Quote from: tobi453 on 10/31/2017 10:49 amAriane 6 doesn't seem to be very competitive for constellation launches. This gets even more funny once you realize that Airbus is the prime contractor for OneWeb. In case you had not noticed: the deal to launch the OneWeb on Soyuz is in fact an Arianespace deal: https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/01/oneweb-launch-deal-called-largest-commercial-rocket-buy-in-history/
Ariane 6 doesn't seem to be very competitive for constellation launches. This gets even more funny once you realize that Airbus is the prime contractor for OneWeb.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 11:30 amQuote from: tobi453 on 10/31/2017 10:49 amAriane 6 doesn't seem to be very competitive for constellation launches. This gets even more funny once you realize that Airbus is the prime contractor for OneWeb. In case you had not noticed: the deal to launch the OneWeb on Soyuz is in fact an Arianespace deal: https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/01/oneweb-launch-deal-called-largest-commercial-rocket-buy-in-history/I know, but ~90% of that money is going to Russia and not to European industry.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 05:59 amDon't lay all the blame on CNES. The Germans and Italians are just as "guilty". The only difference is that Germany initially wanted to upgrade A5 first (to A5 ME) before switching to an all-new launcher. That scenario would eventually have cost even more money, not less.The others are not without blame but A5ME - while still overblown at that time IMHO - would have been a much more sensible use of resources. Less work on the core, no new boosters, no new pad, would have saved a lot of money and - more importantly - since it acknowledged it would be just an intermediate step it would have allowed a serious replacement effort for a sensible A6 architecture right now, even partially in parallel with A5 ME.It was CNES and you know who in particular who could not wait until the foundation was ready for a sensible new development program and pushed for a completely useless one instead.But I agree, with hindsight even ME was too much to be done then, they should have done whatever was needed to,fix parts obsolescence on A5 and just kept it flying a few more years until you know how reuse works out and you can learn from what SpaceX are doing now.
Don't lay all the blame on CNES. The Germans and Italians are just as "guilty". The only difference is that Germany initially wanted to upgrade A5 first (to A5 ME) before switching to an all-new launcher. That scenario would eventually have cost even more money, not less.
Quote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 05:56 amWhat? You actually think that "pork barrel" is an all-USA invention?CNES and DLR will never allow the European French/German space industries to go out of business for lack of new work. That's how we got A6. And it is also how we will get Ariane 7. CNES and DLR are already taking the first baby-steps towards A7, as we speak.You seriously believe they will just get the next 5bn program in 2021?
What? You actually think that "pork barrel" is an all-USA invention?CNES and DLR will never allow the European French/German space industries to go out of business for lack of new work. That's how we got A6. And it is also how we will get Ariane 7. CNES and DLR are already taking the first baby-steps towards A7, as we speak.
Plus: their traditional GEO Comsat business is going away, too. If the big LEO constellations come online there’s little use left for those, too (of course still an „if“, though)
Quote from: pippin on 10/31/2017 11:39 amQuote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 05:56 amWhat? You actually think that "pork barrel" is an all-USA invention?CNES and DLR will never allow the European French/German space industries to go out of business for lack of new work. That's how we got A6. And it is also how we will get Ariane 7. CNES and DLR are already taking the first baby-steps towards A7, as we speak.You seriously believe they will just get the next 5bn program in 2021?First: A6 development is not a €5 billion program but a €3 billion program.Second: IMO the AriaNEXT program will be rougly €2 billion, and start around 2022.It will replace the entire lower composite of the current A6 config with a completely new one: reusable, with no solids. Despite this being sold as "A6 Evolution" the net result is an almost completely new launcher: A7. My guess is it will enter service around 2025. Rationale behind this:- Vega C (and further evolutions) will keep the solids flying and the Italians happy.- There is nothing really new about the A6 core stage, compared to A5, except in manufacturing. The main investments for A6 are not for the core stage, but for the new launchpad, the new upper stage and the new solids. That makes the core stage the cheapest thing to get rid of for A7. And guess what: the core stage is the primary thing to change for a (partially) reusable A7.- Fairing recovery & reuse will start on A6 and be transferred (without change) to A7.- Vinci upper stage is so d*rn efficient it will switch to A7 unaltered.- That leaves "only" a new core stage for A7 which can easily be "sold" to the ESA ministers for a mere €2 billion.- The alternative: having to pay that same amount (€2 billion) in subsidies during the (currently) expected 15-year lifespan of A6 - and not having an AriaNEXT - is unacceptable to ESA ministers.
Quote from: tobi453 on 10/31/2017 04:37 pmQuote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 11:30 amQuote from: tobi453 on 10/31/2017 10:49 amAriane 6 doesn't seem to be very competitive for constellation launches. This gets even more funny once you realize that Airbus is the prime contractor for OneWeb. In case you had not noticed: the deal to launch the OneWeb on Soyuz is in fact an Arianespace deal: https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/01/oneweb-launch-deal-called-largest-commercial-rocket-buy-in-history/I know, but ~90% of that money is going to Russia and not to European industry.Not quite. Arianespace has been extremely smart to broker the deal with Starsem. Very substantially less than 90% of the money is going to Russia. The rest stays with Arianespace (and thus: in Europe).
Quote from: pippin on 10/31/2017 11:54 amPlus: their traditional GEO Comsat business is going away, too. If the big LEO constellations come online there’s little use left for those, too (of course still an „if“, though)The GEO market is not dissappearing but is changing. SES a planning to move to smaller (2000kg) and cheaper($50m) satelites.
Lets clear up some misconceptions here.1) When were the options for Ariane 6 determined?I would say at the end of 2012 when ESA held it's 2012 ministerial conference. During 2012 in Europe both the Bank crisis and Euro debt crisis were having their effects. So there wasn't a lot to spend on space projects. Germany wanted to develop a new first stage engine (Staged Combustion) and (finally) develop the upper-stage with the restart-able Vince engine for Ariane 5. This was called Ariane 5ME.
France wanted a faster path towards a cheaper launcher, so they wanted to go for Ariane 6.During the ministerial the compromise was made that the Ariane 5 ME upper-stage (factories Bremen) would be developed. And at the same time studies would be done for configurations for Ariane 6. The new engine development didn't receive funding (test on smaller engines had already taken place, this knowledge is shelved.), so for Ariane 6 only technologies already applied in Ariane 5 or Vega were available.In the following 1 1/2 years it became clear that:- Ariane 5 ME would cost more than 1.5 10^9 Euro. The main reason is that the core stage had to be redesigned. - Ariane 6 would go to the PPH configuration which doesn't had any growth potential and the Vulcain engine wouldn't be used anymore.
- The launch cost for Soyuz from CSG rose from the estimated ~50mln to >75mln.AFAIK it was ASTRIUM (Airbus) that published the idea for the Ariane 6 PHH, that could replace both Ariane 5 and Soyuz from CSG. I think industry had always planned for the 5.4m diameter stages. But for political reasons first the 4.6m diameter design was shown. The core stage of Ariane 5 is currently manufactured in vertical position, and it has a double bulkhead (isolated common bulkhead). Astrium wanted to go to vertical manufacturing and apply friction-stirl-welding. But for this a new factory in Les Mureaux, France was required.
Quote from: floss on 11/11/2017 12:26 amRe use of a low cost core stage is not going to save a lot of money reusing the incredible high cost Vinci would be far more valuable especially if they can increase its restart capability. It phases out the entire expense of the solids program and phases in reuse where there was none before. As with the F9 booster. Where all the excess cost currently is.That is exactly the necessary trade right now to forestall cost growth in A6. You're then left with the core and US, where the US is already optimal and unlikely to change for quite awhile. And your dev costs are successive and spread over an operating LV.Now, how to deal with phasing out the Vulcain. One way would be to add two more boosters and stretch the US tanks. Then you're back to CH.Or you reintegrate the six boosters as a single stage and reprove landing, possibly while the prior is still launching.Note the way you can handle the program successively in smaller dev cost increments, working down the cost structures. While not at pretty as an all up, all at once LV, its far more financially secure.Of course, one could just drop A6 entirely and go for a methalox two stage from the bottom up, and hold one's breath/launches for a half decade or so.But any way you cut it, Vulcain is a dead end. Why reuse a dead thing?You tell me what's best. I just work numbers.add:And as to Vinci, it is highly optimized for what it does as expendable. You're not likely to engineer either a reusable US (too low energy density) or something like ACES / distributed launch on the available budget, nor is it a low cost hydrolox like BE-3U purports to be. When Ariane needs a reusable US architecture, Vinci might not be the choice either.Afraid that where things are headed, much of whats current needs to go away.The big question is how you keep things operating while you change everything. Hint - aggressively develop/deploy what you'll need for the longest, and take the hit as soon as possible on cutting that which you'll never use again. Don't hide/enshrine that which holds you back, just financially structure the phase out as that's all it ever really was.
Re use of a low cost core stage is not going to save a lot of money reusing the incredible high cost Vinci would be far more valuable especially if they can increase its restart capability.
Vega is a PPPS so no Europe is not obliged to keep only a PHH configuration for its launchers. Prometheus and Mira (both LOx-CH4) engines are also in development for the next generations after Ariane 6 and Vega-C.
That is the problem esa had for ages they need two launchers a manrated reuseable/cheap 10 ton Leo and a heavy for manned work exactly the same as NASA have always wanted .At present ESA are getting real close which is a great thing .
Re use of a low cost core stage is not going to save a lot of money reusing the incredible high cost Vinci