this way to some basic comparison of different flame trench designs.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Why do you compare digging in Kourou with digging at the cape? Ariane 6 is not listed to launch from any where but Kourou. Thus, it makes no sense to compare with the cape.
Because they are putting KSC as examples of how trenches are made.
<snip>

Citation please. Who and what are you referring to?

But why specifically design such a flame trench when most launch pads with rockets using solid motors have their flame trenches covered up? (Ariane 5, Titan series, Shuttle etc.)  ???

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 829
Why do you compare digging in Kourou with digging at the cape? Ariane 6 is not listed to launch from any where but Kourou. Thus, it makes no sense to compare with the cape.
Because they are putting KSC as examples of how trenches are made.
<snip>

Citation please. Who and what are you referring to?

But why specifically design such a flame trench when most launch pads with rockets using solid motors have their flame trenches covered up? (Ariane 5, Titan series, Shuttle etc.)  ???


Thank you for that citation. And that's not a "they"...  ;)

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 829
Why do you compare digging in Kourou with digging at the cape? Ariane 6 is not listed to launch from any where but Kourou. Thus, it makes no sense to compare with the cape.
Because they are putting KSC as examples of how trenches are made.
<snip>

Citation please. Who and what are you referring to?

Calm down. I know you are defensive about the "Ariane 6", but there is no need to react this way to some basic comparison of different flame trench designs.
I'm not so much defensive about Ariane 6 itself, but I do guard against all the nonsense that is thrown into the discussions around Ariane 6. This piece about flame trenches for solids need to be covered is one example. If people took the time to do just a tiny google search they would have known that flame trenches for solids don't need to be covered.
And people should realize that in this stage of Ariane 6 development, any artist impression is strictly notional. People really should not read all that much into the images that appear online. It's just CNES toying around with ideas. Decisions for the final 'look' of the launchpad and launcher will not be made until well after the 2014 ESA ministerial conference. Had people realized that it would have saved a few pointless discussions on this forum.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 55

Nobody commented on my 25 vinci first stage... :'(

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 829

Nobody commented on my 25 vinci first stage... :'(

We were just being polite by not confirming the sillyness of that post.  ;) ;) ;) ;D

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 55
^

Well intuitively it is silly, but apart from potentially high cost I can only guess what speaks against it technically. I hoped somebody could enlighten me in that regard.

 :)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6664
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 513
  • Likes Given: 307
I tend to think that a major attraction of solids for ESA/CNES is their synergy with missiles.  Especially if the flight rate of Ariane 6 is low, it would be expensive to support large liquid-propellant engines unique to it.

Of course, ESA here risks making the same mistake made by the US in the 1970s of abandoning lox-hydrocarbon engines only to find later that it's actually very valuable.

I hope you don't literally refer to abandoning lox-hydrocarbon engines by ESA. Because ESA currently uses exactly zero lox-hydrocarbon engines.

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.
The previous Ariane 1 to Ariane 4 flew hypergolics stages and LOX/LH2 stages only. The additional boosters for Ariane 3 were solid propellant and the additional boosters for Ariane 4 were solid propellant and hypergolics.

As it is today, none of the propellant technologies ever employed on Ariane have been abandoned. Hypergolics are still in use in the upper stage of Ariane 5 ES (the version used for ATV). Solid propellant is in large-scale use in the EAP's of Ariane 5. And cryogenic propellant technology has been use on Ariane 1 (upper stage) and has continued to be used on Ariane upper stages ever since, the most recent installment being the ESC-A upper stage of Ariane 5 ECA. Cryogenic technology was introduced on large scale in the EPC (core) stage of Ariane 5.
It is possible that ESA/Arianespace will say goodbye to hypergolics with the introduction of Ariane 6. But very likely both solid propellant technology and cryogenic propellant technology will both be present on Ariane 6.


If Ariane 6 is going to be a solid booster, maybe they should just put the hydrolox Ariane 5 core on top of it and make the Vulcan engine air-startable?

Hmmm...why does that sound so familiar...

;-)


Offline RocketmanUS

I tend to think that a major attraction of solids for ESA/CNES is their synergy with missiles.  Especially if the flight rate of Ariane 6 is low, it would be expensive to support large liquid-propellant engines unique to it.

Of course, ESA here risks making the same mistake made by the US in the 1970s of abandoning lox-hydrocarbon engines only to find later that it's actually very valuable.

I hope you don't literally refer to abandoning lox-hydrocarbon engines by ESA. Because ESA currently uses exactly zero lox-hydrocarbon engines.

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.
The previous Ariane 1 to Ariane 4 flew hypergolics stages and LOX/LH2 stages only. The additional boosters for Ariane 3 were solid propellant and the additional boosters for Ariane 4 were solid propellant and hypergolics.

As it is today, none of the propellant technologies ever employed on Ariane have been abandoned. Hypergolics are still in use in the upper stage of Ariane 5 ES (the version used for ATV). Solid propellant is in large-scale use in the EAP's of Ariane 5. And cryogenic propellant technology has been use on Ariane 1 (upper stage) and has continued to be used on Ariane upper stages ever since, the most recent installment being the ESC-A upper stage of Ariane 5 ECA. Cryogenic technology was introduced on large scale in the EPC (core) stage of Ariane 5.
It is possible that ESA/Arianespace will say goodbye to hypergolics with the introduction of Ariane 6. But very likely both solid propellant technology and cryogenic propellant technology will both be present on Ariane 6.


If Ariane 6 is going to be a solid booster, maybe they should just put the hydrolox Ariane 5 core on top of it and make the Vulcan engine air-startable?

Hmmm...why does that sound so familiar...

;-)


Would ESA and U.S. future law(s) allow an Ariane 6 ( Liberty ) to be launched at the ESA launch site in South America? ( more a statement than a question )

Personally I think they should keep away from solids.
Two stage to orbit with the 2nd stage optimized for BLEO.
For higher mass payloads add one or two common core strap ons.
Add in cross feed later if needed.
Have both stage with the same propellants as the core as Ariane 5.

Edit:
Other option could be for the boosters to use two Vulcain 2 engines on each booster with the tank length being stretched.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2013 05:19 AM by RocketmanUS »
Mars and beyond, human exploration
The grass is always greener on the other side. When you stand on top of the hill you see both sides!

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 829
If Ariane 6 is going to be a solid booster, maybe they should just put the hydrolox Ariane 5 core on top of it and make the Vulcan engine air-startable?

Hmmm...why does that sound so familiar...

;-)



That monster would not fit the requirements. Way too powerfull.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2013 07:04 AM by woods170 »

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 829
If Ariane 6 is going to be a solid booster, maybe they should just put the hydrolox Ariane 5 core on top of it and make the Vulcan engine air-startable?

Hmmm...why does that sound so familiar...

;-)


Would ESA and U.S. future law(s) allow an Ariane 6 ( Liberty ) to be launched at the ESA launch site in South America? ( more a statement than a question )

Personally I think they should keep away from solids.
Two stage to orbit with the 2nd stage optimized for BLEO.
For higher mass payloads add one or two common core strap ons.
Add in cross feed later if needed.
Have both stage with the same propellants as the core as Ariane 5.

Edit:
Other option could be for the boosters to use two Vulcain 2 engines on each booster with the tank length being stretched.
What you are proposing is the ESA version of Delta-IV Heavy / Falcon Heavy.  That's not attractive to the technology critters at CNES. Therefore, it won't happen.

Tags: