Author Topic: Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here.  (Read 431418 times)

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 111
The way I see it Vega will grow to replace Ariane 6.2 and Ariane 6 .4 will be freed up to build the ESA lunar Village then Ariane 7 will be built to transfer crew  .Anly after the lunar village is up and running will markets increase that reuseable craft  be viable and fuel depots start to be built and flights to Mars or Venus become a reality .

Can you elaborate how Vega could grow to replace Ariane 6?
Vega is P80 (P88)-Z23-Z9A-AVUM, Vega C is going to be P120C (P142)-Z40-Z9A-AVUM+
the largest proposed Vega version by Avio is Vega-EH 3xP120C-P120C-Z40-VUS (myra).
Before the correction in 2014, the French  prefered design of Ariane6 was PPH 3×P145-P145-Vince.
The problem with comparing this, is that it is not clear what P120C is. In the PPH or PPPC (Vega-EH) the second stage is a different motor than the first stage motors (different: structure, grain geometry and nozzle). P120C has varied in size been a P105, P120, P135, P142 and P145.
The current design of P120C (F37C) for Vega-C has most likely a different grain geometry and thrust curve than the P120C for Ariane6.
Launchers aren't Lego, expecially when solids are used. (hardware instead of software change)

Moon village was/is a proposal from ESA director Jan Werner. It's studied, but funding for it is far from certain. This is also the case for Space Rider it's funded until PDR in 2018, this is a paperwork study. Funding for hardware development has to be approved during the 2018 ESA ministerial.
Vega-C and Ariane 6 are fully funded. Vega-E is in early study phase, the design of the VUS stage is far from fixed. If I'm not mistaken, the Myra engine is stil in development.
As writen in the Callisto and Prometheus topic, to be able to use LNG/Methane on ESA launchers, large investments are needed for LNG facilities at CSG (the launch zone). I guess Vega-E development will require an investment of ~100mln in ground facilities at CSG. It is far from certain that ESA/its members will decide to use methane on launchers.
There's currently no satellite planned in Europe that can't be launched by Ariane 5 or in the future A64 because it is to large and heavy. If there is a need for a very heavy mission, segmentation could be applied to launch it on multiple launches. I really don't see ESA developing a very heavy launcher any time soon.
I think it's far more likely that the 'Western world' loses it's permanently manned LEO outpost, than that another human lands on the moon. And let's not talk about Mars.

What ESA and it's memberstates need is a launcher family that can orbit the required satellites when needed for a affordable price. Currently getting satellits into orbit is problemetic. (Cubesats, QB-50, NorSAT-1, PAZ, Sentinel 5p, Sentinel 3B, Expert, to name several examples) I think Vega SSMS, Vega-C and both versions of Ariane 6 will improve the situation considerably. Two gaps will remain, a large one below Vega(-C) and a small gap between Vega-C and Ariane 62. (A62 will often require rideshare, thus preference for Soyuz.)
The lower gap is worked upon with at leased three EU funded projects, Calisto, and at leased a half dozen EU commercial / state funded projects.
I don't see a requirement for a launcher more capable then A64.

I think the EUMETSAT order of two Soyuz-STB launches for METOP-SG and an option for a third is a bad sign for the Ariane6. Apparently EUMETSAT prefers the foreign, more expansive but proven Soyuz above the new European cheaper A62. Even for the third MetOp-SG satellite that is planed for NET2027, EUMETSAT is in doubt of using A62. MTG S1 and MTG I1, will both launch on A5 ECA between 2020-2023.


I am talking about after 2025 at least as the P 120 is complete the Research teams will go idle and the P 145 will be under development and plans for lunar exploration will be started  .
When lunar base is nearing completion the all liquid crew transport  rocket will be launched and seeing as it costs so much they might as well go all out and build a full sized moon rocket not a SLS.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7338
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3057
  • Likes Given: 899
The way I see it Vega will grow to replace Ariane 6.2 and Ariane 6 .4 will be freed up to build the ESA lunar Village then Ariane 7 will be built to transfer crew  .Anly after the lunar village is up and running will markets increase that reuseable craft  be viable and fuel depots start to be built and flights to Mars or Venus become a reality .

Can you elaborate how Vega could grow to replace Ariane 6?
Vega is P80 (P88)-Z23-Z9A-AVUM, Vega C is going to be P120C (P142)-Z40-Z9A-AVUM+
the largest proposed Vega version by Avio is Vega-EH 3xP120C-P120C-Z40-VUS (myra).
Before the correction in 2014, the French  prefered design of Ariane6 was PPH 3×P145-P145-Vince.
The problem with comparing this, is that it is not clear what P120C is. In the PPH or PPPC (Vega-EH) the second stage is a different motor than the first stage motors (different: structure, grain geometry and nozzle). P120C has varied in size been a P105, P120, P135, P142 and P145.
The current design of P120C (F37C) for Vega-C has most likely a different grain geometry and thrust curve than the P120C for Ariane6.
Launchers aren't Lego, expecially when solids are used. (hardware instead of software change)

Moon village was/is a proposal from ESA director Jan Werner. It's studied, but funding for it is far from certain. This is also the case for Space Rider it's funded until PDR in 2018, this is a paperwork study. Funding for hardware development has to be approved during the 2018 ESA ministerial.
Vega-C and Ariane 6 are fully funded. Vega-E is in early study phase, the design of the VUS stage is far from fixed. If I'm not mistaken, the Myra engine is stil in development.
As writen in the Callisto and Prometheus topic, to be able to use LNG/Methane on ESA launchers, large investments are needed for LNG facilities at CSG (the launch zone). I guess Vega-E development will require an investment of ~100mln in ground facilities at CSG. It is far from certain that ESA/its members will decide to use methane on launchers.
There's currently no satellite planned in Europe that can't be launched by Ariane 5 or in the future A64 because it is to large and heavy. If there is a need for a very heavy mission, segmentation could be applied to launch it on multiple launches. I really don't see ESA developing a very heavy launcher any time soon.
I think it's far more likely that the 'Western world' loses it's permanently manned LEO outpost, than that another human lands on the moon. And let's not talk about Mars.

What ESA and it's memberstates need is a launcher family that can orbit the required satellites when needed for a affordable price. Currently getting satellits into orbit is problemetic. (Cubesats, QB-50, NorSAT-1, PAZ, Sentinel 5p, Sentinel 3B, Expert, to name several examples) I think Vega SSMS, Vega-C and both versions of Ariane 6 will improve the situation considerably. Two gaps will remain, a large one below Vega(-C) and a small gap between Vega-C and Ariane 62. (A62 will often require rideshare, thus preference for Soyuz.)
The lower gap is worked upon with at leased three EU funded projects, Calisto, and at leased a half dozen EU commercial / state funded projects.
I don't see a requirement for a launcher more capable then A64.

I think the EUMETSAT order of two Soyuz-STB launches for METOP-SG and an option for a third is a bad sign for the Ariane6. Apparently EUMETSAT prefers the foreign, more expansive but proven Soyuz above the new European cheaper A62. Even for the third MetOp-SG satellite that is planed for NET2027, EUMETSAT is in doubt of using A62. MTG S1 and MTG I1, will both launch on A5 ECA between 2020-2023.


I am talking about after 2025 at least as the P 120 is complete the Research teams will go idle and the P 145 will be under development and plans for lunar exploration will be started  .
When lunar base is nearing completion the all liquid crew transport  rocket will be launched and seeing as it costs so much they might as well go all out and build a full sized moon rocket not a SLS.
You are living in fantasy land.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 53
Woods: wow that's direct.

P120C (F37C) = P142, I don't think Arianegroup will develop another P120 proposal.
If my understanding is correct, the design of P120C has evolved because Arianegroup uses a concurrent launcher design proces. They start with assumptions for stage performance and masses and calculate what the performance of Vega C; Ariane 62 and Ariane 64 would become. Then they change the stages to beter match with the requirements they have for the launchers, and they calculate the performance again. This way they refined the design of P120C and came to version (F37C) that's the version they are developing.

The Ariane 6 and Vega launchers are designed to enable ESA and European institutions to orbit their payloads.
Vega could orbit 85% of LEO / SSO satellites, only the SAR radar satellites (Sentinel 1; PAZ) were to heavy and large. Thus Vega-C was required to orbit nearly all these earth observation satellites. A64 is the replacement of, it's performance has to be a bit higher and especially it has to be more flexible.
The A62 is the replacement of Ariane 5 ES and Soyuz. I think it's performance was less of a design priority, more a result of the requirements of A64 and Vega-C.

A64 will be able to launch at least 20mT to the ISS. I dear you to search the 2017 ISS R&D conference proceedings for the paper: ISS Utilization Shapes Low Earth Orbit Platform Evolution Beyond 2024.
A moon village can be created using A64 and the segmentation method. But $$$ is prohibitive for Moon-village.
A very heavy launcher would cost a lot more to develop then Ariane 6. And besides this the payloads need to be developed. My opinion is that SLS and Orion have been a giant waist of US taxpayers money.
ESA/Europe ended with Ariane 5 because the over ambitious Hermes project. This is the reason ESA doesn't have a manned launch capability. Over ambitious projects more often lead to nothing then to succes.
I think a LEO 0G laboratory is much more valuable to science and humanity than an outpost on the Moon or Mars. I really fear that the LEO lab will be lost after the ISS, because NASA wants to explore further.
For one manned moon mission, multiple large science missions (L-class) missions can be done. L3; LISA was chosen last year is now planned for 2034. The reason for this long timeline: funding. Funding for the EXOMars project is troublesome. 
So a special launcher for moon-village is not realistic.

 

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 111
We will see IN 2025 till then good bye.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 53
Edit: I've moved this post to the Galileo Deployment topic, becouse it fits beter there. The relevant thing for here:

Inside the presentations from the Industry days, it is stated that launch service cost for A62 will be 85mln $; and for A64 130mln.
A Vega-C launch will cost about 35mln, if I'm not mistaken.

The disadvantages of launching four at a time instead of two are:
1) launch rate goes down from 1/year to 1/2years (24x Galileo satellites with 12year service live.)
« Last Edit: 09/16/2017 12:16 AM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2123
  • Liked: 378
  • Likes Given: 55
So the auxiliary power unit will pressurize the LOx tank with GOx and both tanks with GOx/GH2 during coasting phases, but it looks like the stage still has 2 helium tanks. What is left is LH2 tank pressurization during engine burn, but I thought Vinci does that.

Edit: That was a question, why the helium tanks?  :)
« Last Edit: 09/17/2017 11:14 AM by Oli »


Offline Prettz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 13
Maybe this is obvious to everyone else, but why does the Ariane 6 pad need such a huge hole to be dug? I can't think of a reason why it would need a launch pad more substantial than the ones at CCAFS. Or maybe the pictures are deceiving me about the size of it?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3859
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 459
Maybe this is obvious to everyone else, but why does the Ariane 6 pad need such a huge hole to be dug? I can't think of a reason why it would need a launch pad more substantial than the ones at CCAFS. Or maybe the pictures are deceiving me about the size of it?
The hole is just for the flame tunnels and deflector. Everything will be filled in after its fully constructed. It has to be this deep to have the correct deflection angle and profile to prevent pressure blowback at ignition and launch.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12846
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3604
  • Likes Given: 616
Does anyone know the geographic coordinates of the launch pad itself?  ELA-4 looks to be west/northwest of ELA-3 somewhere.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3859
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 753
  • Likes Given: 459
Does anyone know the geographic coordinates of the launch pad itself?  ELA-4 looks to be west/northwest of ELA-3 somewhere.

 - Ed Kyle
ELA4 is located on the La Roche Christine site, between the Ariane 5 and Soyuz launch pads along the Espace Road. Could not find any coordinates on the web yet.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 0
The pad should be located at roughly +5.2646 -52.7921 or N5°15'52", W52°47'31". (via planet)

Offline Runerdieker

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
The launch pad is in built in a former quarry, located 5.3074,-52.8469 in Google maps. Galactic Penguin posted a very clear picture in the Ariane 6 updates thread of the location (post #15). https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31484.msg1057597#msg1057597

Offline Prettz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 13
Maybe this is obvious to everyone else, but why does the Ariane 6 pad need such a huge hole to be dug? I can't think of a reason why it would need a launch pad more substantial than the ones at CCAFS. Or maybe the pictures are deceiving me about the size of it?
The hole is just for the flame tunnels and deflector. Everything will be filled in after its fully constructed. It has to be this deep to have the correct deflection angle and profile to prevent pressure blowback at ignition and launch.
I forgot to return to this... my follow-up question was going to be: then why not make the pad partially elevated like the Titan IV pad so they don't have to dig as deep a hole (I follow skyscraper construction, and digging large holes takes a surprisingly large amount of time and manpower). But now I see it's in a former quarry, so digging the rest out is certainly the best choice. I had missed that.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 53
If I'm not mistaken, the environmental impact study changed the location and orientation of the ELA4 launch site. First CNES wanted to make the launch site parallel to ELA3 and/or ELA2. Now it's parallel to the road from Kourou to Sinnamary.

ELA4 is located just past the curve in the road, West from ELA1, -2 and -3. The Colibri weather or radar station lies a little distance north west from ELA4.
forum conquete spatiale.fr has a post to the environmental accesment and a drawing with the chosen layout for ELA4.

Edit: let's also place a link to the image. http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/17/24/79/25/ela410.jpg

And liberation.fr made a article with a map of all launch zones at CSG.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2017 08:53 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 53
I've viewed the A6 industry day presentation and I read the news release; that four Galileo-satellites will be launched on two A62 launchers; again.
With a launch dates in the End of 2020, and the intention to only launch two A62 in 2020. The first pair of Galileo-satellites that will launch on A6 will utilize the 2th flight. This will be the first time the Vince engine will be attempted to start multiple times during a launch. So this will be a risky launch.

I also noted that Arianegroup wants to move to a demand driven production instead of the block orders that are the current norm. I wonder if Arianespace will also move to production pull for Vega and Vega-C.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 06:59 AM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 81
Quote
Ariane 6 could use reusable Prometheus engine, designer says

LES MUREAUX, France and WASHINGTON — Europe’s upcoming Ariane 6 rocket, though designed to be expendable, could one day sport a reusable engine, according to Patrick Bonguet, head of the Ariane 6 program at ArianeGroup.

Whether or not the rocket would ever use that engine, called Prometheus, depends on whether Ariane 6 manufacturer ArianeGroup, formerly Airbus Safran Launchers, finds enough benefit for the European launch sector. So far, the merits of reusable rockets to ArianeGroup are unclear at best, Bonguet said, but the company is researching the technology to be ready for implementation should it prove worthwhile.

“We could replace Vulcain 2.1 by Prometheus,” Bonguet told SpaceNews. “Or Prometheus can be the first break to build the next generation. We will see where we are in 2025 or 2030, and then decide on the right time whether to go one way or the other.”

http://spacenews.com/ariane-6-could-use-reusable-prometheus-engine-designer-says/


I consider the first option (Vulcain 2.1 replaced by Prometheus) extremely unlikely. Not only a new engine but also a different density fuel, necessitating a first stage redisng.

With the usual 'In my Humble Oppion'-caveat: If we see Prometheus it will as part of ArianeNext / Ariane 7.

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 53
I totally agree with Calapine.
A replacement of Vulcain 2.1 on LLPM with one Prometheus engine would create a launcher that doesn't work.
First the thrust level of Prometheus is less then Vulcain. (Prometheus is 1000kN ??; Vulcain 2.1 is ~950kN SL & ~1350kN Vac.)
Second the fuel density of LOx-LCH4 ~2.8x that of LOx-LH2 (~0,82 vs. 0,290 kg/L {dm3}). So the filled core would weigh roughly 2.8x as much. This means that a A6 wouldn't be able to take off when it's core has one Prometheus engine.
3th) Also the mixture ratio of the propellants is different; thus the tank sizes need to change. If the same tanks are used, far to much methane for the amount of oxygen is loaded.

Beter change a lot more and make a Ariane Next.
In the Prometheus & Callisto topic a document was posted where reusable TSTO VTVL configurations for ArianeNext were studied. They studied a design with 7mT to GTO -1500m/s capability, with LOxLH2; LOxLCH4 & LOxLC3H8. I found the results interesting.

Let's add that the production cost for Vulcain 2.1 are much lower than the production cost of Vulcain 2. The nozzle can be produced a lot cheaper, and additional gains are made by nearly dubbeling the production rate.
The cost can be lowered again with the Vulcain 2.2 and 2.3 (Additive manufactured turbine-turbopump assemblies and injector head). I wouldn't be surprised is they could reduce the cost for Vulcain 2.3 by a factor of four compared to Vulcain 2.
Prometheus will use all these technologies; a single turbine dual turbo-pump instead of two assemblies, and most likely sparkplug instead of pyrotechnical igniters.
I think Arianegroup could also develop a reusable Vulcain.

BUT the staging of the A6 LLPM happens at a far to high velocity. Thus making landing of the core stage problematic. The core of Falcon 9 drops of at a flight environment that is comparable to the point where the solid rocket boosters separate.   
« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 06:52 PM by Rik ISS-fan »

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Liked: 111
  • Likes Given: 890
A video (found by Calapine) on the CNES Launcher Directorate, with shots of Ariane 6, Callisto, Prometheus and Ariane Next (which apparently has 5x 7x Prometheus and no solids).
I screencapped a Prometheus slide:

"poussée" is thrust

Edit: I can't count to 7 this morning apparently
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 10:10 AM by gosnold »

Offline Rik ISS-fan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 53

I counted 7 prometheus engines on the ArianeNext first stage (2;06-2;20).
Interesting Ariane 6 points:
0;40 The 3 components of Ariane 6 (Already posted on Arianegroup Twitter.
0;45 3D CAD model of ELA-4 launch zone.
0;48 old Vince mockup & Adeline booster model.
1;00 A6 hold down structures
1;25 launch rendering
1;43 ELA4 launch zone underground structure.
1;50 drone footage of ELA 4 under construction.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 09:48 AM by Rik ISS-fan »

Tags: