Ariane 6 Discussion Thread: Place Your Ariane 6 Discussions Here

[TrevorMonty]

Few observations from launch.
Acceleration of pad was quick thanks to 2xSRBs. Lot slower reaching orbit (18minutes) compared to 2stage liquid LVs like F9 and Electron (9minutes).

Seems the gravity losses at 18 mins would add up.

Scott Manley does good job of describing flight profile.

[TrevorMonty]

The bigger problem with fairing reuse would be throwing a monkey wrench in Arianespace’s Byzantine work/contract sharing allocations among the member states.

If I recall, the fairings are made by RUAG in Switzerland.  Maybe contract with the Swiss Navy to recover them?

Beyond Gravity (formerly RUAG) published their net zero roadmap yesterday.

Easier recovery and reuse of payload fairings.

A substantial portion of our business involves the design and production of payload fairings for various launch vehicles on missions around the world. Given the expected significant increase in rocket launches in the coming years and the need to reduce the space industry’s environmental footprint, we are working to provide our customers with the technology to locate and recover our payload fairings, including a way to catch them on the fly while falling, thus avoiding the splashdown in the ocean.

Furthermore, our engineers are exploring options for a reusable fairing that could return to Earth with the first stage of the rocket, significantly reducing costs and the use of carbon-intensive raw materials

They also showed off a Reusable Payload Fairing Concept last year.

This link works for fairing reuse. Basicially copying Neutron.

https://www.beyondgravity.com/en/news/beyond-gravity-innovating-space-launches-reusable-payload-fairing-concept

NB. Beyond Gravity is Ruag company.

[floss]

The place for private companies is behind government and nstitutions who have broken the path already since they can do it cheaper and faster using existing technology and resources it has been the same for centuries that why most towns in Europe are started with churches and castles .
  And why space x falcon is such a success it did not be developed from scratch but is an upgrade on existing designs .
 .institutional inertia is also really important too no new company will get the money to build a 300  million per launch rocket to a bunch of engineers who have no experience even Elon was one failure from bankruptcy when falcon succeed so other people would invest in space x .
  The best situation for ESA is to move Vega so it can grow and a new company building a new reusable booster to enhance Ariane 6 and eventual man rated reusable launcher out of the Soyuz pad .

[Runerdieker]

At 12:35 of the Ariane 6 inaugural flight press conference, Martin Sion, CEO of ArianeGroup talked about the problems with the APU. 
At 13:58 he said "the passivation of the upper stage was triggered in order to make it an object that is no danger as space-debris".
Is sounds like this "passivation"was an automated process. And it seems to mean the emptying of the propellant tanks and possibly draining of batteries.
I don't understand why the operators didn't take more time to restart the APU? Suppose the APU did'nt work because of the level of sloshing, after some time that could have been reduced.
By this passivation every chance of restarting was made impossible.

[etudiant]

At 12:35 of the Ariane 6 inaugural flight press conference, Martin Sion, CEO of ArianeGroup talked about the problems with the APU. 
At 13:58 he said "the passivation of the upper stage was triggered in order to make it an object that is no danger as space-debris".
Is sounds like this "passivation"was an automated process. And it seems to mean the emptying of the propellant tanks and possibly draining of batteries.
I don't understand why the operators didn't take more time to restart the APU? Suppose the APU did'nt work because of the level of sloshing, after some time that could have been reduced.
By this passivation every chance of restarting was made impossible.

Perhaps there were other constraints, possibly on board power, that left only a narrow window to safe the stage.

[DaveS]

At 12:35 of the Ariane 6 inaugural flight press conference, Martin Sion, CEO of ArianeGroup talked about the problems with the APU. 
At 13:58 he said "the passivation of the upper stage was triggered in order to make it an object that is no danger as space-debris".
Is sounds like this "passivation"was an automated process. And it seems to mean the emptying of the propellant tanks and possibly draining of batteries.
I don't understand why the operators didn't take more time to restart the APU? Suppose the APU did'nt work because of the level of sloshing, after some time that could have been reduced.
By this passivation every chance of restarting was made impossible.

The reason was that there's no commanding capability IE uplink. The moment the vehicle lifts off, it is operating on an event driven script thst resides in  the onboard computer. It is completely on its own, no one on the ground can override this script.

This is true for all launch vehicles. Only spacecraft have commanding capability.

[pochimax]

https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-approves-european-launcher-definition-ahead-of-ariane-6-debut/

ESA Approves “European Launcher” Definition Ahead of Ariane 6 Debut
By Andrew Parsonson -July 9, 2024

In order to require that European institutions select European launch services, a specific definition of what constitutes a European launch service needed to be agreed upon. On 5 July, the agency announced that its member states had adopted a resolution that “includes the definition of what constitutes a ‘European launch service.’”

While the 5 July ESA press release did not provide any additional details, the agency did provide a breakdown of what was outlined within the resolution when asked by European Spaceflight.

A launch service that qualifies as “European” will be located within the territories of ESA member states or member states of the EU. Elements of the launch service that must be within these territories include the company’s registered address, decision-making centers, launch system development and manufacturing locations, and launch operations sites.

ArianeGroup and its Ariane 6 vehicle will, however, check all the boxes. The company’s registered address, decision-making centres, rocket manufacturing facilities, and launch sites are all within the territories of ESA member states. Additionally, the development and operation of Ariane 6 are funded from the public coffers of ESA member states.

[GWR64]

https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-approves-european-launcher-definition-ahead-of-ariane-6-debut/

ESA Approves “European Launcher” Definition Ahead of Ariane 6 Debut
By Andrew Parsonson -July 9, 2024

In order to require that European institutions select European launch services, a specific definition of what constitutes a European launch service needed to be agreed upon. On 5 July, the agency announced that its member states had adopted a resolution that “includes the definition of what constitutes a ‘European launch service.’”

While the 5 July ESA press release did not provide any additional details, the agency did provide a breakdown of what was outlined within the resolution when asked by European Spaceflight.

A launch service that qualifies as “European” will be located within the territories of ESA member states or member states of the EU. Elements of the launch service that must be within these territories include the company’s registered address, decision-making centers, launch system development and manufacturing locations, and launch operations sites.

ArianeGroup and its Ariane 6 vehicle will, however, check all the boxes. The company’s registered address, decision-making centres, rocket manufacturing facilities, and launch sites are all within the territories of ESA member states. Additionally, the development and operation of Ariane 6 are funded from the public coffers of ESA member states.

aside from that:

In addition to the standard requirements, the resolution also addressed the possibility of a launch service not being considered European if it “is subject to the dominant influence of a non-European economic operator.” This will be determined by “ownership and financial participation, and/or by application of the rules that govern the launch service provider.”

Restrictions on ownership and financial participation could impact the likelihood of some European launch startups being considered for European institutional payloads. With the significant financial requirements needed to develop a rocket from scratch, some European launch startups have turned to US investors for funding. Isar Aerospace, for instance, has received funding from ATEL Ventures and the NATO Innovation Fund, a significantly influential non-EU entity.

What will happen if a non-European investor takes over a large part of Avio tomorrow? It will only cost peanuts.
Will Vega-C and Ariane 6 (Avio has a significant share of Ariane 6) then no longer be a “European launcher”?

[Rik ISS-fan]

That ownership transaction will be bocked by protection regulations. That aren't applied often enough in Europe.
Firefly aerospace is a very clear example of protectionism applied by the USA.

The downside of this, is that it makes fundraising for European launchers even harder than it already is.
The Europeanspaceflight article takes ISAR aerospace as example, that has USA owned backers and NATO.

[GWR64]

That ownership transaction will be bocked by protection regulations. That aren't applied often enough in Europe.
...

I imagine it would be difficult, with lots of small shareholders. The total share value is not high.

https://investors.avio.com/en/Investors/Ownership-Structure/
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/AVIO-S-P-A-23194747/

[t43562]

That ownership transaction will be bocked by protection regulations. That aren't applied often enough in Europe.
...

I imagine it would be difficult, with lots of small shareholders. The total share value is not high.

https://investors.avio.com/en/Investors/Ownership-Structure/
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/AVIO-S-P-A-23194747/

Perhaps one could see it the other way around - such a purchase would be of no use as a foot in the door - it would immediately remove a set of customers.

[TheKutKu]

Avio's participation in A6 is important but not "dominant" actually, it's on the order of MTA's iirc, about 10%, maybe a bit more on an A64 vs A62.

[GWR64]

Avio's participation in A6 is important but not "dominant" actually, it's on the order of MTA's iirc, about 10%, maybe a bit more on an A64 vs A62.

I didn't write "dominant" either, but without Avio no Ariane 6 launch

That ownership transaction will be bocked by protection regulations. That aren't applied often enough in Europe.
...

I imagine it would be difficult, with lots of small shareholders. The total share value is not high.

https://investors.avio.com/en/Investors/Ownership-Structure/
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/AVIO-S-P-A-23194747/

Perhaps one could see it the other way around - such a purchase would be of no use as a foot in the door - it would immediately remove a set of customers.

that is not possible, there are launch contracts, it is about jobs, geo-return, country politics
I am just trying to think it through to the end.
Because the "wrong money" for Isar Aerospace was mentioned in the article.

One would have wished for such ideas earlier, perhaps after the Kosmotras fraud (GRACE-FO, DLR and PAZ, Hisdesat), but there were none.

[TrevorMonty]

.

A launch service that qualifies as “European” will be located within the territories of ESA member states or member states of the EU. Elements of the launch service that must be within these territories include the company’s registered address, decision-making centers, launch system development and manufacturing locations, and launch operations sites.

Limiting launch sites to european territory (europe or oversea colonies) means limiting orbit options. Most of money and jobs from launching in another country(eg  Australia)will still stay in European. Most of small ground crew will still be paid in Euros even if living in Australia.

These restrictions are likely to hit Dawn aerospace which is partial owned and based in NZ and Europe. Launch will be from NZ initially but may operate from other countries in time.

[TheKutKu]

Avio's participation in A6 is important but not "dominant" actually, it's on the order of MTA's iirc, about 10%, maybe a bit more on an A64 vs A62.

I didn't write "dominant" either, but without Avio no Ariane 6 launch

That ownership transaction will be bocked by protection regulations. That aren't applied often enough in Europe.
...

I imagine it would be difficult, with lots of small shareholders. The total share value is not high.

https://investors.avio.com/en/Investors/Ownership-Structure/
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/AVIO-S-P-A-23194747/

Perhaps one could see it the other way around - such a purchase would be of no use as a foot in the door - it would immediately remove a set of customers.

that is not possible, there are launch contracts, it is about jobs, geo-return, country politics
I am just trying to think it through to the end.
Because the "wrong money" for Isar Aerospace was mentioned in the article.

One would have wished for such ideas earlier, perhaps after the Kosmotras fraud (GRACE-FO, DLR and PAZ, Hisdesat), but there were none.

   
1. At the end of the day Avio is only a subcontractor, ESA or any European agency has never required a fully national/European end-to-end supply line for launchers, unlike say, nuclear deterrent
2. Without Avio there is no Ariane 6… true, under the current Industrial arrangement, but decades of changing georeturn have proven that these can be changed/tuned  if the politics desire so, In the case of Ariane 6, I think we all remember the discussions over the possibility of MTA making the P120C cases…

.

A launch service that qualifies as “European” will be located within the territories of ESA member states or member states of the EU. Elements of the launch service that must be within these territories include the company’s registered address, decision-making centers, launch system development and manufacturing locations, and launch operations sites.

Limiting launch sites to european territory (europe or oversea colonies) means limiting orbit options. Most of money and jobs from launching in another country(eg  Australia)will still stay in European. Most of small ground crew will still be paid in Euros even if living in Australia.

These restrictions are likely to hit Dawn aerospace which is partial owned and based in NZ and Europe. Launch will be from NZ initially but may operate from other countries in time.

What? European launch pads together , in Guyana and across Northern Europe,  offer the most complete orbit choice in the world bar none.  There is no need to launch European launchers  anywhere else.

[woods170]

aside from that:

In addition to the standard requirements, the resolution also addressed the possibility of a launch service not being considered European if it “is subject to the dominant influence of a non-European economic operator.” This will be determined by “ownership and financial participation, and/or by application of the rules that govern the launch service provider.”

Restrictions on ownership and financial participation could impact the likelihood of some European launch startups being considered for European institutional payloads. With the significant financial requirements needed to develop a rocket from scratch, some European launch startups have turned to US investors for funding. Isar Aerospace, for instance, has received funding from ATEL Ventures and the NATO Innovation Fund, a significantly influential non-EU entity.

What will happen if a non-European investor takes over a large part of Avio tomorrow? It will only cost peanuts.
Will Vega-C and Ariane 6 (Avio has a significant share of Ariane 6) then no longer be a “European launcher”?

Although the physical contribution to Ariane 6 is significant (the SRMs), the restriction mentioned in the article applies to "the launch service". In other words: Arianespace, which is the Ariane 6 Launch Service Provider.

In addition, the article lists that any non-European influence will be determined by "ownership and financial contributions".

Avio only has a 3.4% stake in Arianespace, which is not significant.
The vast majority (74%) of the shares of Arianespace is held by ArianeGroup, which itself is a 50/50 joint venture between Airbus and Safran. Avio is not a major shareholder of either Airbus or Safran.

So, any non-European entity buying Avio would not qualify Ariane 6 as non-European because the restriction does not apply to the launch vehicle but to the launch service. And Avio is not a significant owner of Arianespace.

[sdsds]

Apologies: I dropped off this thread sometime last decade. Would someone please confirm:
 - near Colleferro, Italy, Avio is doing all the booster casing production for A6 (and Vega)?
 - in Germany, MT Aerospace is doing turbopumps for A6 engines and carbon-fiber upper stage work?

[woods170]

On crew rating Ariane 6

“Let me make one important clarification here,” said Schmitt. “We don’t need to redefine Ariane 6 to make it compatible with human spaceflight. If it flies successfully 50 times without issue, it’s qualified to carry a capsule. The remaining 2% of risk is something you manage through the spacecraft itself. If a serious technical problem occurs, whether on the ground or during launch, there are technological options to extract the crew safely at various stages. So, no, we don’t need to redesign the launcher. That’s a myth.”

https://europeanspaceflight.substack.com/p/inside-the-french-assemblys-hearing

This alignes nicely with something that Jim once stated on this very forum: crew-rating a launcher is mostly a paper-pushing exercise.

[sstli2]

Moving my post in the launch schedule thread to here, which is probably the more appropriate thread:

Increase in Ariane 6 launch cadence could take several years

I'm still surprised they are sticking to the 5 launches in 2025 spiel. Are they actually capable of pulling that off? Seems like 2 more is the realistic outcome.

[TheKutKu]

Moving my post in the launch schedule thread to here, which is probably the more appropriate thread:

Increase in Ariane 6 launch cadence could take several years

I'm still surprised they are sticking to the 5 launches in 2025 spiel. Are they actually capable of pulling that off? Seems like 2 more is the realistic outcome.

5 is impossible, 4 is the theoretical maximum, 3 is the practical maximum. MetOp SG1 is NET mid august, both Kuiper and Sentinel 1D are for the very end of the year, realistically at least one one of the two won't happen this year, Galileo is next year necessarily.

Based purely on vulcain testing schedule, I'd wager either Kuiper or Sentinel 1D will be NET late Q1 2026, maybe more likely Kuiper than Sentinel 1D.